The Cruse Camera- some videos in action

[teddillard]

I started here at Parrot a few months ago managing the Imaging Services here.  One of the things that got me here was the Cruse camera- a huge copy/scanning camera with a fixed head CCD/lens configuration- well, fixed only in the sense that it doesn't move to do the scan- it does move up and down to focus and scale, and a scanning bed.  

The real power of the Cruse is the lights.  They are lighting only the slot that's getting sampled at any given time, and thus give you huge control over the quality and direction of the source.  Imagine doing copy work where you can light completely evenly over a 48" x 72" area, or sidelight it, again, completely evenly from side-to-side.  It's pretty amazing, from a photographic point of view.  

I've put some videos together to show the thing working-

The overview is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qScqIa0K7VI

Some examples of what you can scan are here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n14eRrLmwsM

Here's a little piece we did on Jim Heck- an artist who uses our scans to reproduce pinball playfield graphics.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CI9JJ2Qwc

It's fun stuff...  if you've ever struggled with lighting artwork conventionally, you can appreciate how cool this thing is.  As good as the Betterlight is for scanning art, this is in a different class- simply by virtue of the light control.  

Hope you enjoy it- for all the cameras I've run over the last 40 years, this one has to be the most unique!

[Streetwise]

Ted, I sent you a PM.

[Dick Roadnight]

I started here at Parrot a few months ago managing the Imaging Services here.  One of the things that got me here was the Cruse camera-

How does the camera work - is like a Seitz panoramic camera, but you move the artwork instead of panning the camera?

I thought that this is an application for which the Seitz kit could be configured?

[teddillard]

How does the camera work - is like a Seitz panoramic camera, but you move the artwork instead of panning the camera?

I thought that this is an application for which the Seitz kit could be configured?

I'm not sure how similar the process is to a pano camera like the Seitz- My guess it that it's basically the same logic as a flatbed scanner- move, sample, move, sample...  except, yes, in this case the camera stays stationary and the work moves.  That's what makes the unique lighting possible- the thing that really makes the camera stand apart from any other camera configuration.

[ondebanks]

Utterly unconnected to anything I normally like to do and see...and all the more fascinating because of it!
Thanks for the cool vidz, Ted.

[BobDavid]

I'm very familiar with the Cruse. I prefer multi-shot digital backs and strobes for high-resolution copy/repro work. It takes a good craftsman to make either system work well.

[teddillard]

I'm very familiar with the Cruse. I prefer multi-shot digital backs and strobes for high-resolution copy/repro work. It takes a good craftsman to make either system work well.

Again, though, it's not about the sheer resolution.  It's about the lighting.  

There's simply no way to duplicate the Cruse lighting with conventional lights.

[JonathanBenoit]

Again, though, it's not about the sheer resolution.  It's about the lighting.  

There's simply no way to duplicate the Cruse lighting with conventional lights.

Looks good. I'd like to see 100% crops of artwork done with the Cruse Vs. Multishot back. In my experience, large format scanners have a very difficult time capturing a sharp image free of moire. Engravings would suffer the most from a large format scanner. I assume the Cruse has the same shortcomings.

The lighting control would be very useful though. For $110k, it would be hard to choose it over a multishot back - especially in this economy.

Thanks for sharing.

[teddillard]

Looks good. I'd like to see 100% crops of artwork done with the Cruse Vs. Multishot back. In my experience, large format scanners have a very difficult time capturing a sharp image free of moire. Engravings would suffer the most from a large format scanner. I assume the Cruse has the same shortcomings.

The lighting control would be very useful though. For $110k, it would be hard to choose it over a multishot back - especially in this economy.

Thanks for sharing.

With a tri-linear CCD there's absolutely no moire- not sure how you could be seeing it with any scanner.  It certainly is an issue with any sensor running a Bayer Array- except a mutli-shot of course- but not with any tri-linear CCD I've ever run.  But to answer the question, no, I've done several engravings and seen no issues with moire whatsoever.  Never seen them on a Betterlight, either.  Compared to every back I've tested, and I've tested almost all of them, the resolution is better than any of them.  

Right, as far as the price goes, I run it, I don't own it.    

The price of the scans, though, is right in line with a normal scan, MB for MB- and significantly cheaper than a shoot with a conventional camera.  Instead of setting up lights and all that, you literally just put the art on the bed, push the button and let 'er rip.

[JonathanBenoit]

With a tri-linear CCD there's absolutely no moire- not sure how you could be seeing it with any scanner.  It certainly is an issue with any sensor running a Bayer Array- except a mutli-shot of course- but not with any tri-linear CCD I've ever run.  But to answer the question, no, I've done several engravings and seen no issues with moire whatsoever.  Never seen them on a Betterlight, either.  Compared to every back I've tested, and I've tested almost all of them, the resolution is better than any of them.  

Right, as far as the price goes, I run it, I don't own it.    

The price of the scans, though, is right in line with a normal scan, MB for MB- and significantly cheaper than a shoot with a conventional camera.  Instead of setting up lights and all that, you literally just put the art on the bed, push the button and let 'er rip.

Ted,

I missed the tri-linear portion of your description. Any 100% crops you can provide? I have used Contax scanners. Not sure how much improvement has been made with regards to IQ, but sharpness was a real issue.

Is 600 dpi at 1:1 possible for any size artwork?

[teddillard]

Ted,

I missed the tri-linear portion of your description. Any 100% crops you can provide? I have used Contax scanners. Not sure how much improvement has been made with regards to IQ, but sharpness was a real issue.

Is 600 dpi at 1:1 possible for any size artwork?

Here's a portion of a scan we did yesterday @800 dpi- this is 100%.  (No USM yet.)

Any size artwork?  No...  as you increase the resolution the scannable area drops.

[BobDavid]

Again, though, it's not about the sheer resolution.  It's about the lighting.  

There's simply no way to duplicate the Cruse lighting with conventional lights.

There's simply no way to duplicate an evenly lit field of strobe light and having the option of using polarizers. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the Cruse, I'm just saying as a professional that earns a large percentage of income from fine art repro, I believe a well outfitted repro studio with a multi-shot cam, digital large format lenses, and an excellent array of strobes and modifiers is pretty tough to beat.

[Dick Roadnight]

I believe a well outfitted repro studio with a multi-shot cam, digital large format lenses, and an excellent array of strobes and modifiers is pretty tough to beat.

I thought that there was no such thing as a digital large format lens... are you talking about the MFD lenses like the Apo-digitars or something different?

¿does large format still start at 5 * 4 inches, or bigger than 120 film, or what?

[teddillard]

There's simply no way to duplicate an evenly lit field of strobe light and having the option of using polarizers. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the Cruse, I'm just saying as a professional that earns a large percentage of income from fine art repro, I believe a well outfitted repro studio with a multi-shot cam, digital large format lenses, and an excellent array of strobes and modifiers is pretty tough to beat.

Uh, I beg to differ.  Having cut my teeth running a big process camera, oh, what, 30 years or more ago when prepress was film,   and shot commercial art repro for a few decades, I'd say quite the opposite.  The Cruse uses long strip lights, configured to run within 6" of the sample area, at three preset distances- standard left/right, left (or right) only, left (or right) 5cm and left (or right) 10cm off-axis.  You can see what I mean in the second video.  

There's no way any light source, polarized or otherwise, can do what this can...  Whatever you use or shoot with, you're stuck with a relatively small diameter light source a distance away from the work.  You can't fight the inverse square law- the bigger the piece, the more difference you're going to get from one light, from one side (closer to the light) to the other (further from the light).  Polarized light is completely unnecessary- you can dial in (or out) the amount of specular highlight or shadow by centimeters.

Plus, the strip lights are within hundredths of a stop from one end to the other.

Due respect- but there's just no comparison.    Of course, if you have to bring the camera to the work, it's a different story- for that we do use the Betterlight or the multishot Hassey. 

[teddillard]

Utterly unconnected to anything I normally like to do and see...and all the more fascinating because of it!
Thanks for the cool vidz, Ted.

Glad you enjoyed it!  I learn something new about this camera every day...  fun stuff!

[BobDavid]

Uh, I beg to differ.  Having cut my teeth running a big process camera, oh, what, 30 years or more ago when prepress was film,   and shot commercial art repro for a few decades, I'd say quite the opposite.  The Cruse uses long strip lights, configured to run within 6" of the sample area, at three preset distances- standard left/right, left (or right) only, left (or right) 5cm and left (or right) 10cm off-axis.  You can see what I mean in the second video.  

There's no way any light source, polarized or otherwise, can do what this can...  Whatever you use or shoot with, you're stuck with a relatively small diameter light source a distance away from the work.  You can't fight the inverse square law- the bigger the piece, the more difference you're going to get from one light, from one side (closer to the light) to the other (further from the light).  Polarized light is completely unnecessary- you can dial in (or out) the amount of specular highlight or shadow by centimeters.

Plus, the strip lights are within hundredths of a stop from one end to the other.

Due respect- but there's just no comparison.  Of course, if you have to bring the camera to the work, it's a different story- for that we do use the Betterlight or the multishot Hassey. 

I like the option to polarize. Polarizing has other applications in addition to dealing with specular highlights. There are a number of excellent software solutions for mitigating inconsistencies of illuminiation across a 5' X 5' image field. I know that there's a heck of a lot of software involved with the Cruise scanner to ensure that an image is consistent and reconstructed correctly.

I often shoot artwork that's 100" by 48" long. It's so easy to move the bed that the artwork sits on and stitch with absolute precision.

I guess the bottom line is that I think digital capture involves hardware, software, and technique that boils down to preference. I'm not saying a big scanner is better or worse than a state of the multi-shot repro studio.

[teddillard]

I realize that some may not be following my explanation- I put together a post to give some more detail and samples, here:
http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=266

The samples are here:

This is the lighting for the brush stroke-



And this is how it plays out over the entire bed- 48" x 72"-



You'll get exactly the same shadow/highlight ratio and values- within a couple of points- across the entire work. 

Actually, Bob, there's very little in the way of software to deal with this, it's pretty much handled at the hardware side.  The lights are completely stable, and it's just a matter of running the color management module and the focus/white point calibration like any other scanner.  We do a lot of oversize stuff as well, like you say, the stitching is completely spot-on and painless. 

[EricWHiss]

Ted,
Thanks for sharing the 411 on this set-up. Very interesting and I can see the advantages of the different lighting options for texture as compared to multishot as its much easier to get directional but even illumination.  For oversized and stitching - what's the physical size limits?   Also how do you focus this?
Thanks,
Eric

[teddillard]

Ted,
Thanks for sharing the 411 on this set-up. Very interesting and I can see the advantages of the different lighting options for texture as compared to multishot as its much easier to get directional but even illumination.  For oversized and stitching - what's the physical size limits?   Also how do you focus this?
Thanks,
Eric

The size limit on one scan is 48" x 72"- that kicks you down in resolution to around 295dpi, if memory serves.  The focus is done automagically by the software- you put in the resolution and all, and it will focus the camera based on the initial calibration procedure you do periodically. 

Now... if only I could keep 411, 511 and 911 separate.   

[EricWHiss]

So can you do a 12x8 foot painting say in 4 scans stitched or will there be a column or some other physical limitation in the way?   

When I do repro work in the galleries, I sometimes can get away with the 16 shot mode which only gives me 10880 pixels x 8160.     Getting even lighting on the small stuff is easy, but much harder to do with the bigger pieces or at least I don't know how to do it.