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

Ron (Netherlands) said:
Tried to view them at bigger resolution - at your flickr - but didn't succeed
Click to expand...

Sorry, don't post bigger than web size. I've seen photos stolen before in print-size and I'm particulary untolerant in stealing other's creative work. So for the worldwide public web it's web-size policy for me. For prints I keep my files on my own HD only, I don't use any photosites, cloud or specialized servers etc that can have shady hidden copyright terms, just "well, you yourself uploaded it" answer when the day comes when shete hits the fan (i.e. server gets hacked or EMP takes down everything including backups etc etc endless scenareos - we analog people know why the virtual world cannot be fully trusted ;) ).

However I try to post crops into web when I'm not lazy enough or when people request to see. :)
 
I have to add my admiration for the work here of tsiklonaut - inspiring and amazing.

Tsiklonaut, did I come across some other amazing work of yours using a Sigma DP1?

Thank you very much for sharing.

LouisB
 
tsiklonaut, thank you so much for sharing those pictures, they are nothing but awesome and impressive. This is my favourite thread right now!
 
The Iguazu SFX rendition is amazing. Please keep them posting, Margus. :)

I hope you have taken one in colour - because imho, that rainbow would look amazing. Perhaps I can't see it in 'colour' B&W because I'm viewing them on a 13 inch laptop. :(

Bests,

A
 
I already posted some comparisons between a Nikon8000 and a drum scanner.
But since we now have this excellent thread :) (many kudos to the OP!), I'll add some picture here as well.

This is a 645 scan (Provia 100 slide); not my sharpest original, but already demystifies all the web-babbles about Nikon & Co. being more than enough for extracting every detail from film (Nikon on the left, ScanMate 11000 on the right)

645confrontosmnikon1100up.jpg
 
Nikon comparison media isn't particulary sharp trannie indeed, but the difference is definitely there. I'm surprised how many "faulty" pixel areas Nikon has. I thought ScanMate creates sometimes those barely noticable little "lines" around sharp highlights at 11K which sometimes annoy me, but those are nothing compared to the faults of Nikon.

I also just got a 645, the Fujifilm GA645i rangefinder. I put through the first roll of film just few days ago and after inspecting those I can tell it definitely beats my Pentax 67 SLR sharpest lenses in terms of detail resolving per same square of film. It probably rivals 67 SLR when you compare the overall info recorded on film frame. Makes my Pentax SLR, which I thought was very decent (and proven the same quality as Hasselblad), look rather soft :). Although SLRs have many of their own advantages but if you want particulary those very sharp media for comparisons, a decent rangefinder is a way to go.

Cheers,
Margus
 
Bruno Gracia said:
what about the Imacon 646? is near in terms of quality?
Click to expand...

IMO Imacons/Hasselblads are very capable scanners for a CCD technology. Mechanically solid: incredibly fast and easy to use compared to any true drum scanner. But the tests I've seen it still doesn't touch elite drum scanners when the latter is calibrated and operated to their actual capability.

Imacon/Hassy "virtual-drum" scanner's biggest downfall is medium format or larger media scanning limits - they're mostly then capped to 3200ppi or less or 2050ppi for 4x5", which in modern times can be a show-stopper for many clients who need larger prints. Drum scanners and even most other high-end flatbed CCD-scanners (Creo, Kodak, Fuji etc) offer better PPI over bigger scanning areas than 35mm film. (Note this is talking about true PPI - don't even try to compare those common Canon, HP or Epson flatbed scanners DPI/PPI specified numbers that are largely ballooned over reality or just flat-out cheated as I've discussed in the first page of this thread). I know many Imacon operators stich scanning MF film as 35mm film in multiple stages to push out more PPI over larger than 35mm formats, but software stiching of different parts creates it's own set of banding/blending and overall geometry problems that can have visible faulty areas or spots later on.

Then comparison-wise if you forget the numbers is the "feel-factor" of the scans - no CCD scanner looks like a well made PMT scan, from smalles details to overall tonality rendering. A well made PMT scans just tend to "feel" better than any high-end CCD, IMHO at least. This can be largely a taste thing, but PMTs just give much more of that "analog-like" rendering to the scanned images.

One test I've seen various PMT drum scanners compared to various CCDs is here. It's not a perfect comparison, but at least giving you some glimpse when you switch between scanners on the list and compare the sharpened/unsharpened versions.

I'm hoping they could add a ScanMate 11000 to the list as well, when calibrated and focused correctly I'd roughly guess it'd be somewhere between Aztek Premier and Heidelberg Tango in detail- and DR rendering wise.

Margus
 
The Imacons are at odds for anything larger than 35mm.
Take the top-line Hasselblad/Imacon X5: it reaches 8000 spi on 135, but only 3200 on 120 strips. Even worse at 4x5" where it stops at 2048.
3200 spi for a good 120 original are not nearly good enough to extract every detail, not to mention grain aliasing issues.
And shelling out $$$$ only to have ultra-high-quality for 135... well, it's not my cup of tea.

Fernando
 
First of all Margus: your shots are BEAUTIFUL! :)
Really inspiring.

tsiklonaut said:
I'm surprised how many "faulty" pixel areas Nikon has.
Click to expand...

Those are not faulty pixels.
There were a few dust spots on the original, and the ICE interpolated over them (not visible in print).
The drum scan was wet-mounted so between my abitual pre-mounting cleaning pass and the wet mount itself, dust was not visible anymore.

I thought ScanMate creates sometimes those barely noticable little "lines" around sharp highlights at 11K which sometimes annoy me
Click to expand...

When it starts doing that, it means it needs some maintenance.
Typical causes for those small "jaggies" or "honeycomb" are a dirty encoder or a "tired" cylinder motor.
Been there, done that; I sent the scanner for maintenance and after that had to replace the motor myself anyway (special order from Maxon, Swiss).
Now it's perfect.
The comparison I posted was from before this maintenance; now it would be quite better. :)

I also just got a 645, the Fujifilm GA645i rangefinder.
...
Although SLRs have many of their own advantages but if you want particulary those very sharp media for comparisons, a decent rangefinder is a way to go.
Click to expand...

I don't know the GA645i, but when I properly shoot my P645, it can easily reach 100 lp/mm on slides (not talking about exotics hires BW film), which is as high as today slides go (maybe the first V50 could do a bit more).

But those Iceland shots were all done in a hurry, handheld, with strong wind, polarizer on (- 2.5 stops) and fast manual focus, so it's not really a P645 shortcoming.

That said, they are very nice printed at 60x80cm.
Wet-mounted drum scans sampled at 11'000 and resampled down at print size take a sizeable amount of sharpen without showing grain, something CCD scanners just can't offer. ;)

Fernando
 
Ah, ICE was turned on, makes sense then.

Lines: actually I had a lot of SCSI transmission issues in the beginning trying to get a working computer+SCSI card combo and this created some clearly visible lines, this I got sorted out.

I've measured the ScanView's specified limits @5000ppi and it's still within the factory spec (less than 1pixel of variation over the target line's length) so the encoder and/or DC motor should be all good on mine.


Keep on posting those drumscans guys! :angel:
 
One more from the same series, a very long exposure & 45mm wide-angle 6x7 frame of Fuji Provia 400X scanned at 3200 ppi:


Alien Twin Towers by tsiklonaut, on Flickr

​

I was surprised you can almost read out the small number plate from a presumably grainy ASA400 film, "abused" with 3 filters in front of the lens (polarizer, GND and ND) giving very long exposure (3 minutes) and positioned on the edge of wide-angle lens where the optical distortion is already apparent. Considering the conditions - pretty good for an ASA400 film! Just pity Fuji decided to discontinue RXP.
 
Fernando2 said:
Those are not faulty pixels.
There were a few dust spots on the original, and the ICE interpolated over them (not visible in print).
Click to expand...
I thought those looked strange. Nothing like the Nikon 9000 scans I've been making.

To do a proper comparison I suppose you need to have someone who's mastered all the little tricks of using the Nikon 8000/9000. And for the drum scan as well -- you'd want someone who knows how to get the best out of it.

Then we'd have a better comparison.

I find my Nikon 9000 scans, once I masted Vuescan and use glass carriers, have a very high quality.
The only other CCD film scanner that comes close (or tops the Nikon) is the Minolta 5400 mark I -- but it's much harder to coax a good scan out of the Minolta than the Nikon, i.e. low hit ratio.
 
@Margus:
Excellent then! The SM11000 delivers tons of quality, expecially at 11'000, at a very nice price point. It's a very good buy.
I also have a couple of DainipponScreen 1030AI but can't touch the SM with a pole. :)

Let's keep us posted. :)

Fernando
 
rbrooks said:
To do a proper comparison I suppose you need to have someone who's mastered all the little tricks of using the Nikon 8000/9000. And for the drum scan as well -- you'd want someone who knows how to get the best out of it.
Click to expand...

That's me. ;)
I don't think someone on Earth can extract something better from my machines, so to speak. ;)

I'd just need more spare time and better originals, but I'm too busy for that. :(

Fernando
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom