ScanMate drum scanner DIY maintenance, troubleshooting, mods

monkeyfist said:
Quickest way to see if the calibration worked, is to do a preview.. the new white balance should show up on the preview. Some masks are darker, so it might not work on every film. I dont know, has worked fine on all films i have tested it so far.

If you are scanning positives also, i would recommend calibrating the color profile even if the film target you have is not for the exact film. It's still better than nothing, or at least as a test.
Click to expand...

I'll give it a go, thanks!

I think I'm getting good (not necessarily ideal) scans with just 8bits, I uploaded some in the drumscanner thread - all negatives. They don't look nearly as bad as the comparison picture you posted. When scanning BW negs, however, using just one channel is out of the picture - it does indeed have an impact on the tonality.
 
Kamph said:
I'll give it a go, thanks!

I think I'm getting good (not necessarily ideal) scans with just 8bits, I uploaded some in the drumscanner thread - all negatives. They don't look nearly as bad as the comparison picture you posted. When scanning BW negs, however, using just one channel is out of the picture - it does indeed have an impact on the tonality.
Click to expand...

There is only one channel in b&w files.

When you scan a b&w neg as a RGB file, what you get out of is just 3 channels with different filters. Choosing only one of them, the green, just removes the two extra channels with softer scans (as blue & red are slightly out of focus.. not perfect APO system, so all colors are not focused perfectly at the same plane). It does not remove any tonality, what you might consider tonality is just color. But this can be added as much as you like using photoshop techniques that emulate split toning etc.

Here is a test scan i did with my SM5000, one of them infamous 16bit tiffs 🙂

rgb-5000dpi.jpg


(you need to click the image to see it in original size)

And just to mention, this green channel trick has worked on every scanner i have tested, flatbeds, 35mm scanner, flextight, drumscanners...
 
Zero point vertical adjustment as seen on PC oscilloscope (sound card line input).

TP57 left channel, TP46 right channel (trigger), TP100 ground. Green peak must be centered with red (trigger). Then line on drum is perfectly left side on preview. it is necessary each time you unscrew DC motor or encoder.

Question remains - can we improve encoder vibrations?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5537.jpg
    IMG_5537.jpg
    29.3 KB · Views: 1
monkeyfist said:
I did show the print? It's scanned 16bit tiff on SM5000. Seems fine? There is no way i could have done that print from 8bit scan, especially using colornegative that requires extensive post work.
Click to expand...


I really have judge the quality of scan and print at the picture on the internet?
 
meloV8 said:
I really have judge the quality of scan and print at the picture on the internet?
Click to expand...

Yes, you can come to the conclusion that if i'm able to produce gallery quality prints using the same software & hardware. Then the problem might not be in the software or the hardware.

Are you making prints?
 
monkeyfist said:
There is only one channel in b&w files.

When you scan a b&w neg as a RGB file, what you get out of is just 3 channels with different filters. Choosing only one of them, the green, just removes the two extra channels with softer scans (as blue & red are slightly out of focus.. not perfect APO system, so all colors are not focused perfectly at the same plane). It does not remove any tonality, what you might consider tonality is just color. But this can be added as much as you like using photoshop techniques that emulate split toning etc.

Here is a test scan i did with my SM5000, one of them infamous 16bit tiffs 🙂

rgb-5000dpi.jpg


(you need to click the image to see it in original size)

And just to mention, this green channel trick has worked on every scanner i have tested, flatbeds, 35mm scanner, flextight, drumscanners...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, these scans do not show the full capabilities of the scanner. Fuzzy ugly grain, out of focus. See how it looks without sharpening scan on the SM4000. I need no tricks channels, simply scan in CT in monochrome mode, and inverting negative in SilverFast.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25191222@N04/30339461476/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25191222@N04/30533242766/in/dateposted-public/


With scanning wet, do not waste my time to process in Photoshop, I have excellent sharpness throughout the scan, this does not have any problems with Newton rings. Scanning dry ond drum scanner is a complete waste of time and quality.
 
meloV8 said:
Unfortunately, these scans do not show the full capabilities of the scanner. Fuzzy ugly grain, out of focus. See how it looks without sharpening scan on the SM4000. I need no tricks channels, simply scan in CT in monochrome mode, and inverting negative in SilverFast.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25191222@N04/30339461476/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25191222@N04/30533242766/in/dateposted-public/


With scanning wet, do not waste my time to process in Photoshop, I have excellent sharpness throughout the scan, this does not have any problems with Newton rings. Scanning dry ond drum scanner is a complete waste of time and quality.
Click to expand...

Phhhhh... the example showed the benefit of using just the green channel. This means it applies also to raw files, so it will make even the raw files sharper. Its about how the scanner works. I would think you would appreciate it, if you are so interested in optimal sharpness of grain.

Also, you are scanning way too large. When you scan a file that shows grain, and the scale it down to 1000x1000px.. you basically just adding sharpening and emphasizing grain. A print from 6x6 neg of equal size would not show any grain. Even the 1000x1000px file you have in flickr shows sharpened oversized grain thanks to scaling. Have you ever seen grain in a 30x30cm darkroom print from 6x6 negs? NO!

Try making a scan at the size you are going to use it, scan it directly to 1000x1000px size and you will have a much better more natural looking picture.

This is just the usual problem of people scanning small web pictures and still obsess about grain, that should not even be seen in a small picture.

The point is not to show the full capability of the scanner, the point is to make a fine print or a fine picture to post online. You should adapt your workflow to suit the purpose.

About the grain, here is a test print i made from 35mm negative. It's 61x91cm, and you can see grain on it only if you put your nose into it:

prints.jpg


And yes, i spent a lot of time in photoshop. Same as i would have spent a lot of time in the darkroom dodging & burning to make the print interesting. It's one of the most important steps in the process.
 
monkeyfist said:
Phhhhh... the example showed the benefit of using just the green channel. This means it applies also to raw files, so it will make even the raw files sharper.

Also, you are scanning way too large. When you scan a file that shows grain, and the scale it down to 1000x1000px.. you basically just adding sharpening and emphasizing grain. A print from 6x6 neg of equal size would not show any grain. Even the 1000x1000px file you have in flickr shows sharpened oversized grain thanks to scaling. Have you ever seen grain in a 30x30cm print from 6x6 negs? NO!

This is just the usual problem of people scanning small web pictures and still obsess about grain, that should not even be seen in a small picture.
Click to expand...

My example shows that the scan is sharper than your example. And that's it.


After developing the film, usually I scan it on a flatbed scanner to see if any photographs should scan a high quality on the drum scanner and print. Scan in the best quality and write on the hardisk archiwe. The film returns to the archive.
At any time I go back to my scan and prepare a file both in print and online presentations.
 
meloV8 said:
Can you prove this thesis, based on your own scans with Scanmate?
Click to expand...

How would you go about shoving the advantages of 16bit files? It's not that simple, as it mostly benefits the workflow and the end product, the print. Monitors are mostly 8bit, so are jpgs.

This is why i said i would be wasting time, if you don't understand the what 16bit means.

I would rather ask you, why you scan 16bit files on your other scanners? It's the exact same reason, to do it on the SM5000.
 
meloV8 said:
My example shows that the scan is sharper than your example. And that's it.


After developing the film, usually I scan it on a flatbed scanner to see if any photographs should scan a high quality on the drum scanner and print. Scan in the best quality and write on the hardisk archiwe. The film returns to the archive.
At any time I go back to my scan and prepare a file both in print and online presentations.
Click to expand...

Your scan might be sharper at grain level, but it also has so fever tones that you can not really do much with it. And if you would print it.. it would have fewer tones than a 16bit file. Grain sharpness is not the only criteria. Even though i think its important, i know that working with 8bit files is just wasting time.

Also, as i have said.. the actually correct way to work with 8bit files, is do the adjustment in CQ as much as you can. As then the software knows what to output in the 8bit file and what to leave out. And to make sure, you are utilizing the full potential of a 8bit file. As there is no room to waste in 8bit files. This is the way these scanners were used when machines were not able to handle 16bit files.

This is also the way, you would go about if you are not getting same shadow information using 16bit tiff, you need to use the level adjustment in the CQ to place the shadows where you want them to be.

Also, the only way to show that sharp grain.. is to make really big prints. If you have time, just do 1000x1000px scans using 8bit raw and 16bit tiff, and see if you can see the difference in sharpness. As that seems to be the end product you are aiming for.

This is the only way to actually compare tools & workflows, the end product. As they you will change the way you use tools & how you work depending on what you are doing to get the results you want.

Just saying, that prioritizing sharp grain over slightly softer in the expense of 16bit workflow is not that smart. And if you are worried about the grain, test in a print or in an actual small web scan. Not in a way that has nothing to do with what you are trying to achieve.

Unless, you are trying to achieve sharp partial enlargements of pictures that show grain?
 
Regardless of how you scan, you will likely end up with a ridiculously awesome scan. For example, I just made this 1000 DPI scan from a 5x7 film and it is gorgeous 🙂


Tulips on Ektachrome 64T by Pali K, on Flickr

Slide film needs 16 bits and I prefer to save time by using calibrated profiles. As such, this was scanned using 16 bit Tiff setting and I only needed a minute in Photoshop afterwards.

Pali
 
Interestingly the blur does not seem to be applied to the 16bit tiff files when scanning at 2000dpi or below. Yesterday I made three scans of the same 35mm negative - one at 2000dpi, one at 3200dpi, and one at 4000 dpi. The 2000dpi scan did not exhibit the wierd blur while the two other scans noticeably did. It would be interesting if one of you could confirm whether this is true for you as well.

On another note, I also scanned the same negative in 8bit RAW, and inverting it in the same way as I did the 16bit file did not produce any difference in regard to tonality. The histogram didn't break up after colour correction either. Now, knowing that 16bit should be superior to 8bit and by a large margin at that, could it be that the 16bit files produced through CQ simply arent true 16(12)bit but rather converted 8bit files?
 
Kamph said:
Interestingly the blur does not seem to be applied to the 16bit tiff files when scanning at 2000dpi or below. Yesterday I made three scans of the same 35mm negative - one at 2000dpi, one at 3200dpi, and one at 4000 dpi. The 2000dpi scan did not exhibit the wierd blur while the two other scans noticeably did. It would be interesting if one of you could confirm whether this is true for you as well.

On another note, I also scanned the same negative in 8bit RAW, and inverting it in the same way as I did the 16bit file did not produce any difference in regard to tonality. The histogram didn't break up after colour correction either. Now, knowing that 16bit should be superior to 8bit and by a large margin at that, could it be that the 16bit files produced through CQ simply arent true 16(12)bit but rather converted 8bit files?
Click to expand...

The softening that is added to the file, is probably there to hide some small jitters the image might have from vibration etc. small scanner errors. And they do appear only when scanning at max enlargements. So it would make sense that there is no softening at lower magnifications. As it would make the whole image soft.

If you are doing just basic conversion, and you do not work on your files. You might not see the benefits of 16bit files. Personally, i do a lot of work on my files. Multiple layers of contrast & levels & masking.

Also, monitors are mostly 8bit so you will only see 8bit gradients, in prints you will notice smoother gradients using 16bit files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom