Best Drum Scanners Around

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Hey guys,

I'm getting that ULF itch again, and with ULF comes the question of scanning (though lets face it shooting positives and showing them on light boxes is pretty much going to look awesome), and I understand that there are in fact some scanners that can take a 8x20 or 7x17 which are the two ridiculous formats I'm considering, does anyone have any information about current production drumscanners that can do this?

thanks.

Best,
BH

[DanielStone]

Brian,
Get comfortable :

I don't believe that ANY drum scanners are currently "in production" that can handle ULF formats. Well, if you consider ICG "current", they're UK based, and I don't believe have much presence here in the USA:
http://www.icg.ltd.uk/

Aztek(based in Irvine, CA) is a great company, but from what I heard second-hand, are no longer producing "new" scanners. Their "current" model is the 'Premier', but it's max format is 8x10. I have a DPL8000(precursory model to the Premier, almost identical except for some internal differences), and it's a wonderful machine. Quite small(for a drum scanner), but packs a heavy-hitting punch tech-wise.
An older Howtek model, the 7500, can handle up to 16x20 as well, I believe. It's an OLD machine, almost(possibly more) than 20yrs old now, design-wise, and has been out of the lineup for quite some time. Aztek still has customers that use them, so they service them from time to time. However, finding one of these units is a bit hard, and finding a perfectly operating one is even harder. FYI: Aztek's founder, Phillip Lippincott, purchased Howtek's scanner patents/scanner division and applied many of their designs(which he greatly improved upon, he really was a "wizard" when it came to tuning PMT-based machines!)
www.aztek.com

Heidelberg is no longer producing new scanners. Their last flagship models, the D8200 and D8400, can handle up to 16x20 film.
These are BIG, HEAVY machines, and thusly, require a good deal of space, despite their "vertical" design. They'll definitely need a suitably stable floor(preferably a concrete pad, not a raised foundation, as found in many homes). They are great machines, and if I were to replace my Aztek with any other machine, I'd go with a D8200/8400, without hesitation. Karl Hudson (http://www.hudsongrafik.com/) is the go-to man for worldwide service and support these days on these wonderful machines. I've spoken to him a few times(when considering one of his refurb'd machines while deciding which way to go scanner-wise). I'm saving to add one of his machines to my equipment list, even thought the Aztek gives me everything I "need" and more. I don't use ULF formats. 5X7" film gives me everything I need resolution-wise, and more

Dainippon-Screen has a long history of producing scanners.
These are also BIG, HEAVY machines. Designed for production printing and graphics houses. However, there are some photographers/artists using the scanners for more photography-related use. Their last, flagship machine, the SG-8060p Mark II, is a BEAST. Also, quite rare on the second-hand market. Not very common in the USA, and I'm not sure if there is even any service available within the USA.
This guy uses one, you might want to talk with him about it(he's in Italy, and scans for a living):  http://www.castorscan.com/


If I were you, I'd really look long and hard at ULF(well, anything over 8x10") as a "passing notion". ULF takes balls-deep commitment, time and money(which based on former posts/reviews I've seen yourself associated with, doesn't seem to be an issue, no offense , I'd love to have more free cash for camera gear!)
I was shooting 8x10 for approx 2yrs. It's a great format, and has a LOT of potential for high resolution. If you're looking at TRANSPARENCY film, Kodak isn't making any more now. E6 with Kodak is kaput, dead as a dodo... Sad but true. And getting Fuji to custom-cut an order of film for you(especially us, as Americans) is going to be harder than pulling all of your teeth out with a pair of 99¢ store pliers ... But more power to you. In the end, I found that shooting 5x7 afforded me a few things, most notably the following: 1. Ease of portability 2. Lighter weight 3. Less cost of materials($25/sheet post-processing for 8x10 E6 adds up, yo!) 4. More "options" film-wise across the board
I know some people, personally, who have, or still do, shoot ULF. One shoots 8x20, one shoots 12x20, and another shoots 7x17. All have done so for more than 20yrs, and all have shot other LF formats for more time than that(mostly 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10)... One still has some 8x20 E100G that he purchased a number of years back when a special order was conducted for such by a wealthy Chinese client. He was luck enough to get (3) boxes, 30s sheets, and it cost him $350/box. That's $35/sheet.... 8X10 E100G at the time was ~$10/sheet. Not quite a linear price increase, but he wanted it...


Not trying to dissuade you here, and certainly not going to tell you don't chase your dreams, but make sure you're ready to get financially bucked off of your saddle mate, cuz these machines aren't exactly "new" anymore, even if freshly refurb'd prior to you using them... Parts, service and know-how are getting more scarce by the year...
If you're looking to potentially spread your "cost" out over some more time, and instead of scanning DIY-style, send out to some labs who are already set up and equipped for such needs. I'm happy to refer you to some, if you want. PM me if interested and I'll forward their information. Some are US based, some are int'l. Most are considered top of their fields/markets. But remember, they're in business, so need to make enough to keep the doors open. "Cheap" gets you exactly that: CHEAP.

best of luck
-Dan

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your reply, somehow I completely missed the email notifying me that anyone had replied to this thread.

I know ULF has a number of challenges, and I think I agree with you that sending out film to be scanned is the much better option (I will be PM-ing you).

I am comfortable with accepting the costs, however I need to think it over more, currently I'm on the market for 4x5 and 8x10 cameras, The ones that look most interesting to me at the moment are the "Pocket View Cameras" by Calumet / Peter Gowland as a nice portable way to start experimenting with view cameras which is really where I want to get to. The ULF dream has been around for a while and is still in me, but I think I need to continue plotting, I'm considering getting into Arca-Swiss cameras for my MFD stuff and the RL3D becomes an interesting option for 4x5 at that point especially with all of their electronic gizmos for focusing and now their shutters...I know they can modify their lULF camera to other formats / possibly make a different sized rear-standard which would give me some really interesting options in terms of control of exposures and focusing etc so its a plan that needs to be meditated on further. for sure.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Best,
BH

[Doug Peterson]

Our Film Scanning Kit solution natively handles up to 11x17 film. It might be possible to custom make a solution for larger sizes.

[Chris Barrett]

Over the summer I got my Howtek 4500 running again and just recently took delivery of a new Chamonix 4x10.  I think this is going to give me exceptional quality.  Another thing to consider... with Scanview, I cannot scan to a file larger than 2GB.  I don't know if Aztek's software can do bigger or not, but already that limits me to 3k dpi on the 4x10 film.  That does get me to a 40"x100" print, however and I really doubt I'll ever print larger than that.

As you start to get larger and larger in the cameras, lenses really become an issue.  The 4 lenses I got for the 4x10 set me back about $5500 total.  4x5 lenses would have been so much less money!

Now, I think I need to make some margaritas.

Good luck,
HTH
CB


new toy

[DanielStone]

Over the summer I got my Howtek 4500 running again and just recently took delivery of a new Chamonix 4x10.  I think this is going to give me exceptional quality.  Another thing to consider... with Scanview, I cannot scan to a file larger than 2GB.  I don't know if Aztek's software can do bigger or not, but already that limits me to 3k dpi on the 4x10 film.  That does get me to a 40"x100" print, however and I really doubt I'll ever print larger than that.

As you start to get larger and larger in the cameras, lenses really become an issue.  The 4 lenses I got for the 4x10 set me back about $5500 total.  4x5 lenses would have been so much less money!

Now, I think I need to make some margaritas.

Good luck,
HTH
CB

Chris,
try this: scan multiple sections and "stitch" them in PS. Works great for legacy software packages that have max file size per-scan limitation. Aztek DPL doesn't have one(I believe) for the 4500. I know my DPL8000 can scan up to 48GB(or is it 96, can't remember offhand), but the max file size I've ever done was ~2.5gb from an 8x10 sheet of film. That was a monster 16gb file. My "normal size scan now(@16bit) is ~1.2-2.0GB, from 5x7 film. It's easier to scan it once at hi-res, then downsample for smaller size prints than re-scan at a later date. But that's my workflow, and hard drives are cheap in the long run. My time isn't as cheap as more gigabytes are

-Dan

[DanielStone]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your reply, somehow I completely missed the email notifying me that anyone had replied to this thread.

I know ULF has a number of challenges, and I think I agree with you that sending out film to be scanned is the much better option (I will be PM-ing you).

I am comfortable with accepting the costs, however I need to think it over more, currently I'm on the market for 4x5 and 8x10 cameras, The ones that look most interesting to me at the moment are the "Pocket View Cameras" by Calumet / Peter Gowland as a nice portable way to start experimenting with view cameras which is really where I want to get to. The ULF dream has been around for a while and is still in me, but I think I need to continue plotting, I'm considering getting into Arca-Swiss cameras for my MFD stuff and the RL3D becomes an interesting option for 4x5 at that point especially with all of their electronic gizmos for focusing and now their shutters...I know they can modify their lULF camera to other formats / possibly make a different sized rear-standard which would give me some really interesting options in terms of control of exposures and focusing etc so its a plan that needs to be meditated on further. for sure.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Best,
BH

Brian,
Personally, if you "want the best", take a look at the Linhof Technika line of cameras. Preferably the later Technika 2000/3000($$$$) line. You can pick up a beautiful, 2nd hand MT2000 for ~$1500-2500 these days. Lensboards are super easy to source(and no, despite what Linhof claims, you don't need the factory Linhof boards, unless you're into spending LOTS of money for a piece of flat metal when the Chinese-made ones are just as flat ...

I used to shoot 8x10, alongside 4x5. I still have a couple of 8x10 holders if I were to find an 8x10 Phillips Compact field camera that was cheap(these usually go for $4-9k these days, USED)... I decided to step down to 5x7, as I found that the aspect ratio native to the format was more to my liking/as my eyes see, and TBH, the resolution possible with 5x7 was more than enough for my NEEDS. However, if I was making murals(like 6 feet on the short side), I'd still shoot 8x10 and crop. There's no getting around the "size matters" rule when it comes to making big prints. Big film helps make better pictures, technically...

Of course, you have more bulk this way. 8X10 isn't small and light, no matter how small your camera is. Even 4x5 can have some bulk to it compared to MF systems...

What are you trying to do that requires LF film in particular? Or more curiosity than anything(which isn't a bad thing !)

-Dan

[BernardLanguillier]

Isn't the Creo 3 able to scan up to 7x17?

Not drum quality I am sure, but isn't it a reasonnable option for ULF?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Chris Livsey]

Kodak Creo iQsmart2/3  works up to 305 x 457.2 mm (12 x 18 in.) A3

http://www.hunterpenrose.co.uk/E.WPE.203.0306.en.01_IQsmart3.pdf

Comparison of Specs: http://www.cpsnet.co.uk/Portals/0/pdfs/IQS_SPECIFICATIONS.pdf

It's the ongoing ownership that can cost: UK Service visits and troubleshooting visits are generally priced at £600 + VAT per day (excluding parts)

A2 scanners are available: CONTEX HD iFLEX A2 FLATBED
    
Scanning Area –    18 x 24” (457 x 610 mm)
Maximum Image Size –    24 x 36” (610 x 914 mm) – Software stitched, multiple scans

http://www.cpsnet.co.uk/scanners/a2-scanners.aspx

[DanielStone]

Isn't the Creo 3 able to scan up to 7x17?

Not drum quality I am sure, but isn't it a reasonnable option for ULF?

Cheers,
Bernard

The Creo/Kodak IqSmart/Eversmart range of scanners are superb flatbed machines. SUPERB as long as the operator who is at the helm is able to fully flex the machine and it's capabilities(not just "know" about what the machine is capable of!). Of course, this relates to ANY type of technology. You can buy and park a Ferrari in your garage, but unless you have the skills to make that Ferrari perform as it was designed to do, you'll never fully realize it's full potential.

Same goes with scanners. I've seen VERY good quality scans come out of an Epson V750 with the wet mount adapter when scanning MF/LF films(wet mount up to 5x7"). I've also seen my fair share of HORRIBLE quality drum scans done on top-tier equipment, but not operated by top-tier scanner operators(usually this happens at larger labs, where operators don't just operate the scanner, but also perform other functions around the lab's facilities...)

Drum scanners and the Kodak/Creo units aren't cheap to maintain(if you're looking to get things maintained properly(as per factory specs or otherwise, by a technician who knows these machines inside & out. But then again, most digital back repairs aren't "cheap" either. Maintenance cost is just a fact of life. Cars, scanners, cameras, heck even our bodies need a bit of a "tune up" once in a while. And generally, that costs some bucks

Unfortunately, finding good technicians for these awesome large-scale flatbeds is becoming harder now that Kodak is no longer supporting them.

-Dan

[8x10nut]

8x10 Phillips Compact field camera that was cheap(these usually go for $4-9k these days, USED)

-Dan

What are good places to look for these Phillips cameras ? Haven't seen too many on eBay. Maybe I just wasn't looking hard enough.
Thanks.

[8x10nut]

 The 4 lenses I got for the 4x10 set me back about $5500 total.  4x5 lenses would have been so much less money!

Would you mind sharing; which 4 lenses did you get ?
Thanks.

[EricWHiss]

Brian,
I really like my linhof 13x18 (5x7) cameras.  These have rangefinders, focusing scales and a decent amount of movement. I'm with Daniel on the 5x7 - its a really nice size and you can still get film easily for it, and though it sounds close, its really a lot bigger than 4x5 - almost double the area.  Linhof's are great, but the one thing they are not is light. You could drive a tank over these.  For something light and well built, a lot of guys I know love the Wehman 8x10 which I think are pretty hard to come by these days.

For 4x5, I also have a linhof technika, and a speed graphic, but I tend to really enjoy shooting with the polaroid 110B conversions. I'm sure I shoot about 5 times as many sheets in these compared to the linhof.   I have three of them with different focal lengths made by Steve Icanberry of Alpenhause.   These are not technical at all, but with the really huge rangefinder quite easy and fun to shoot with.

Eric

[gerald.d]

If you're looking for something light, then Walker Cameras also do a nice 5x7.

[Chris Barrett]

Would you mind sharing; which 4 lenses did you get ?
Thanks.

Sure thing, Schneider Super-Symmar 110mm XL, 150mmXL. Rodenstock Apo-Sironar 210mm W & Schneider 305mm G-Claron

[EricWHiss]

Those XL's are supposed to be excellent.

Brian,
Back to scanners…  I've been shooting my negatives on a light table with my multishot backs and macro lenses.  This works quite well for black and white negatives since all you have to do is invert the file and add a curve,  and sometimes it works for color.  I use the color neg plug in in photoshop most of the time.  Certainly better detail than you'd get from something like a prosumer scanner and quite a bit faster.   I am however thinking that the best scanners have better software for getting colors right and might do even better.   For that reason, I'm looking at big desktop scanners like the eversmart and iqsmart.   I know that the drum scanners are probably better, but I like the idea of also being able to scan big prints, and really big negatives. 

[8x10 user]

Most of the high end drum scanners and flatbed scanners will outresolve film shot at the 7x17+ format, although many drum scanners scan at lower resolutions with the larger drums are used. For your purpose I would be more concerned with bit depth, tonality, noise, serviceability, file size limitations, and a lack of defects such as flare and scan lines. Knowing the source of the equipment is very important. You can have a scanner with defects that will still scan but the image wont be as good. Look for scanners from clean labs who are willing to power it on and let you test it, or refurbished units from know techs. Beware of scanners from recyclers or other random junk dealers as they could cost as much to fix up as a refurbished unit is new. For this format most of the scanners are going to be very large. If you go with a drum scanner your main options would be a vertical Heidelberg (550lbs) or 1000lb + horizontal beast such as the ones made by Crossfield, and Screen. Some will say you need smaller apertures only available from Aztek and ICG but that in the real world 3-6 micron apertures are only really good for 35mm kodakchrome and films like technical pan or Rollei ATP. For other films Aztek tells you to use apertures from 8-16 microns. For 7x17 a 10 micron + will suite your needs just fine. The bigger aperture allows for more light and a lower noise image to be produced. The files from a 3 micron aperture show more noise.

Creo Scanners are also quite nice if you find one that is in good condition. I have tested 5600DPI creo scans versus 8000 (6 micron aperture) DPI drum scans. The higher resolution drum scan showed slightly more detail but the creo actually had better shadow performance. That was with 35mm kodakchrome, with 7x17 BW a nice creo will have all of the resolution you would need. The Eversmart Supreme is the best flatbed ever made, it uses the more premium actively cooled version of the kodak 8000 line trilinear sensor (non cooled version is used by cruise, metis, betterlight, ect.) and the best Rodenstock lens they could get. It can scan your film with several high resolution strips and then it automatically combines (stitches) the scans into a larger mosaic of your image. The hardware is all based on a pure 16 bit data path and there is a multisampling option to further reduce the already very low noise levels. I know someone in the US who refurbishes, sells, and services creo scanners. PM me if you would like his contact information.

[KevinA]

I would look for a A3 flatbed, Fuji Heidelberg etc rough scan with one of these, then get a drum scan done at a pro house for the special one.
Mounting and scanning a ULF neg would drive you nuts. Scanning would take hours, then you would spot the scanning problems once its done.
 It would be cheaper and easier to build an enlarger and hand print it. Or just  contact print it. Or use a camera shoot in sections and stitch the results.
I had a Dainipon 1045si I think, lovely scans, but mounting, scanning and cleaning took all the shine well away, that was only 5x4.
Get a flatbed plus Silverfast software, the scanner will cheap as chips and most likely come with an old Mac with scsi to run it.

[Chris Barrett]

I'm still really enjoying this workflow.  The big reason I went with a 4x10 is that it was the largest panoramic format that I would be able to drum scan.  I'm doing 48bit "HDR" scans in SilverFast and converting them with the ColorPerfect Plugin.  I've tested my scanner against the Imacons and it's definitely nicer.  I've also tried reshooting the negs with my IQ260 and was not happy at all with the color neg conversions.

Latest from the lake...


CB