Post your drum scans (aka the first official Drum Scanners thread)

tsiklonaut

tsiklonaut

Well-known
Local time
10:20 PM
Joined
Dec 29, 2012
Messages
1,089
We have a lot of CCD scanners around, it's the most common scanning technology afterall, the same technology used in todays digital cameras so we obviously have lots of dedicated threads etc.

But I haven't seen any posts dedicated to photomultiplier tube (PMT) scanning equipment here. This often overlooked ultra-sensitive technology is mostly used in science and scientific equipment but sometimes also in high-end gear such as drum scanners.

I know there are some high-end scanning guys visiting this forum as well so why not post your drumscans for others to see as well. So we analog photographers can have a clue what the drum scanners bring on the table.


I'll start up with some of my random drumscans:




Photomultiplier Tube (PMT) by tsiklonaut, on Flickr










SM585_s.jpg
















8522860413_5befdf5c54_c.jpg
















European Southern Observatory (ESO) by tsiklonaut, on Flickr














8567007861_8e32de7880_c.jpg
















Jungle river by tsiklonaut, on Flickr











David+Sandra by tsiklonaut, on Flickr











Motorcycling dream (drum scan) by tsiklonaut, on Flickr











Auratic Textures II by tsiklonaut, on Flickr











Frozen landscape by tsiklonaut, on Flickr











Tanjung Aan beach by tsiklonaut, on Flickr
​


Don't hesitate to post 'em up.

Cheers,
Margus
 
Those are exceptionally good.

However, as will all technology, you have to be able to use it to get the best out of it.

Not that I'm saying my V750 is anything like as capable as a FlexTight - but I get pretty decent scans out of it and I've also seen some crappy drum scans that I wouldn't be happy with at all.

What would be really interesting would be to see the same neg / slide scanned with a good flat-bed and also with a good drum scanner.
 
Now if only I could afford to have a drum scanner in my own home. Guess I'll have to stick with my epson.
 
When viewing 6x9 scans from my Canon 8800f with betterscanning ANR glass holders on screen, I (sometimes!) see similar quality.

But, if I were to see the scans from that Canon 8800f and these scans side by side in print, I'd probably cry! :D

Great scans.

Looking forward to seeing many more posts!
 
Cheers guys. Just thought I familiarize people with the PMT technology since many photographers still don't know about it.

Here's a literal comparison of CCD vs PMT :D


10 000 000 vs 4 pixels : CCD vs PMT by tsiklonaut, on Flickr

The size of typical photomultiplier tubes (PMTs):


The typical size of PMTs by tsiklonaut, on Flickr

Note each PMT represents just one (1) pixel. So the image is scanned 1 pixel at a time through 3 PMTs (each for R-, G- & B-cannel). CCD scanners take a numerically large CCD "row" with each sample and stacks those chunks together via internal signal processors.


Paul Jenkin said:
However, as will all technology, you have to be able to use it to get the best out of it.

Not that I'm saying my V750 is anything like as capable as a FlexTight - but I get pretty decent scans out of it and I've also seen some crappy drum scans that I wouldn't be happy with at all.

What would be really interesting would be to see the same neg / slide scanned with a good flat-bed and also with a good drum scanner.
Click to expand...

So true about the operator-factor. Like with all scanning, the operator must have skills to bring proper results. Drum scanners are particulary sensitive to adjustments and need calibrations, it's much more prone to operator neglect. But when the elite drums scanners are ran by skillful operators they are the ultimate way to digitize your analog images, IMHO at least. Hence those who have the equipment and proper skills ask the price accordingly.

Speaking about flatbeds - IMHO the only 'good' flatbeds are the high-end flatbeds: Kodak Creo, Fuji Lanovia etc that mostly cost more than similar spec drum scanners.

Epsons, Canons etc cheap consumer flatbeds are horrible in comparison, in fact they don't even stand a comparison if you ask me.

In the past I've compared my lower-end ScanView ScanMate 3000 drum scanner to Epson V700. Note Epson give WAY bigger specs than ScanView (Epson's 6400ppi / 4 dmax / 16-bit versus ScanMate's 3000 ppi / 3.6 dmax / 12-bit) and ScanMate runs circles (literally!) around the vastly better specced Epson in actual results.

Can you guess which is which? ;)


Flatbed-vs-Drum.jpg

​

Crop from the same shot, note the Epson version is scanned at maximum and resized down sharper to 3000ppi to match the drum scanners res (original Epson @ 6400ppi is infamously poor optical sharpness). Note the drum scan version is unsharpened. Forget the specs and see for yourself which is having more dynamic range, better optics in glow-handling and in overall optical sharpness and detail rendering:




I also run ScanMate 11000 (a 11000 ppi / 4 dmax capable drumscanner with true 14-bit A/D converters), but for this comparison I intentionally chose the lower-end model in ScanMate 3000 (a "mere" 3000 ppi / 3.6 dmax / 12-bit drumscanner) to prove a point.


Lot of prosumer scanners spec numbers are intentionally ballooned using their own in-factory "creative" measurement standards or basically faked to cheat their customers out of their money smartly making them believe they "really" have an ultra-high 6400-7200 ppi resolving and ultra-large optical range 4+dmax capable scanner in that cheap plastic box on the table running a cheap CCD sensor, dirt cheap mechanics & cheap optics inside. But no, people still expect wonders from those few-hundred bucks costing brand-new consumer scanners. ;)

Only elite CCD scanners more-or-less fullfill what's promised: high-ends (Creo/Kodak, Fuji, Imacon/Hasselblad etc) and good prosumers also come close to the factory specs: Nikon, Konica-Minolta and few others. Most, if not all the "affordible" scanners cheat on their specs big time.

Ditto with some of the drum scanners that don't deliver what's promised, but most of them are up to the task on what's written on the paper since they used to be $20 000-$100 000 costing hand-built high-end mammoths for high-end market, you simply cannot cheat those kind of well educated customers with "creative" specs like Epson, Canon, HP etc have successfully done for years with their cheap flatbeds in the consumer and prosumer fields.

IMHO of course.

Margus
 
Balto said:
Now if only I could afford to have a drum scanner in my own home. Guess I'll have to stick with my epson.
Click to expand...

Actually drum scanners are fairly affordable these days, but you have to be somewhat tech-minded person to run them to their capability. I know some enthusiasts who bought a drum scanner and were highly dissapointed. Since they mostly only run on old SCSI hardware with specialised software, they are huge noisy mammoths, need hard-to-find expensive part replacements, regular maintenance and calibrations that need some tech-skills. ...and most of all: they are painfully slow to operate, it's full hands-on-process mounting (especially wet-mounting) pos/negs on the drum and it scans very slow in comparison with most of CCD-scanners. So they can be real bummers for those who seek convenience and quick (and compromised) results.

They are like pure-bread hand-built racing cars compared to mass-produced convenience cars. With according performance and user-comfort :)

But calculate how many drum scans you can get from a high-end service for the money of a i.e. Nikon 9000 ED :)

IMHO giving your "greatest hits" a go trhough an elite drum scanner run by a skillful proven operator is well worth it - you have the best digital copy of your work for a long time that you can edit this copy as PP softwares and techniques progress in time. There's no point scanning all of your work through drumscanner, even I don't do it with my own work, only the best work goes on drum. For fast web-viewing results I put them through my Epson flatbed. But if I dare to print (even a small print) or need a good web-view I put them through drum scanner - it's a day and night difference in quality, even when viewing or printing it small.
 
Since you're into it at the moment, how about a high-res, high-end drum scan of one of the above pix so we can see how much is missing at the 3000 or so resolution of the lower end machines?

Thanks.
 
mdarnton said:
Since you're into it at the moment, how about a high-res, high-end drum scan of one of the above pix so we can see how much is missing at the 3000 or so resolution of the lower end machines?
Click to expand...

You mean ScanMate 11000? Don't have any of those old positives put through this machine yet. I'm hoping I can put some of those positives through SM11K on the weekend though, I have some drum scanning planned. Would be interesting to know myself as well.


Meanwhile here's more recent ScanMate 11000 color negative scanning work from Kodak Portra 160 (very long exposure shot):


SM645_2.jpg















SM645-kropp.jpg


​

Note from crops you can sharpen the image up in PP depending how sharp you want them.


Here's a ScanMate 11000 b&w scan with crop on Tri-X 320 on the grain vs detail probing tests I recently ran:


SM732_2.jpg














Man taking down the mountain by tsiklonaut, on Flickr











11 000 ppi & 5500 ppi crops by tsiklonaut, on Flickr

As you can see at 11K ppi (on this 6x7 frame it's 745 MegaPixel or 0.75 GigaPixel equivalent) is pretty much pointless on ASA400-class grainy film unless you want gigantic print that looks dense when inspecting it close. A 5500 ppi (186 MegaPixel equivalent) is where it's a good balance between usable detail and grain, IMHO at least.

​


Margus
 
Paul Jenkin said:
Those are exceptionally good.

However, as will all technology, you have to be able to use it to get the best out of it.

Not that I'm saying my V750 is anything like as capable as a FlexTight - but I get pretty decent scans out of it and I've also seen some crappy drum scans that I wouldn't be happy with at all.

What would be really interesting would be to see the same neg / slide scanned with a good flat-bed and also with a good drum scanner.
Click to expand...

And what would be even better would be to see all these various scans made into equal size prints and see if it matters. :)
 
i'll read the text of this thread just as soon as i hoist my jaw up off of the floor and sponge up the drool...
 
Some fantastic work Margus. A rare combination of superb photography and also the technical chops to get the best out of it.
 
Impressive work and very informative, but where do you find parts for your 11000? Is this a matter of purchasing units for parts, or are there dependable suppliers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom