scanning 8x10 chromes, V700 or Cezanne?

**emo supremo** · 28-Dec-2009, 21:44

This has nothing to do c Cezanne but I'd like to share this url with you because I was toying with the idea of buying the V700 or the V750. The side by side photo analysis (relative to Nikon 9000 as the reference) was, for me, the best info source on the web todate.
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...750/page_1.htm

**8x10 user** · 25-Jan-2010, 13:23

I'm sure that there are some other differences between the Cezanne and lets say an Eversmart Supreme. Here are a few that I can think of.

1. Cezanne uses an acrylic bed while the Eversmarts is glass.
2. Cezanne uses a "Zoom" lens while I believe the Eversmart uses a fixed focal length lens and mirrors to control the magnification ratio.
3. There is a cold mirror in the Eversmart that reflects IR away from the sensor.
4. Some Eversmarts such as the Supreme have an actively cooled CCD for extra low noise
5. Some Eversmarts such as the Supreme have a pure 16-bit A/D convertor, while the Cezanne is 12(?), and 14 for the Elite

There are probably many other differences that I don't know about.

Also the Seybold report is not conclusive for me. The tests were done before OxygenScan even came out, and I question the criteria that the scanners were judge on. As with all scanners there is a learning curve to figure out how to produce the best scans. Too many factors were considered when doing the tests. A large part of the criteria had to do with colors, tonality, and sharpening, which are of course subjective and controlled by the operator. The raw data from the Eversmart is logarithmic and would not look right without being corrected or applying the correct Icc profile. I'm not sure what they saw when using the old software because I have only used OxygenScan. It is possible that if they operator had more experience with the scanner/software that he or she would have been able to produce a scan that fit the criteria better.

It is possible to have an Eversmart set to do hardware smoothing without knowing it.

Newer versions of oxygen scan are said to increase the D-max of the scanner.

If I were in control of the testing process I would have done a “Raw” wide gamut scan on both machines with no sharpening. Then I would compare them after making an extended range ICC profile as described on Don Hutchinson’s website. This would isolate more quality related criteria.

Another thing to consider is that just like lenses scanners vary somewhat from sample to sample, especially if they are used.

I suppose the non-image quality related criteria are important to many users but I would keep the software review separate, and I would consider that there are other scanning workflows such as the method that Don Hutchinson describes on his website.

Maybe I could run some comparison tests against someone’s Cezanne at some point. I’m sure the Cezanne is also fine scanner and I would be interested in seeing how they compare for myself.

Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy

FWIW, I do wet mount 8x10 as the hold down clamp is not large enough for 8x10. I generally do not see any difference resolution-wise between the wet mounting and dry mount with the exception of reduced dust issues with wet mounting.

My bed and hold down clamps are like new so i may be lucky with the unit I purchased.

As peter said, the only difference between the Creo and Cezanne is where the stitching occurs. Both are XY, and batch scanning is by manually selecting the width of each stitch (which is determined by resolution desired). One can designate 2 selections from the prescan which slightly overlap to be completed in one scan command and the combination can be assembled in CS3 in my case. Batch selection one is <scan-name>-l and batch selection two is <scan-name>-r. Select scan the batch and it outputs both files from single scan command.

no muss, no fuss

bob