What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Stick with film and get a decent scanner

I had a look to the specifications of the new ARTIXSCAN M1 . which shall be on the market in July , and I must say , that I am really disappointed . The resolution is fair enough for MF , but the Dmax is only 4.0 .
I am working with an ARTIXSCAN 1800f , which absolutely useless for 35mm , not really good for MF but excellent for 4x5 or larger . The Dmax is 4.8 , and the scans I get from my 4x5 negatives are just great .
I believe the resolution of a scanner is not the only thing we should look for , but Dmax is very important as well .
 
I'm not a scanner guru, but Dmax (if I remember correctly) is really important only for folks scanning positives (chromes). Not for negative film. What are you shooting is question #1 here.

Wilko
 
Wilko

Could you explain , what you remember , a bit more in detail ? ? ?

As far as I know , the higher the Dmax , the more image information you get from the dark parts of your piece of film . Negative or positive .

I might be wrong , but the one who knows it better , please explain it , in detail .
 
Never said the Nikon wasn't a dedicated scanner Q.G., ... and since flatbeds were part of the considered set, the term "dedicated" does have a meaning in this discussion.

What "others because I told you so" are you talking about? I do take "other" experienced people's advice (meaning people who have actually used the equipment) ... like advice from master print makers, and the guys at Photo Village who scan images for people like Eduardo to make large display prints ... or the scanning services we send our ad work to.

Also never said the Nikon wasn't a high end or middle end or any end. But I will now ... it's NOT a high end professional scanner ... and not one scanning house I know of uses one for production scanning for art reproduction.

I'm sure it's fine for a desktop unit, and scanners like that one were part of my work flow with film for a long time starting with the MF Polaroid Scanner I once used, and my pal Irakly still uses.

I'm in the process of re-scanning all the work I did with those scanners using the 949.

RE Language: "Quantum Leap" A sudden, dramatic and significant change or advance. Try looking it up before commenting Q.G.
 
O.K. Q.G.

But , if it is right what you say , a scanner with the ability of a higher Dmax. is the one you should go for .
If scanning more color positives , then Dmax. is even more important .

I will (still not) bring my ARTIX 1800f to the scrap yard for recycling . NO , NOT YET .
 
I'm also looking for a 4x5 scanner. I have a Flextight Photo that is great for MF, but requires me to scan in two strips and stitch them together for 4x5. There are used Precision II models out there for around $3000, but they are obsolete SCSI-only models. You can't really find a used 646 for under about $6000, which is why I'm looking for a flatbed solution like the M1. Has anyone tried the i900? I did try the X5 at a service bureau and it was amazing. Scan speed was about 90 seconds for 4x5 at full resolution (a bit over 2000dpi). I can see why that scanner would be used in a production environment, but $20k is out of my range!
 
Positives (chromes) can have a considerably higher density than negative film. So the Dmax a scanner can handle becomes important for positive film earlier than for negative film. As far as I know every half-way decent scanner can handle the densities of sensibly exposed and developed negative film.

Wilko
 
Marc,

Stop fighting! There's not fight.
I said that i do know that the Imacon is better, one of the reasons i know being that you told us so.
You don't respond well to people believing what you say?
wink.gif


But i disagree with the bit about the Nikon not being a high-end professional scanner.
Why, even though you are rescanning your scans, you - a professional - used it too. And you were not alone. So that takes care of the profesional part.

High end? Certainly not as good as better machines...
wink.gif

But that's not the measure.
Is it good enough for high end work? That - despite the fact that other scanners are even better - it is.


Oh, and...
I do know what a quantum leap is. And i do also know about the wide spread usage of "quantum leap".
It's wrong, displaying a profound misunderstanding of what a quantum leap is, no matter how wide spread it is.

The ironic bit of it is that this usage (including the bit you quoted) is diametrically opposed to what it realy means. You don't see that often.

But you wanted me to look it up: see here. Note the bit about knowing what you are talking about.
wink.gif
 
Dear all

its difficult for any one person to evaluate all these different options so we're lucky Marc is in a position to offer his insights from his perspective. I own the Minolta Multipro and also owned the Nikon Coolscan 4000 so I could do the comparison for 35mm. I kept the Multipro. Even without adding anything to the light source I found it produced more detail than the 4000 and I liked the colour better too, but both seem good scanners to me. I also own an Epson 3800 printer and just finished producing a 20 x15 inch print from Velvia 100 taken with a Leica M6 and Elmar 50/2.8. I got a print with lots of detail, rich colour, no visible grain, but a great texture on breathing colour 300gsm paper - result: I will be shooting more film and keeping the lens. I'm undecided on a Leica M8 at this point.

I'd be interested in seeing what an Imacon could do on MF. My main gripe about the Minolta is it is slowish, but the results are worth it, especially scans from a Mamiya 7 and 400iso negative film.

I have a hasselblad 201f and am following threads here thinking about a CFV back and whether it would be worth it compared to the scans, I'd be interested in any feedback (thanks for the posts so far - they're great). At this point a CFV 22meg back would defintely get my interest, not so sure about 16meg along with the crop factor.

Nik
 
I'm waiting too for this miracle. Well, maybe not a miracle, but certainly would be heavenly.

Like Nik said, a CFV 2 is the answer. It could be done with a 44.2X44.2mm sensor from the same wafer used in the P30 (PhaseOne). It will exactly return 24mp! And modest crop factor.

With current prices decreasing since the ZD back and more for interesting offers in MF because of the Hy6, a CFV2 could possibly retail for just a small increase in price or if Santa does exists, for the same entry price of the CFV.

Best
Eduardo

I have a hasselblad 201f and am following threads here thinking about a CFV back and whether it would be worth it compared to the scans, I'd be interested in any feedback (thanks for the posts so far - they're great). At this point a CFV 22meg back would defintely get my interest, not so sure about 16meg along with the crop factor.

Nik
 
> Another tidbit regarding the Nikon 8000/9000 scanners is there is a > third party carrier where you can wet mount the negs/chromes.
 
I guess the dictionary is wrong and Q.G. is right. Damned ignorant dictionary.

The question wasn't about everybody and his brother shooting vacation pix and scanning them. The specific question was about shooting "artisan natural fabrics".

Shooting fabrics is not as easy as it sounds. It is especially difficult using a digital back like a CFV or even a 22 meg digital back. Most photographers that shoot fabrics use a scanning back or a multi-shot digital back to avoid moiré.

If using film and printing on a 7600, I'd advise a professional scanning service to pull the most detail possible from the negs.
 
Hey! A food fight, and no one invited me? Gee... ;-)

Yes, positive film has a higher absolute density than negative film. You typically only bump up against the "D-Max" (which is NOT equivelent to "absolute density" as we refer to it with relation to film and the "density" of film...but that's a whole other discussion fraught with misunderstanding and misinformation) of a film scanner with positives, not with negatives.

For someone who scans mostly B&W, a really exceptional scanner is the Leafscan 45. It'll scan 35mm at 5080, 6cm x up to 12cm at 2540, and 4x5 at 1200. It gives exceptional results. It scans color just fine, but do so in three passes (and makes it 3x slower), and not quite as good as the high end current model color scanners. And, it's reasonably cheap (around $1000 for a good used unit, and SilverFast AI does support it now on Windows for SCSI).

If anyone wants any more info on the Leaf, please ask, and I'll be happy to expound.

WRT the Imacon, the Leaf was around long before the Imacon, and basically, the "architecture" of the Imacon is based on the Leaf. Both are designed like an upside down enlarger, with a straight light path, unlike typical film scanners that use mirrors. The leaf, though, as a single ND filter for scanning B&W, which I believe is an advantage to scanning B&W instead of using a color filter(s). The Leaf was a "quantum leap" in CCD film scanners, but the Imacon, IMO, was not.

As a note, the Imacon scanners ads I've seen flat out lie about these scanners being "drum" scanners. They are absolutely NOT drum scanners. Another ex&le of marketing providing blatant misinformation to customers. They can call it a "virtual drum" (which is a real stretch and is dubious at best), but NOT a drum scanner by any stretch of the term.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Q.G.,

> (By the way, and totally off-topic: given that a "quantum leap" is the > smallest (!) transition possible,

Quantum as a noun, specifically with respect to physics, does mean more or less as you appeaently believe "the smallest quantity of radiated energy...". But, as an adjective, which is what quantum would be as it is used in "quantum leap [in scanner technology]", does mean "sudden and significant". So saying "quantum leap [in scanner technology]" (the in scanner technology was understood) means a significant advance in scanner technology. So, true, the meanings are somewhat opposed between quantum as a noun and quantum as an adjective, they are defined clearly.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Jurgen,

> As far as I know , the higher the Dmax , the more image information > you get from the dark parts of your piece of film . Negative or > positive.

Well, no. You can get the darkest parts with a lower dMax, you just won't get the lighter. dMax is specifically the dynamic range of the scanner. The higher the film density, the higher the dynamic range of the scanner needs to be to capture the entire range of data. So, dMax is a range, not an absolute number.

For ex&le, a scanner with a dMax of 2 can scan an absolute density range of, say, for ex&le, 2 to 4...but if the film contains detail between 1 and 2 it will miss it. You could technically do multipass with different exposure time to increase the dMax limitation of any scanner.

It's another one of these technical digital imaging things that gets misunderstood/misrepresented, and more so on the Internet. It's pretty technical, and if you want a further explanation, I can give you one.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin, Marc,

This, gentlemen, is all too silly. Too silly by far.
Read the last bit of the piece i linked to.

DMax, by the way, is, as the name suggests, a value. Not a range.
A value that marks the end of a range.
 
I have found a very interesting webpage , which might help , to clarify the facts and some misunderstanding , also from my side .

Have a look to this :
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scantek.htm

Now , as I have learned more about scanning color transparencies ,
(I have done mostly B/W in the past) , it looks as if the ARTIXSCAN M1 is going to be a very good scanner . Doing a net search yesterday , I found , the M1 will be launched in the U.S. at the beginning of July and will have a price around 1000 $ . Interesting .
I could not find a date , when the M1 will be available in Europe and for what price .
 
I never took the Imacon claim "Virtual Drum" to mean it was a claim to be a real drum scanner ( thus the "virtual") ... but more that the intent was to somewhat replicate the effect in practice ... meaning, "keep" the portion of the film being scanned the same distance" to help assure the same effect as if it were flat. The film is bent in an Imacon which is why the holders are all flexible. This is accomplished without use of fluids.

Personally, I don't need all the technical reasons behind it, or that of D-Max ... but am more interested in the end result ... so the way I approached scanning was to use a specific scanner for a couple of months before making a decision. In this case an Imacon 848 loaner unit. Which I understand is not available to just anyone ... my studio had purchased digital backs totaling 6 figures from this re-seller, so the least they could do was let me use the 848 before purchasing one (which I upgraded to a 949 when it went on sale).

The "Quantum Leap" referenced was about the results of that scanning experience compared to my previous scanner experiences with a Polaroid Sprint Scan 120 MF scanner and my most recent Minolta Multi-Scan Pro MF unit ... as well as a Minolta 5400 for 35mm films. And I did mention that the results were NOT a Quantum Leap .... but significant enough to make the financial commitment.

The rationale behind this decision may be of interest to those committed to the continued use of film. I started this thread to indicate that for many, a digital back may not be the most satisfying end result IF you have a preference for the look film provides. And frankly, any of the dedicated MF scanners will achieve that end result ... with more or less work, skill and effort.

The 949 is so easy, fast and provides the level of image performance so good, that it actually invites one to scan rather than being a drudgery. But, as with anything this freaking expensive, I'd place this in the category of a luxury item ... something personally I could not even remotely afford even 10 years ago.

SOOOOO ....

This coming Winter when all my wedding work is complete, those regulars on this forum
can send me one select frame of film to scan for them. All it will cost you is the UPS or FedEX shipping both ways. I can also pull a 16X20 on my Epson 3800 for an additional cost of paper and ink. So start shooting for that killer frame folks : -) Shoot for the best exposure possible, I really am not interested in "fixing" someone's mistakes.

I'm putting a note on my calendar to start a thread with this offer after December Holidays are over and the loooooong grey Michigan Winter months provide the perfectly cozy scanning envirnoment ... Simon you can play also even though I've scanned some of your frames : -)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top