Scanning limitations - or why not buy a drum scanner?

[Quentin]

I assume that many LF photographers shoot LF because the quality - resolution, dynamic range, that intangible "almost like you are there" appeal - is important. 4x5 can still blow away the most expensive megabucks digital back, but also the apearance of larger formats is different.

So, as the founder of the ScanHi-End forum and a user myself of a drum scanner, I ask why, when so much effort and expense is invested at the shooting stage, are results compromised by the use of flatbeds to scan the final results?

There is no need. The price of used drum scanners has fallen through the floor as more and more repro houses move towards all digital workflows. A good used drum scanner can be purchased for less than £1,000. That is not cheap, but neither is it completely out of reach. This is megabucks technology going for a song.

By way of example, a Screen DT 1045 drum scanner was offered for sale on Ebay UK and failed to make the reserve of just £750. Admittedly it's a big heavy beast, but 7 years ago it cost £35,000...

The more popular desktop size drum scanners like the Optronics colorgetter, or the Howtek D4000 or Scanmaster 4500 can be found for similar prices, often with software and dongle. OK, you need about one hours practice to mount film on a drum, but after that it's not that much more complicated to run than a flatbed, particularly if you have an old Mac lying around.

My intention in this diatribe is to perhaps encourage a rethink by those who mistakenly believe that (a) a drum scanner is too expensive (no longer the case) and (b) too complex (piffle its just a question of familiarisation) These drum scanners are MUCH sharper than any flatbed and will therefore release the potential of those great LF images and have greater dynamic range (don't be fooled by those theoretical figures Epson and others put out - no budget flatbed will get within a country mile of a half-decent drum scanner).

I mentioned above the ScanHi-End group. You can find it at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ScanHi-End/ but let's also discuss here because it is relevant to all LF photographers who want to max out the payback from all those hours standing in the rain to get that perfect image.

Quentin

[buze]

Law of dimishing returns ? I can get damn good scans at 2400dpi out of the 4x5 sheets on the epson, and thats a massively large file already.... Larger than I actualy /need/...

So yes, I could get bigger, badder, sharper.. But then again if someone asked me to print on a building, I think I could get out and /rent/ a large, expensive, beefy scanner ?

The idea of having a nice clean neg is that the information is still in there after all... If needs be. Makes lovely contact prints too

[David Rees]

Quentin,

While not disputing that drum scanners are better than flatbeds, I seem to recall a comparative review of an Epson 4990 against a drum scanner, written a year or so back, which indicated that the differences between the two were not chalk and cheese. In fact, I thought you wrote it. Has further experience indicated that there are major differences?

I have myself thought about buying a drum scanner, even 2nd-hand, to find out for myself how much more could be squeezed out of film. However, an admittedly cursory survey indicated that the maximum dpi available for MF and LF film on such scanners was quite low -- say 1200 dpi or so for LF. Since I get 4000dpi on my Nikon 8000ED for MF, and 3200dpi on my V700, that low dpi for the drum scanners concerns me.

I think we are also suffering from the fact that most people have never seen a good drum scan of an image to compare against what one can achieve with a good flatbed; certainly I never have. So one has little idea how much might be gained. This being so, perhaps you'd like to update / rewrite that article, showing us the benefits to be had from drum scans. I for one could easily be persuaded!

David.

[Quentin]

Quentin,

While not disputing that drum scanners are better than flatbeds, I seem to recall a comparative review of an Epson 4990 against a drum scanner, written a year or so back, which indicated that the differences between the two were not chalk and cheese. In fact, I thought you wrote it. Has further experience indicated that there are major differences?

I have myself thought about buying a drum scanner, even 2nd-hand, to find out for myself how much more could be squeezed out of film. However, an admittedly cursory survey indicated that the maximum dpi available for MF and LF film on such scanners was quite low -- say 1200 dpi or so for LF. Since I get 4000dpi on my Nikon 8000ED for MF, and 3200dpi on my V700, that low dpi for the drum scanners concerns me.

I think we are also suffering from the fact that most people have never seen a good drum scan of an image to compare against what one can achieve with a good flatbed; certainly I never have. So one has little idea how much might be gained. This being so, perhaps you'd like to update / rewrite that article, showing us the benefits to be had from drum scans. I for one could easily be persuaded!

David.

David

You are right, I did do such a comparison, but the drum scanner still came out top without sharpening, and had better dynamic range. Also at that time, prices of used drum scanners had not fallen quite so ridiculouisly low.

I am not sure where you got the dpi figure for drum scanners from, but they are not right at all. It could be you are thinking of Imacon pseudo drum scanners that are in fact just trumped-up desktop flatbeds with a differend method of presenting the film. Some drum scanners scan at up to 11,000ppi. I scan 8x10 on my Howtek at 2,000ppi which creates a huge file. Realistically there is no point in a bigger file than that. I scan 4x5 at 4,000ppi, the max resolution for the Howtek, and high enough to resolve grain, and create a 1.6gb file at 16bit.


Quentin

[David Rees]

Quentin,

I stand corrected on the dpi achievable by drum scanners -- I was indeed basing it on the Imacon scanners -- the 949 springs to mind.

Accepting that drum scanners are better than modern flatbeds, the questions are:

a) how much better, and
b) how much difference that makes to prints of certain sizes: 12x16, 16x20, 20x24, etc, from a 5x4 scan.

As another thought, I would have thought that the ability to squeeze the last ounce of detail, etc., from a scanned piece of film would be more important for 35mm or MF, rather than LF. I would grant you that improved dynamic range is of benefit regardless of film size.

[Quentin]

David,

Some talk of the drum scanner "look". I accept there is so much data in LF that that extra bit of sharpness might seem to be redundant, but I return to the point about the reason for shooting LF, and the fact we do so because we want the best, otherwise why not save ourselves the trouble of lugging LF kit about and instread shoot only 35mm or MF.

You will see a difference in print sizes smaller than you might think.

I would say that the drum scanner advantage is less apparent with negative film because it can over-emphasise grain unless you are careful.

Quentin

[gari]

I looked for a used drum scanner when I was after a scanner, I had read various threads of how cheap they had become. I looked for quite a while with no luck, I went the flat bed route with a wetmount kit. and though I like the results(for the price) I still would like a drum scanner in the next year or so.

I have to admit that it is mainly the dynamic range that is of interest to me, though the resolution is not being discounted. I had a 35mm panoramic slide drum scanned out of interest and was very impressed with the file I got back, I have printed it at 10x24 and it looks great.
The file size will go to about 1x3 metres @300dpi, one day I am gonna print it to see how it looks.

So Quentin, other than ebay, which is hit and miss in terms of what is on at any given time, where would one get a used drum scanner?

Gari

[Quentin]

I looked for a used drum scanner when I was after a scanner, I had read various threads of how cheap they had become. I looked for quite a while with no luck, I went the flat bed route with a wetmount kit. and though I like the results(for the price) I still would like a drum scanner in the next year or so.

I have to admit that it is mainly the dynamic range that is of interest to me, though the resolution is not being discounted. I had a 35mm panoramic slide drum scanned out of interest and was very impressed with the file I got back, I have printed it at 10x24 and it looks great.
The file size will go to about 1x3 metres @300dpi, one day I am gonna print it to see how it looks.

So Quentin, other than ebay, which is hit and miss in terms of what is on at any given time, where would one get a used drum scanner?

Gari

Gari,

Depends what you want. I'd recommend the Howteks, particularly the D4000 and 4500, the latter being better for 8x10 because it has a bigger drum size. There is a guy I know who services these things (he will be at my place tomorrow as it happens). Check out http://www.pselectronics.co.uk/ and if you call ask to speak to Pete Slynn (please say I mentioned him!). Also ask on the ScanHi-End group as sometimes there are owners looking to sell there. SDS (Scanner Drum Service) have used equipment for sale occasionally so they are worth a call. Also try http://www.colourphil.co.uk/index.html

Ebay throws up the occasional bargain but beware any scanner that comes without software or any kind of warranty, as they can be expensive to service or find software to run them (Silverfast has software for sime drum scanners, but it is around $800). Someone like Pete Slynn will be able to advise on software. Some older drum scanners will only run with Mac software on older Mac operating systems.

Quentin

[Charles Twist]

Hello Quentin,
Excuse the fascetious questions, but what do you do with all that information you extract? Do you have a printer that can put out house-sized prints? Do you have a house that can show house-sized prints at their best? The point I am making is that the logical conclusion is materially unobtainable for most people. I would be very curious to know who in the commercial world seriously needs files larger than 30-40Mb. Most printing is A4 or smaller. How big is the LF print market? Can it justify handling huge files on a regular basis?
Personally, I use my scanner to produce 400 by 500 pixel pictures for my website. I bought a scanner that can do that. It was the cheapest possible scanner knocking around. The big problem with is not quantity but quality. And I think that has to be the attraction of a drum scanner. The big question must be: does a drum scanner produce a scan that is qualitatively different from a flat-bed?
The reason I use a view camera is because of the movements. The view camera can create compositions simply impossible with any other fixed-plane camera. Beyond that, yes, it is true that is also capable of churning out a lot of info. How much of that info is surplus to requirements? Well, not much, as 24"x30" prints tell me. What you have told us so far, is that qualitatively, there is not much in in other than a mysterious "look". Could you be more specific? Or is it like people who swear they can hear the difference between MP3 and CD quality?
Thanks for the interesting post,
Charles

[Quentin]

Hello Quentin,
Excuse the fascetious questions, but what do you do with all that information you extract? Do you have a printer that can put out house-sized prints? Do you have a house that can show house-sized prints at their best? The point I am making is that the logical conclusion is materially unobtainable for most people. I would be very curious to know who in the commercial world seriously needs files larger than 30-40Mb. Most printing is A4 or smaller. How big is the LF print market? Can it justify handling huge files on a regular basis?
Personally, I use my scanner to produce 400 by 500 pixel pictures for my website. I bought a scanner that can do that. It was the cheapest possible scanner knocking around. The big problem with is not quantity but quality. And I think that has to be the attraction of a drum scanner. The big question must be: does a drum scanner produce a scan that is qualitatively different from a flat-bed?
The reason I use a view camera is because of the movements. The view camera can create compositions simply impossible with any other fixed-plane camera. Beyond that, yes, it is true that is also capable of churning out a lot of info. How much of that info is surplus to requirements? Well, not much, as 24"x30" prints tell me. What you have told us so far, is that qualitatively, there is not much in in other than a mysterious "look". Could you be more specific? Or is it like people who swear they can hear the difference between MP3 and CD quality?
Thanks for the interesting post,
Charles

Charles,

MP3 v CD??? Try SACD

You don't need a house size printer to tell the difference. It annoys me personally to spend time carefully focusing and composing a shot, only to see detail turned to mush by dodgy and inferior scanning. In my case, I use LF as a data capture device. Thus, digitising that data assumes greater importance than for some others. Movements are very important too, of course - in fact with 8x10 they can become essential in some circumstances where you'd get away without them with smaller formats.

If the end use is contact prints, I agree, any budget scanner will do because its not being used for serious scanning for print. I'm not talking about that kind of use. I am assuming the scanner is being used to digitise the analogue scan at the best quality, because you care about the end result. If that is your game plan, then the drum scanner route makes more sense. I actually use a 24" wide Epson wide fomat printer and treat scanning as a critical part of the process, just like convering a RAW file from a digital camera. The transparency is just an intermediate step.

You will see the difference, just like you can tell the difference between MP3 and CD, or CD and SACD. Why on earth would you settle for second best after all that care and skill used in taking the shot in the first place? I find the argument bizzare. If one does not care, its best to drop LF altogether.

Of course I am not saying very good results cannot be achieved with scanners like the Epson 4990 or 750 - I have a 4990 myself and its a decent piece of kit. Its just not a drum scanner.

Quentin

[DJ]

Personally, I would love a drum scanner, if I win the lottery this week, I'm having one, end of story. It fits in with the "scan once, print many" philosophy I prefer to work by. Get the best possible scan, at high resolution, and there is your master. Scale down for printing as appropriate.

I'm a member of the High-End Scan forum Quentin, but just a lurker, as I cannot justify owning one. I have so little time to actually even take photos, the few images I currently make each year cannot justify such an expense. I habitually watch Ebay to see if any drum scanners come up, I saw the Screen unit come up for auction and fail to meet it's reserve. Why didn't I bid? It's too damned big, and unbelievably heavy! I'd have nowhere to put it, and it would take a forklift to move the thing ( if the quoted weight was correct ).

There are also hidden costs to be considered when buying a drum scanner. I've seen them for sale on Ebay with software, but when questioned, the seller reveals that there is NO dongle. This means the software must be purchased, and it's usually not cheap. ICG's software costs £2000+vat. Silverfast for high end drum scanners can range up to couple of thousand dollars. If the lamp needs replacing, it will be expensive. If the drums aren't good, a re-skimmed drum is £2000+vat, and a new one is £5085+vat ( source ICG ). These additional expenses make it unfeasible for most of us.

I've seen what a drum scanner can do, I'm in no doubt as to their capabilities. The dynamic range is what appeals to me most, and the sharpness is far better than I have managed to attain on a consumer/prosumer flatbed, even with wet mounting.

Having transparencies scanned by someone else is prohibitively expensive too, and far too hit-&-miss, just because someone has a drum scanner, doesn't mean they know how to use it, so I've discovered.

I recently had four chromes scanned by a company in the UK as I wanted to submit them to Alamy, I found the company through Alamy's "Approved Scanners" list. The results were disastrous, I requested unsharpened unedited images, just colour managed, in a wide gamut space, 16 bit. So the guy sharpens them, blew out the highlights, and tweaked them. There are bubbles in the slides which are very clearly visible, what little cloning he did is very obvious in some places. On two of them, he insisted in scanning them twice (against my wishes), once for the highlights, and once for the shadows. He provided me with two separate scans, which don't line up at all, and can't be aligned either, as they're twisted and the registration is out, if the top is aligned, the bottom is out. When I mentioned this to him, he said I should cut bits out of one and paste them onto the other...... yes, seriously, he actually suggested that. I'm still considering what to do about it.... they're not responding to my communications, I'll probably just have to pay someone else to do it properly.

If money were no object, I'd have one. As an enthusiast, as opposed to a professional photographer, I don't think it's an option for me. I'll just have to persist with trying to squeeze the most I can from this Epson V750 which I just haven't had the heart to setup yet.

[Quentin]

Personally, I would love a drum scanner, if I win the lottery this week, I'm having one, end of story. It fits in with the "scan once, print many" philosophy I prefer to work by. Get the best possible scan, at high resolution, and there is your master. Scale down for printing as appropriate.

I'm a member of the High-End Scan forum Quentin, but just a lurker, as I cannot justify owning one. I have so little time to actually even take photos, the few images I currently make each year cannot justify such an expense. I habitually watch Ebay to see if any drum scanners come up, I saw the Screen unit come up for auction and fail to meet it's reserve. Why didn't I bid? It's too damned big, and unbelievably heavy! I'd have nowhere to put it, and it would take a forklift to move the thing ( if the quoted weight was correct ).

There are also hidden costs to be considered when buying a drum scanner. I've seen them for sale on Ebay with software, but when questioned, the seller reveals that there is NO dongle. This means the software must be purchased, and it's usually not cheap. ICG's software costs £2000+vat. Silverfast for high end drum scanners can range up to couple of thousand dollars. If the lamp needs replacing, it will be expensive. If the drums aren't good, a re-skimmed drum is £2000+vat, and a new one is £5085+vat ( source ICG ). These additional expenses make it unfeasible for most of us.

I've seen what a drum scanner can do, I'm in no doubt as to their capabilities. The dynamic range is what appeals to me most, and the sharpness is far better than I have managed to attain on a consumer/prosumer flatbed, even with wet mounting.

Having transparencies scanned by someone else is prohibitively expensive too, and far too hit-&-miss, just because someone has a drum scanner, doesn't mean they know how to use it, so I've discovered.

I recently had four chromes scanned by a company in the UK as I wanted to submit them to Alamy, I found the company through Alamy's "Approved Scanners" list. The results were disastrous, I requested unsharpened unedited images, just colour managed, in a wide gamut space, 16 bit. So the guy sharpens them, blew out the highlights, and tweaked them. There are bubbles in the slides which are very clearly visible, what little cloning he did is very obvious in some places. On two of them, he insisted in scanning them twice (against my wishes), once for the highlights, and once for the shadows. He provided me with two separate scans, which don't line up at all, and can't be aligned either, as they're twisted and the registration is out, if the top is aligned, the bottom is out. When I mentioned this to him, he said I should cut bits out of one and paste them onto the other...... yes, seriously, he actually suggested that. I'm still considering what to do about it.... they're not responding to my communications, I'll probably just have to pay someone else to do it properly.

If money were no object, I'd have one. As an enthusiast, as opposed to a professional photographer, I don't think it's an option for me. I'll just have to persist with trying to squeeze the most I can from this Epson V750 which I just haven't had the heart to setup yet.

Hi DJ,

Where abouts in Norfolk are you?

You are right to mention the possobility of additional expense. It can be a bit like buying a rusty old Rolls Royce. But a Howtek or Optronics unit is sturdy desktop size. The Silverfast software to run a Howtek is about $800, or around £400.

My D4000 has developed a fault after several years service. Tomorrow Pete Slynn is swopping it out for a 4500 (better for 8x10, bigger drum) plus £500. I already have the software and dongle. Pete has fully bench tested the 4500 and he is a supplier I trust, so no issues, I hope. I briefly looked at a 750, a nice scanner, but the swopped 4500 is not much more dosh and to get the best from a 750 using wet mounting is probably more complex than using a drum scanner. I also have a 4990 which is nearly as good as a 750.

Nope, I am immovable - its drum or bust

Quentin

[DJ]

I'm along the A11, about 15 miles south-west of Norwich.

The smaller desktop drum scanners would be the easiest option, but I've yet to see anything like a Howtek 4500 come up for sale. I'll keep watching. And buying lottery tickets

[Quentin]

I'm along the A11, about 15 miles south-west of Norwich.

The smaller desktop drum scanners would be the easiest option, but I've yet to see anything like a Howtek 4500 come up for sale. I'll keep watching. And buying lottery tickets

I havve just waved goodbye to Pete Slynn who has been installing my "new" Howtek 4500 this morning in place of my of D4000.

Pete has several 4500 and a few 4000's for sale. He is asking £1,000 for

- 4500 Scanner + drum
- software
- 3 months warranty

So, no excuses:-). Try having a chat with Pete Slynn on +44 (0)1462 812 505 or visit his website at http://www.pselectronics.co.uk/ (and no, I am not on commission or anything...).

Quentin

[alangolding]

I am very interested and have just rung the chap. I would be prepared to purchase at this price and if anyone is intrerested I would be prepared to loan it out. Will let you know.