Why did drum scanners give way to other technology?

[Lachlan Young]

Remarkable, isn't it? You guys were actually scanning film, at A0 size, at resolutions meaningful for high-quality printing in the late 1970s.
At around the same time or even a few years earlier, my dad was working at a publishing house where he was responsible for transitioning the content-to-press process to the first generation of digital technology. Apparently, the resistance among the more conservative of the printers to this development was massive (and, of course, futile).

2000spi scanning on a machine everyone would immediately recognise as a drum scanner was being done from the end of the 1940s, albeit scanning direct to separations with vacuum tube logic to correct for colour & contrast. Time-Life was the first major adopter/ funder of this technology. At this point in time, a great deal of traditional colour separation contrast/ colour correction for print (especially rotogravure) was done by skilled hand retouching on glass plate separations, not by register masking (that would need the introduction of PET film base a decade later to really become dominant).

It really took Rudolf Hell's innovations at the start of the 1970s (putting an image manipulation system between scanner and film writer) to really begin to compete more effectively with traditional pre-press.

 

[calebarchie]

I have a feeling you are not talking about (photographic) film scanning…

Yep, therein lies the answer though.

@koraks You were describing the basis of a flying spot scanner, just pointing out the related and pretty relevant history of telecine.

@Scott J. Actually, the majority drum scanners moved the pickup head (light source and pmts) instead of the drum. Scanmates did the opposite and had issues, just off the top of my head.

 

[Scott J.]

Actually, the majority drum scanners moved the pickup head (light source and pmts) instead of the drum. Scanmates did the opposite and had issues, just off the top of my head.

You might be right. The Howtek/Aztek scanners definitely utilize a movable drum (i.e., the light source and optics bench remain stationary). I always thought other table-top drum scanners utilized a similar design, but now that I'm looking more closely at some pictures of a Screen DTS-1030AI (just as an example), it does look like the light source and optics bench are connected and move in unison relative to a stationary/non-translating drum.

In any case, what I was more cautioning against in designing our hypothetical PMT flatbed scanner was the situation where you had a light source and an optics bench that were not rigidly connected (for whatever design reason) and had to move on independent carriages. That would be a nightmare for maintaining beam alignment (which is obviously why the drum scanner manufactures avoided it!).

 

[koraks]

That would be a nightmare for maintaining beam alignment

Certainly. The tracking between the wafer and reticle stages in a modern wafer stepper comes to mind. That's about as high tech as it gets.

 

[bfilm]

Drum scanners gave way to other technology because people quit caring about quality. Convenience and novelty became what people like.

There has never been anything better or more appropriate than good quality glass lenses, incandescent lamps and photomultiplier tubes to make the most beautiful and analog of scans.

Dr.-Ing. Rudolf Hell made some of the nicest drum scanners from 1963 with the introduction of the Chromagraph scanners.

Here is the DC 300 series, circa 1970s.

Here is the DC 3000 series, circa late 1980s. The DC 3000 series models from the 1980s and 1990s are still today some of the best drum scanners in use. In the late 1990s, then under the Linotype-Hell and later Heidelberg companies, they went to the vertical drum with the Tango and Primescan models. These are also very nice and stll in use today.

 

[Pieter12]

Drum scanners gave way to other technology because people quit caring about quality. Convenience and novelty became what people like.

Drum scanners were never the domain of casual, personal scanning. They remain professional gear used by the printing industry for quality work. When folks decided it was a novel idea to shoot film and have it scanned to a CD or downloadable files, they did not want to pay for the quality of a drum scan, other options being much cheaper and good enough for their purposes--mostly viewing on a screen. And of course, a drum scanner has always been out of reach for home use.

 

[bfilm]

Drum scanners were never the domain of casual, personal scanning. They remain professional gear used by the printing industry for quality work. When folks decided it was a novel idea to shoot film and have it scanned to a CD or downloadable files, they did not want to pay for the quality of a drum scan, other options being much cheaper and good enough for their purposes--mostly viewing on a screen. And of course, a drum scanner has always been out of reach for home use.

Yes, but the problem is that drum scanners have mostly fallen out of professional use. Book and magazine publishing isn't what it once was. Aesthetic and production quality has greatly declined in most places.

 

[RMD]

Yes, but the problem is that drum scanners have mostly fallen out of professional use. Book and magazine publishing isn't what it once was. Aesthetic and production quality has greatly declined in most places.

Purely out of curiosity,and waiting for a lottery win,are there any companies today maufacturing NEW drum scanners ?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I did this comparison between my Epson V850 scan and a Howtek 8000 scan owned by some one else who scanned my 4x5 Tmax 100 negative. The V850 compared favorably I believe at least looking at it digitally. I never did prints however.

Howtek 8000 Drum vs. Epson V850 flatbed scanners

Here's a comparison between Howtek HiResolve 8000 drum scanner and Epson V850 flatbed. Negative is mine, Tmax 100, processed normal by North Coast Photo dip and dunk with Clayton F76+ developer (similar to Kodak D76). Taken on a Chamonix 45H-1, Schneider Symmar APO 150mm with B+W orange...

www.largeformatphotography.info

 

[bfilm]

Purely out of curiosity,and waiting for a lottery win,are there any companies today maufacturing NEW drum scanners ?

Not that I know of, although I am always hoping to discover that there is someone making them. But there are still places making good quality glass lenses, incandescent lamps and photomultiplier tubes, so then we just need someone with the knowledge, skill, and impetus to build the scanner.

You can still buy software for the Hell/Linotype-Hell/Heidelberg Chromagraph 3300, 3400, Tango, and Primescan models from LaserSoft Imaging (SilverFast High-End Suite). And you can still buy software for the Howtek/Aztek 2500, 4000, 4500, 6500, 7500, 8000, and Premier from Aztek (Digital PhotoLab). But the software from both companies requires older versions of operating systems, so sourcing that would also have to be taken into account.

There are also some people who still service and refurbish the abovementioned drum scanners. And perhaps there are still some people maintaining other makes of drum scanners.

 

[Scott J.]

You can still buy software for the Hell/Linotype-Hell/Heidelberg Chromagraph 3300, 3400, Tango, and Primescan models from LaserSoft Imaging (SilverFast High-End Suite). And you can still buy software for the Howtek/Aztek 2500, 4000, 4500, 6500, 7500, 8000, and Premier from Aztek (Digital PhotoLab). But the software from both companies requires older versions of operating systems, so sourcing that would also have to be taken into account.

The current Aztek software for running Howtek and Aztek drum scanners -- i.e., Digital Photo Lab 8 -- works on modern 64-bit Windows 10 machines (and I would presume Windows 11, as well, though I've not personally confirmed this).

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think the cost was what killed the drum scanners.

 

[bfilm]

I think the cost was what killed the drum scanners.

They were certainly expensive, but if we are considering them in the publishing and printing field, or even the professional film lab, all of the nice equipment is expensive.

I think the cost became less justifiable to people as the prevalence of film photography declined. And that is a very sad situation.

Most people consider things almost solely quantitatively now instead of qualitatively, whereas the word quality should be a big hint. Analog is and always will be king. Analog is just more beautiful and harmonious with human vision. And if you are going to use some form of digital intermediate, then drum scanning is the most analog form of scanning.

 

[koraks]

The V850 compared favorably I believe at least looking at it digitally.

Any comparison can be favorable as long as you look from a sufficiently large distance and with sufficiently low standards. You've posted this example many times before; I've always found it an apt demonstration of the significantly higher quality of a drum scan compared to a flatbed scan even in an informal, poorly controlled setup with digital post processing that's...well, let's be generous and call it 'haphazard'.

Of course, what your example and especially your assessment does illustrate is why drum scanners just don't have that much practical relevance in (amateur) photographic scanning today. The alternatives are simply good enough for the majority of people.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Any comparison can be favorable as long as you look from a sufficiently large distance and with sufficiently low standards. You've posted this example many times before; I've always found it an apt demonstration of the significantly higher quality of a drum scan compared to a flatbed scan even in an informal, poorly controlled setup with digital post processing that's...well, let's be generous and call it 'haphazard'.

Of course, what your example and especially your assessment does illustrate is why drum scanners just don't have that much practical relevance in (amateur) photographic scanning today. The alternatives are simply good enough for the majority of people.

First off, the process of comparison was not haphazard. I'll let the readers who review the whole comparison thread, see how it was done and what the results look like, and make their own decision.

I post this comparison because it shows that a good flatbed scanner is sufficiently professional enough for most photographers. You don't need a drum scanner.

 

[Pieter12]

First off, the process of comparison was not haphazard. I'll let the readers who review the whole comparison thread, see how it was done and what the results look like, and make their own decision.

I post this comparison because it shows that a good flatbed scanner is sufficiently professional enough for most photographers. You don't need a drum scanner.

Very true, photographers don‘t need drum scanners. Printers do.

 

[Sirius Glass]

They were certainly expensive, but if we are considering them in the publishing and printing field, or even the professional film lab, all of the nice equipment is expensive.

I think the cost became less justifiable to people as the prevalence of film photography declined. And that is a very sad situation.

Most people consider things almost solely quantitatively now instead of qualitatively, whereas the word quality should be a big hint. Analog is and always will be king. Analog is just more beautiful and harmonious with human vision. And if you are going to use some form of digital intermediate, then drum scanning is the most analog form of scanning.

I agree on all your points.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Very true, photographers don‘t need drum scanners. Printers do.

True.