Drum Scanner for Medium Format Negatives?

[cayenne]

Hi all,

I"m not sure if this is where this post belongs or not, but didn't really see any other matches.

I've been shooting MF 120 film in my 6x17 camera....and my scanner I use to digitize it to prep for prints is an older Epson V600....decent but not the best in the world.

I was thinking of upgrading (suggestions on this if you have them, another Epson?).....but from what I can read, it appears a drum scanner is the gold standard for scanning print film.

I've seen costs for a single scan in the $60 range...

Does anyone have recommendations on what would be a good drum scanner to purchase to use for myself?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

 

[shutterfinger]

Please move to scanner and scanning

 

[Donald Qualls]

From what I've read, there's a long, steep learning curve to getting good scans from a drum scanner, including the possibility of mangling some film along the way. And the reason the scans cost $60? The machine probably costs more than the car you drive.

 

[jtk]

http://betterscanning.com/ though some messages have suggested they're not responding. I'm sure any of their carriers would beat Epson's for your current scanner.

don't know about your particular Epson.

 

[grat]

The newer Epson scanners (v800/v850) can probably do a better job than your v600, although neither will get that close to their claimed specs. Somewhere around 2300/2600 PPI is about the reasonable maximum you're going to resolve with the Epson.

Commercial flatbed scanners are no longer made-- they're out there, used, and most run on SCSI, some require Macs to run, and may not work with newer Mac operating systems. They will give higher resolution (4000-5000).

Drum scanners aren't really a practical option for home use, but there are adventurous people out there who've done so. The forum at largeformatphotography.info has a number of people using the high end scanners, so that might be a resource.

The final option is DSLR scanning. Takes a bit of setup, and you probably won't find an off-the-shelf setup, but once you get a working setup and process, it can produce extremely sharp results.

There's a youtube video by a photographer named Nick Carver who compared a lab with a drum scanner, the Epson v850, and DSLR scanning-- his DSLR technique was shaky, but his results are interesting. Like you, he frequently shoots 6x17, and his comparison was actually based on two 6x17 shots, one negative, one slide film.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thread moved to Scanning and Scanners.

 

[Neil Grant]

Hi all,

I"m not sure if this is where this post belongs or not, but didn't really see any other matches.

I've been shooting MF 120 film in my 6x17 camera....and my scanner I use to digitize it to prep for prints is an older Epson V600....decent but not the best in the world.

I was thinking of upgrading (suggestions on this if you have them, another Epson?).....but from what I can read, it appears a drum scanner is the gold standard for scanning print film.

I've seen costs for a single scan in the $60 range...

Does anyone have recommendations on what would be a good drum scanner to purchase to use for myself?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

...is it possible to use a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED instead - sticking together separate scans to cover your 6x17 cm film original? These can be driven by a PC or an early Mac. Desktop drum scanners were made in the past - I used one myself for several years. The drum was big enough for two 5x4in films - but it's not like a 'fixed-carrier' - you just tape films to it. All sizes can be accommodated or even different formats simultaneously.
The software ran on a Mac and was straightforward to use once you had learnt to wet-mount your films onto the drum. The scanner itself had a small footprint (vertical drum), but you need a space for mounting and cleaning-up. There was lots of sticky sellotape and solvent type smells, but the results were fabulous. Great dynamic range from it's 3 PMT tubes and suppression of scratches from the mounting fluid. The films could fly-off the drum rotating at high speed sometimes with terrible consequences - the drum rotates at over 1000rpm, but these occasions were rare once you got the hang of it.
When purchased it cost about 10x a Nikon Coolscan 8000.

 

[Denverdad]

...is it possible to use a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED instead - sticking together separate scans to cover your 6x17 cm film original?.[snip]

Yes, you can make two separate "6x9" scans to cover the full image, then stitch the two together using Photoshop.

 

[Neil Grant]

....i know the OP has gone very quiet, but i've even found a photo of 'it' in action. Fantastic 'Alien' appearance. A 'visitor' once saw it working and said:

"i don't care what it is - i want one!"

 

[138S]

I was thinking of upgrading (suggestions on this if you have them, another Epson?).....but from what I can read, it appears a drum scanner is the gold standard for scanning print film

Yes, for sure a drum scanner is a gold standard, if scanning at high dpi the drum scanner easily outresolves the image quality in film by a factor of two. Problem is that owning a drum is not easy, any breakdown can be a nightmare.

The V800 scanner has a way lower resolving power than a drum, but most of the times (practically always) it is able to extract all image quality a MF shot may contain, so using a better drum scanner will have little effect in the results. There are several serious side by side tests showing that.

Frm the V600 to the V800 there is a substantial improvent, with the V800 performance being close to what required to extract all image quality a MF shot has, anyway the V800 requires a proficient scaning and edition to match the drum:

> you have to ensure film flatness, new ANR glass holders ensure that.

> you have to adjust the holder height to nail focus, a 1.2mm drop in the height (from ideal position) will end in performance loss of 50% !!!

> It requires a proficient edition, saving oversampled high dpi TIFF images with 16bits/channel depth, and a careful sharpening optimization. You require a modern PC

A recommendation is doing most of the job with an V800/850 and to spare some budget for the case a particular frame requires a drum scan, which is not frequent. A case would be having to make a giant print and wanting a better grain depiction, in that case a 6400 or 8000 dpi scan may deliver a better shaped grain.

 

[mdarragh]

The OP might also consider looking at a Flextight which can handle 6x17 film with the appropriate holder.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The OP might also consider looking at a Flextight which can handle 6x17 film with the appropriate holder.

In terms of speed of use/ learning curve it's potentially quite quick - and via shift & stitch you can run 120 in the 6300/ 8000ppi modes.

Qualitatively it walks all over any Epson - as will pretty much any higher end scanner or camera based scanning solution - and so they should, given that the Epson scanner (given optimal film position etc) falls below the critical 50% MTF threshold at rather under 700ppi of resolution.

 

[138S]

given that the Epson scanner (given optimal film position etc) falls below the critical 50% MTF threshold at rather under 700ppi of resolution.

This information is false, and it comes from flawed tests, made by automatic software and not accounting for the right levels in the necessary image conditioning for the analysis. Personally I easily obtain 50% MTF at 1400dpi in the horizontal axis and 50% MTF at 1200dpi in the horizontal axis, with only ensuring optimal height and proper clipping levels. The contrast extintion points are 2900dpi H and 2300dpi V, this is 55 and 48 lp/mm on film, mostly matching what film resolves at extintion in practical pictorial conditions.

Qualitatively it walks all over any Epson - as will pretty much any higher end scanner or camera based scanning solution - and so they should,

Skilled users are able to easily match high end results with the Epson. It is true that some people are not able, but in that case better if they don't own a sophisticated high end scanner anyway.

For color negative film it is quite easy, Pali K obtained exactly the same results (Portra 160, MF) with an V700, two top notch Creo and a a Scanmate 11000 drum, all at 6400 dpi, totally matching. Recently Alan Klein showed a proficiently made V850 TMX scan totally matching a professionally made 4000dpi drum scan, totally maching both tonality and Image Quality.

Of course you know those tests... perhaps OP may be interested in that... you may show those tests to him.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

...

Skilled users are able to easily match high end results with the Epson. It is true that some people are not able, but in that case better if they don't own a sophisticated high end scanner anyway.

For color negative film it is quite easy, Pali K obtained exactly the same results (Portra 160, MF) with an V700, two top notch Creo and a a Scanmate 11000 drum, all at 6400 dpi, totally matching. Recently Alan Klein showed a proficiently made V850 TMX scan totally matching a professionally made 4000dpi drum scan, totally maching both tonality and Image Quality.

Of course you know those tests... perhaps OP may be interested in that... you may show those tests to him.

You can find the comparison here in another forum between the Epson V850 and Howtek 8000 with 4x5 BW film. https://www.largeformatphotography....wtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners

I also did a lot of scanning of 35mm and medium format with a V600. You can find those on my FLickr pages linked below. The folders are labelled with film format type.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums

 

[Lachlan Young]

Oh look, it's the sealion, back to destroy another thread about high end scanning like a repetitively offensive suicide bomber, this time with bad faith insinuations and clueless nonsense about Imatest and MTF.

And this is what Pali K had to say about 138S' attitude towards scanning.

 

[138S]

Oh look, it's the sealion, back to destroy another thread about high end scanning like a repetitively offensive suicide bomber, this time with bad faith insinuations and clueless nonsense about Imatest and MTF.

And this is what Pali K had to say about 138S' attitude towards scanning.

Yes... Pali is an absolute defender of the drum scanners, and he made that test to show the drum superiority, but when a serious test was made (and Pali is seriuos and totally honest when making a side by side) results were absolutely matching, there is no doubt...

Fortunately that side by side was made by somebody wanting to demonstrate the drum advantage, so this result is of great value because for sure it is not forged. Yes, I use the real results obtained by somebody saying that a drum is better, this is the great value of the evidence: the real results he obtained are these (MF Portra 160, 6400dpi 100% crop):





Absolutely no advantage of the Scanmate 11000 drum (Bottom-Right) over the Epson (Top-Left) for Portra 160 and MF.

This is a reliable evidence because this test was made by somebody wanting to demonstrate that de the drum was superior, but reality is reality. You have no way to discredit that result.

This is the result obtained by Pali:
https://www.largeformatphotography....rum-Scanners&p=1479176&viewfull=1#post1479176

And this is after I conditioned his 100% crop properly:
https://www.largeformatphotography....rum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178

What is wrong in that side by side ?

Right now there is total evidence that a V850 scan made proficiently is a totally Pro result, rivaling with high end machines. If you are not able to get those results from an Epson then buy/own drum or a "virtual drum". No problem, we are free to buy what we can. Of course purchasing a drum is no mistake (if no painful breakdown is to happen).

Also I think that Alan is not suspicious to show a forged result, this is his own experience, having Pro drum scanned a negative and later compared to the Epson, with a surprising matching quality. Isn't it ?

 

[SHOLOJOV]

Hi all,

I"m not sure if this is where this post belongs or not, but didn't really see any other matches.

I've been shooting MF 120 film in my 6x17 camera....and my scanner I use to digitize it to prep for prints is an older Epson V600....decent but not the best in the world.

I was thinking of upgrading (suggestions on this if you have them, another Epson?).....but from what I can read, it appears a drum scanner is the gold standard for scanning print film.

I've seen costs for a single scan in the $60 range...

Does anyone have recommendations on what would be a good drum scanner to purchase to use for myself?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

Hi cayyenne
Scitex flatbed scanner is good, it give you 5.000 dpi ( 2500 dpi and magnification in percent)
Smart pro, eversmart supreme, both from Scitex company
you can mount the film in dry mask system
or mount in double oil layer mode.. with opaque black paper mask
this great machine can be calibrated, with the calibration slide.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Hi all,

I"m not sure if this is where this post belongs or not, but didn't really see any other matches.

I've been shooting MF 120 film in my 6x17 camera....and my scanner I use to digitize it to prep for prints is an older Epson V600....decent but not the best in the world.

I was thinking of upgrading (suggestions on this if you have them, another Epson?).....but from what I can read, it appears a drum scanner is the gold standard for scanning print film.

I've seen costs for a single scan in the $60 range...

Does anyone have recommendations on what would be a good drum scanner to purchase to use for myself?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

Micheal Streeter will set you up a variety of high end scanners.

ScanSolutions

ScanSolutionsOnline, ScanSolutions Scanners

www.scansolutionsonline.com

For your purpose, I would recommend an IQSmart3. Drum scanners are nice, but kind of a pain as well. An IQSmart3 will basically match them in most circumstances.

 

[SHOLOJOV]

hi Cayenne and friends
i know that the flatbed scanner Scitex are excellent
but you must do control USM, because all Scitex line scanners it have
a very agressive noise effect of USM ( unsharp masking)
Scitex scannner great machines, 5.000 dpi
43x30 cms. of scanning surface, very comfortable for digitalizing.
It is possible do wet or weet mounting ( khami fluid) and and opaque black paper mask.
GOOD LUCK TO ALL

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

hi Cayenne and friends
i know that the flatbed scanner Scitex are excellent
but you must do control USM, because all Scitex line scanners it have
a very agressive noise effect of USM ( unsharp masking)
Scitex scannner great machines, 5.000 dpi
43x30 cms. of scanning surface, very comfortable for digitalizing.
It is possible do wet or weet mounting ( khami fluid) and and opaque black paper mask.
GOOD LUCK TO ALL

It can be turned off in the software on most of them. Eversmart Supreme II user.

 

[SHOLOJOV]

Today we have a little problem
all drum and flatbed scanner need technical support
technical support for this days is scarse
and the obvious economic downturn..
but here we continue

 

[Mr Negative]

Just my humble opinion here because as you can see… this is a hot topic . Scanning has been one of my biggest headaches for years. I’m one of those stubborn bunch that would rather spend $100 to do it myself than pay somebody $60 to do it for me. I started with an Epson v800 and tried every film holder on the market (including the better scanning solution mentioned above). They were all okay but i found them to be slow and the results never met my expectations. I now DSLR scan. I use a componon 100 enlarging lens on a bellows that has an adapter for my canon 5dsr. This gives fine focus adjustment. I use it on a solid copy stand. I was previously wet mounting with AN glass on a light table (Kaiser) but am now moving to the cassette film holder for speed. I shoot 1:1 magnification and then stitch together in Lightroom. The results have been fantastic. I can’t say whether a drum would be better, but I know I can make 40x50 prints that look incredible. Hope this helps!

 

[bags27]

I spared no expense or effort in trying to replicate drum scanning with either a MF camera (Fuji GFX-r) or FF (Panasonic S1R) and all kinds of macro lenses, lights, copy stand (massive Beseler enlarger) etc.

Eventually, I decided to do the best, easist scanning I can myself and send my very best negatives out for drum scanning and printing. Freed me up to do other stuff. It was just too deep and dark a rabbit hole for the results I was getting.

 

[Film Rescue]

hi Cayenne and friends
i know that the flatbed scanner Scitex are excellent
but you must do control USM, because all Scitex line scanners it have
a very agressive noise effect of USM ( unsharp masking)
Scitex scannner great machines, 5.000 dpi
43x30 cms. of scanning surface, very comfortable for digitalizing.
It is possible do wet or weet mounting ( khami fluid) and and opaque black paper mask.
GOOD LUCK TO ALL

Yeah...my iQsmart 3 is the same. Why did they design it like this. After 4 years of use I almost always remember now to turn the sharpening off but you gotta keep your eye on it because change a setting, and probably it will be on again. grrr.

 

[mtjade2007]

To judge a scanner's quality or capability the scanner's DPI resolution and the dynamics of the sensor are the two to look into. I think the flatbed scanner in most cases has a smaller dynamics.

I scan paper pictures with a flatbed scanner but scan films with a film scanner for this reason. Paper pictures do not contain much dynamics comparing to films. So a flatbed scanner has enough Dmax to capture that of the paper picture. Why flatbed scanner has a smaller Dmax than that of dedicate film scanners? Flatbed scanner's light source is a reflected light. When scanning films with a flatbed scanner the sensor reads the reflected light through the film. On the other hand, film scanner's sensor reads direct light from the light source shined through the film. I think this difference has an effect on the dynamics of the scanner. Film scanners does have an edge over flatbed scanners. I may be wrong since I don't own high end flatbed scanner.