Does the scanner matter for Fine Art printing?

[Fernando2]

The Coolscan is slow. 🙁
Unless you disable ICE, multisampling and "SuperFine mode" (thus getting banding in the shadows. Yes, even with the 9000).

 

[Kamph]

Well, I just timed a 6x7 negative scanned at 5300 dpi and 48bit. It took 1 minut and 52 seconds. That's hardly "unbelievable slowness" 🙂 But I guess we are a bit off topic now. OP asked for quality not speed. Will a Plustek 120 compete with a drumscanner? Absolutely not. No CCD scanner will, I'd figure. Will it perform as good as a Coolscan? Yes most definitely, it will even outperform it IF you manage to get one where the focus is perfect (stay away from scanners from the first batch).

 

[Merlijn53]

Well, I just timed a 6x7 negative scanned at 5300 dpi and 48bit. It took 1 minut and 52 seconds. That's hardly "unbelievable slowness" 🙂 But I guess we are a bit off topic now. OP asked for quality not speed. Will a Plustek 120 compete with a drumscanner? Absolutely not. No CCD scanner will, I'd figure. Will it perform as good as a Coolscan? Yes most definitely, it will even outperform it IF you manage to get one where the focus is perfect (stay away from scanners from the first batch).

I think it's a bit odd to compare a Coolscan with an overpriced scanner with a nameless fix focus lens. You can only hope it's sharp sometimes.

 

[Kamph]

I think it's a bit odd to compare a Coolscan with an overpriced scanner with a nameless fix focus lens. You can only hope it's sharp sometimes.

As if the Coolscan isen't overpriced?
I take it you speak from experience having compared the two? I have.
I believe the Imacon 343 had a fixed focus lens as well, did that make it a bad scanner?
If the lens is focused correctly why should it ever be a problem, unless you were dealing with extremely curly negatives? Besides the option to focus stack, a curly negative still is a problem for scanners with AF.
I don't care what name the lens have as long as it performs.

 

[Merlijn53]

As if the Coolscan isen't overpriced?
I take it you speak from experience having compared the two? I have.
I believe the Imacon 343 had a fixed focus lens as well, did that make it a bad scanner?
If the lens is focused correctly why should it ever be a problem, unless you were dealing with extremely curly negatives? Besides the option to focus stack, a curly negative still is a problem for scanners with AF.
I don't care what name the lens have as long as it performs.

That's quite a lot of if's. You must hope it is focussed correctly, which may be different with the next film. The film may not be to curly and than there is still the questionable quality of the optics. You don't have these problems with a Nikon or Minolta. For less I bought an older Imacon Flextight II. The film is always flat.

 

[Kamph]

That's quite a lot of if's. You must hope it is focussed correctly, which may be different with the next film. The film may not be to curly and than there is still the questionable quality of the optics. You don't have these problems with a Nikon or Minolta. For less I bought an older Imacon Flextight II. The film is always flat.

That's not a lot of if's, and you didn't answear my question. Did you test the Nikon against the Plustek?
I have tried both, and found the Plustek better, so did my friend who owned a Nikon 9000, but now owns the Plustek. If you don't belive me then read Tim Parkin's review of the Plustek.
I respect that you have high opinions of the Nikon, and I fully agree that it's a great scanner, but if you haven't operated the Plustek yourself you shouldn't dismiss it as easily as you do. As matter in fact, before I bought the Plustek I had the opportunity to try the flextight II which was very good indeed, but not much better than the Plustek. The Imacon was limited by SCSI and suffered from distortion.
Judging a scanner by brand is so naive. The Imacons are very good indeed, but not the best CCD scanners out there. I was actually offered an Imacon Flextight II for half the price of the Plustek, but guess what I went with in the end. The difference was insignificant as far as I could tell, perhaps the Imacon had a small advantage in shadow detail, but the Plustek had warranty and a higher MF resolution to boot. I can't comment about the Minolta as I haven't tried one myself but I have heard it's fantastic.
I wouldn't trade my Plustek for an Imacon flextight II, but maybe a Cezanne if it wasen't so big 🙂

 

[Merlijn53]

Well, you need a lot of words to justify your choice. If yours is focussed correctly most of the time, just enjoy it!

 

[Fernando2]

My 2 cents:

As if the Coolscan isen't overpriced?

At the time, it was not.
Now, used Coolscans are overpriced for sure; for lack of competition. 🙁

If the lens is focused correctly why should it ever be a problem, unless you were dealing with extremely curly negatives?

Because scanners are subject to wear and ageing.
Your lens/filmcarrier distance may be perfect now, but after a few years and many carriage travels, who knows?
A lens unit with variable focus can always be refocused to compensate.
Then there's the issue of temperature variations (materials change their size with temperature), so your focus may be perfect at 18 Celsius but not at 35 Celsius.
Or maybe those Plustek are so well designed and built, and the materials used are so top-notch, that they'll never have any departure from perfect focus distance year after year. That would be great.

Still, the OpticFilm 120 has no adjustable focus, no adjustable RGB exposure, no single-pass multisampling, and it costs Eur 2000.
I won't call it overpriced, but not really a bargain.
Again, lack of competition. 🙁

Fernando

 

[mob81]

Fernando,
I've just left my CS 9000 at LTR Service (Nital) for a CLA, as it started showing signs of aging. The guy there told me, they are running out or replacement parts, so it is not clear if they can make it "as new" again.
What would be according to you the best practical alternative today, for an up to 6x9 scanner, without the hassle of wet mounting? ( I shoot silver B&W film only )?
Thanks
Marek

The iQsmart2 usually show up in good price and doesn't require wet mounting (you can but not required) and for Medium Format, just lay the negative on the bed of the scanner and scan away full roll or two (I cut them to 6 frames 6x6 and scan two roll at a time) come back later and adjust. it's a bit slow but let it scan while you do something else. it's ca[able of 4300DPI

 

[Merlijn53]

My 2 cents:



At the time, it was not.
Now, used Coolscans are overpriced for sure; for lack of competition. 🙁



Because scanners are subject to wear and ageing.
Your lens/filmcarrier distance may be perfect now, but after a few years and many carriage travels, who knows?
A lens unit with variable focus can always be refocused to compensate.
Then there's the issue of temperature variations (materials change their size with temperature), so your focus may be perfect at 18 Celsius but not at 35 Celsius.
Or maybe those Plustek are so well designed and built, and the materials used are so top-notch, that they'll never have any departure from perfect focus distance year after year. That would be great.

Still, the OpticFilm 120 has no adjustable focus, no adjustable RGB exposure, no single-pass multisampling, and it costs Eur 2000.
I won't call it overpriced, but not really a bargain.
Again, lack of competition. 🙁

Fernando

True, every now and then I have to adjust the height of the filmholder in my v700. At least with the Epson scanners it is possible to make those adjustments.

 

[Kamph]

Well, you need a lot of words to justify your choice. If yours is focussed correctly most of the time, just enjoy it!

Well, you call it a lot of words I call it arguments, how about you back up some of your statements as well? Surely you must have some kind of expericence with these scanners before you comment as you do?

 

[Kamph]

Because scanners are subject to wear and ageing.
Your lens/filmcarrier distance may be perfect now, but after a few years and many carriage travels, who knows?
A lens unit with variable focus can always be refocused to compensate.
Then there's the issue of temperature variations (materials change their size with temperature), so your focus may be perfect at 18 Celsius but not at 35 Celsius.
Or maybe those Plustek are so well designed and built, and the materials used are so top-notch, that they'll never have any departure from perfect focus distance year after year. That would be great.

Still, the OpticFilm 120 has no adjustable focus, no adjustable RGB exposure, no single-pass multisampling, and it costs Eur 2000.
I won't call it overpriced, but not really a bargain.
Again, lack of competition. 🙁

Fernando

These are some very good points, Fernando.
I haven't noticed focus change due to temperature, but then again the room it's staying at is more or less a constant 22 Celsius.
I have no idea if the Plustek will stand the test of time, I can only hope, but it certainly dosen't feel low budget.
By no means is it a bargain, I too found it rather expensive, but so far the results have been great, and with the added bonus of warranty, I'm not complaining too much 🙂

 

[jzagaja]

Scanner resolution exceeds lens/film combo? Also a lot depends on operator experience.

 

[jzagaja]

Will post some 35mm examples ;-)

 

[Fernando2]

Now can anyone explain those excellent results?

The original is not sharp enough to justify the vastly superior resolving power of the drumscanner.
Plus, we don't know the sampling resolution. At 1600 ppi, for example, there's hardly much difference between a V700 and a top-notch scanner.

I already showed many real-world examples where a superior scanner blows away the V700 (a scanner I own and like).

Re-posting the same examples again and again becomes frustrating.

Fernando

 

[jzagaja]

For MF I'm using rather good lens - Fuji GW690III 😉

On 35mm Provia the difference is of course visible but V700 is amateur flatbed - try with e.g SM F8 🙂

 

[Fernando2]

for every folk that can prove how poor a flatbed is compared to a drum, there is another one that can prove the opposite.

No, this is absolutely false.
Nobody ever said, even less proved, that a drum is poor vs. a consumer flatbed.
Jzagaja just showed that with not really sharp originals and low sampling resolution, a V700 can hold its own; something everybody agrees to.
That said, I will no re-explain everything for the 100th time: if you are genuinely interested on the matter, just do a search across my posts and the posts of Tsiklonaut.
You will find so many examples, charts and explanations, you would have enough material for a weekend's read. 🙂

Fernando

 

[Fernando2]

For MF I'm using rather good lens - Fuji GW690III 😉

Well, unfortunately it doesn't show.
Many, many, too many Fuji 690s have issues with precise focusing. Ever tried a focus chart (one appropriately set up for a rangefinder, of course)?

On 35mm Provia the difference is of course visible but V700 is amateur flatbed

That's the whole point, in fact.

Fernando

 

[Fernando2]

645 original.
100% crops.

The drum scanner still had a broken motor at the time; now it's been replaced, but did not have time to rescan.

Click to view at full size!

 

[Fernando2]

Same here, both at 6400 etc.

This was quite dark in the original (shadow zone on slide film).
The V700 struggles to recover colors and details from the dark.

Click to view full size.