Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: 3 Gb drum scan samples from 8x10" Portra 160 neg  (Read 61181 times)

DanielStone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 664
Re: 3 Gb drum scan samples from 8x10" Portra 160 neg
« Reply #80 on: May 31, 2014, 12:10:33 pm »

the Dainippon Screen 8060 Mark II is definitely in another league than any Heidelberg drum scanner, in terms of optical resolution, color transitions, noise-grain reduction.

The Heidelberg drum scanners are even surpassed by many other scanners, including ICG 380, Aztek Premier etc...

In the past 3 years of searching, I've NEVER come across a used 8060P MkII scanner on the used market. NOT ONE. I know they were not produced to the quantity level of Heidelberg, Howtek, or even Aztek units, but still... Maybe they're just 'too good' to scrap out, or they were sold to scrap guys rather than going for sale, publicly.

I have an Aztek DPL8000, and it works very well. Pretty much the same as a Premier, optically/PMT wise. I've not had any scans made on a Screen, but from what I've seen of your work, the Screen seems like a very capable scanner.

However, there is ONE BIG THING: the Screen is HUGE. My DPL8000 is 2'x3' approximately, and two guys can easily put it into the back of a volvo station wagon for transport. I don't believe that is possible with the 8060SP mkII? I know, I know, these machines don't get moved very often(or ever!), but the sheer size of the physical machine is a huge difference. Folks like myself, who don't have loads of space, but still want to produce their own scans, like these smaller machines that can fit on a desk(a solid one!), or tucked into an office closet sitting atop a coffee table, etc... The Screen is big.

I'm only shooting 5x7 and smaller formats now. I had an 11x14 camera last year, but have unfortunately sold it. I'd have loved to shoot it for a portrait project I'd like to start in the next year, but looking at the benefits for the print sizes I'll be making(20x24 approx and smaller), I could easily get the quality level I need out of a 4x5 even. For someone like yourself, who scans for ULF and LF shooters(I've seen some of those pictures of 12x20" color negatives :) ), I can understand your needing a machine that can handle film that large.

However, if time, money and SPACE were allowing, I'd love to get one of these Screen units like you have, simply due to the sheer mounting potential over the smaller drums that my Aztek scanner uses(8x10 is a tight squeeze!)...

-Dan
Logged

pfigen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
    • http://www.peterfigen.com
Re: 3 Gb drum scan samples from 8x10" Portra 160 neg
« Reply #81 on: June 01, 2014, 04:50:05 pm »

You can get a Howtek 6500/7500 for a song these days and they will scan up to 18.5x24 with 2500 ppi on the 8" diameter drum. Plus, you can still get part and service.
Logged

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: 3 Gb drum scan samples from 8x10" Portra 160 neg
« Reply #82 on: June 03, 2014, 12:57:31 pm »

I gave a screen (1045 I think that was it's number ) away a few years back. The oil mounting and scanning time was more than I could bother with. Plus getting a scan from colour neg was a real hard task, even though I had the negascan software.
To me shooting with film is not about resolving power, I still have not seen a digital file that has the look of Portra film. Portra does bright colours in a none over saturated way, they can be colourful and have gradation. They can be subtle but not bland. TV is awash with digital footage that has a film look added in post. To me it looks like digital with a film look added and not like film. I don't get why quality is judged by zooming into an image and declaring a winner by the amount of pimples you can see. Why not just look at a print as it should be viewed and decide which moves you the most.
I was viewing a photographers Horse portraits this weekend, printed about 40x30 and shot with a 5dII, really lovely images, seeing more hairs would not of made them even better by any amount. As long as the mechanics of noise/grain artefacts are not getting in the way of the image as you like to present them what does any of that matter?
It's got to be the overall look of the finished image that counts, not component parts taken separately.
Logged
Kevin.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up