how difficile is it to scann with a drumscanner

[rainer_viertlb_ck]

how difficult is it to reach professional results with an older drum

scanner...? especially for slides.....but in general. is it so

dificult? isnt there scansoftware too which works with similar

gradation curves as silverfast and similar consumer softwares...?

[jerry2]

Drum scanning is no different than scanning on a flat bed. The only real difference is you have to learn to mount film onto a drum. Based on the type of film you are mounting on the drum and the magnfication you are trying to achive, this can be anything from simple to very cumbersome.

 

If you are scanning 35mm images on a drum they are easy to mount. If you use large image such as 8x10 on a drum, they are harder to mount, since the image takes up almost the entire drum area, unless you are using an oversized drum. At less than 4x magnfication you do not need to wet mount, but over 4x we mounting is mandatory. It requires a piece of clear acetate over the film. Scanning fluid is placed above and below the film. The acetate holds the fluid by securely taping all the sides. Its the wet mount process that quite often produces superior results, its not neccessarily the drum scanner itself. Only Scitex makes a flat bed that accepts a wet mount and it costs in the $35k range last I checked.

 

software is a different animal. Not all scanning software works with all scanners. For example, if you use a Howtek scanner and use a Mac, Trident is the only software available, at a cost of approx. $1500. Other scanners use a variety of different software. Be forwarned, drum scanning software companies are not looking to improve their products.... its sometimes even hard to get tech support as this is a diminishing market. Most of the software I have seen has very poor manuals, or no manuals. Its best if you plan to own and operate a drum scanner to find someone who can teach you all the tricks of the trade....then it seems like a breeze, but figuring out everything on your own can be quite frustrating.

 

The last thing to worry about is repairs. Some units no longer have spare parts made and other units charge exhorbitant rates for spare parts. Its not uncommon to buy a used drum scanner for $4k and a board breaks and costs $6k to replace it. Very frustrating!

 

Hope this helps..

[light-zone]

Good information Bil. BTW, Heidelberg makes a flatbed scanner that accepts wet mounts as well, runs also in the $40,000 range without the optional robotic arm for batch scans.

 

But I have done wet mounts even on my A3 Heidelberg flatbed. You just have to be careful that the fluid doesn't get under the glass plate, otherwise you've got a real mess on your hands. There are several types of mounting fluid on the market, some are thicker in consistency than others. For small, occasional mounts on a "standard" flatbed, go with the thicker stuff to be on the safe side. For larger scans, I like using a filmcleaner as my mounting fluid. It's cheap and allows a quicker clean up of the transparency when the scan is over. It also doesn't trap tiny air bubules like some of the thicker fluids do.

 

LinoColor is, IMO, the best professional scan software on the market today, but again, that's just MHO.

[qdb]

It is not that difficult. It is easy to be put off by the perceived complexity of drum mounting, but once you know how to do it - say 30mins from someone who knows how - then it is straightforward.

 

You mention Silverfast. There is a version of Silverfast available for Howtek drum scanners that will work on both the Mac and PC platform. If you are familiar with Silverfast already, that would make life easier for you, although it costs around $900.

 

Trident, the priciple software for Howtek scanners, is now distributed by Colorbyte Software. Also, Aztek have now purchased Howtek's drum scanner business, and they have their own advanced (PC based) software for these scanners. Of course, there are other makes of drum scanner beside Howtek, but Howtek D4000 and 4500 drum scanners are widely available used for not too much money, and are capable of results that are, in my opinion, better virtually any CCD scanner out there.

 

Quentin

[rainer_viertlb_ck]

i am thinking actually too in a crossfield celsis 240 or an optotech 4000dpi scanner. there are offers in ebay germany right now.

 

i started to think about drumscanners again,- cause i just received a new imacon flextight646 on thursday....and i was not able to let him run stable on my windows2000 system. i installated nearly two days!!!! tried everything what seems to me to be possible,...the imacon doesnt like my computer. so i start to think in an alternative and to cancel the contract,- if possible. i am not opened to installate a second computer with lan and so on......if the thing will become so complicate to run stable.....i think i will prefere to have an used drum scanner, then i will not sell my polaroid 45ultra 4x5" and my polaroid sprintscan120 medium format scanner and use them for lowerend and faster scans and the drumscanner for highend publications or clients who have the need to highend scanns.

i had the hope to buy with the imacon a easy to handle system which reach nearly drum scan quality.......but it seems i have bad luck with its compability for windows or at least for my system.

[michael_fox]

Rainer, I'm considering the idea since I want more resolution for 4x5 than I can get out of Imacon's latest and greatest.

 

I'm curious why software is so important in determining whether or not to go with a drumscanner. William makes the point above that LinoColor is excellent software. I've heard that too. I have an Imacon 848 and the FlexColor software is very complete with lots of "knobs to turn".

 

However, one pro friend of mine is more of an extremist in the opposite direction. He advocates some 3rd party software (don't recall the name) that costs about $40 dollars and will supposedly work with most scanners to produce a 16 bit raw scan. It doesn't have the detailed adjustments, etc. - just produces a raw scan. His contention is that it is better to do this in Photoshop anyway if you are scanning and using Photoshop yourself. He contends that the controls within the scanner software are for the scanning service bureau or lab who's end product is just the scan. In that situation, the service bureau want's to produce a scan that looks better than someone else's raw scan. But if you are doing the scanning and Photoshop work yourself, better to do all manipulations in one place.

 

So I asked the Imacon engineers if these adjustments are just math after the scan, just like in Photoshop, and they said yes. I asked again for clarification - so you don't bias the CCD or change the analog part of the scanning function based on the controls? He said no, we manipulate the file after the scan. So, why not just do the change in Photoshop where you also have the option to do it with an adjustment layer? Imacon's answer was that they are doing the manipulation in 16 bits while most people are generating 8 bit scans. So I asked what if the user is generating 16 bit scans from the Imacon and working with them in Photoshop as 16 bit images. In that case, he said, no difference.

 

So I'm wondering, is choosing to go the Drum Scanner route just a matter of ease of resolution and use of the scanning hardware itself (loading the drum, cleaning up afterward) vs. ease of use of, say, an Imacon (very easy) or does software matter?

[rainer_viertlb_ck]

i think too, that it just makes a difference how the scanner use its dynamic range in the three colors it can read.

but,- even i am using photoshop a lot of, the color handling a.e. in silverfast is faster and for easy changes very usefull. photoshop can do the same,- but to many functions does not work with 16bit,- or worther if you word in lab mode in 16bit. anyway--the flextight software doesnt know lab...what a pity,- cause i like it to have icc endependent working files which dont loose colors if you change them to rgb or th cmyk.

 

but could be a good idea just to starage the rough data of the drum scanner...if he can do this. i know to little about this machines just now.

 

greatings from cold germany

rainer

[jerry2]

Mike, .... So I asked what if the user is generating 16 bit scans from the Imacon and working with them in Photoshop as 16 bit images. In that case, he said, no difference.

 

As noted above, PS has very few controls that work in 16 bit, so if you plan to archive scans in 16 bit they will not be corrected.

 

next, if you scan in 16 bit, its better to make as many corrections as you can before downsizing to 8 bits. This is another benefit of scanner software that works in 16 bits. In the end, you will have a much cleaner file vs. starting in 8 bits and then doing your corrections. But a lot of this depends on how anal the user is and the inteneded purpose of the final output.

 

In some ways I disagree with the Imacon rep. The scanner software can dictate how the scan is captured first...the goal would be to capture the D range close to what the image has to offer during the scan. Better software will even allow you to set the D range to match botht he high and low D range values. Also, grey balance in the scanner software is very useful to get ALL the colors correct.

 

The other issue I would concern yourself with is resolution. I have read many articles about scanners not acheiving anywhere near the resolution they claim. This can vary from machines of the same model and different model machines. Very few people ever take the time to scan a test chart to determine the scanner can reach the desired scanning resolutions. Howteks are notorious for this, just ask Phil at Aztek. (He may change his tune now that he bought out Howtek) This is definetly true also with flat beds.

 

You may also consider just how much dpi you need. I have recently learned that scanning color film greater than 2800 dpi is a waste of time and produces inferior scans...if you need larger files, its better to up-rez vs. scanning past what the films resolving capacity. Most color film maxes out at about 2500 dpi (49 lpmm), while Velvia can be pushed to about 3000 dpi (59 lpmm).

 

Also, watch out for the new breed of flat beds hitting the market. canon just introduced a flat bed that scans reflective up to 8.5 x 11.5" and film up to 4x5" at 3200 x 4800 optical DPI. It's the Canoscan 9900F. Epson has released a 3200 dpi optical scanner in Japan, USA usually gets it a month or two later. Both of these scanners will retail for $400. I know it seems hard to beleive that you can buy a scanner at this price which will perform as advertised, but we shall wait and see.... as digital keeps getting better and better every 6 months.... Remember the first calculator costs $150, now you can buy a better one for $3.

[michael_fox]

Thanks Bill.

 

My workflow is already as you suggest, doing as many things in 16 bit as possible. I save intermediate copies and the curves/levels, etc. settings files at each step. This is the next best thing when adjustment layers are not available. Chews up a lot of disk space quickly but I figure disk space is cheaper than my time.

 

Still, I don't think there is much in the Imacon software that can't be done in 16 bits in Photoshop. Curves, levels, etc. in Photoshop work in 16 bit.

 

Like you, I just have to believe that some of the adjustments are affecting the the scan itself. But the guy I talked to was not the Imacon rep. He was an Imacon support engineer in Denmark and he said that adjusting levels, curves, etc. is just 16 bit math performed on the resulting scan. He said the corrections don't actually change the D range of the CCD.

 

Next time I'm on the phone with support (which is a lot lately since I'm having the same problems as Rainer above) I'll ask again for confirmation.

 

Oh, and point taken on the resolution. I really should do some testing to determine optimal resolution for my particular film, etc. I do have some 5300 ppi 35mm scans from my former Imacon Precision II that look pretty darn good when enlarged to 11x17. Specifically with respect to 4x5, anything more than about 2400 ppi is probably too large a file to deal with for all but the most demanding projects with very large enlargements. Thanks.

[roger krueger]

I'd be shocked and amazed if the Imacon was just doing 16-bit

math--even my humble Polaroid 120 can change the exposure

duration--Vuescan in fact gives 2.5x exposure on green and 3.5x

exposure on blue to kill the neg mask before it even hits software

tweaks.

 

(This is also an amazing tool for dealing with thick B&W negs

that exceed the CCDs dynamic range--I actually have a

Photoshop action defined to take an RGB scan and turn it into a

layered grayscale file with the red channel on one layer and the

blue channel on another.)

 

This would be even cooler if I could get a blue exposure greater

than 3.5x, but I've actually offered Ed Hamrick (Vuescan's author)

money and he still refuses implement this.

 

I can manually set exposure and do two separate scans, but the

Polaroid transport is so horridly inconsistent they're a nightmare

to line up. Scans at maximum exposure are generally about 200

pixels longer than scans at minimum exposure over the length of

a 9000 pixel 6 x 9 frame