scanning 8x10 film

[Wayne Jacobsen]

You will need a scanner that handles transparencies in order to scan film.  Although I don't know the particular scanners you mentioned, I think its going to be pretty hard to find an inexpensive scanner that can handle 8 by 10 transparencies.  They are out there, but when I last looked a couple years ago, they were pricy.

You might consider an Epson 2450 (or its sucessor, which is the 3200, I think).  These can scan up to a 4 inch by 9 inch tranasparency.  For an 8 by 10 you would need to do three scans and stich them together, which should work OK. (I've done it for artwork, but I have not tried it for film.)

Just a thought or two.  hope it helps.

[Mike Rodgers]

I've been recently trying some lightjet prints scanned from 8x10 velvia on my Linocolor/Heidelburg Saphir, which gives about 1200 DPI optical and about 3.6 Dmax if I remember correctly.  

Looking at some very preliminary results on a landscape this last weekend, I was having trouble getting an even palate of luminosity through the darker areas of the landscape--overall prints came out a little more contrasty as a result---though I have to qualify the results as I was just barely starting to work and print proofs with this image-- wheras I spent the better part of the weekend fine tuning a different Velvia 8x10 drum scanned on a Tango with particular attention to some dark areas on the image--after a weekend of working with the image in PS and looking over proof prints, I got to something close to what I'd consider a master file and a couple of 20x24 prints.  I for one am very interested in this topic, as I have a large body of 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies I'd prefer to get acceptable results from a flatbed I purchase than paying $90-$150 (including premiums for >4x5 and 300MB file size typically charged) for each drum scan from better service bureaus (and there's many that screw this up)--I'm starting to look at current generation of flatbeds to see what DPI, but more importantly, what dmax is available at what price on machines with 8x10 transparency capability.  the Saphir was nice in that the transparency adapter was built riught in to the cover and they have about the best scanner software around (alas they've stopped making any new scanners)

[Lawrence]

I use the 2450 for all my scanning except 35mm, and that will change when I switch to the 3200. I don't understand the "proof" attitude, as if you use the Epson correctly, the differences (they are there) are in the same league as what one sees when shifting to different papers in the darkroom. Sharpness is so good that a properly scanned 6x6cm image printed to 12"x12", is indistinguishable from an analog (sharpness only! Image values depend on adjustments, of course!).

I also have 8x10, and what I do is scan from a good, but slightly flat print, and proceed. I will say that, a properly printed 16x20 from an 8x10 does look better than the scanned version, but that is due, IMHO, to the digitizing and print qualities visible in inkjets. Sometime soon, I am going to have an 8x10 image printed on a Chromira and then compare to the analog.

[goran]

I may change my verdict somewhat when it comes to 6x6 film.

After my last post I was somewhat perplexed. My first impression of this scanner was in fact that it
did not give more @1800 than @900. But why should Microtek use this 14400-CCD then ? Just marketing hype ?

As I said before disregarding this unsharpness the artixscan 1800f is really good: fast, clean (the
most important thing for me) and cool. And I am very very pleased with it.

And why is there a so clear difference (in some places, but definitely not everywhere) between a digital-contact-print
and a wet-contact-print ? You don't need a loupe to see this ! (And this is not cureable with any USM.)
When other people find their epson 3200 "outstanding for 4x5 (sharp at 32x40 inches BIG)"
(http://normankoren.com/Tutorials/Epson_flatbeds.html). I would not call this artixscan outstanding for a 8x10 negative
printed at the same size 8x10" (a drumscan would be better I guess). But definitely OK.

So I looked for and found some of my 135mm-lens-test-negatives (I did some tests with my minolta 85mm/1.4) with very fine details.
I scanned this with both my Minolta Multi @1128 and the Artixscan @1800 and @900.
Now the artixscan was clearly superior. Far more resolution and a clear difference between @1800 and @900.

I was in some way fooled by this scanner. It can resolve detail @1800 (far more than @900). The reason I was fooled
is that it is so fuzzy at low frequencies.

Stated in MTF terms you can say the contrast is rather low (low MTF at low frequencies) but still rather good
resolution (not so low MTF at high frequencies). Optically this is a rather strage thing (I believe).
The reason must be a fuzzy optical image on a dense CCD. So one wonders what it takes to sharpen up this optical
image inside the scanner. Maybe it is hard to get the lens to cover 8". After all optical unsharpness is proprortional to
focal distance and focal distance may be about 8" here.

It would be nice to have some professional MTF evaluations of these scanners (Epson, Microtek, Umax, ...) .

Anyway these are my conclusions so far.

goran/Sweden

[Tohru]

Need to scan 8x10 film color  also B&W. budget is limited so looking into Micotek Artixscan 1800F and Epson Expression
1680. Hard to get opinion of Microtek Artixscan 1800F,
Anyone?

[RD]

Look at www.photo.net. Go to Community>Forums...>Digital Darkroom and scroll down to Older Questions. Click on Scanning>Scanners>Flatbed. You will find a post on the 1800f and 2450.

[goran]

I have just bought the ArtixScan 1800f. I will be using it for my 8x10" color-negatives. I am upgrading from a ScanMaker4.

I am very very pleased with it.  

The ScanMaker4 had huge "streaks" problems. Especially when "printing down" well exposed skies. Otherwise I liked my old ScanMaker 4. This ArtixScan is far better and as good as clean. It is allso very cool so if you just dry the negative up for a minute (with a hairdryer) it will scan without any newton-rings at all.

When it comes to 6x6 film the ArtixScan is below my Minolta Multi II which scans medium format at max 1128 ppi.

Now you can allways get a "sharper" digital print (using USM) than a wet print. But this sharpness is in some way superficial.

A negative scanned and printed the same size is not far from a contact print. The dark edges on the print (light on the CCD) are swelling just a little little tiny bit compared to a contact print.

I have been scanning @450 and printing @450 too (Lab USM 500 .2 0 may work) on my Epson 1290 (=1280), Matte Heawy Paper. (It may even be better @900.)

The sharpness is just about OK for a 8x10" digital-contact-print but too bad for medium format. It may work on 4x5" if you are not too picky.

I wonder what causes this unsharpness (so noticeable on medium format) ? It seems to be the same on all flatbed scanners.

Out of focus ?
Bad optics ?
Or What ?

Perhaps someone could tell me !


Goran/Sweden