Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Drum vs Flatbed scans...any sample photos to compare?  (Read 2726 times)
iluvmycam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


WWW
« on: June 29, 2013, 08:18:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Drum vs Flatbed scans...anyone have sample photos done both ways to compare?
Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1231



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2013, 08:33:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Google's your friend...

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners/
Logged
iluvmycam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2013, 08:24:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Wow, not much of a difference. I thought one would get much better results for a $25,000 drum scanner.

Logged
langier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 658



WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2013, 10:29:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Cheaper, faster, better technology marches onward!
Logged

Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6190


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2013, 10:46:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Wow, not much of a difference. I thought one would get much better results for a $25,000 drum scanner.

I wouldn't base any conclusions on a single comparison, single format, single crop.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
John Nollendorfs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 331


« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2013, 11:05:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Scanning is as much about the operator, as the technology used. Also, the difference is most manifested on difficult (underexposed dark) transparencies.
Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1231



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2013, 11:56:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Flatbeds aren't as good for scanning 35mm as a dedicated film scanner as I've been told and seen in samples. And flatbeds are the only option for large format captures though this thread...

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk

...sort of turned that on its head.

Logged
iluvmycam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2013, 12:08:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I wouldn't base any conclusions on a single comparison, single format, single crop.

I'd agree. I'd hope some member here has done some work in this are to show their photos side by side.

I've only used flatbed myself.
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1970



WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2013, 02:18:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow, not much of a difference. I thought one would get much better results for a $25,000 drum scanner.

It used to be that a $25,000 drum scanner was the only way to get good results. Sorta like how a $2,000 laser printer used to be the only way to get good printouts on your desktop. I still remember when my lab bought an early LaserJet and stood around marveling at the output.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5532


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2013, 02:46:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow, not much of a difference. I thought one would get much better results for a $25,000 drum scanner.

It really depends on the film format (as already mentioned) and the dynamic range of both the film and the scanner. A flatbed scanner will not be able to go into a slightly under exposed chrome although should be able to get the full density range from a color or B&W neg. I've had scans made from drum scanners, I've done my own scans on an Imacon Flextight (not a drum scanner-it's CCD but is good with small format film) and an Epson 750 scanner for 8x10 film. As long as you profile the scanner (any of them) and the film is well exposed all 3 scanner types do decent jobs. The key is work at true optimal resolutions for the flatbed (and Imacon) and not do any interpolation. I also tend to scan flat and make corrections in Photoshop or Lightroom vs trying to make fine tuning adjustments in the scanner software.

Obviously there's an ultimate question of what your final output is gonna be. A drum scanner can scan below the resolution of the film and can produce really huge image files that can be printed really large. But if your final output is going to be smaller then the advantages of the drum scanner tend to give way. Sorry, I don't have any head to head comparisons...
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2013, 05:05:03 PM »
ReplyReply

There are some real limitations of flatbeds.
-Whatever the designed CCD resolution, there is still a Gaussian blur effect from light scatter as it hits each side of the glass plate. The fluid immersion models handle this a bit better.
-There is also the ability of the holders to keep the film flat and in the plane of focus. The larger the film size the more likely the film will sag.
-Beware the infrared dust removal lamp! I noticed the film had a much bigger sag bulge after trying the "ice" dust removal. it goes in flat, it comes out with a pillow shape to the holder support.


Logged
werner from aurora
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21



« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2013, 06:24:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I have the Epson 4990 and use Silverfast software that cost almost as much as the scanner. It is capable of excellent scans, it does not however have a great dynamic range. Pictures that are mostly in the middle can, however produce excellent results. This was taken with my RZ67. After the Rain by Werner Brodbeck, on Flickr] After the Rain by Werner Brodbeck, on Flickr[/url]
Logged
werner from aurora
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21



« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2013, 06:25:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, I don't know why the picture turned up twice. P.S. I also use an aftermarket film holder with ANR glass insert to keep it flat.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 06:44:35 PM by werner from aurora » Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1552


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2013, 11:36:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I own a Epson 750 but use a Kodak IQsmart 3. It will rival many drum scanners-but not like a top of the line Aztec in the hands of a skilled tech.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
iluvmycam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2013, 11:33:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, I don't know why the picture turned up twice. P.S. I also use an aftermarket film holder with ANR glass insert to keep it flat.

who sells the glass insert?

My scanner film holders are poor at flatness.
Logged
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1851



WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2013, 03:35:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Scan quality depends greatly on who is doing the scanning. For my money, when I need a really high end, beautifully crafted scan, Lenny Eiger at http://www.eigerphoto.com gets the call. His work is superb.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3876


« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2013, 04:07:36 AM »
ReplyReply

who sells the glass insert?

My scanner film holders are poor at flatness.

Hi,

It's not just the glass, it's the height (=focusing distance) above the usually fixed glass platen as well.
Here is one example of a solution. You may also want to investigate wet mounting solutions.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 815



WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2013, 08:13:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I've used all three types of scanners: drum, flatbed and hybrid (Imacon). For chromes, a drum scanner can't be beat. It's more versatile in every aspect of digitizing an image: productivity, ppi, dmax, gradation of tones, and a lower noise floor.

One downside: film mounting. It requires oils & cleaners & wipes. You'll need a mounting station if you want to scan dozens of images at a time.

They're also larger than every other type of scanner out there.

Aztek has great info on scanning.
Logged

~ CB
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2013, 08:28:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I've used all three types of scanners: drum, flatbed and hybrid (Imacon). For chromes, a drum scanner can't be beat. It's more versatile in every aspect of digitizing an image: productivity, ppi, dmax, gradation of tones, and a lower noise floor.

Same here (for the drum's ScanMate and Howtek). I completely agree with your observations!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Plateau Light
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2013, 08:32:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I have both technologies. I use my Epson 750 for quick scans, when there is not much density or when resolution is not as critical. It should be noted that the flatbed is sharpest at its native CCDs' resolution whereas the drum scanner gives the same sharpness at just about every resolution setting.
I have a Colorgetter Eagle and it is totally unmatched no matter what blog says the Flatbed is as good.
The shadow detail, lower noise and sharpness are simply better. There is also a greenish bias that flatbeds I have tried exhibit that is not present on the Eagle.
Now some of the dedicated film scanners for 35mm and the Nikon 9000 are another story.

Robert
Www.Robert-Park.com
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad