upscan

Ilkka, You wrote:

"Ok, thanks for the info. I just kept hearing these stories of damaged transparencies in printing houses. I didn't know that it evaporates by itself".

 

The stories are indeed right, carelessness in handling film will ruin the film. I am glad you raised the issue because it highlights the difference in the techniques used for Wet Mounting with drum scanners and with flatbeds.

 

Wet Mounting for drum scanners requires much more handling and manipulation of the film, and pose more risk. If not done carefully the the result is the ruined originals that you read about.

 

Also with the Wet Mounting Stations used with drum scanners, large amounts of volatile fluid are exposed over a large area, while Wet Mounting for flatbeds involves handling tiny amounts of fluid of the order of a few millilitres.

 

The two Wet Mounting processes are equally beneficial to all types of scanners but are far simpler and safer for both the person and the film with flatbeds.

Cheers.

Julio

Ilkka, You wrote:

"Ok, thanks for the info. I just kept hearing these stories of damaged transparencies in printing houses. I didn't know that it evaporates by itself".

 

The stories are indeed right, carelessness in handling film will ruin the film. I am glad you raised the issue because it highlights the difference in the techniques used for Wet Mounting with drum scanners and with flatbeds.

 

Wet Mounting for drum scanners requires much more handling and manipulation of the film, and pose more risk. If not done carefully the the result is the ruined originals that you read about.

 

Also with the Wet Mounting Stations used with drum scanners, large amounts of volatile fluid are exposed over a large area, while Wet Mounting for flatbeds involves handling tiny amounts of fluid of the order of a few millilitres.

 

The two Wet Mounting processes are equally beneficial to all types of scanners but are far simpler and safer for both the person and the film with flatbeds.

Cheers.

Julio

Kryn: With Wet Mounting kits you can do 6X17 panoramas and all other intermediate MF film sizes. The CCD array in the 1800f is a higher breed than in the Epson and should be capable of greater resolution. A higher dMAx is also one of the claimed features. Is it a good choice? Not because of the glassless carrier as dealt with below.

 

As others point out, comparative tests show a drop in quality coming down from drum scanners to the 4990, however we must remember that only the drum scanners used wet mounting for the tests and that the scans for all flatbeds were dry mounted.

 

Allan, you wrote:

"If it wasn't for Newton Rings, the Epson 4990 or the CanoScan 9950F would be great. I currently have the CanonSscan and it's driving me nuts. I get Newton Rings on almost all my 4x5 scans. If I were you, I go with the Artixscan 1800F and not worry about those damn rings. I will probably get rid of my Canon for the 1800F"

 

Wet mounting totally eliminates Newton rings but that is only one of its many advantages. The others are enhanced resolution, brilliance and color saturation, a creamy smooth grain, reduced or eliminated dust and scratches. Unlike all other dust and scratch reduction methods, which degrade the image, Wet Mounting does quite the opposite. The 4990 is a good scanner but is not on a par with a good drum scanner and the last thing it can afford is anything that downgrades its performance.

 

Some scanners (Creo) come with anti-Newton glass and let you put the slide directly on the glass. You pay for that in droves. A new Creo costs in the $25,000 + range. Anti-Newton glass comes in various grades; at its best it is very expensive, it features surface irregularities on a micro scale controlled within wavelengths to eliminate the interference waves that cause Newton rings. Ultimately, all AN glass downgrades the image, and is far from an ideal solution.

 

Another consideration is the scanner's optimal plane of focus. The 4990 has fixed focus therefore what ever you do should not put the film plane out of optimum focus. The wet mounting kits take care of that.

 

You can learn more about wet mounting at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/

 

Cheers!

Ilkka: You wrote:

< Can't say that I would put oil on my slides just to scan them on a flatbed. Wet mounting on a drum scanner is acceptable because you will get all the information from the slide in the process, so the slide is no longer needed. On a 4990, uh, no thanks.>

 

There are several assumptions in your posting that need revising:

1) That once the slides are wet mounted for scanning in a drum scanner the slide can be or is discarded as it is no longer needed. Wet Mounting does not change the slide so and once the fluid evaporates the slide returns to their original condition. The fluids now used evaporate without trace leaving the slide or neg in the same condition as before.

 

2) That the drum scanner extracts all the information from the slide.

Not all drum scanners are equal and some are better than others, some worse than others. Their output is dependent on the quality of the scanner and on the operator therefore the information captured by a drum scanner can fall far short of that in the original. No process that involves a transducer is perfect, therefore putting your slides to any drum scanner on a sacrificial basis would be a grave error. Fortunately nothing is lost and the process can be repeated.

 

3) You refer to Wet Mounting as "Oil Mounting". Oils are no longer used. Oils are non volatile and had to be removed after scanning. The fluids now used in wet mounting are oil free, and evaporate from the slide once used, leaving no residues. They leave of their own accord without having to be evicted. One exceptional supplier still offers scanning oils, frankly I do not know why or who would want to use them.

 

Many people are using the 4990 and other flatbed scanners for wet mounting discovering to their amazement greater brilliance, sharpness and color saturation, creamy smooth grain and cleaned up scratches and dust. The optics of dry scanning are an impediment to obtaining the best data transfer and can never achieve equal results to those attained with Wet Mounting. The reason why makers of flatbed scanners have shied away from wet mounting, except for Creo is purely a marketing issue. The same advantages that accrue from Wet Mounting on a drum scanner apply to those obtained on a flatbed, the optics apply equally to both processes. Keep in mind that when wet mounting on flatbed scanners, the scanner's critical focus plane must be retained for best results.

 

You can learn more about Wet Mounting in

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/

Hi David: it can get get better yet. Look at what Wet Mounting can do at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/

Julio

Nancy: Look at what others did with exactly the same project and their amazing results at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/

Hi Soren: A great many people are using the Epson 4990 for 6X6 scanning and are happy with the results. It is pushing it a little with 35 mm. Film scanners are all more expensive and because cost is an issue the 4990 is your best bet. You can use the 4870 and the 4180 which is just as sharp as the 4990. Since you do not intend to use the scanner for scanning larger transparencies than 6X6, the 4180 should be a good and least expensive choice.

Cheers!

It is the change in the film's humidity that causes the curling. It only takes a slight change in temperature for the film's humidity to change. Curling occurs because a change in humidity causes the emulsion side to expand or shrink while the backing does not undergo a matching dimensional change.

 

With flatbed scanners this results in the film coming closer to the glass bed and Newton rings. In all scanners the result is loss of sharpness because the film is no longer at the scanner's plane of optimum focus.

 

The only one way to prevent this is to use wet mounting. Wet mounting not only maintains the film at the optimum plane of focus but cleans up unsightly grain, increases sharpness and minimizes dust and scratches. You can learn about in the Yahoo group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/

Nathan: There is only one dust, scratch and grain reduction technique that works on all films: Wet Mounting. One big plus of Wet Mounting is that it does not degrade the image, it enhances it. You can read about it in another posting in this forum, "Is there a program to eliminate scratches from scanned film? by Michael Ivnitsky "

To learn more about wet mounting, there is a new Yahoo group dedicated to Wet Mounting and enhanced techniques for advanced imaging. You find it at, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/ There, you can see several photos that illustrate the advantages of Wet Mounting. In the files section there is a samples file that demonstrates the effects of Wet Mounting on dust and scratches and in the photos section there are Kodachrome images that show the effect on grain. For Wet Mounting on the Nikon you can write directly to me at scanmax@sympatico.ca

Richard: Resolution is but one of the factors that defines a scanner. There are many others that are equally important. Scanner manufactures know that consumers are fixed on easily remembered numbers that can be hyped up by using friendly test protocols. The dynamic range and dMAx of the scanner define the over all brilliance of the image and need to be included in any scaner evaluation. Accordingly, the printer can not be the lone deciding factor.

Hi Michael: As others have already indicated, dust and scratch software programs all degrade the image.

 

Dust blocks incident light; scratches act somewhat differently: they cause incident light to be reflected and scattered about. Accordingly, the only effective way of dealing with dust scratches is optically. When wet, dust is less opaque and will transmit some or most of the incident light. Filling scratches with a special fluid with the right index of refraction prevents incident light hitting the scratch from being randomly reflected and scattered about and can diminish its effects or eliminate them altogether.

 

This brings us to Wet Mounting. Wet Mounting deals with all these problems optically and in the same vain it clears up unsightly grain because its roots are analogous, i.e. random reflection and scattering of incident light. Wet Mounting magically dissolves grain, diminishes or eliminates dust and scratches and if that was not enough, it enhances the over all brilliance of the image.

 

Software techniques for dust and grain removal ALL degrade the image and others that use IR do not work on silver based films at all. Wet Mounting works on all films and enhances the image and scanner. Wet Mounting is like getting a better scanner.

 

Wet Mounting has been one of the factors that give big buck Drum Scanners a distinct and until recently, a unique advantage. Turnkey kits are now available for all flatbed scanners that make it a new ball game for its users. To learn more about wet mounting, there is a new Yahoo group dedicated to Wet Mounting and enhanced techniques for advanced imaging. You find it at, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/ There, you can see several photos that illustrate the advantages of Wet Mounting. In the files section there is a samples file that demonstrates the effects of Wet Mounting on dust and scratches and in the photos section there are Kodachrome images that show the effect on grain.

 

Cheers!

Hi Isaac:

I fully agree with Ted Harris? recommendations on the choice of a scanner. Furthermore, if you want best results with 35 mm, a dedicated film scanner will be called for. For medium format, the Epson is a good scanner and in the price range the best of its kind but as you are doing professional work you may be able to justify a better scanner, the Microtek 1800f. (Skip the Microtek 900f, a poor cousin).

 

The Microtek 1800f is IMO in the top tier of ?affordable? scanners, a superior machine with higher dMAx, better resolution than the Epson and manually adjustable focus via software and it comes with Silverfast 6Ai. Resolution numbers can be confusing because of the inflated numbers for the Epsons for Dmax and resolution, which everybody knows are not real and I would disregard. The 1800f will cost you double the Epson or about $1000 but with it you get a superior scanner. For medium format the 1800f should do you admirably well.

 

You can furthermore upgrade the 4990 or the 1800f to scanner?s that cost many times more with Wet Mounting. After proof-scanning the regular dry-way using Doug?s MF holder for faster workflow, you can apply Wet Mounting to the keepers to obtain the best imaging possible. I would not advice you to wet mount directly to the glass in a flatbed. There are turnkey kits available that will get you running quickly with optimum results. You can find out about those in

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/

Hi Edmundo:

You have two separate requirements, 35 mm slides and the larger B&W and your objective is archiving. I gather from what you do not say that you do not intend making salon prints therefore memories are what you want to preserve. There are several issues that I will try to deal with:

 

A) MULTIPLE FORMATS -Because your material spans many different formats you will need a flatbed scanner. The question is which. Scanner resolution is an issue if you want to makeprints from 35 mm larger than 5X7. If your outlay is restricted to $500 then the Epson 4990 is your only choice. The upper tier of ?affordable? flatbed scanners ends with the Microtek 1800f. It will cost you double the Epson 4990, about $1000 but then you will have a much better scanner. It comes with Silverfast 6Ai which IMO is the best software. (I?d skip the Microtek 900f) The 1800f also offers manually adjustable focus, something that the Epson does not offer. It is a good alternative to a film scanner, which can cost you much more. Because your work involves 4X5, your only practical alternative is a flat bed.

 

B) WORKFLOW: Dealing with a large number of slides requires attention to workflow. In circumstances such as yours, not all slides or negs are of equal sentimental value and that requires a different strategy so that you do not end up spending the rest of your lifetime on the project. You may want to separate your slides into groups, one group consisting of slides that can be scanned as a group of say, 4 to 6 slides and those that need to be scanned individually. Group scanning can only be done on a flatbed. This is quite different to batch scanning which scans one image at a time based on pre-set directions. The Epson 4990 and the Microtek 1800f have large illumination windows of 8X10 and are ideal for group scanning. You can scan at a higher resolution in either scanner, then archive the group image as one file, or in Photoshop crop and save each frame later, as individual files. The more important images can be scanned one at a time.

 

C) DUST AND SCRATCHES. -Old material for archiving requires especial attention to imperfections such as dust and scratcheswhich more than anything else, will spoil the memories. By far the best way to deal with these is Wet Mounting, the only known technique which reduces / eliminates dust and scratches without degrading the image. It is also the ideal technique for B&W and restoration work. You can do wet mounting with almost any scanner but a flatbed scanner will give greater flexibility as it will handle all formats. You may use wet mounting on all images or reserve it for images that deserve the white glove treatment. Over and above dust and scratches, Wet mounting reduces or eliminates grain. Wet mounting improves the brilliance of the image and is like getting a scanner triple the price.

 

Recently, people involved in a project identical to yours used the Epson 4990 to scan hundreds of slides using Wet Mounting. You can find samples of their work in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/. Look in the files section under samples.

Hi Frank: the rule of thumb is that you need about 4X as much RAM as your file size to run comfortably. You can get by with 2X but do not expect an easy ride on 4 G RAM. The MAC is capable of handling larger files and 4G is within the capabilities of its new OS as I understand it reason why Adobe makes the statement. Windows XP pro should also be able to read 3G. As far as very very large files, on a PC you will have to wait for the new 64 bit OS.

Not to be ignored is why you need such large files. Do you intend to do murals at high res? If not you may need to look into it and save yourself a lot of room in your HD and ....headaches.

Cheers!

Jay has done an admirable job with his reply. Let me add one bit to his explanations: Album and other image cataloguing systems like ACDC (an excellent program by the way) do not take your image from somewhere in your hard drive and plunk them elsewhere in an "album". What they do is they hyperlink their catalogue database ( the album) to the image wherever it resides in the hard disk.

 

As for CS2 Jay has said it pretty much as it is. A superb program able to take you from here to the moon. The problem is that at this point you are just interested in learning to drive your wheelbarrow to the corner store. As you grow.....is a long, long way away and yes, CS" is a bottomless superb program that few people ever master whole. Save your money and do as Jay suggests, and eventually if you decide to go extra terrestrial, go for CS3 or CS4 if you have grown that much.

Cheers!

In my experience multi-sampling has given me no advantages whatsoever. The Silverfast people in touting the advantages of multi-sampling posted an image which did show slightly reduced noise but at the expense of sharpness. As to software Vuescan does have the advantage of usability with many different scanners as John points out. That said, I believe all other advantages are with Silverfast. If you are the type that is quite happy with elements, Vuescan may be in your menu. If you are happy with nothing less that Photoshop, Silverfast should keep you happy.

As to the differences between 14 bit and 16 bit scanning you are unlikely to see the differences in print because of the reduced gamut of printers.

 

I would completely disregard the multi-sampling option as a basis for selecting any scanner.

Cheers

Stephen: Take a look at the work of Kent and Brandon Gale who have done exactly what you are setting about to do. These two gentlemen scanned hundreds of slides on two Epson 4990 and 4870 scanners and posted some of their results. They used Wet Mounting with these scanners with espectacular results. While all digital and IR dust removing methods degrade the image to some extent, Wet Mounting enhances the image and is the best and most effective way of removing dust. It even works on silver negs where other techniques dare not thread. You can see some of their the results in the samples file in

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/

 

Wet Mounting also gets rid of the optical deficiences inherent in dry scanning and is one of the factors that gives drum scanners a quality edge. The turnkey kits now available for all flat bed scanners make it a totally new ball game. If you have a good scanner like an Epson 4870, 4990, or Canon 9950 the Wet Mounting upgrade is worth considering. You will have absolutely no incompatibility issues with very old slides and will be able to accomodate all odd formats that your collection may include.

Cheers!

Brian: To materially improve the quality of your scans you need to tackle the optics of scanning. A simple and most effective way of doing that is wet mounting. You can find about wet mounting from:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/

Julio

The reason why better film scanners appear to increase grain is because their greater sharpness and contrast make them capable of reproducing it. They only digitize what is there in the first place and do not create it. With flatbed scanners their ability to reproduce grain increases in proportion to their quality but seldom matures to the degree that it does in the better film scanners simply because seldom they achieve the same resolution as film excanners except for the very expensive CCD scanners like the Creo.

 

The reason why grain is deemphasized in drum scanners is because all those scanners use wet mounting. Wet mounting changes the optics of scanning to a great degree. In dry scanning there is considerable light scathering at the grain, the same occurs with dust and scratches.

 

Other advantages such as Newton ring elimination and film flatness are part of what makes wet mounting attractive but the main thing for me at least is the greater brilliance and tonal range of wet mounted scans. It is an additional process of course though not cumbersome.

 

A new yahoo group dedicated to Wet Mounting and related scanning issues deals with the subject, you can access it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/

 

Doug's Yahoo group is another good source of information on related scanning issues.

On a flatbed, the plane of optimum focus (POF) should be midway between the glass bed and the plane on which the unmounted film normally rests. However, film curvature plays games with those calculations and for that reason dry mounted slides can not achieve optimum focus throughout the image. The mount does not restrain curvature, the only way that can be done is by wet mounting. The advantages of Wet mounting however extend far beyond into the optics. There is much scattering in dry scanning that degrades the image, reason why drum scanners (big bucks) use wet mounting exclusively. A new yahoo group dedicated to wet mounting and related scanning issues deals with the subject, you can access it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/

There are several files and samples that you can see there to learn about the technique.

There is a dramatic improvement in tonal range and brilliance of any slide when wet mounted. The optics of wet mounting are completely different to those in dry mounting. Dry mounting is so common because manufacturers do not wish to make their scaners appear more difficult to use and because it easy. Wwith all the talk about ICE it is amazing that few people know that wet mounting can be tremendously effective in removing scratches in colour as well as where ICE can't, i.e. B&W silver negs. Wet mounting ensures a fixed plane of focus that is even throughout, eliminates Newton rings etc. etc. For more on wet mounting look at the yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/ OR take a look at the file http://www3.sympatico.ca/gluemax/ScanMax/scanmaxbrochure6.pdf

Simon: Jean Louis said it all for you and me.

Good luck.

JA: My point did not relate to the quality of the scans obtainable with the 5400, indded I did not use or purchase one as was clear from my posting. I do not doubt your comments are right about the quality of the scans, which are eccoed by other users. Just the same the complaints about the quality of this scanner, in terms of reliability and faulty units can not be disregarded either, even if you do not agree with me on the perceived skimpy quality of the holders.

Robert: I took a lok at the scanner and its film carriers inspired little conficence. They look cheap! That and the problems several people have reported puts it for me in the blacklist. Do not put any credence in the resolution numbers, I do not think those make any difference you will see. I bought the Canon 4000US and find it excellent. No problems from me or any other users that I know and its film carriers are decent. I use Vuescan but have Silverfast 6Ai which is by far my preferred choice. I understand that Lasersoft now has the software for it.

Paul: There are quality variations with scanners one of them the optimum focus points. It is possible your scanner was at fault though I doubt it. Another issue is film warping; it makes comparisons between scanners and evaluations difficult. Most users have adequate results with Epson's 3200 and 4800 scanners but if yours is way out of focus, returning it is the right and only move. However, before you do that you may wish to check your own unit. The best way to do that is to use finely scored slide mount glass that has been tinted and then placing the glass slide at various heights from the glass bed, checking the shims and total height with a micrometer, scan the test slide at the highest resolution and view the scan magnified in PS, sufficitently until the change in sharpness due to a change in height is readily detected.

That said, all flatbeds suffer from lower DMax, a loss in the richness of tones you see in the slide. One among several reasons is the dry mounting method which is standard for flatbeds which is, is I think, their Achilles tendon, as opposed to wet mounting which is the technique used in drum scanners. Most of us can not justify or afford the sky high cost of a drum scanner but we can afford to use wet mounting methods to rev up a flatbed. In the Photo i review I did notice higher contrast and a slightly better image for the Canon 9900f than the 3200 although the review as I recall, they tought the 3200 image was better. The 4800 with the pro software package is an excellent deal especially the Silverfast 6Ai and the Monaco color calibration software. I might if pushed (really hard) give up Silverfast for Vuescan but I would not do without Monaco, it has saved me lots of trouble. I would miss that in the Canon.

Whatever scanner you choose you can apply wet mounting methods to either, and get results you did not know your scanner was capable of. You will be surprised how with wet mounting your chromes come alive. You can learn more about wet mounting in

http://www3.sympatico.ca/gluemax/ScanMax/Scan%2bBrochure3.pdf

 

PS: That turnkey kit provides the tools needed to optimize your focus point. Cheers.