Howtek 4500-Questions-Software, Comparisons, Etc.

[sanking]

Evanjoe,

OK, since you are seeking pros and cons and I am fairly familiar with the three scanners you mention here are my thoughts.

Howtek 4500 -- In good shape a very good drum scanner with top resolution of 4000 spi, and you can save files in high bit, at least with Silverfast and I also assume with the DPL software. Not sure about Trident. This would be a great scanner for 35mm and MF negatives and transparencies, and also the best of the three for LF transparencies because of higher dynamic range. Limit in size of about 8X10" and no possibility of scanning reflective material.

EverSmart Pro -- A high quality flabed scanner with tri-linear CCD that will scan tabloid size (12X17) at maximum resolution of 3175 spi all over the board, both transmission and reflective. Of the three scanners it would be my first choice for scanning LF B&W or color negatives because the maximum resolution is almost equal to the Howtek and scanning on the flatbed is a lot less trouble than with a drum where you must fluid mount. You can also fluid mount with the EverSmart right on the bed and it is fairly simple to do, but for most work there is not a lot to be gained by fluid mounting LF negatives. Con is that the EverSmart, though it makes the analog to digital conversion in high bit, does not have software that allows high bit saves. However, you can get around this to a large extent by, 1) doing as much correction as possible before the final scan, and 2) changing the 8 bit file to 16 bit before you do any tonal corrections with it. This minimizes the risk of posterization of existing tonal values, but does not actually add new tonal values.

LeafScan 45 -- The Leafscan 45 has a linear CCD (not tri-linear) so in order to scan a color original you have to scan three times, through red, green and blue filters. This makes color scanning very slowly, especially if you are scanning at the maximum resolution of 5080 spi. I value it most as a very high-resolution scanner for MF B&W negatives, or color negatives that I scan in grayscale. For this it uses a special neutral density filter and only makes one pass. It will scan B&W 35mm in one pass at 5080 spi, MF in one pass at 2540 spi, and 4X5 in one pass at 1200 spi. However, the length of the pass is very long so it is easy to scan MF in two passes ate 5080 spi and stitch. If you do this the resolution of the resulting file is at least as good as what you can get with the Howtek. You can also scan 4X5 in two passes at 2450 spi and stitch. You can run the Leafscan 45 either with Silverfast Ai, and save in high bit, or with the old Leafscan 2.2 Photoshop plug-in, which also allows high bit saves. Con is that the Leafscan 45 is the oldest of the three scanners and it may be difficult to find one in good operating condition. Other con is that scanning color at maximum resolution is very slow.

Basically, my position is that if I were primarily shooting 35mm or MF color the Howtek 4500 would be my first choice, for LF color negative or B&W negative the EverSmart Pro would be my first choice, and if I were only shooting B&W negatives the Leafscan 45 would be a good choice.

Price wise, the EverSmart Pro is the most expensive of the three, followed by the Howtek 4500, and the Leafscan 45 the least expensive. But of course you will see prices for all three all over the board.

Whichever of the three you get expect to spend a fair amount of time with initial set-up as much of this you have to learn as you go.

Sandy King

Sandy,

Are you using Silverfast? Which software are you running your Leafscan 45 on?


The Howtek 4500 that I 'm currently looking at would be the replacement for the Eversmart Jazz+. The CCD head would be prohibitive too expensive and will exceed what I bought it for.

In the same breath, I am also looking at a complete Leafscan 45 kit (no computer) and also an Scitex Eversmart Pro (not sure if its has been upgraded to Pro II)

I would guess that no matter which scanner I ge tin the end (cost & shipping from out of state), all of these scanners will require a good maintenance lookover.


From what I understand majority of the Scitex/Creo equipment has been sold into India and China. That is the "new" market for former prepress and printing equipment.

I want to have a scanner that would be capable of 16 bit per channel capture and I guess that with Silverfast, the Leafacan 45 is the only candidate of these 3 scanners.

The Scitex scanners I know scan in 14 bit and output in 8 bit. Would opening a Scitex scanned file up in LightRoom make it a similar 16 bit as though you scanned it in as 16 bit?

The quality from the Jazz & Jazz+ are okay with the Jazz+ being the better of the two.
The scans from the Eversmart Pro II and IQ3 are so much better in quality and sharpness over the two Jazz. Yes, there is a visible difference, so I have this opportunity to go for one of these 3 scanners.

Again, I am seeking advices and the Pros and Cons while these scanners are currently available to me.

[Lenny Eiger]

Howtek 4500 -- Limit in size of about 8X10" and no possibility of scanning reflective material.

Sandy, the 4500 does reflective scanning, however it's limited by the size of its drum to an 8x10 (approx.).

Basically, my position is that if I were primarily shooting 35mm or MF color the Howtek 4500 would be my first choice, for LF color negative or B&W negative the EverSmart Pro would be my first choice, and if I were only shooting B&W negatives the Leafscan 45 would be a good choice.
Price wise, the EverSmart Pro is the most expensive of the three, followed by the Howtek 4500, and the Leafscan 45 the least expensive. But of course you will see prices for all three all over the board.
Sandy King

I would disagree, respectfully and predictably, of course. I fail to see why an Eversmart would be the first choice - it is easier to toss a neg on the flatbed (my words, of course) and not have to mount it on a drum (altho' I would recommend fluid mounting everything). That is true, but mounting just isn't that hard and it seems a small price to pay for a bit of extra resolution, and the knowledge that you have it as sharp as today's technology can get it, and have all the range that a PMT has that a CCD doesn't. The Eversmart is also more expensive.

Of course, if I was shooting larger than 8x10, doing glass negs or other flat work it would be a good choice. They are very good scanners in their class. Yet, when all is said and done, I think drum scanners are great and if you can get one a a good price and you can afford it, that's terrific. Why not?

Lenny

[Bruce Watson]

... but for most work there is not a lot to be gained by fluid mounting LF negatives.

I have to disagree with that. From a resolution standpoint, you may be right. But there's other goodness that comes from fluid mounting that you can't get any other way. For me the improvement of a fluid mount over a dry mount is like taking a veil away from the dry mount. It's the difference between a drinking glass from Buy&Large and fine crystal. It's about clarity, not really resolution.

I don't now how to quantify it, but it's definitely there. I can see it in a print from a 2x enlargement of 5x4 Tri-X. At that level resolution difference are just about nil. Graininess is completely invisible. But the clarity, that's there in the print.

[sanking]

Lenny,

The EverSmart would be my first choice becaus I scan LF film in many sizes, from 4X5 up to 11X14, 7X17 and 12X20. The Howtek 4500 can not handle these larger sizes.

There is a reason the EverSmart Pro is more expensive than a Howtek 4500, and the reason is that it is a much more versatile piece of equipment. It can do everything the Howtek 4500 can do, and then some. Yes, the Howtek 4500 can do some things a bit better than the EverSmart Pro, but then the EverSmart Pro can do a number of things the Howtek 4500 can not do at all. Reasonable people can weigh the options and make their own choice.

I could care less about this tired old argument of PMT versus CCD. I have seen results of my own work from the EverSmart Pro compared to a number of drum scanners, including the Howtek 4500, and it is highly competitive in terms of both resolution and dynamic range.


Sandy King

Sandy, the 4500 does reflective scanning, however it's limited by the size of its drum to an 8x10 (approx.).



I would disagree, respectfully and predictably, of course. I fail to see why an Eversmart would be the first choice - it is easier to toss a neg on the flatbed (my words, of course) and not have to mount it on a drum (altho' I would recommend fluid mounting everything). That is true, but mounting just isn't that hard and it seems a small price to pay for a bit of extra resolution, and the knowledge that you have it as sharp as today's technology can get it, and have all the range that a PMT has that a CCD doesn't. The Eversmart is also more expensive.

Of course, if I was shooting larger than 8x10, doing glass negs or other flat work it would be a good choice. They are very good scanners in their class. Yet, when all is said and done, I think drum scanners are great and if you can get one a a good price and you can afford it, that's terrific. Why not?

Lenny

[IanMazursky]

Tyler,
The problems ive personally seen have to do with connectivity & stability.
Even on a clean installation i could never get SF to startup. The same exact setup works fine with Trident.
Lasersoft refused to help me at all with the demo and said buy it or go away. So I went away.
It turns out that one of the 7500's i bought came with a V6 SF cd and liscence.
But the disc shattered in transit and LS said i would have to buy the upgrade or a new version.
They wouldn't let me download the same old version to at least try it even though i have the license number.

The 4500 seems to have a lot more scsi issues with SF than any other program. This has been my experience in the past from talking with others and a few 4500 that i helped friends setup. And the quirky interface didnt help at all. I settled on Trident and DPL.

Thats not to say that i have anything against SF. I had an old Umax Mirage D-16L flatbed that I ran with SF V5.5 & later V6.
I loved the combination. They were a perfect match and I would highly recommend that combo.
If the scanner didn't catch on fire, i would still be using SF all the time. Im not exaggerating...the scanner actually blew up and caught fire.
It was an interesting day at the office!

[sanking]

That is fine, feel free to disagree, but I know that in my own work flow there is very little to be gained by fluid mounting LF B&W negatives when scanning with an EverSmart scanner, assuming final enlargement is less than about 6X. Over that size I would fluid mount.

However, this is rather beside the point, because if one want to fluid mount with the EverSmart it is just as easy to do so, actually much easier, than with a drum scanner.


Sandy King

I have to disagree with that. From a resolution standpoint, you may be right. But there's other goodness that comes from fluid mounting that you can't get any other way. For me the improvement of a fluid mount over a dry mount is like taking a veil away from the dry mount. It's the difference between a drinking glass from Buy&Large and fine crystal. It's about clarity, not really resolution.

I don't now how to quantify it, but it's definitely there. I can see it in a print from a 2x enlargement of 5x4 Tri-X. At that level resolution difference are just about nil. Graininess is completely invisible. But the clarity, that's there in the print.

[Evanjoe610]

Gentlemen,

I take all the advice whole heartily and with an open mind. In my past work experience I have scanning experience using the complete line of Scitex scanners, started with the Crosfield scanners, utilized the Optronics ColorGetter and the Howtek 4000 (not the 4500). Currently I have access to a the top Hell drum scanner (3800?) and also an Eversmart Pro.


However the nature of publishing tend to dictate the time spent and utilizing the newest digital workflow over scanning of analog material has far more time saving toward meeting tight deadline.

Each scanners has its own merits and Pros and Cons for the individual user. In the end its the final results that counts. The two different technology of PMT versus CCD will go on forever, but the final results to the end user is what looks pleasing to the eye.

For a home setup with limited space, the biggest drum scanner would be the Howtek. Either PC or MAC based ti would not matter to me, just having the best software where it is easy for anyone to operate. The Scitex Eversmart Pro and higher scanners, are so so good that using the Oil Mount kit (we had one, but found not much of a big difference) was more of a hassle setting it up.

In the freelance shops where I used the Howtek, Optronics Color Getter, and Crosfield scanner, minimum amount of color correction was done on the scanner size. Having a clean, dust & dirt free oil mounting, will assure us of a clean and sharp image. Color conversion and color correction was done through a propriety program such as the Kodak Prophecy (Lab, HSB, RGB) beofre applying a custom color profile for our proofer and printer.

I ask for advice as I know that there are many people out there who must make do with their equipment to give the best product. In my case, I am open to the many opinions and experiences of people who depend on their choice of equipment to make their living. That is why I am walking down this path once again after wasting my money on (2) Scitex Jazz that required more monetary funds then required to make it work. In the end it would not give the high quality results that I wanted, so I am in way starting all over again. That is why I asked these questions.

The leafscan45 is a bit aged when compared to the other two choices. Between the Howtek and Scitex, I have experience with both, more so with the Scitex scanner.

The main factor would of course be the level of support and availability of spare parts. I would guess that whichever scanner I wind up with, it would still need a CLA and a PM from the manufacturer or a service company.

Since I am still shooting film, to get the best result from any scanner, I would have to get the absolute best image form my camera. That would always guarantee the best scanning results.

[Tyler Boley]

Ian, I once dropped an Agfa T2500 six floors off a fire escape down into into a dumpster. It never caught in fire, but was the source of near suicide for years... a fire would have been rewarding on a personal level.
So a guy downstairs takes it out, hooks it up, and has been happily using in ever since.

I guess I fixed it!
Tyler

[8x10 user]

I have a Creo flatbed and the newest version of oxygen scan. My scanner has a 16-bit A/D convertor and the software supports 16 bit output.

Oxygen scan is good stuff, its obvious that more time went into developing it then other scanning software that I have used. There are many features that I haven't seen anywhere else.

[Evanjoe610]

Well my final choice for my new scanner has been made. The Howtek 4500 that I was looking at was sold before I even had a chance to look at it. It was just a matter of one day. The owner was offered $3000 minus the dongle key.

The Leafscan45 seller never replied back to my request for jpegs of his entire system, so I guess the For Sale was not meant to be.

I have a Scitex Eversmart Pro II coming my way from a printing company. They are no longer using it as they bought an ICG drum scanner. For a nominal fee it was mine AS-IS. I guess that Pro II is running Oxygen software. What version software should it be on in order fo rmew to run it on a PPC G5?

Thanks to all for your valuable experience and knowledge. I will fix the Jazz and Jazz+ scanner and will eventually sell them once I have the Eversmart pro II in my hands.

Any advice from users of the Pro or Pro II? what are the differences between these two models and where does the Select II falls in place if compared with the Pro II?

Evan