Cruse Scans Soft? (Photo added)

[Concord]

Edit: Photo added: Cruse (top) vs Epson 10000XL (bottom) (unsharpened, jpeg compressed)

I had some scans done for art reproduction with a Cruse CS 220 ST and I have to say I am really surprised and disappointed with the results.  The images are extremely soft, and after sharpening they still look pretty bad.  This is a full bed scan at 300dpi.  The half bed 600dpi scans were better but still lacked sharpness that could not be fully compensated for with sharpening tools.

Compared to my Epson 10000XL at 300dpi, it's not even close, the Epson scans are tack sharp in comparison.

The operator said that there will be some softness due to the fact that the bed is moving as the camera is scanning...  I'm not sure I buy this as an explanation for the lack of sharpness.  These scanners are like $100,000, shouldn't they be just as sharp as my $2000 Epson?

Is this typical of Cruse scans?  I thought it was supposed to be the highest quality out there.

[Theodoros]

The operator said that there will be some softness due to the fact that the bed is moving as the camera is scanning...  I'm not sure I buy this as an explanation for the lack of sharpness.

I think that the operator lied to you knowing that there is a fault in the scanner... Most probably the fault is with the focusing or there can be an IR filter that needs replacement on the sensor... The Cruse is more of a LF view camera with a (tricolor) scanning back build in...  Although one would be better of to use a multishot back instead of a cruse scanner, or even a scanning back, the results out of the Cruse should still be miles ahead than your Epson scanner...

[BobDavid]

Unless there is something amiss with the scanner or the operator, a Cruse scanner is capable of producing excellent scans. I would push back and get a refund.

[Concord]

Here's an example.  Top is the Cruse scan, bottom is Epson 10000XL, both scanned at 300dpi, images enlarged, unsharpened. (jpeg compressed, not white balanced, but you get the idea)

Weird thing is, the Cruse scanner was just upgraded (and I assume calibrated at the same time) this year.

Cruse vs 10000XL

[Theodoros]

Here's an example.  Top is the Cruse scan, bottom is Epson 10000XL, both scanned at 300dpi, images enlarged, unsharpened. (jpeg compressed, not white balanced, but you get the idea)

Weird thing is, the Cruse scanner was just upgraded (and I assume calibrated at the same time) this year.

Cruse vs 10000XL

No way... ask for your money back!

[JaapD]

I have looked at the picture. To me it looks like it's just heavily defocussed. You need to focus this Cruse thing somewhere around the lens, right?

[Concord]

I have looked at the picture. To me it looks like it's just heavily defocussed. You need to focus this Cruse thing somewhere around the lens, right?

I'm not sure but the operator did not touch the lens, he operated the scanner from a computer.  I was there while the scans were done.

I should add that there was some pretty bad chromatic aberration, not as visible on the pic I posted as on others.

[JaapD]

You can easily put a 2 inch thick subject under the scanner. There are demos of this on Youtube. There simply needs to be a focus adjustment on this Cruze and of course you have to use it before you’ll let the final scan take place.

The results I see here exactly reflect of a de-focused scanner. The resolution is so low, this simply cannot come out of the scanner or the optics itself.

[Concord]

Thanks for your replies.  I am going to try and get my money back.  The scans are unusable.  I've made a couple side by side comparisons with scans from my Epson 10000XL for them to see, and they have the Cruse scans on file so they can see for themselves.  I had to apply a .5 pixel gaussian blur to make my Epson scan match the Cruse scan...  It's surprising to me how they could not notice this.  (I only saw the scans when I got home and opened them, I didn't check them on site because I assumed they would be ok, coming from a $100,000+ machine and all.)