Analyser Pro versus Heiand Splitgrade

[fred]

Dear All,

Among the Apug members, without any doubt (or maybe), there are a lot of RH Designs 'Analyser Pro' Users and/or Heiland 'Splitgrade' Users.

With both apparatus , I'm convinced you can create a 'black and white' darkroom workflow that is quicker, ánd with better results, then any other (alternative) workflow.

So both apparatus will give added value for the workflow in the darkroom.
Which of both will do the best job?
What are the pro's and the con's for each apparatus?

I'm very interested in the debat.

Fred

 

[Jim Moore]

Fred,

I have a Splitgrade and love it.

It allows me to get "Close" on the first print, then I just fine tune the print until It's the way that I want it.

Not only is it a time saver, it's a material saver as well.

I highly recommend it.

Jim

 

[fred]

Fred,

I have a Splitgrade and love it.

It allows me to get "Close" on the first print, then I just fine tune the print until It's the way that I want it.

Not only is it a time saver, it's a material saver as well.

I highly recommend it.

Jim

I've read last evening a very good remark somewhere on the www.


"The whole thing is only going to be as good as the product support you get for it!"

I'm interesting also in how both apparatus are 'supported'.
btw: I'm an analyser pro user, and I think about a Heiland Splitgrade for the Leitz V35.

Fred

 

[Thilo Schmid]

Fred,
both are different devices and the fact that Heiland Electronic also sells the Analyzer Pro confirms, that they are not competing each other. They merely complement each other, but unfortunately there is no direct link between them. It would be nice, if the Split Grade unit could use the paper grade you have selected on the Analyzer. IMO, the Split Grade also has the better (and faster) exposure measurement logic than the Analyzer, but that is not an important thing. The greayscale display on the Analyzer is really the best thing.

 

[Fotohuis]

Fred,

We had already a discussion on the Dutch site of APUG about RH pro and Heiland split grade.

Because I have no experience with the RH analyser but with FEM-Kunze (Wallner) and the Heiland split grade here summarized some points:

Pro FEM:

Price
Flexibility, on each enlarger system
Open aperture measurement, cosphi correction
Quick multi point measurement


Pro Heiland:

Needs no calibration
Updates on-line and free available
Continuous mode measurement (easy for beginners)
Very reproducible due to the split grade system

At the end with a correct calibrated analyzer you could have the same results as the Heiland split grade, but it needs more efforts and technical background from the user.
The Heiland split grade system is a perfect solution if you want to concentrate you 100% on the pictures. Also with this system you can make your own calibrations and adaptations in a simple way.
It will save a lot of time and material.
The extra price of around Euro. 400,00 , you have to consider that for a user friendly instrument, free updates and a tremendous good support from it's manufacturer.

Best regards,

Robert
(Heiland and FEM distributer for the Netherlands)

www.FotohuisRoVo.nl

 

[baronfoxx]

I have a Heiland Splitgrade on a Leitz V35 and it is a superb piece of kit, saves lots of time and materials and is backed up by first class support via on line upgrades and personal support from heiland, there is NO calibration or set up involved but you can over ride the setting and adjust manually if you want to.

I also have Analyser Pro (which I bought first) and this is used on a Durst 5x4 enlarger, it is also a first class bit of kit but does need calibrating.
Support from R H Design is as good as Heiland with personel service from the owners.

I'm interesting also in how both apparatus are 'supported'.
btw: I'm an analyser pro user, and I think about a Heiland Splitgrade for the Leitz V35.

Fred[/QUOTE]

 

[grahamp]

My Analyser has 8 calibation channels (I assume this hasn't changed - haven't delved into the recent specifications). Seemed a lot until I realised that I have two light sources (tungsten and cold light), two paper types (RC and FB), and use both normal and warmtone emulsions. That's all eight. Anything else means entering an alternate calibration (and remembering which ones are in which channels), or noting a set of corrections from one of the existing channels.

This is going to be a potential problem for any multiple calibration device, and is not specific to the Analyser. Maybe I should standardise on one paper!

The main thing with any device is to understand how it works, and what it is telling you.