Does the scanner matter for Fine Art printing?

[Fernando2]

Microtek TF120 (aka Polaroid SprintScan 120).

Develops some step alignment issues after a while (thus the color fringing); had it repaired 2 times, then gave up. 🙁

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

What do you mean by "one direction" and "other direction"?

Here's what I mean… Notice that the vertical lines are better resolved than the horizontal lines. In the test target, the horizontal lines are exactly the same as the vertical in each set.

For the vertical lines, the resolution limit is 2000 ppi. For the horizontal lines it's only 1270 ppi.

For the details, see my post in this thread.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Actually, the V700/750 can do about 45-50 line pairs/mm on the worst axis, and about 60 lp/mm on the best axis.
This is like 2400x3000 ppi; but with quite low microcontrast and quite some chromatic aberrations.

Thank you, Fernando, for the results and the test scans.

My measurement on the V500 is
- 40 lp/mm on the better axis = 2000 ppi
- 25 lp/mm on the inferior = 1270 ppi

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Back to the OP, again, I think you can make fine prints up to 6x the linear dimension of the film with the V500/V600. From Fernando's data, the V750 would produce the same quality in a print about 50% larger.

 

[marameo]

Ok, and what about drum scanners like the Heidelberg Tango or the ScanMate 11000?

Is a PMT scanner best suited to Fine Art instead of a CCD scanner (Imacon)?

Thanks

 

[Fernando2]

Is a PMT scanner best suited to Fine Art instead of a CCD scanner (Imacon)?

In a word, yes; by far.
The way a CCD scanner works, you always have to scan at its maximum resolution.
Moreover, you have to trust the manifacturer about matching the lens resolving power to the CCD (fixed) sampling frequency.
Any mismatch, and you have suboptimal details (lens too weak for sensor) or grain aliasing (sensor too weak for the lens).
And then there's film flatness. Not an issue with the Imacon or high-end flatbeds (Creo/Kodak IQSmarts), but a real PITA with Coolscan, Microtek, Plustek, Minolta etc.

Then there's dynamic range. The PMT has a very favorable SNR, which is very difficult to match for a CCD.

I have teamed up with two friends and now we have a bunch of scanners (Coolscan V, Minolta 5400 I and II, Nikon 8000, Epson V700, Dainippon-Screen 1030AI, Scanview ScanMate 11000); without any doubt, the best of the pack is the SM 11000 drum scanner.

You extract every detail from your film, while keeping grain at bay and without flatness issues. Plus it cuts into Velvia deep shadows like a razor in the butter.

Fernando

 

[marameo]

[...] Plus it cuts into Velvia deep shadows like a razor in the butter.

Fernando

I am sure it does!

Yet, I am mainly shooting Portra 800 for portraits and sometimes Delta 3200 at 800 (grain is a just a great added bonus in those emulsions).

Is the ScanMate still the best of the pack when it comes to color negative film scanning or it does a better job with slides?

Thanks.

 

[Fernando2]

I think the bread&butter of a drum scanner is color positive film; that said, it still has an edge on color negative because of the ability to match the lens' resolving power to the needed sampling frequency; that's because color negative is quite susceptible to grain aliasing.

Let's say you want to print 60x80cm (24"x32" for non-metric readers) from 645.
On a Epson LF printer, to avoid driver interpolation you need about 8600x11500 pixels.
That means scanning 645 at about 5300 ppi.

Coolscans: max. 4000 ppi, so you interpolate at 5300, amplifying grain (which is sampled at 4000 and already aliased since the Coolscan's lens resolves more than 80 lp/mm) and loosing any detail > 79 lp/mm which may be on film

Imacon: same as above, but for 645 you can dial in 4800 ppi. Better, but not perfect.

Drum scanner: you set 5300 ppi, match the lens aperture to avoid any aliasing, and voilà. No interpolation, no aliasing, very fine grain.

Fernando

 

[jzagaja]

Fernando - do you use auto aperture? If not then an examples of film/resolution/aperture settings?

BTW: you can have very good results with 6x9 films and CCD scanners (up to 3000dpi) like V700 (with AN glass) not to mention high end like Kodak iq3 or Scanmate F8 etc. Problem with drum scanner is speed, buffer limit for large format scanning (Color Quartet software). Nice thing about drum scanner and negstives - good spectral match, superb colors and tone separation, less metamerism compared to digicam.

I have booth V700 and SM11000.

 

[Fernando2]

As I said, I have V700 with Betterscanning wet mounting kit (I always scan wet), Coolscan 8000, Minolta 5400 I and II, DainipponScreen 1030AI and Scanmate 11000.
Nothing can touch the SM11000, not even close, believe me.
I already posted some comparisons here, for example between Nikon 8000 and SM11000. No contest, expecially for "grain" rendition.
The drum is slow, yes, but with the Nikon8000 I have to do many passes and focus-stack to get uniform focus on the entire film (Nikon glass holders are a royal PITA), so in the end it's about the same time.

I use auto aperture on the SM11000, mostly because I nearly always scan at 7000->11000.
I did a test with a grainy negative at 5000 with manual aperture at 2, and the results very extremely good for grain rendition.

Fernando

 

[jzagaja]

If you shot MF negatives then flatbed is good enough (Kodak T-Max 100) for most enlargements:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/66109016@N04/14661196231/sizes/l/

 

[Fernando2]

The Minolta Elite seems to be a sleeper among much more expensive scanners, what is your overall experience and opinion of it?

I'm afraid of going too much OT 😀 ... briefly:

ScanElite 5400 I: excellent scan quality, but quite slow. Artifacts when enabling IR (ICE) and multisampling at the same time.

ScanElite 5400 II: fast, but grainier (it has no GrainDissolver optical diffuser, being cheaper than the I) and way noisier in the shadows (so, less DR). No artifacts from IR + m.s.

My reviews, in italian (but with useful charts/images, and I can translate if needed):

http://www.effeunoequattro.net/htdocs/freecontent/FC_minolta_elite/index.php

http://www.effeunoequattro.net/htdocs/freecontent/FC_minolta_elite2/index.php

Fernando

 

[Fernando2]

If you shot MF negatives then flatbed is good enough (Kodak T-Max 100) for most enlargements:

Only if you print small. 😉
V700 can only do 8x, and that's with the best technique. 8x is too small for me, and I shoot 6x7 (but usually print A1).
Of course if your originals are not really sharp to begin with, there's no much point doing a state-of-the-art scan: you won't tell much difference.

Fernando

 

[jzagaja]

Fernando - did you have oportunity put hands on Scanmate F8 or F10 or Kodak/Eversmart IQ3. F8 can be found from time to time.

Anyone tried PhotoAcute with Minolta?

 

[Fernando2]

Yes, I had a few scans done on the IQSmart3; on the Imacon X5, too.
A curious note on the IQSmart3: nominally it has a max resolution of 5500 ppi (on the entire A3 bed!), but can be set to 10000x10000.
It has the "half-step" on the motor direction, and really works:

 

[marameo]

If you shot MF negatives then flatbed is good enough (Kodak T-Max 100) for most enlargements

Well, I suppose it will be even better if I shoot Adox 20 or Rollei Ortho 25 or Velvia 50 (converted to b/w).

I assume you would print decent landscapes at x8 300DPI where the viewer generally gets closer to the print to see the little details.

But with portraits would I not be able to print something decent at x16 150DPI where the viewer normally stays a little farther to see the whole picture?

(My assumption is that landscapes require sharpness and large DoF while portraits require shallow DoF to "idealize" the subject)

 

[jzagaja]

You shot mainly 35mm?

 

[Dektol Dan]

Flatbeds for Art Repo

Flatbeds for Art Repo

No flatbed is capable of a truly proper scan for art.
I have an old Umax Powerlook III from 1999 that does better than my Epson 4990, the Epson models following that are only marginally better, and I don't believe they can match the ancient Umax.

Back in the day, the Umax was commonly used for scanning x-rays and was up to the task (mine came from a doctor in Canada). The software included was also dedicated to commercial litho printing and is far better than that packaged with flatbeds today.

The theoretical limits for flatbeds back then still hold today. Flatbeds are limited to 1200 DPI, NOT what is commonly claimed or created by interpolation (a word that means 'to lie').

The Umax is retired because of newer operating systems and SCSI, but I have a kept an old G3 Mac just so I can still access it.

Flatbeds can be good enough for the net or archiving, but for artistic prints of any size they're just not there.

You can check out the Umax scans of my 4X5 foot paintings from 4x5 transparencies at www.MrPythagoras.com and judge for yourself.

 

[Fernando2]

See, I never, ever read such amount of BS in a single post.

Epson V700 DOES 2400x3000, there are plenty of ACTUAL proofs around, and I posted a REAL SCAN of a REAL CHART just 1 page ago (FSR-1T chart, values in line pairs/mm).

Moreover, the Kodak/Creo IQSmart3 is a flatbed, and as you can see for yourself just 2 posts up, it does 5500x8000 for REAL.

And *you* speak about misinforming and lying?! Geez...

Fernando

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

No flatbed is capable of a truly proper scan for art.

… snip ...

The theoretical limits for flatbeds back then still hold today. Flatbeds are limited to 1200 DPI, NOT what is commonly claimed or created by interpolation (a word that means 'to lie').

Sorry Dan, but I've measured my V500 at 1270 x 2000 ppi and I'm satisfied with the quality of print at 12x18" for a 6x9cm negative.

Of course, you are correct that the manufacturer's stated ppi for these scanners is incredibly misleading.

These tools do have some use in quality work IMHO.