Buying a 3200dpi flatbed scanner

[van_camper]

"Thanks for quoting portions of this thread and giving me a link to someone's subjective assessment as objective, scientifically derived 'facts' in evidence of your assertions"

 

Three people have already given their experience with the Epson scanner, and your response to them was hogwash. Obviously it would not matter? Lets reverse this silly game, and I now ask you to find scientific evidence that 24x enlarged prints (30 inch prints) from 35mm are every bit as good as a drum scanned print (your original challenge). Since you are comparing to drum scans, our discussion is assumed to be about achieving "high" quality prints, not what you consider "good enough". Perhaps this is where our differences originated.

 

Most people understand that there must be a difference between a $500 scanner and a $15000 scanner, because inherently there will be no consumer demand for the mfrs product unless there are significant differences. Your interests are more casual, while for others photography is far more serious as an art form and way of self-actualization. These people are willing to spend the bigger bucks, and your thrifty attitude toward Hasselblad cameras, or other large format gear becomes irrelevant. Were in pursuit of different things. Your attitude alone shows this (you only care about getting from A to B, and do not see a difference in performance between a Ferrari and a Volkswagon). For your level of involvement, I would agree that the Epson is satisfying your needs, but that is not what your original challenge was( your flatbed you will match to drum prints anytime). For others we need higher end gear to satisfy our needs. Neither of us are wrong after all this discussion, but I enjoyed the discussion. Good luck.

[graybrick]

"...for others photography is far more serious as an art form and way of self-actualization. These people are willing to spend the bigger bucks..."

 

So you have to spend gobs of cash to be 'serious' as an artist? You make me laugh. Like when folks tell me that my camera takes nice pictures. LOL

 

Yeah, ok. Nice chatting with you.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Hwere I have owned only a dozen flatbeds, going back over 15 years. Professonal flatbeds long ago cost more than a Hasselblad kit and were just either 600 or 1200 dpi class models. Todays flatbeds do somewhat above the "1200 dpi barrier" that was preached over a decade ago, but not much. <BR><BR>Each flatbed I own here has a different response, the sharpest one is a first run Epson 2450. Its sharper than our 600, 1200, other same model 2540, 3200, or neighbors 4800 series model. <BR><BR>Tools do vary in performance, basing results on on persons ho scanner doesnt mean that everyone will get the same results with the same model.<BR><BR> A pro will do his own tests, and see what tool is good enough for the job.<BR><BR>Here my best flatbed is like say a downsized high end drumscan, downnsized to the 1800 to 1200 dpi/ppi zone. I have experimented with 3 "3200 dpi class" epsons and 2 "4800 dpi class epsons" . <BR><BR>I just take thwe same reference negatives of mine, and due actual scans and see how they perform. Its far better to compare actual results, actually whats being gathered and lost compared to a high end drum scan, than play the debate based on one persons data point.<BR><BR>What matters is your results. <BR><BR>Yesterdays flatbeds were mostly sold to print shops and cost many thousands of dollars and sported dpi ranges of 600 to 1200 max. The current Epson 2450 's we have and 3200 unit have a better actual gathering of info than the ancient pro models, better dmax and cost 1/10 as much. <BR><BR>Todays flatbeds are mostly sold to amatuers, thus the frothy bs dpi numbers to attrack the newbie. Its like the 5 Horsepower decal on a RIGID shop vac and Home depot, a big number to attract the amateur. The Federal trade commision got the vac marketers to add "peak" to the decal, so reduce the fib abit. yes one has a 10 amp at 120 volts and a 5 horsepower cool decal. Yes one has a 4800 dpi decal on new scanner. When a 5400 or 7200 flatbed comes out, folks will flock to them like flies to dung.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Here at the print shop we have a zoo of scanners. Flatmeds are used alot if it makes sense for the job. <BR><BR>Get a great negative of your high end drum scanned, then use it to test you scanning devices. With a flatbed one is not pulling out the entire detail. For moderate enlargements and larger viewing distances on can use a flatbed with much success. Here our ancient canon fs2710 2700 dpi 35mm film scanner is radically better in pulling out info from a 35mm negative than any flatbed we have tested. The flatbed just rolls of the higher end, it makes your summicron shots more like disposable camera.<BR><BR>With a disposible camera, the sharpness is often higher than a flatbed in the central core, and worse at the corners. Thus for court case work we use the canon 2720 film scanner for 30x40" posters from 35mm, instead of a flatbed. Thus if you want to get the most info from a disposable cameras negative for critical police work, a flatbed would not be used.<BR><BR>Folks spend time hagling ove the great resoltion of their lenses, then butcher the results with a flatbed. Jeepers you have your best case Panatomic-X negative shot done with a granite base at F5.6 and then get say 23 to 30 line pairs per millimeter out of the flatbed. <BR><BR> resampling is not going to creat new usefull info to remake what a flatbed loses during a scan. Resampling just makes the image look abit better. Its like hamburger helper. Take a 1 pound of hamburger, a coke, a beer, a glass of milk and dilute it 10 times and most normal folks will notice. <BR><BR>

[kelly_flanigan1]

At our print shop our three ancient 600, 800 and 1200 professional flatbeds all cost more than a new hassleblad with 80mm and back. They were marketed to pros and not amateurs. The tale then was any claim of a flatbed being useable above 1200 was no possible. Our best flatbed today pulls out say 25 to 50 % more than our old 1200 pro unit. <BR><BR>With a 1:1000 contrast test target negative one can goose one results and get more info ou yoyu flatbed for bragging to your buddies. A print shop must deal with fine fart low contrast masterpieces, that are missfocused, micro blurred. Many times a flatbed is all that is required, becuase the original is technically poor.

[van_camper]

"...for others photography is far more serious as an art form and way of self-actualization. These people are willing to spend the bigger bucks...So you have to spend gobs of cash to be 'serious' as an artist? You make me laugh. Like when folks tell me that my camera takes nice pictures. LOL " Grayson

____________________________________________

 

Poor Ansel, Weston, Karsh, and a few other great photographers who printed large prints, yet didn't know you could obtain such high quality with 35mm without spending gobs of money. If they only had met you. Poor Fatali, Tom Till, Peter Lik who still follow old traditions. While I continue to shoot 6x7/6x9/612 and soon 8x10, I will always be concerned if you were right and I was wrong to invest in all this gear in order to attain the highest quality in my landscapes. Please, would you offer us all lessons on using the Epson flatbeds because you have the magic touch. Oh guru, tell us how? Teach us your secrets on how to attain these incredible 24x enlarged prints from 35mm. Prove it to us! I "gotz tu" know! Oh Mohammed, what is your last name because I need it for the shrine (by the way, it was Ansels' idea).

[jake_purches]

Life is too short to scan on a flat bed. Spend the money on a drum scan. Failing that get a

dedicated scanner. No such thing as a good flat bed. Sorry.

[graybrick]

Poor, poor Van. Expensive equipment does not make a great artist. In fact, expensive equipment has nothing to do with great art. A great artist with expensive equipment may produce great art, but a great artist with cheap 35mm equipment (even the non-Leica stuff) may produce great art as well. Your air of superiority attached to your equipment speaks loudly of your dependance on it. So I <i>do</i<> need a Hasselblad to produce excellent art? LOL! You still make me laugh. Show us <i>your</i> prints. I'm perfectly well self-actualized with my puny little 35mm film strips and tiny digital sensor. Nope, they won't make as big a print as an 8x10 negative. Then again, I don't need a wall-sized print for 'self-actualization'. No need to build me a shrine- it sounds like your scanner and camera could use a temple though. Maybe you could exhume Adams' trigger thumb, too while you're at it. This whole 'my stuff's better because my stuff's bigger' argument is just plain silly. Perhaps you've forgotten that the artist is <i>behind</i> the camera. I bet your camera really does take nice pictures.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Back when the top flatbeds were pro units at 1200 dpi many times a drum scan was only at 600 lines per inch for 4x5 work. Farming out for a high end drum scan was way over 2 dollars per megabyte of scan. Thus a 250 meg drum scan image from a 4x5 trany was over 500 bucks. If a client had 10 images this would be 5 grand for the drum scans. For an actual poster, billboard or other print project the decision to use a flatbed or a drum scan is just another concern. If its just a quick advert where a flatbed is good enough then using a drum scan is silly, wastefull, the mark of a bad businessman. If the image has future usage that require more enlargement, or is historical than the expense of getting a better than requied scan should be explored. Folks who work of the government, schools or big companies often have deep pockets and want drum scans where there is no real gain at the print level. When your rear is footing the scanning costs then folks consider "what is good enough" with some more thought. Flatbeds are just another tool, see what limits they have for your jobs. Get a feel when you need a drum or film scan versus a flatbed scan by doing YOU OWN TESTS.

[van_camper]

"In fact, expensive equipment has nothing to do with great art"

 

Rather old argument, don't you think? We all know that, duh! There is truth in it, but at some point if you desire higher quality prints you will want to move up in format size. Most people know that and that it also costs more money! Also remember, were talking about GREAT PRINTS, not GREAT PHOTOGRAPHS. Artists like Ansel, Weston, and including today's Fatali, Peter Lik, Tom Till all are aware (except you) large format is mandatory for their very high quality landscapes. You obviously disagree, and I bet you also believe Karsh could have done all his great images using a35mm camera for up to 30 inch prints. LOL.

 

Just a reminder, Jake Purches wrote ""Life is too short to scan on a flat bed. Spend the money on a drum scan. Failing that get a dedicated scanner. No such thing as a good flat bed. Sorry." ??This represents the 5th person on this thread to tell you that a consumer flatbed (Epson/Microteks) will not give you top quality (especially at 24x magnification from 35mm). Are you catching on yet?

[david_henderson]

Van Camper. You have been asked several times for evidence to support your contentions that you can't get more than 1200/1800/2400 (whatever) ppi out of a flatbed. You keep responding by quoting other people that agree with you. That's weight of opinion, but it is not evidence. Do you have, or can you direct us towards, any significant study on the actual resolution capability of today's flatbed scanners, or any studies which compare the quality of prints from optimal scans from a flatbed and film scanner?

[van_camper]

Van Camper. You have been asked several times for evidence to support your contentions that you can't get more than 1200/1800/2400 (whatever) ppi out of a flatbed. --------------------------------------------

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=20300&highlight=epson+4990+2400+ppi

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

 

 

Well, I suggest you ask the same of Gray (he hasn't provided factual data either, nor has he found a single subjective opinion by someone else in any forum to support his 24x claim). After all he made the challenge, so he should be the one to prove his claim. I have no need to prove it to myself (I know, I own one, and have had enough drum scans done to know the obvious difference). If you want to learn more, do it at your time/expense. Finding factual data will be difficult (it will be either personal tests you will criticize anyways, we also can't expect any from Epson, and to hire a lab for $25k is too costly), and like everyone else you will eventually be dependant on other peoples experience and what has worked in prepress shops. Finding knowledgeable people in the industry is the key. Just so you know, every prepress graphics shop will likely have a Screen Cezanne flatbed and one drum scanner, and none will have a Epson consumer flatbed for their serious work (in the office yes, not for anything else). At least I have many that agreed with my view (5 in this thread alone) that drums are better then consumer flatbeds, and no one has yet agreed with Grays far fetched claim (I wonder why?). A while back there was a large debate over Epson 4990 flatbeds and if they are good to 4-5x or 3x. No one has yet ever claimed consumer flatbeds are good to 24x with high quality. Just not possible, unless you have very low standards (to an amateur what may look good to him may not be to the trained eye). I recommend Gray post his question in the large format forum (Are consumer flatbeds good for high quality 24x enlargements). You'll get some funny responses real quick. The above sites are not perfect, but it is more then Gray has offered (he can't prove his 24x claim).

[graybrick]

'Finding factual data will be difficult.' <BR><BR>

 

Indeed, especially round these here parts with you running off at the keyboard incessantly. I've made a subjective argument that normal people (again, not <i>you</i>, Van) would be hard pressed to differentiate <i><b>some</i></b> of my enlargements scanned on a flatbed from enlargements (from 35mm, of course, let's be fair) scanned on much more expensive equipment. I may, of course, be wrong, but I have qualified my assertion as subjective and I've already <i>had</i> people comment that they couldn't beleive: it's a digital print, it's taken on 35mm, it's scanned on a flatbed, among other things. Totally subjective, and the participants are likely not those who you would deem 'appropriate' judges, as you would simply disparage their lack of 'refinement' and tell us they were just not experienced like <i>you</i> and had no idea what a 'quality' print should look like. I'm not trying to impress art critics, Van. And I'm certainly not out to impress you. I'd have to buy a bunch of expensive gadgets to do that, and I'm really more interested in the artistic aspects of photography than comparing whose is sharper, bigger, faster, rarer, or cost more. My camera is not an artist. My camera is a simple tool which keeps my film in the dark until it's time and then helps me reach point B. It's results that count, in the end. I assure you I enjoy (self-actualize) myself at least as much as you do on the journey (I probably have more fun, though, as I'm not all that worried about damaging my relatively inexpensive gear and my whole kit can travel in a backpack- you really should try it sometime!)<BR><BR>

 

Now, you want to throw numbers around, which begs the point: where are you getting your information? You're repeating what other people have said, but you don't seem to have any <i>real</i> evidence to present (save for your pretense and posturing, and your fancy camera). "So-and-so already said" is not factual evidence. I've seen the scanner comparison you linked to, and while it's compelling it's also limited in its scope. It does make some good generalizations, but we're not speaking in generalizations here. We're trying to <i>prove</i> that you can't get more than 2400PPI in real output from a flatbed. That's going to take real numbers and real testing. I'd recommend something besides anecdotal evidence to support your 'facts' if you wish to present them as such. Otherwise, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the use of terms such as "I think", "I beleive", "in <i>my</i> experience", "I have heard", "seems to me", "in my opinion", etc. These are things that people qualify their opinions with when they can't offer real proof but are pretty sure they're right. <BR>Here, I'll give you an example: <BR>I have heard that only fools pretend that their opinions are fact- seems like some famous philosopher once said something to that effect. It seems to me you've fallen into this category, Van (fools, not philosophers). I beleive you think you're superior because you've spent a ton of money on gear, and now you rationalize that constantly by trying to impress upon others how good, how <i>much better</i> your gear is than what the average photographer uses. I imagine lots of people are really impressed with your gear. I think you'd like to see yourself as some kind of <i>nouveau Ansel</i> or something. In <i>my</i> experience, however, few photographers, even the medium/large format crowd out there, even come close to producing great artworks. So many seem to be trying to reproduce what someone else has already done rather than create something unique and individual. In my opinion, the artist is much more important than the gear, and a great artist will make the most of the tools available to him (her). <BR>See, it's fun and easy. I realize it's hard for you to admit that you could be mistaken, Van. It's ok, though, and with some practice and patience you too can find a little modesty.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Flatbeds scanners have been around before Photo.net and so have shop vacs too. <BR><BR>Both today are marketed to home users. Thus a 4800dpi decal and 5 Horsepower decals are want amateurs crave. In professional doings folks do their own tests and are not attracted to flashly claims.<BR><BR> After using over a dozen or two flatbeds for over 15 years there is no reason to doubt the resolution of the many many thousands of scans we have done for the public. We dont think that a salesman that hawks 4800dpi scanners or 5 horsepower shop vacs is retarded; just really a huckster, conman that gives newbies what they crave, BS numbers for their egos. Their customers are afraid of testing, and want another chap to tell them what they need. <BR><BR>There have been many millions of scans done with flatbeds, all are less than the ability of a high end drum scan. This will always be. Many many thousands of labs and print shops have used them. Amateurs should stop being so whussy, and seeking the consensus of others always.<BR><BR> It only takes a few scans to see what any flatbed will do. This is what pros did 10 to 15 years ago, they didnt debate decal numbers, they did actual tests. All the 48xx series Epsons we have tested here were not any better than our best Epson 2400 unit. I really dont believe any more testing is required, here we know where a flatbed is good enough, and where a drum scan helps with each project. All you folks that are new to flatbeds seem to think that there is no info on flatbeds, heck there is just 15 years of flatbeds scans covering almost 2 dozen flatbed models. <BR><BR>Pros have used flatbeds where the scan was good enough for the application. Pros have more focsued goals and actual clients who have schedules and budgets. Amateurs have often fuzzy goals, best case dreams, and often no schedules and have problems with figuring "what is good enough for XYZ job"<BR><BR>Go out and get a great sharp original high end drum scanned, use it as you reference standard. Here we have found that flatbeds really peaked many years ago with a real resolution way less than 2000, in the 1200 to 1500 area.<BR><BR>I also have found that my Milwaukee worm drive circular saw from the 1970's is just as strong as any saw today with a 2.5 to 3 Hp decal.<BR><BR>

Maybe you have the one sweet 4800dpi Epson that works equal a high end drums scan for scanning velveda. A sample of one doesnt mean that some of us who have used flatbeds for 15 years will ever find this mythical superflatbed serial number, or magical 5 horsepower shop vac that has a 18awg cord for 120 volts and 12 amps. <BR><BR> When I take my decade old reference negative to clients and friends 3200 and 4800 flatbeds, I get actual data that is no better than our 2400 class flatbeds.<BR><BR>In buying a saw one might want to work at an actual jobe site and see what results actual workers get. In buying a scanner one might want to vist a lab or print shop and see what real world results are.

[van_camper]

"You're repeating what other people have said, but you don't seem to have any real evidence to present (save for your pretense and posturing, and your fancy camera). "So-and-so already said" is not factual evidence"

 

Oh, so cute (and we already hashed over the subjective data issue, your only defense you keep repeating).Your now saying your 24x enlargement claim was a "subjective" opinion (an easy way to back out of the challenge you made) and therefore you do not need to prove yourself, but I on the other hand must prove my claims (2400ppi max resolution). In other words you prefer giving subjective data while you insist others must give quantitative data. Wake up to reality! You also have the responsibility to prove your claims in a debate. First, you didn't offer any factual data that might support your claim (24x enlargements of high quality from 35mm matching drum scans). Second, you didn't offer any "subjective" opinions from other forum members (many are pros and own one, not as reliable a data source, but better then nothing). Three, not one member has yet offered his support to back your view. You still think you're right? I already have 5 valued opinions in this forum alone (these were not "hand picked"), who disagree with you that consumer flatbeds can't match drum scans (especially not at 24x). I at least supplied websites giving subjective opinions (they have some value, at least to place the enlargement factor into a range of 3-8x), and gave you COMPARISON PHOTOS. What have you done? Obviously you deny everything (acting like a teen looking for a fight), The comparison photos prove sufficiently(even beyond operator error) that not one consumer flatbed came even close to the high end drum/flatbeds (the Creo IQsmart3 high end flatbed blew your flatbed off the runway). I already know the outcome, I also own and Epson (which I like), and it is absolutely ridiculous to argue drum scans can be matched by a Epson flatbed .This was your challenge...so I took the bait to have some fun with you (24x was just too much). You obviously think everyone is a fool to send out for drum scans. You are right, 35mm is all you need to do it all. LOL. Byee~!

[van_camper]

Gray, you would be wise to take the advice of Kelly. He has been around a long time, and works "in" the industry. Your talk is just moot. This is now the 6th person to agree in this thread that consumer flatbeds are insufficient for high end work (only for smaller 8x10 prints or slightly larger, and preferably with med/large format film).Again, I remind you that your challenge was not for 8x10 prints, but that your 30 inch prints from 35mm can match a drum scan any day. Your 24x claim is pushing it for even drum scanners. You also never considered that size print likely puts you in a class where your only sending (I'm guessing) about 100ppi to the printer @1440dpi. That is low quality, good enough to look at,good enough for your friends, but not good enough for selling to art galleries at $2-4000/print (See works by A.Briot, Peter Lik). Eveything is large format and drum scanned.

[graybrick]

Good. We all agree, then, that a $12000+ scanner should outperform a $150 scanner. So the question becomes, then, what is appropriate for the job at hand. If you are independently wealthy, as our friend Van, you may decide that the low end (or even the middle) just won't cut it for your wall-sized landscape prints from your Hasselblad. If you're of more modest means, as myself (not independently wealthy), you may have a need for a more affordable and practical solution. There's no doubt, on average, that the Ferrari option will give better results. However, that does not mean that good results, results fitting to the task at hand, cannot be had for much much less money. With some prints, excruciating detail is not the end-all. In many cases, the original won't be improved appreciably by sussing out details that just aren't there. In any case, I get more detail scanning at '4800DPI' than I do scanning at '3200' or '2400'. If 2400 is the 'limit', then, they've dumbed the thing down so that we impressionable amateurs (who, BTW, <i>did</i> just crawl out from under a rock after falling off the turnip truck, yeehaw) would believe that we're getting better than 2400DPI. Or, maybe at '4800' we're actually getting close to 1500DPI. Or, maybe the scanner's interpolation routine just blows Photoshop's interpolation routine out of the water. Maybe I'm a sucker, and I'm being duped, but it's a moot point anyway because I'm happy with my results. The truth is, the vast majority of photographers are amateurs and the vast majority of amateurs won't ever <i>need</i> a drum scan. To the amateur, the needs of a 'pro' are really not very important. Sure, we'd all like to have the best of everything, but if you're not selling tons of prints (or gratuitously self-actualizing) then it probably doesn't make sense to spend $2000 or $12000 on a scanner. For a large portion of the public, even $500 is a, appreciable amount of money. I'd say pound for pound (or dollar for dollar) the $150 Epson 4490 kicks the shite out of everyhting else out there. As performance for price goes, it just doesn't get any better. Results rivalling the Nikon 'dedicated' film scanners <i>can</i> be had with this scanner. In short, this is a good solution for most people wanting to scan. (Not for you, Van... tell you what, why not just send me your crappy flatbed scanner then, anyway, since it obviously offends you so)...

[graybrick]

And Van, my original response compared the Epson to the Nikon film scanner and said that I have some large prints which I think would stand up to scrutiny by the public next to 35mm drum scans. Again, not <i>every</i> scan I make, but there are at least two that I would give a go. Truth is, in many cases the scanner outperforms the film. You put out numbers as if they're fact. So, my assertion was a subjective argument, to be judged by subjective means. Yours was that 'xxxx' was the finite limit. If this doesn't make sense to you, then I'm very very sorry. <BR><BR>So, back to the original question here... you think the guy wanting a 3200DPI scanner should go ahead and invest in Creo? OK, yeah, that seems like a reasonable response. I guess he's gonna need a Hasselblad by the time it's all done, too... <BR><BR>I'm puzzled by your disdain for the 35mm format. It's not as big as yours. It is, however, the very same film, in a more portable format. People have been using it for years. Even some (gasp!) pros use it. They take great photographs with it. They don't all own Hasselblads. They don't all shoot landscapes. Perhaps if they knew about <i>you</i> they would have seen the error of their ways years ago and followed your path to self-actualization. I'm sure they'd be a whole lot better off for it. :o)<BR><BR>Ok, seriously, you've made your point, I've made my point, Flannigan's made his point, and now it's time to move on...

[ljupco_ristovski]

It has been an interesting reading.By my opinion, things went out of the control few times, but anyway I got the idea about what can I expect out of 3200dpi flatbed.

I didn't want to mention it first time, but I was looking to buy Epson V100 Photo.

Now, I know what I can expect from it. Honestly, for it price tag (100Euros) I'll be happy to be able to get 8X10 photo quality print.

I don't expect miracles.

Also, I think it will be nice to be able to make contact prints for on-screen evaluation of my films.

I will have it in few days (hope so:)), and I will post opinion based on my experience. I will push it to its limits and we'll see what can we get out of it.

Thanks to all of you who have helped me get better understanding about flatbeds and make more realistic approach towards them and their capabilities.

Photo.net againg has prove it self like a remarkable place for sharing our knowledge and experience in the photo art we all love.

Have a nice day.

Lj:)

[graybrick]

<addendum>

 

If you have some really sharp, really nice B/W shots that you want the best from, it's probably best to have them printed in a darkroom or scanned 'professionally' if you can afford it. Neither the Nikon 'dedicated' or the flatbed will get 'all' of the film's detail. While the Nikon may often do a slightly better job, there's no substitute for the 'real' thing when it comes to fine detail. With many films, ie 800 speed Kodak, you're not going to see much difference, though. However, for everyday use, the flatbed is a fine tool for proofing and printing reasonably sized images.

 

GM

[ljupco_ristovski]

Thank you Grayson. That was also my idea. I'm keeping my fully equiped darkroom for the most critical/exhibition prints, but I think flatbed will be in big use for "not so" critical work. I still haven't got it, but it should be here soon.

Greetings from sunny Skopje, Macedonia.

Lj:)