Wide open scanner question for scanning gurus

[clay]

Okay, I know that the gold standard for digitizing sheet film in 5x7 and larger is a well executed drum scan. But short of that, what are the options and pros and cons of particular scanners if you decide to go the flat-bed scanning route?

From the fishing expeditions I have taken on the web, it seems that there are the consumer-grade scanners whose high end may be represented by the likes of the Epson V750, and then there are the professional scanners such as the Creo, Linotype and probably several others I am not familiar with. What are the gotchas in looking for one of these higher end scanners on ebay? And is the difference that noticeable? And what, if any, effect does the scanner driving software have on the results?

I know these are a lot of questions, but I figure someone reading this forum has to know more about these things than I do at the present. For what its worth, I have a Umax Powerlook 2100XL right now that I got primarily to scan my large format contact prints. I guess an additional question would be how to make this scanner perform at its peak....

Any comments or opinions will be useful.

 

[Greg_E]

Wet mounting the larger films will take away any edge to edge focus problems with any flatbed scanner. After that I can't help much more. Scan Science makes some nice wet mounting adapters:
http://www.scanscience.com/index.html

 

[menglert]

I don't have experience with pro-flatbeds, although have been reading a little about them. There is a post recently on largeformatphotography (sorry can't find it at the moment to provide a link) about someone who purchased one.

From what I've read, there seems to be little gain in drum scanning compared to high end flatbeds. This is only what I read, I don't have experience with either. Although, I think if you were to wetmount on a high end flatbed, you would probably get a very good scan.

Hopefully some others will respond, as this is an area I'm interested in, although it will be much farther down the road before I could get into it.

Regards,
Martin

 

[MAGNAchrom]

if your original is too dark, then a flatbed will not give good results in the dark regions. This is where drumscans shine -- their dynamic range is such that they can deliver the data even in dark regions. However, if your original is not overly contrasty, then the entire range of values will be able to be captured by a flatbed -- giving you similar results as a drum scan.

In the end, much of it depends upon your originals.

 

[sanking]

Clay,

Size and weight is a very big issue with most of the high end scanners, both drum and flatbed. I recently purchased a Scitex Eversmart Pro and it weighs about 160 lbs and takes up a lot of room.

Service and parts is another issue. Eversmart scanners were built in fairly large numbers so there plenty of people around who can work on them, and parts are readily available. This is not the case with many older scanners. I would be especially careful of older drum scananers.

The software of most high end scanners is fairly sophisticated and requires more of a learning curve than the software of consumer type scanners. Also, many high end scanners have SCSI connections and require legend MAC operating system. I have an older MAC G3 running OS 9.2.2 with a SCSI on board that I dedicate to scanning. There is software avilable for the Eversmart that would allow it to run on MAC OS10, but the software plus fireware conversion would cost over $2K and is not that much better than the system that runs on 9.2.2.

The advantage of high end flatbeds over Epson such as the 4990 and V750 is sharpness. Although the Epson 4990 may be rated at 5000 dpi, if you run real resolution tests you would be luck to get even 40% efficiency. A scanner that in theory should resolve 80 lppm will in fact do no better than 30-35 lppm. High end scanners are much more efficient, which means that you can scan at lower resolution than with the consumer flatbeds and save file space. I have an older Leafscan 45, certainly a very high end scanner in its day, that will only scan a medium format negative at 2450dpi but it still gives much sharper results than any of the Epson flatbed scanners used at maximum resolution.

That said, I have been very satisfied with the results from an Epson flatbed 4870 with 5X7 negatives that are not enlarged more than 3X. If you are scanning for alternative printing with pt/pd in the end the paper texture itself will limit resolution to no more than about 6-7 lppm and the Epson flatbeds will easily deliver that much resolution at up to 3X enlargements.

Sandy

Okay, I know that the gold standard for digitizing sheet film in 5x7 and larger is a well executed drum scan. But short of that, what are the options and pros and cons of particular scanners if you decide to go the flat-bed scanning route?

From the fishing expeditions I have taken on the web, it seems that there are the consumer-grade scanners whose high end may be represented by the likes of the Epson V750, and then there are the professional scanners such as the Creo, Linotype and probably several others I am not familiar with. What are the gotchas in looking for one of these higher end scanners on ebay? And is the difference that noticeable? And what, if any, effect does the scanner driving software have on the results?

I know these are a lot of questions, but I figure someone reading this forum has to know more about these things than I do at the present. For what its worth, I have a Umax Powerlook 2100XL right now that I got primarily to scan my large format contact prints. I guess an additional question would be how to make this scanner perform at its peak....

Any comments or opinions will be useful.

 

[Greg_E]

If you really want to be safe with a drum scanner, then you need to buy a Howtek or Aztec since Aztec still makes a few models and services the older Howtek scanners. They also have a pretty high end flatbed, but you are talking mega dollars for each choice. If money were no object go for the Aztec HR8000 with the DPL software. Since few of us live in a state of being where money is no object the howtek 4000 and 4500 often go for under $2000, the Howtek 7500 would be better.

 

[clay]

Thanks for this very informative reply. In conversations with some other knowledgeable people I am getting the same basic story: nominal resolution and the quality of the resolution are two entirely different factors with these scanners.

When you bought that Eversmart scanner, did you get the software with it, or are you still able to download the software and drivers, assuming that you have a system you can run it on? I have an old G4 that will run System 9.x.x, and already has a SCSI card in it, so that end is covered.

Clay,

Size and weight is a very big issue with most of the high end scanners, both drum and flatbed. I recently purchased a Scitex Eversmart Pro and it weighs about 160 lbs and takes up a lot of room.

Service and parts is another issue. Eversmart scanners were built in fairly large numbers so there plenty of people around who can work on them, and parts are readily available. This is not the case with many older scanners. I would be especially careful of older drum scananers.

The software of most high end scanners is fairly sophisticated and requires more of a learning curve than the software of consumer type scanners. Also, many high end scanners have SCSI connections and require legend MAC operating system. I have an older MAC G3 running OS 9.2.2 with a SCSI on board that I dedicate to scanning. There is software avilable for the Eversmart that would allow it to run on MAC OS10, but the software plus fireware conversion would cost over $2K and is not that much better than the system that runs on 9.2.2.

The advantage of high end flatbeds over Epson such as the 4990 and V750 is sharpness. Although the Epson 4990 may be rated at 5000 dpi, if you run real resolution tests you would be luck to get even 40% efficiency. A scanner that in theory should resolve 80 lppm will in fact do no better than 30-35 lppm. High end scanners are much more efficient, which means that you can scan at lower resolution than with the consumer flatbeds and save file space. I have an older Leafscan 45, certainly a very high end scanner in its day, that will only scan a medium format negative at 2450dpi but it still gives much sharper results than any of the Epson flatbed scanners used at maximum resolution.

That said, I have been very satisfied with the results from an Epson flatbed 4870 with 5X7 negatives that are not enlarged more than 3X. If you are scanning for alternative printing with pt/pd in the end the paper texture itself will limit resolution to no more than about 6-7 lppm and the Epson flatbeds will easily deliver that much resolution at up to 3X enlargements.

Sandy

 

[sanking]

Clay,

I did not get the software with the scanner but was able to get it from a person with whom I made contact on the Yahoo high end scan group. I also managed to find a calibration slide at a reasonable price through someone on this group. The calibration slide is absolutely necessary as you can not do a full install of the software without it.

Have a look at this site if interested in Eversmart scanners. They have a few used and re-fiurbished ones available. http://www.genesis-equipment.com/home.cfm

The model I have is the Eversmart Pro and it has optical resolution of 3175 dpi. The current Eversmart is the Supreme and has resolution of over 5000dpi.

Sandy

Thanks for this very informative reply. In conversations with some other knowledgeable people I am getting the same basic story: nominal resolution and the quality of the resolution are two entirely different factors with these scanners.

When you bought that Eversmart scanner, did you get the software with it, or are you still able to download the software and drivers, assuming that you have a system you can run it on? I have an old G4 that will run System 9.x.x, and already has a SCSI card in it, so that end is covered.

 

[MAGNAchrom]

keep in mind that a 5x7 scanned at a mere 2400dpi will deliver 12000x16800 pixels which would give you a 40" x 56" print @ 300dpi. So finding a device that delivers 5000dpi may not be entirely necessary for you given that you will be scanning large format film exclusively.

My own tests suggest that the Epsons are limited in effective resolution to about 2400-3200dpi (cheap lenses?) in spite of their outrageous claims to the contrary. Still, more than enough for LF work.

 

[Ted Harris]

First in answer to Michael's "Still, more than enough for LF work." Yes, if you are not printing larger than 8x10-11x14 or are willing to accept less than than the best, especially for some color trannies. The comment above on "quality of the resolution" says it all.

Second, Clay I would have to write pages and pages to respond with accuracy to all of your questions but I will deal with some. The software is perhaps the single key item and, if not sold with the scanner, th emost expensive. Most of the high end scanners run on their company's own proprietery software and all of the packages are very full featured, sophisticated and, you guessed it, expensive. For example an upgrade to the most recent oftware for an ICG drum scanner will cost you over $3000; if the software that comes with your 'new to you' Screen scanner (either flatbed or drum) is pre the current Color Genius Software and you want to upgrade to Golor Genius then the cost will be 2500; etc. Not to mention that some older scanners are software and firmware limited in terms of which coputer platforms they can interface with. Even those that will nterface with the latest Mac or Windows platform may require a fairly expensive (an ATTO card at ~ 300) SCSI card to runn the latest software.

Generally why y thas already been said is good advice but some of the detail are not copletely accurate. For example, in addition to the manufacturers already named that are still making high end scanners, add Screen, Fuji, Microtek and Scanmate ... trouble is that not all of them are available in the US pipeline.

Some of this may sound daunting but it shouldn't, just need to make a checklist and stick to it and also realize that an initial used purchase of a piece of hardware for say $1000 may cost you closer to $5000 when it is all up and ready to go. Finally, new and/or factory refurbished units are available from Kodak, Screen and others from $9000 on up. Seems expensive, ure but no more than you would have paid for a top-of-the-line Durst enlarger a decade ago.

 

[MAGNAchrom]

First in answer to Michael's "Still, more than enough for LF work." Yes, if you are not printing larger than 8x10-11x14 or are willing to accept less than than the best, especially for some color trannies.

Here I disagree with Ted. Specifically, if you are printing to 40"x56" then you should be well within the capabilities of the Epson's effective resolution for a 5x7 neg/chrome. And *IF* the negative or chrome is NOT contrasty, then you will get a reasonably decent scan from a flatbed. I suggest you try the following test:

#1 - send one of your "typical" 5x7 negs/chromes out for a good drum scan (there are plenty of people who can do this, but I use NancyScans). Have them scan it at 2400spi (samples per inch, but most people use the term dpi incorrectly). You should end up with a VERY big file -- probably bigger than you'll ever need need.

#2 - then, when your original returns together with the CD-ROM with the scan, take the original piece of film and scan it on an Epson flatbed also @ 2400spi (you may need to borrow a friend's), using whatever software you think will produce a decent scan -- I'd start with the software that came bundled with the scanner.

#3 - Finally compare the two files -- if they are "similar" (resolution, dynamic range), then you have your answer -- for your particular shooting style and media, a modern flatbed will suffice. And likewise if they are wildly different (the assumption being that the drum scan should win hands-down, and if it doesn't then something is terrribly amiss) then you also have your answer: time to invest in something better than a flatbed.

No matter what you end up doing, I have the following advise for you: I would NOT depend solely on other people's experience because everyone has a different point of view (most of which are perfectly valid). Barring the occasional crack-smoking poster, the advise you generally get on a list such as this is highly subjective. Truly objective advise is nearly impossible here. You really do need to make your own tests. For some, only a drum scan will do. For others, a flatbed gives them more than adequate quality to produce stunning quality. It all depends upon YOUR specific requirements.

Cheers

 

[sanking]

I don't want to get too anal about it, but my own standard is the contact print, evaluated at a distance of 10-12". If an enlargement from a 5X7 negative, whether done in the darkroom or via a digital negative, is visibly inferior to a contact print, that is my limiting magnification factor.

If you accept that Epson flatbeds are not capable of more than 40 lppm, which is true in my experience, a 3X magnification is the limit for me. That will give a 20" X 28" print with maximum possible information of about 10 lppm.

Course, if you want to stand far enough away from the print none of this is an issue.

Sandy King

 

[Kino]

Being that I don't have the rigid requirements or the budget of a professional, I find the 4990 (refurbished at Epson's site for $290 shipped) more than adequate for my needs so far.

I figure it is a good way to get my feet wet in film scanning, even with all the inherent problems of a flatbed...

YMMV

 

[sanking]

Being that I don't have the rigid requirements or the budget of a professional, I find the 4990 (refurbished at Epson's site for $290 shipped) more than adequate for my needs so far.

I figure it is a good way to get my feet wet in film scanning, even with all the inherent problems of a flatbed...

YMMV

I hope that I have not come off here sounding like an elitist. I have been scanning 5X7 film with an Epson 4870 for several years and have been very pleased with the results. Someone who recently looked at some of my carbon prints made with digital negatives from these scans commented that he had never seen sharper prints. However, I always limit magnification to 3X or less. I have actually compared results with the 4870 and an Imacon and up to 3X the 4870 scans gave results every bit as good as the Imacon. Bear in mind, these are negatives with a maximuim DR of 2.5 or less, not chromes.

If I were only scanning 5X7 the Epson V750, or perhaps even the 4990, would probably satisfy all of my needs. However, I also shoot medium format and ULF and would like to have a scanner that is good enough for all of these formats, and I am hoping that the Eversmart Pro will replace three different scanners I am currently using.

Sandy King

 

[Ben Altman]

I've learned some stuff the hard way in the last year since my Microtek gave up the ghost ... and I discovered there's no fixing them.
I got a Fuji Finescan pro flatbed cheap on e-bay but guess what - it needs a DONGLE as well as the software. Well, after about nine months I got that set, with lots of help from nice people and not TOO much money..
Meanwhile I got into Howteks, yes two 4500's cuz one was cheap and what the hell and the other had all the pieces - mounting station, extra drum, Trident software, dongle.
But... the dongle didn't work (my oldest Mac wasn't old enough...) so I decided to buy the fancy DPL software from Aztek. But wait a minute, what's that, it only runs on Windows? So now I have a nice Dell networked to my Macs and three great scanners and lots of software I'm still figuring out. How much fun can a guy stand?

Anyway, the DPL (I got the pricey Pro version) is great apart from a manual that must have been originally written in Chinese and translated into English by a Lithuanian living in Brazil. It has one great trick, which is that its curves and levels control the A-D converters for the photomultipliers, rather than stretching the bits digitally after capture. This is perfect for scanning B&W negs, because I can get the file pretty much the way I want it as a raw scan, with all levels filled, before it gets any abuse in Photoshop. And the Aztek folks are nice. For regular boring old color transparency it's supposed to be pretty much automatic, but I have not started on my color stuff yet, so can't confirm. But I'm getting the hang of wet-mounting 8x10's and how to get the mylar taped down without the mounting fluid unsticking the tape just when I think I have it all set.

But really, this digital stuff is just pushing buttons, right?

So when we've moved into the new house this summer and I'm done building out the basement I should be making some nice prints...

 

[Kino]

I hope that I have not come off here sounding like an elitist. I have been scanning 5X7 film with an Epson 4870 for several years ...

Sandy King

No, I don't think so and I didn't intend my post to be a direct comment on your post, so its all good!

I know my 4990 probably suffers from inflated factory specs, but again, it works fine for me until I learn enough to encounter and become uncomfortable with the limitations of the unit, THEN I'll investigate a possible replacement IF my work warrants it...

Its all relative...

 

[toyotadesigner]

I wonder that no one mentioned the famous Imacon scanners (www.hasselblad.com). They deliver the same quality as a drum scanner but without wet mounting. There are always several Imacons on ebay, some of them even have the mounting frame for 4x5" transparencies. If they don't - ask, because Imacon had some scanners with a limited format (something around 6x21 cm). If I remember it correctly, an Imacon 646 or 848 features this format.

There is one of them currently on ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.de/Hasselblad-Imaco...oryZ3751QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Though a bit pricey, I'd go for it if I had the funds right now <sigh>

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

They deliver the same quality as a drum scanner but without wet mounting.

Not really. That's called marketing. They perform better than the consumer flatbed scanners (in general) in terms of sharpness, but are no better in dmax, and in my experience are worse in shadow noise.


I'll put my drum scanner up against anyone's Imacon any day of the week.


---Michael

 

[sanking]

Some of this may sound daunting but it shouldn't, just need to make a checklist and stick to it and also realize that an initial used purchase of a piece of hardware for say $1000 may cost you closer to $5000 when it is all up and ready to go. Finally, new and/or factory refurbished units are available from Kodak, Screen and others from $9000 on up. Seems expensive, ure but no more than you would have paid for a top-of-the-line Durst enlarger a decade ago.

I must have been lucky. The original cost of my Eversmart Pro, including shipping, was close to $1100. The scanner is in great condition cosmetically, but did not come with either software or a calibration screen so I had to find and purchase that. Then I had to install a new motor in the scanner, which a technician from EZ High Tech in New Jersey walked me through. In the end the installation was a piece of cake, though I approached the task with some trepidation. In any event I just ran the installation and diagonistics program, which does a self-check of the scanner that takes about 1.5 hours, and everything passed. Then I did a simple scan which came out well, so looks like I am good to go, with just over $2k invested in the machine, $1k of which I recouped from sale of a Microtek 9800XL. That is about the cost of a new Microtek 10000 with TMA, and a lot less than an Epson 200000 with TMA, and I figure the Eversmart Pro is better than both, though perhaps not as portable!

One of the pluses of dealing with Eversmart scanners is that a lot of them have been sold (over 6000 units I read somewhere) so there is a large base of service and parts available, which might not be the case with some of the other high end flatbeds. Also, late version of the proprietary software for MAC OS 9.2.2 is commonly available for $200-300.

Sandy

 

[jd callow]

Not really. That's called marketing. They perform better than the consumer flatbed scanners (in general) in terms of sharpness, but are no better in dmax, and in my experience are worse in shadow noise.


I'll put my drum scanner up against anyone's Imacon any day of the week.


---Michael

When you say no better or worse in dmax and shadow, I assume you are comparring it to drums and not flatbeds.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

No,

I am comparing it to consumer scanners. Drums simply blow it away and aren't really a fair comparison.

The newer models might be better, but the unit I tested (this was a few years ago) really performed only slightly better than the consumer scanners of today, and was no better in terms of DMAX, and in general was worse in shadow noise.


---Michael

 

[jd callow]

You may have got a bad sample.

I have used a couple different Flextights as well as a variety of other scanners including: Microtek 1800f, Creo Eversmart, Epson Perfections and expressions, and Nikon coolscans. The Imacon was better than all in all areas. The only exceptions are that the Eversmart's resolution on 4x5 film, its ability to scan 11x14 (or larger) and ability to scan more film unattended. I never used the mounting fluid available for the Eversmart, and I suspect it would have helped. The imacon's had lower noise, better dmax, and were sharper especially edge to edge sharpness.

The flextights have been replaced and by all accounts the new scanners are even better. The earliest imacon's may have been inferior; I don't know.

 

[toyotadesigner]

you might try this 'great' service from Kodak:

Dead Link Removed

Don't expect a good quality

Another cheapie from a hot air marketing department...

 

[sanking]

Our goals are often very different, as are our criteria for evaluation of image quality. I found the following information interesting.

Dead Link Removed


Sandy

 

[jd callow]

Interesting link. Seeing that it was published in 2004, it would be nice if they updated it. Is Flaar only selling their information these days? It seems all the public Flaar reviews are years out of date -- especially their wide format printer reviews. For my self, I never found the eversmart to be a good solution for smaller formats if a dedicated 35mm or mf film scanner was available.