Drum Scan vs. Blow Up

[skibum187]

So I have to make 36" prints for a client from some 35mm slides. I've been looking into Alien Skin's Blow Up for a while now but I'm wondering how it will compare in quality (going from a 4000dpi Nikon slide scanner then to Blow Up) versus having them drum scanned. Drum scanning will definitely be cheaper as I only have 3 slides, but will it produce as good of or better results?

[TylerB]

So I have to make 36" prints for a client from some 35mm slides. I've been looking into Alien Skin's Blow Up for a while now but I'm wondering how it will compare in quality (going from a 4000dpi Nikon slide scanner then to Blow Up) versus having them drum scanned. Drum scanning will definitely be cheaper as I only have 3 slides, but will it produce as good of or better results?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

totally depends on the quality of the drum scans. The truth is few drums return more than 4000ppi of native uninterpolated data anyway. Of course that data is generally "better", in the case of transparencies, than CCD. But again, depends on the operator and hard/software.

BlowUp has 30 days fee demo, will cost you nothing to try it. Take your nikon scans up to size, crop out a small portion to see on paper.

Tyler

[digitaldog]

I good drum scan will blow interpolated data out of the water. Not even close.

[pfigen]

"The truth is few drums return more than 4000ppi of native uninterpolated data anyway"

Not only do most drum scanners resolve more than 4000 ppi optical, pound for pound, they are sharper and have more detail than equivalent flatbed or "virtual" drum resolutions. IOW, 4000 ppi on a good drum (ICG or Howtek) will be sharper than 4000 from a Nikon, Epson or Imacon. Now whether or not the original has more information than 4000 ppi is another thing altogether. Only scanning at both resolutions and comparing will tell you. Some models of Howtek, ICG and Optronics all share the ability to scan with a 3 micron aperture, giving an optical rez of 8000 ppi. Check with your vendor to see what they use. Not all scanners are created equal, and definitely not all scanner operators are created equal.

[Richowens]

If you are going that big and only have three to scan, go for the drum scan. Pushing 35mm to that size will require all the resolution you can muster from the film.

 Rich

[Lee Clawson]

Yes the drum scan will be much, much better. The optics alone should give you a much better enlargement.

[TylerB]

"The truth is few drums return more than 4000ppi of native uninterpolated data anyway"

Not only do most drum scanners resolve more than 4000 ppi optical, pound for pound, they are sharper and have more detail than equivalent flatbed or "virtual" drum resolutions. IOW, 4000 ppi on a good drum (ICG or Howtek) will be sharper than 4000 from a Nikon, Epson or Imacon. Now whether or not the original has more information than 4000 ppi is another thing altogether. Only scanning at both resolutions and comparing will tell you. Some models of Howtek, ICG and Optronics all share the ability to scan with a 3 micron aperture, giving an optical rez of 8000 ppi. Check with your vendor to see what they use. Not all scanners are created equal, and definitely not all scanner operators are created equal.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I said nothing about what any scanner would resolve, that's not an argument I care to have on line. I said most drum scanners will not return more that 4000ppi native resolution of uninterpolated file data.
If you don't know the difference the conversation is not worth pursuing. Even the vendor selling the HiResolve states it does not actually resolve 8000ppi, even though it will scan at that setting.

There is no doubt a good drum scan can have more sharpness and detail than a ccd scan, as you say. I did not suggest otherwise.
I have a Howtek and use it almost daily. I also print for others from Imacon, Nikon, and flatbed ccd scans.

The fact is that one way or another, to get to a 36" print from a 35mm original, the data will be interpolated either in the scanner software, in Photoshop, via some fancy software, or in the printer driver or RIP.

I'll repeat, a demo test of BlowUp is free, and probably educational.
Tyler

[Kirk Gittings]

A good drum scan will blow interpolated data out of the water. Not even close.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My experience exactly.

[pfigen]

"I said nothing about what any scanner would resolve, that's not an argument I care to have on line. I said most drum scanners will not return more that 4000ppi native resolution of uninterpolated file data."

You certainly implied such. And I repeat, there are plenty of drums out there that will return more than 4000 ppi of uninterpolated data.

"f you don't know the difference the conversation is not worth pursuing. Even the vendor selling the HiResolve states it does not actually resolve 8000ppi, even though it will scan at that setting."

I do know the difference, and I know that a Howtek HR8000, which is one of the models that I own, will hit somewhere in the 7000 dpi of real resolution, but if you're using Trident, which, IMO, is the best scanning interface for the Howtek, you do have to manually set the aperture to the 3 micron setting in order to get that resolution, as, for some reason that even John Panazzo couldn't tell me, defaults to 6 microns when set to 8000 dpi. Minor bug, but one you should know about if you're scanning for maximum resolution. That is also the reason that the HR8000 came up short in Azteks resolution comparison when compared to the same scanner using DPL.

"I have a Howtek and use it almost daily."

Which model, and have you had Evan do a custom alignment to get the most out of it?

"The fact is that one way or another, to get to a 36" print from a 35mm original, the data will be interpolated either in the scanner software, in Photoshop, via some fancy software, or in the printer driver or RIP."

24 x 36 @8000 = 25.2 X 37.8 @ 300 dpi or very close to 32 x 48 @ 240 optical resolution with no interpolation. If you happen to have been using the sharpest film with the sharpest lenses at the optimum apertures, then you'll be able to see the difference on a print, even if it's only a very small difference. Sometimes the difference is very small. Sometimes the difference is larger. Hell, I've even seen a very slight increase in detail scanning Tri-X between 4000 and 8000 on my Howtek. It's impossible to tell where the cutoff is exactly because the scanners jump from 4000 to 8000 at the high end of the res scale.

[TylerB]

"I said nothing about what any scanner would resolve, that's not an argument I care to have on line. I said most drum scanners will not return more that 4000ppi native resolution of uninterpolated file data."

You certainly implied such. And I repeat, there are plenty of drums out there that will return more than 4000 ppi of uninterpolated data.

"f you don't know the difference the conversation is not worth pursuing. Even the vendor selling the HiResolve states it does not actually resolve 8000ppi, even though it will scan at that setting."

I do know the difference, and I know that a Howtek HR8000, which is one of the models that I own, will hit somewhere in the 7000 dpi of real resolution, but if you're using Trident, which, IMO, is the best scanning interface for the Howtek, you do have to manually set the aperture to the 3 micron setting in order to get that resolution, as, for some reason that even John Panazzo couldn't tell me, defaults to 6 microns when set to 8000 dpi. Minor bug, but one you should know about if you're scanning for maximum resolution. That is also the reason that the HR8000 came up short in Azteks resolution comparison when compared to the same scanner using DPL.

"I have a Howtek and use it almost daily."

Which model, and have you had Evan do a custom alignment to get the most out of it?

"The fact is that one way or another, to get to a 36" print from a 35mm original, the data will be interpolated either in the scanner software, in Photoshop, via some fancy software, or in the printer driver or RIP."

24 x 36 @8000 = 25.2 X 37.8 @ 300 dpi or very close to 32 x 48 @ 240 optical resolution with no interpolation. If you happen to have been using the sharpest film with the sharpest lenses at the optimum apertures, then you'll be able to see the difference on a print, even if it's only a very small difference. Sometimes the difference is very small. Sometimes the difference is larger. Hell, I've even seen a very slight increase in detail scanning Tri-X between 4000 and 8000 on my Howtek. It's impossible to tell where the cutoff is exactly because the scanners jump from 4000 to 8000 at the high end of the res scale.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

we are not in disagreement. You have one of the few scanners that would be the exception to my post. Even Aztek's on line comparison shows your scanner returning 7264 optical dpi with nothing else coming even close. At least it's uninterpolated, and very close to the pixel availability of 8000.
Even with your equipment, the printer driver or RIP, assuming for something standard like an Epson, is going to interpolate up to the printer dpi. I don't know every scanner spec out there, but I'd bet few come close to yours, if any.

I'm probably not writing very clearly.

Tyler

[pfigen]

"Even with your equipment, the printer driver or RIP, assuming for something standard like an Epson, is going to interpolate up to the printer dpi. I don't know every scanner spec out there, but I'd bet few come close to yours, if any."

It's been my experience that when you are scanning all or close to everything on the film, mild to moderate interpolation has almost no visible effect. I've done a lot of straight 200% rezzing from 4000 dpi Howtek scans and all you see is larger grain. The files print phenomonally well - in these cases - up to 32 X 48 from K64 originals.