upscan

The ScanScience (www.scanscience.com) Fluid scanning adapters are available in custom formats which can include rebates.

Hi Catherine: Photo film consists of layers, mainly gelatine on one side and the film backing on the other. What causes the curl is a dimensional unbalance between the layers, a kind of tug of war between then in which each layer tries forcing the other into its own dimension. The stronger wins, i.e. makes the other follow. For example, at low humidities, the gelatine, -more hydrophilic, shrinks more than the backing and unless it was to separate from the backing, the only way it can shrink is by assuming the smaller diameter in a curl, where the backing assumes the outer, larger circumference. This is explained in the file "Newton Rings" at http://www.scanscience.com/TechLibrary.html.

 

With legacy films, the evaporation of plasticizers originally present in the backing can also induce the backing to shrink. If the unbalance from the shrinkage of the backing were to overpower that caused by a loss of humidity to the emulsion, the film would curl with the backing inwards. This is rare however.

After the disaster involving Nitrocellulose film, the type of backings changed to many other types of cellulose backings, and that brought about the so called 'safety film', in which case, the words 'safety film' will appear on the margins of the film. If indeed you have Nitrocellulose film, do be extremely careful. NC is a very dangerous substance. To demonstrate its power I once ignited (in the lab) about 1/4 of a gram of dry NC with a sparker and the result was a sudden explosion somewhat smaller than a gun shot. I used NC then to make wood lacquers, because when wet or mixed with other resins it looses its dangerous properties. In film curling can be controlled by adjusting humidity. The way of doing this is explained in that file.

Be patient, it is doable but it can take time. Regards.

Leo: Try http://www.wetmounting.com or http://www.scanscience.com

Julio Fernandez

The two product offerings referred to as "similar" are not. The ScanSicence fluid scanning Kit is much more than fluid, tape and wipes, which is what is being sold for the Epson V750, using the tray that copmes with that scanner. Technically a major difference between using the Epson tray and the ScanScience Kits is that the tray subjects the image to the additional refractioon of another chunk of glass (in the Epson Tray) while the ScanScience kit does not involve additional refraction which is avoided by proper positioning and is optically correct.

Since your question concerns the Epson 4990 and not the V750, buying just fluid, tape and wipes that uses the Epson tray is irrelevant to your needs. ScanScience offers a similar 'kit' as that for $79.00 if that is what you wish. However what you need is the Pro Kit which comes with the adpater. For a review of these kits please refer to

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200701_epsonperfv750m.pdf

Hi: The scanner resolution issue is a major problem in making buying decisions and comparisons between scanners because the way in which the numbers are calculated for flatbed scanners. This arises from the fact that pixels are presented as resolved detail, which they are not. People look at the specs and say, Hey this scanner is 4000 dpi and it costs $1,500 well, for that money I can get three scanners with an even higher resolution of 6400 dpi. The confusion arises from the fact that for flatbeds we are talking about ppi, -pixels per inch, and not dpi, dots per inch. To get a higher number of ppi all the scanner has to do is have the stepping motor stop at shorter intervals so that more shots per inch can be taken. Doing this can be done to the point when the detail captured overlaps the pixels pile up and the files bulge, However the dpi resolved does not depend on how many shots are taken as resolution is limited by the sensors. Overlapped detail gives a smoother output but not a more resolved detail. See the file "the truth about scanner resolution in http://www.wetmounting.com/TechLibrary.html

 

For batch scanning, contact sheets and a least MF or larger, the flatbed scanner is a great thing, and when it comes time for gallery prints, and if your film is MF or smaller, the film scanner will take you up several quality levels.

 

As for dust etc, the best time efficient method is fluid scanning. Not only you get a time benefit of about at least 20X from dry scanning with ICE but you get for free what all the retouching digital or manual can not do for you: increased brilliance and that elusive drum scanned quality, some of which stems from fluid scanning.

Hi: Try fluid scanning. At two minues per mount it saves you hours in retouching and cuts ICE time by a factor of at least 20X. Additionally and perhaps more important to image quality purists, fluid scanning is the only nethod known that increases dynamic range and dMax, in other words, brilliance, color saturation and contrast. http://www.scanscience.com

<As for wet mounting, does anybody have some good example of Kodachrome compared scanned dry and wet?

 

Does anybody have comments on wet mounting with a Nikon 9000?>

 

In the ScanScience site http://www.scanscience.com there are examples of dry and fluid scaned Kodachrome on the Canon FS 4000US. The same differences would apply to the Nikon 9000 or the Nikon 5000. For other's experience on using the ScanScience kits for the Nikon 9000 have a look at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/message/788. Quote: <I agree, I purchased the wetmounting kit from scanscience and there's no

turning back - its better than the more expensive competition. I have

the Nikon 9000ED and my scans have improved enormously with the kit.

Plus Julio, the owner ensures great service.

Xavier Nuez Contemporary Photography

http://www.nuez.com >

A really good drum scanner (not all are equal) will technically be superior. More significantly, it is a very large step in quality and a small expense going from the Nikon to fluid scanning. I'd spend the difference in a really good printer and a computer with the highest possible RAM and a really good calibrated monitor. Hint: the old conventional glass carrier converts your film scanner into a virtual flatbed. Take a look at the difference in dry and fluid scanned chromes and the fluid scanning kits for the Nikon. If you have been dry scanning only, you'd be surprised at how much more the little machine can yet deliver!

http:www.scanscience.com

Autofocus is welcome but only useful if the film is perfectly flat. Fluid scanning ensures total flatness.

http://www.scanscience.com

Ellis: You stated <I print with a Canon iPF 5000 image PROGRAF printer, which I really like.>

 

I saw that printer being set up at a store and was amazed at its color gamut, color saturation and the incredible prints on glossy paper. However I can't say I really know it well or can compare it with others like the Epson 4800 / 3800. Could you please tell us more about what you like about this printer and the reason why you chose it in preference to other offerings? How are the runing costs? how about B&W, bronzing? clogging? profiles? etc. etc. Above all, what do you like about the image quality?

Thank you.

Stated:

<The true rez compared to a film or drum scanner is around 2000-2400 dpi depending on the film.>

 

The optical resolution of these Heidelberg drum scanners is:

 

Tango 11,000 dpi

 

S3900 19,000 dpi

 

Topaz 5080 dpi.

 

 

When citing drum scanners it is not a good idea to put them all in the same bag. It is much like using the word 'microscope' to apply to all microscopes. I am not personally aware of any drum scanner whose optical resolution is as low as 2000 dpi., yet the point is that drum scanners are quite a varied lot. A top drum scanner such as the S3900 would compare to a flatbed as a fine microscope would compare to a magnifying glass.

This data from http://www.scanscience.com, /technical library page, "Interesting Scanner Specs".

When comparing film and flatbed scanners it may be pointed out that the CCD density of film scanner's CCD's is usually greater than for most prosumer flatbed scanners and since there is no stepping motor, their resolution is not succeptible to numbers manipulation. Optical resolution for those scanners is (should be) a direct calculation from CCD density. It would be a welcome sign if flatbed scanner manufacturers would start doing the same as that would clear the issue. Some, like Creo, who have bragging rights to 'gold plated' CCD arrays do. And why not, you need $25K to buy their scanners.

Thanks Ellis for bringing the news.

 

Microtek's glass-less feature came with their i900 and 1800f, however their puny CCD arrays have distanced them from other film scanners such as the Nikon 9000.

 

Essentially these Microteks are large flatbed sized film scanners with the capability for scanning opaque materials also. (Film scanners are CCD scanners without glass in the lightpath from film to sensor). The potential advantage of the Microtek design over conventional film scanners such as the Imacon and Nikon 9000 is to add opaque material capability to the glass-less scanning capabilities that characterize film scanners in a scanner capable of handling large format film also.

 

Microtek is quite correct in that the glass in flatbed scanners degrades image quality. 2 mm of glass in between the lightpath path between film and sensors introduces image-degrading refraction: there is no free lunch. Other things equal, a refraction-free system is superior. What is new about Artixcan M1 is not the glass-less feature but the greater optical resolution. The 1800f was only 1800 dpi, this scanner is 4800 dpi. Microtek's numbers are not funny numbers generated by stepping motor tricks and 4800 dpi if true, does raise the bar to equal other film scanners such as the Nikon 9000.

 

The film-stretching feature of the carriers will help help attain uniform sharpness, however a better way is fluid scanning which is optically superior to dry scanning. Refraction-free fluidscanning has been used with the 1800f see http://www.scanscience.com. , and will be also available for this scanner.

 

As to where does this put the Epson V750 that is an interesting question. Refraction-free Fluidscanning is available for both and for all flatbed scanners so that is not the issue. From what has been released thus far, the big difference between the Epson and Microtek is the new, richer CCD array in the Artixcan M1 which, with its refraction-free glass-less feature puts it into the realm of film scanners. If all is as claimed, Microtek has with one swoop taken aim at the Nikon 9000 and the Epson offerings.

 

Given the Microtek's claimed 4800 dpi optical resolution, (assuming it is not a stepping motor funny number) we must assume a richer CCD array and that would indeed make the Microtek a full film scanner. Just recently Microtek had introduced the 1000XL with 3200 dpi in an XL format, selling for about $2.5K. How they have increased the CCD array to 4800 dpi over the same XL format for under $1K remains to be seen. The Nikon 9000 sells for about $2K, the price for this scanner is under $1K, wow!

Hi Elliott: Using glass carriers for fluid mounting is the same as converting your film scanner into a glass bed scanner. -A flat bed scanner being defined as one that has glass on the light path between the film an the sensors. Of course, because the Nikon 8000 is a much higher resolution scanner to start with, than low end resolution flatbeds, the results will be better than with cheaper flatbeds.

 

However there is a better and considerably cheaper way that does not degrade your film scanner and enables you to do fluidmounting without having glass in the light path from the film to the sensors.

Have a look at http://www.scanscience.com. With this system you can scan any thing that fits on the regular Nikon carrier.

Putting glass on the light path from the film to the sensors virtually converts the Nikon 9000 film scanner into a flatbed scanner!

 

Another better way of getting rid of the problem of film curvature is fluidmounting while avoiding the flatbed conversion, but not with the Nikon glass carrier. Yes you can scan 35 mm on the Nikon 9000 without having to convert it to a flatbed scanner.

http://www.scanscience.com

Hi Dave: Outgassing is one of the things to look into as some one mentioned however I'd give that a low degree of possibility because scanner manufacturers are quite well aware of the need to spec all plastics that go into the construction of the scanner so they do not contain volatile plasticizers. These can be present in the flexible components such as wiring covers, etc. However, because the over all content of such wiring is quite slight and the scanner is new I think there is a more likely cause: During transport, scanners go through very humid zones when shipped surface (as it's my guess is the case because of cost) and if the scanner was made, packaged and shipped during the humid summer months without enough dessicant, it is possible for airborne mildew to grow within the scanner and what you might be seeing is the mycellium (roots) which start as a white cloud before they fully develop into spores. Epson has had that problem before but it had been largely eliminated.

Condensation is another possibility if the scanner was brought in from the cold into a humid environment but from the tone of your letter I gather that is not the cause as it should have dissipated while using the scanner. Fogging of the scanner glass and optics is one reason for not fluidmounting directly on the glass bed as the vapours of some fluids can oxidize and leave residues with repeated use. See http://www.fluidmounting.com

As for now, a fogged scanner is useless and you should bring it back. This is a problem that as far as Epson is concerned had entirely disappeared. Fortunately Epson's service and guarantees are one of the best and I am sure they will look after you. I would insist on a new scanner as it is more than likely that the 'fog' pervades the whole scanner including the optics.

Good luck!

Hi: Fluidmounting is possible with all scanners including the Nikons but not for the Imacon. Check http://www.scanscience.com

 

Also as regards dMax it is worth remembering that the numbers are in a logarithmic scale. As such, what appears to be a very small increase is in reality a major jump. Unfortunately the numbers presented by manufacturers are seldom believable.

Hi Lester: thorugh experience I have found that the weight of an empty cartridge is about 26-30 grams. Weigh the cartridge that comes up empty according to Epson and verify that it is.

Regards.

Hi All: The words volatile and flammable need to be distiguished, thanks Ellis for helping me realize I have not explained it all that well. A liquid can be A) volatile and not flammable B) volatile and flammable or C) neither volatile nor flammable. The last of these are oils, they require painstaking cleaning because they remain unless removed. Category B) are volatile and flammable, they do not need post cleaning but are a safety hazard. The ScanScience fluids fit in category A, they evaporate clean but are not flammable at room temperature. The prime fluid in the ScanScience line was formulated to balance evaporation rate, working time and safety, for the operator, the film and if you use a drum scanner, the drum. If any of you have used other fluids try this experiment: put a bit of each fluid in two separate white polystyrene (not rubber) foam cups and see what happens after a few hours.

 

Regards,

Hi Anil: The additional refraction of the glass bed (V700) can't be ignored. The glass in the V7 is on the light path from film to sensors and this refraction cuts down on sharpness. The glassless design of the Microtek avoids the additional refraction but it presents other problems: dust. Secondly, neither scanner addresses one of the main problems with flatbed scanners: film flatness. To place all the emphasis on refraction while ignoring film curvature makes little sense. Thus, no matter how good the scanner's design is otherwise, ultimately, no scanner is better than its film mounting method. Film in neither scanner will be flat. Using the V750's fluidmounting adapter gets around the flatness issue but at the price of even more refraction stemming from the additional 2mm thick chunk of glass. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul! No solution!

 

With dry mounting, the two scanner's are a toss up between disadvantages. An enhanced fluid mounting method however is possible with both scanners. Look at http://www.wetmounting.com

With the ScanScience's adapters the Microtek glassless scanners will have the less refraction advantage, at least if your work area is relatively dust-free. However the Microtek 1800 (instead of the i900) will still be a better scanner than the Epson V or the i900 because of it has a better CCD than the i900 and is glassless, unlike the V700. The V-750's software and that for the 1800 are quite good. It might be worth a look at this issue before making a decision. At a minimum I personally would prefer having Silverfast full version. The color management software that comes with the V750 is also a big plus. It will save you wasted time and printing costs. Last but not least, think of service. With careful use you might never need it. Epson's service is reputedly excellent. Microtek's? (????) However, Microtek is an engineering company that makes solid, extremely well designed machines. Since you intend printing on the 7600 this tells me you are a pro. If such, skip the i900, it is a lower end machine. At a minimum, consider the V700 or the Microtek 1800 and if you have a few $ to spare, go for the new Microtek 1000 which has a rich CCD array. It will set you back about $2200 but is a more pro machine.

Cheers.

The V7 scanners are designed with an optimum film plane of 3 mm for high resolution. Wet mounting directly on the glass bed puts the film 3 mm away from the scanner's optimum plane of focus.

 

Glycerine to Erik's point is not highly flammable unlike some fluids however high flammability is not inherent in all fluids. ScanScience's fluids are not flammable at room temperature, see http://www.wetmounting.com

 

Epson does not recommend fluidmounting directly on the glass bed and for good reason. Treating the scanner's glass bed as an optical table and not the workshop's table is more in keeping with the scanner's design and recommendations.

Erik: Glycerine is a viscous hygroscopic liquid which is soluble in water. As it is not volatile, it must be removed completely by flushing with water. No doubt it did the job but there are more onvenient approaches to the problem that totally eliminate the post-cleaning procedures. To learn more about fluids and fluidmounting take a look at a website dedicated to fluidmounting: http://fluidmounting.com. While there take a look at the other pages on the Epson V-750.

Cheers,

Hi Toby: Fluid mounting used to be a pain when the film had to be de-oiled after scanning. This is not true now of all fluids. Fluidmounting is no more complicated than making a sandwdich and less messy in fact if you use the right fluid and tools. On the whole it will save you time, not only because it will reduce digital retouching but even more important, the improvements in image quality are totally unattainable by dry scanning. Film flatness is but one of the benefits of fluidmounting but just one of many others: better shadow detail, higher color saturation and greater dynamic range being just the few. Take a look at http://www.fluidmounting.com. If you are taking the trouble to do 4X5's the extra step will reward your efforts generously.

 

As for the multi-pass option in Silverfast, I looked at the image and it did show quite good shadow detail around the glasses shadows but without the original single pass image to compare it with, I could not see the extent to which the MP option succeeded. Perhaps you can show us the original? The technique has been promoted by Silverfast but their own examples failed to convince and was curious to see your results.

Cheers,

For what you should know about new fluids check on http://www.fluidmounting.com. The kits for the V series are quite competitively priced.

Regards,

Edward Ingold had it right on the reviews. Also users should be aware of the inherent problem with the Epson fluid mounting adapter due to the additional refraction from the heavy chunk of glass resulting in reduced resolution. There are ways around it, take a look at http://wetmounting.com

Hi Mark: In your experiement you set several constants 1) the same software; 2) (6400 dpi) 3) the same computer 4) The same bit depth and finally, against those you tested two variables, A) with ICE and B) without ICE. Now for the results: With ICE the scan time = 25 minutes, Without = 90 minutes, a 3.6 X ratio when ICE is used. As the only variable concerned the use of ICE your conclusions are absolutely correct. The time ratio was due to the use of ICE. Considering the additional and substantial computations needed by ICE the time ratio does not seem unreasonable at all. Although you had what in most cases is adequate RAM, relative to the size of the file it is not. You might reduce the times a bit further by increasing RAM if you are going to run such large files. However the whole excersize comes into question considering that you saw no improvement in resolution above 3200 dpi. (another posting). This also brings into question the a) Epson resolution 6400 dpi claim and b) the merit of the two lens system. Since there is no advantage to running at 6400 dpi, why then bother to find a solution to a problem which is not worth solving? If at least there was something to be gained by solving the 6400 dpi / ICE problem then yes, there would be an incentive but as that is not the case why bother? Run at 3200 dpi and forget about the promised land (6400 dpi, high resolution lens) and run ICE at reduced times. Spending a bundle on RAM might help but is it worth it?. Perhaps for other reasons. In years past, 1.5 GB RAM was lots, no longer now that files have grown in size. When editing in Photoshop at 16 bit colour depth more RAM will not hurt.

 

Having said all this, you do not need to borrow a NASA computer to run ICE at 6400 dpi (even if it was worth doing). There is another technique which does what ICE does, but does it optically instead of digitally, it is called Wet Mounting: It needs no more RAM and requires no digital manipulations. Its advantages go well beyond ICE's realm of dust and scratches: increased color saturation, contrast, grain reduction dynamic rage, better shadow detail etc. On balance, the extra time spent on wet mounting (with practice experienced users get it down to a couple of minutes per slide) pales in comparison with the computational times required by digital techniques during or after the scan. Chek it up on http://www.wetmounting.com. Wet mounting is not a new technique, it is the standard technique with the king of scanners, the drum scanner.

Good luck