Question about drum scans

I'm considering having my 35mm transparencies drum scanned for the creation of Lightjet prints.

 

I understand that some type of oil/liquid is used on the drum in order to minimize dust/scratches. Is this something

that can be removed from the film with no residue or effect on archivability? I'm very sensitive about handling of

originals.

 

How far can I reasonably go with 35mm originals drum scanned and printed via Lightjet? 11x14, 16x20, larger?

 

Thanks!

Paul

The drum scans are basically intented for polygraphic printing. They are expencive and sophisticated works usually made to match specifics of polygrapy. The largest file size are from 600Mb up to 1Gb or so which allow for A0 print size without interpolation. With basic ON ONE Fractals software you can get up to 10 times greater print. All this is beyond common PC processing capasities.

 

Try to look for Imacon scanning, these are less expensive, easy and make a 20x25 ink jet prints real nice.

How large you can print depends a lot more on your slide then how it is scanned. If drum scanning magically added a huge amount of detail the sellers of drum scanning services would be posting all kinds of sample scans showing this, but they are not.

 

Here is a page that has lots of scan samples

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

 

You might take a look at this one

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Tobermory_SH_crop_1000.jpg

that was scanned with a high end CCD scanner at 4000 ppi, the film was Gigabit, a whole lot of detail in that scan.

 

Compare that to a drum scan at only 2667 ppi, but with Kodak Gold 400

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/jtspor1a.jpg

even at only 2667 ppi the scan is super soft

 

Go to 8000 ppi and thing just get silly soft

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/jim4.jpg

 

Scott

Thanks a lot for the info... I'll be looking into your suggestions.

 

I don't trust my ability to make good scans with my Nikon Coolscan V, especially with nighttime shots.

If you can't get a good scan with your Nikon Coolscan V you are not going to get great scans from a drum scanner.

 

What I am trying to say is that unless you are bumping into the limits of the CoolScan the a drum scan will not show much improvement, and given a good slide the CoolScan can get a very nice scan.

Hi Paul,

 

Since no one answered your direct question regarding the fluid used to mount the film.

 

We have always and will always use Kami Scanner Mounting Fluid, it is a solvent naptha based fluid. It has been proven to not damage the

film in any way. Since it is a solvent, it will not absorb into the emulsion.

 

Kami is the premiere product out there for drum scanning but there are others. Old timers use mineral oil.

IMHO, That is one of the worst things to use as it absorbs into some emulsions.

I have heard of people using everything from water (so bad cant even tell you) to lighter fluid and other undesirable liquids.

 

Always ask what will be used on your film. If they dont tell you, take your business somewhere else.

 

Our modo at my company, Do no harm!. The film must leave in the same condition or better then we receive it in.

Btw, Kami will also help clean the film!

 

 

-ian

 

www.prepressexpress.com

I've made a 24x18 print off of a Tri-X negative that I scanned with my then new Nikon V. I didn't go through any particular

precautions either. The negative had some bow to it (didn't flatten it under books) and I didn't use the frame strip holder, so

there were definitely ways that I could have gotten a flatter, more in focus scan. However, I think it looks great. Would a

drum scan have been better? Probably.

 

But you can get an 18x24 print from places like WHCC for a like $20. Scan a slide and order a print and see what you

think. Of course, you could always just order some 4x6's of crops sized for your final print size to evaluate things...

We've been making fluid mounted drum scans for years and everyone I know in this industry uses an evaporating

fluid like Kami or Prazio anti newton oil. This isn't an oil at all and is what we use here because we like that

it doesn't evaporate as quickly as Kami. Film is always cleaned before mounting and then scanned in the fluid and

is always in better shape after the process than before.

 

All that aside, I want to stress that people buy drum scans for the wrong reasons. Resolution, although it's a

factor, isn't why one should get a drum scan. Drum scans are cleaner, free of Newton rings, dust and scratches

are filled in by the fluid, they're pin sharp corner to corner because of the way they're mounted without air

surfaces, they have less flare in the optical path so they're sharper, they're smoother in gradation because of

PMT sensors, they have greater dynamic range and if properly calibrated using a high quality target like an HCT,

they have greater color gamut and accuracy. Remember that the scanner is just a tool and an experienced operator

can coax more out of film at any resolution using a drum scanner than just about any other tool at his disposal

including the pseudo drum Imacon Flex.

Scott... I find that I have trouble getting great scans with a Coolscan when the majority of the scene is black. I honestly think that my scanning (and Photoshop processing) abilities stink and could definitely use improvement.

Ian, Tim and John... thanks a lot for the info about drum scans. I'm not sure whether I will definitely need drum scans over other methods. If I can avoid mailing and having someone physically handle my transparencies, it would be preferable.

Getting details out of the shadows is where the higher dynamic range of PMT sensors (as used in drum scans) helps the most. But, they are a lot more expensive.

How much do drum scans cost?

The cost of drum scans can vary according to the details. We've done them for as little as $20 and as much as

$350 per scan, but it's almost always $50 for a fluid mounted, color corrected, profiled and fully dust busted

scan that's ready to print.

"How far can I reasonably go with 35mm originals drum scanned and printed via Lightjet? 11x14, 16x20, larger?"

 

It depends . On the original- how sharp and crisp it is. On the viewing distance of the prints- I imagine many people

would get a surprise if they got close to an advertising poster for example. But IMO assuming a very sharp and well

exposed original and a viewing distance of a couple of feet, you might expect to enlarge to about 20" x 30" whilst

getting excellent print quality from a LightJet. This is much bigger than you'd be able to get at the same quality

level from a traditional enlargement.

 

\you could save on the cost of the scan by getting an Imacon or even a Coolscan scan made- just because you

haven't had much success with the Nikon doesn't mean that others can't make good scans from them, but I suspect

you know that.. Unless your original is really pushing the boundaries on dmax, its unlikely IMO that you'd notice

much difference between a drum scan and a Nikon scan at 16" x 12" and between a drum scan and an Imacon

scan at 20" x 16". The drum scan really earns its keep when youneed every scrap of shadow detail and you're really

pushing the boundaries on print size.

 

I'm not sure what "Polygraphic printing" is, but be assured that people have been successfully using drum scans in

conjunction with LightJet/Chromira/Lambda printers for years and also for inkjets, and its been the route of choice

when money is of less importance than file quality. If you choose a good lab then I would not expect to have

concerns about fluid and the handling of originals. Scanning prices have come down a lot in recent years because

of competition.

For LightJet output, I only recommend a drum scan. Ive seen the results from Imacon, Nikon, Epsons...and its not pretty.

We scan for a bunch of labs in NYC that have LightJet/Lambda output and they all are on the same page.

 

Drum scan can earn there keep on any size files. The sharpness comes from the fluid holding the film in contact with the drum and the microscope

like nature of the drum scanner. Thats not something that most flatbeds can do. Even with those fluid mounting devices, I have many clients who

have them but use our services on critical scans. Even small ones, the drum scans are just nicer. There words not mine. Well mine too, thats one of

the reasons we invested in the Howtek drum scanners.

 

Ilia:

I did a quick lookup for Polygraphic printing and google wasn't much help. It does remind me of some of the old terms used in the offset printing

industry. I spent to much time there but learned some great things.

 

Anywhoo, Most of the computers sold in the prosumer market today ($1000+) can easily open and happily work on large files over 1gb with the appropriate amount of ram. Even my old G4's (5+ years old) can handle 1gb files without a problem. Clients that order large drum scans usually have

the computers to work the files.

 

Like John, We take a slightly different approach than most to drum scanning. All of our scans are fluid mounted regardless of price.

Our base charge for a 100mb scan is $20 and includes basic spotting. Most clients choose this because they can take care of the rest and it saves

them some money.

 

 

-ian

 

www.prepressexpress.com