Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 67 Velvia, CCD Scan, drum scan and repro  (Read 2934 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« on: January 12, 2013, 06:49:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I made a small experiment with a high contrast Velvia 67 slide. I happened to have a hi end drum scan and a home made CCD scan of that slide. Now I put it on a lightbox and shot a few repro shots using my DSLR (Sony Alpha 99). I did no real effort on the setup, it is just a demo. In particular, the slide and the camera are not well aligned so part of the slide has bad focus. Also, the slide has not been removed from the slide mount for the repro. Anyway here come the samples:

The DSMP Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro scan:


The Drum scan, as interpreted by the scanning firm:


The repro:


This is the same as above lifting shadows as much as possible in Lightroom. Shows full DR of repro shot.




I also include the "raw" file from the drum scan:



Full size JPEGS are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/ScanOrShoot/JPEG/

And raw files are here (!!! LARGE FILES !!!): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/ScanOrShoot/

The scanning service I used was: http://www.high-end-scans.de, they made this scan at a very low price as it was part of a test I made. According to their price list I guess it would cost around 88. High End Scans was very nice to do with.

A poster suggested http://cheapdrumscanning.com/ having much lower prices. They also have some comparisons:

http://cheapdrumscanning.com/why-drum-scan/shadow-detail/
http://cheapdrumscanning.com/why-drum-scan/shadow-detail/

The way I see it, the repro method may be workable if you to scan large volume. It is very fast. My setup was far from optimal, but it seems you can get good results with some more effort.


Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 10:26:21 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Gel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


Excuse me while I bust a cap


« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2013, 11:41:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting.

The drum scan is really clean compared to the flatbed, but that's just wet scanning and dust removal in action.
I kinda like the warmth of the original though, with the drum scan being a little too blue in places.

The sony repro is most interesting, and something that is honed properly might yield the best results of all.
Logged

Chris Giles Photography
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2013, 11:47:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The DSMP is not a flatbed but a dedicated MF filmscanner in the same league as the Nikon Coolscan LS 9000,  that said, the Nikon may be better.

Regarding color, it depends much on the scanner operator and his/hers preferences.

To add some perspective, the drum scan would cost about 88 a piece. The drum scanner itself is probably 100000$ and up, but used drum scanners can be have cheap today. You still need to consider maintenance. Neither the DSMP nor the Nikon 9000 are any longer made. I bought my DSMP for about 3000$ new, many years ago.

Best regards
Erik

Interesting.

The drum scan is really clean compared to the flatbed, but that's just wet scanning and dust removal in action.
I kinda like the warmth of the original though, with the drum scan being a little too blue in places.

The sony repro is most interesting, and something that is honed properly might yield the best results of all.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 10:27:00 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Gel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


Excuse me while I bust a cap


« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2013, 05:08:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I think it boils down to affordability.

I recently acquired an RZ, lovely thing, lovely negatives but will I take anything to justify the cost of a drum scan when my H3D39 is to hand, I don't know.
Logged

Chris Giles Photography
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582


« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2013, 06:42:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik,

if you're paying $200 for a drum scan, you might want to look elsewhere. I'm sure there are scanning operators who are willing to scan a large file for less than that.

For instance, Tim Parkin's scanning service(in the UK):

http://cheapdrumscanning.com/

I've not used his services(since I have my own drum scanner, and there's US-based scanner operator's I'd use if I didn't have my own scanner since I'm here in California). However, I've ready many good things about his scans in relation to sharpness(but not over-sampling by using too-small an aperture) and color density/accuracy in his scans relating to the originals supplied by the clients.

-Dan
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 06:44:57 PM by DanielStone » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2013, 10:38:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have been informed the $200 price I have given is way to high, it should be 88! I'm very sorry!

I have not paid $200 but the normal price for a 6096PPI 6x7 scan is 88 at the service I used, http://www.high-end-scans.de/high-end-scan-trommelscan-preise.html.

I didn't know Tim was scanning commercially, thanks for the link. I'm quite happy with the DSMP I have, mostly, but I may have some images in need of drum scanning and Tim's prices seem to be much more affordable.

Best regards
Erik


Erik,

if you're paying $200 for a drum scan, you might want to look elsewhere. I'm sure there are scanning operators who are willing to scan a large file for less than that.

For instance, Tim Parkin's scanning service(in the UK):

http://cheapdrumscanning.com/

I've not used his services(since I have my own drum scanner, and there's US-based scanner operator's I'd use if I didn't have my own scanner since I'm here in California). However, I've ready many good things about his scans in relation to sharpness(but not over-sampling by using too-small an aperture) and color density/accuracy in his scans relating to the originals supplied by the clients.

-Dan
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 10:29:51 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2013, 12:02:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

My setup indicates that you may achieve excellent repro if you get a decent setup.

I have added links to a lower price option in the original posting.

Best regards
Erik

I think it boils down to affordability.

I recently acquired an RZ, lovely thing, lovely negatives but will I take anything to justify the cost of a drum scan when my H3D39 is to hand, I don't know.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 10:30:58 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

stevebri
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2013, 10:16:50 AM »
ReplyReply

i created a great set up to scan my old 120 and 220 rolls of film.

I bought a decent Kaiser copystand, also found a great Bowens illumitran on the Bay and then used my P25 my Phamiya 120 Macro and my DF body... tethered to Lightroom.

A couple of points....

this is a quick and easy set up for volume work and the quality is more than adequate for cataloging, web and the odd print.

For real real real FAB images i get them drum scanned but for digitizing my old stuff to a very good standard this is quick.

you can create or find on the web a DNG profile to convert B&W negs to positives in LR.

Colour print film I never used much so what little I had got scanned
35mm negs and slides got scanned.

I've almost finished backing everything up so will soon sell the Kaiser/Bowens rig.

The benefits of this set up where...

Time....I can click a whole roll of 120 before the scanner would have warmed up.
Cost... A decent Imacon is still as much as a digital back
Flexibility.... My files are 16 bit MF raws... so they capture all that was there

NO DUST....!

Did I mention NO DUST...! Cool

Steve
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2013, 04:59:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Nice to see you posting again, Steve. Kinda reminds me of the old BJP days a bit...

;-)

Rob C
Logged

SCHWARZZEIT
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2013, 09:23:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Erik, thanks for the kind words. However, you're spreading a wrong impression about my drum scan prices. It's not as expensive as you've stated. Currently a 1.5 GB scan costs EUR 69.00 for a raw scan and EUR 88.00 including basic color correction which is what I applied to your scan as well.

The raw scan is basically how the scanner sees the film. It comes with a generic ICC profile that I do not use. Instead I assign my working profile eciRGBv2 and start to manually correct each scan from the raw data. The corrected scan that I gave you is an accurate representation of the original slide on a 5000K lightbox. I tend to leave the file rather soft to give my clients a neutral base that is still very flexible to work on. It really only matters what you can do with the file. Usually a photographer has his or her own final interpretation. Those who are very experienced in color corrections can just take the cheaper raw scan option.

You can easily lift the shadows from the corrected scan to see all shadow detail that has been recorded on the film.
I think you caught a lens flare on the repro shot. Masking the lightbox helps to keep the image contrast up and avoid flaring.

-Dominique
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2013, 10:25:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Awfully sorry! I just looked at your price list and compared my file size with the price list. I'll try to correct all references!

Best regards
Erik



Erik, thanks for the kind words. However, you're spreading a wrong impression about my drum scan prices. It's not as expensive as you've stated. Currently a 1.5 GB scan costs EUR 69.00 for a raw scan and EUR 88.00 including basic color correction which is what I applied to your scan as well.

The raw scan is basically how the scanner sees the film. It comes with a generic ICC profile that I do not use. Instead I assign my working profile eciRGBv2 and start to manually correct each scan from the raw data. The corrected scan that I gave you is an accurate representation of the original slide on a 5000K lightbox. I tend to leave the file rather soft to give my clients a neutral base that is still very flexible to work on. It really only matters what you can do with the file. Usually a photographer has his or her own final interpretation. Those who are very experienced in color corrections can just take the cheaper raw scan option.

You can easily lift the shadows from the corrected scan to see all shadow detail that has been recorded on the film.
I think you caught a lens flare on the repro shot. Masking the lightbox helps to keep the image contrast up and avoid flaring.

-Dominique
Logged

nightfire
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2013, 08:52:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I recently did some tests with a repro stand, my P45+ and the M645 120mm macro lens. A "scan" of a 6x7 TMX negative yielded slightly yet noticeably more detail than my Epson V750 flatbed. This would be consistent with max. theoretical performance (pixel width of the P45+ = 7240px, negative width = 2.75", resulting in approx. 2620dpi) and the resolution of the V750 which is commonly pegged at around 2400dpi. Why oh why did they have to stop selling the Coolscan 9000...  Undecided
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1015


WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2013, 11:25:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't despair. Hopefully this scanner will come soon.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=plustek+opticfilm+120&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ta
Eduardo

I recently did some tests with a repro stand, my P45+ and the M645 120mm macro lens. A "scan" of a 6x7 TMX negative yielded slightly yet noticeably more detail than my Epson V750 flatbed. This would be consistent with max. theoretical performance (pixel width of the P45+ = 7240px, negative width = 2.75", resulting in approx. 2620dpi) and the resolution of the V750 which is commonly pegged at around 2400dpi. Why oh why did they have to stop selling the Coolscan 9000...  Undecided
Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 794


« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2013, 02:51:00 PM »
ReplyReply


It has actually already started shipping, at least in Germany.
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1015


WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2013, 10:23:25 PM »
ReplyReply

It has actually already started shipping, at least in Germany.

Please report any info regarding its scanning qualities in real use.
Eduardo
Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 794


« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2013, 05:15:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Please report any info regarding its scanning qualities in real use.
Eduardo

Oh I don't own one, I just read it over at http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00ZpLQ?start=230
I'm waiting for some professional reviews before considering a purchase.
Logged
timparkin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2013, 10:10:35 AM »
ReplyReply

...
For instance, Tim Parkin's scanning service(in the UK):

http://cheapdrumscanning.com/

I've not used his services(since I have my own drum scanner, and there's US-based scanner operator's I'd use if I didn't have my own scanner since I'm here in California). However, I've ready many good things about his scans in relation to sharpness(but not over-sampling by using too-small an aperture) and color density/accuracy in his scans relating to the originals supplied by the clients.

Hi Folks - Just thought I'd let you know I'm still running the service (I should update the website) and MF scans at 4000dpi are 12 but I don't do any dust spotting or post processing. To make sure you get clean scans I do use Aztek mylar as I was getting dust spots inside cheaper mylar and I've also built my own ramshackle dust booth so you get very little dust. I use a HCT (hutch) colour target so transparencies come out fairly well matched (I check occasionally on a Just Normlicht light box).

5x4's and 6x17's are 15 and 10x8's are 60 (both 2000dpi).

I've had a look at the different scans and for colour the Minolta is very good but not very good in shadows. The camera shot is great in the shadows but not very good in highlights and loses small colour details - it appears to have slightly less resolution than the Minolta - Dynamic range for transparencies can be very high and I'd be interested in how much you can get out of the highlights - perhaps a blend of highlight and shadow?

I'm loathe to comment on the drum scan as people have different priorities I'd be happy to do a side by side scan if you're interested Erik? I've also got a well set up Epson I could put it through?

Tim

Tim

Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2013, 12:10:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Tim,

Those prices are OK. I feel sorry I gave wring impressions about Dominique's scans, but I tried to use his price list. I'm glad that we sorted that out.

Most thankful about your comments, pretty much what I have seen. My take on the issue is that the camera shots are good enough for digitizing old pictures. My setup was very simple (Quick and Dirty) but you can make an optimized setup and handle may slides in very short time.

Drum scans seem to be worthwhile. The scanner is somewhat in between. I have also tried Ektar 100, and found it quite difficult to scan on my stuff.

Thanks for posting!

Best regards
Erik


Hi Folks - Just thought I'd let you know I'm still running the service (I should update the website) and MF scans at 4000dpi are 12 but I don't do any dust spotting or post processing. To make sure you get clean scans I do use Aztek mylar as I was getting dust spots inside cheaper mylar and I've also built my own ramshackle dust booth so you get very little dust. I use a HCT (hutch) colour target so transparencies come out fairly well matched (I check occasionally on a Just Normlicht light box).

5x4's and 6x17's are 15 and 10x8's are 60 (both 2000dpi).

I've had a look at the different scans and for colour the Minolta is very good but not very good in shadows. The camera shot is great in the shadows but not very good in highlights and loses small colour details - it appears to have slightly less resolution than the Minolta - Dynamic range for transparencies can be very high and I'd be interested in how much you can get out of the highlights - perhaps a blend of highlight and shadow?

I'm loathe to comment on the drum scan as people have different priorities I'd be happy to do a side by side scan if you're interested Erik? I've also got a well set up Epson I could put it through?

Tim

Tim


Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad