How to scan 4x5?

[snaggs]

As mentioned in my other post, just got back my first batch of colour negs and are wondering now how to look at them. My options seem to be;

Drum Scan for 20x16 (80 meg file) $50 each
Imacon Scan raw 80meg scan $15 each
Imacon Scan raw 400meg $50 each

I dont understand why all these places talk in file sizes. Now one thing with drum scanners is I asked what the dpi was and he said 300.... I cant see how a drum scanner can be 300dpi.. they must be confused with the output dpi or something.

So please, what do I do? What is a economical option for this? Seems like getting a good scan done can cost almost as much as getting a analog print done!

Thanks in advance, Im so glad Ive started doing large format.

Daniel.

[snaggs]

One more thing. Someone who does LF in my local camera shop says he uses an old Sharp JX 610 scanner since these dont use cold lights like all scanners do now days... and so can punch through really dense negatives.

Can you still buy scanners which arnt cold cathode?

[kjsphoto]

What is your need for a scan? To make a print? Or just view it on screen?

If you just want to view it on screen grab a chep digi camera and your light box and photograph it on the lightbox. Viola. Your proof to view...

If you are going to make a print from scan the 300MB file. But again it depends on the size you want to print.

[Joe Lipka]

Check out the new Epson Flatbed Scanners with built in transparency units. Unless you are going to make huge enlargements from your transparencies, one of these new scanners would be a very good thing to own.

[Donald Qualls]

Even better, if you can find one (and don't mind the fact that it's a little slow), you might look around for an Agfa Arcus 1200 (used only). These are relatively older scanners, but have a glassless carrier that replaces the paper scanning glass, and will scan 35 mm strips, 2x2 slides (several at a time), 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 on 120 (single frames, but two openings), and 4x5 (single negative), as well as larger transparencies up to 8x10 on the glass with a mask. I also scan 9x12 cm and Minolta 16 film with adapters I have fabricated to fit the 4x5 opening. Optical/mechanical resolution is 1200x2400 ppi, though I find the interpolation invisible when scanning at 2400x2400 -- which produces a file of more than 90 megapixels from 4x5. The scanner is supported by Vuescan and can also (with appropriate software) scan at 14 bits per channel (which the software upgrades to 16 bits per channel); I find the densest B&W negatives (35 mm Tri-X shot at EI 400 and accidentally processed in Diafine, for instance) appear grainy and are hard to scan well, but I suspect they would be hard to print well too. Focus with the glassless carrier appears to be perfect -- I get scans that are single-pixel sharp if the negative is that good.

Mine, including shipping (for the relatively heavy scanner unit) and a SCSI card and cable to connect it to the PCI bus in my computer, cost me a whopping $150.

[John Bartley]

As mentioned in my other post, just got back my first batch of colour negs and are wondering now how to look at them. My options seem to be;
Drum Scan for 20x16 (80 meg file) $50 each
Imacon Scan raw 80meg scan $15 each
Imacon Scan raw 400meg $50 each

If I understand you correctly, someone wants to charge you the prices listed above to scan one negative ???? It seems a bit steep given that a new scanner that will do 4x5 is $500-600 and a good used one can be had for 1/2 that.

cheers

[L Gebhardt]

This should have been posted in the "gray" sub forum. Hopefully it can be moved so as not to polute APUG.

The drum scanner probably scans at 4000dpi or greater, but that would create a huge file for 4x5. So the lab is giving you a 16x20 image with the dpi set to 300. This is the same as scanning at about (1200 dpi on the scanner). They talk in file sizes because that measurement generally directly relates to their time (expense). My drum scanner takes about an hour to finish a 4x5 slide at 4000dpi. The file is huge, probably bigger than most computers can open. I am sure the prices for the others are based on the same logic. The drum is more expensive than the Imacon because there is time in mounting the film, plus the cost of mounting fluid and an overlay sheet of mylar. From the tests I have seen it may be worth the expense if you are printing large.

A flatbed can do an OK job depending on what you want the scan for. i was never totally happy with the Epson scanners, even with 4x5 film. Their dmax is not that high (not a problem for negatives), and the resolution appears to be lacking even at 1800dpi. I confirmed this after buying the drum. Even scanning at 4800dpi on the Epson and downsizing to 1800dpi the drum at 1800 is still sharper and resolves more detail. No scanner sharpening was used for the tests. So if you plan on having exhibition prints made I would spring for the drum scans. If they are just for the web a used Epson 2450 will be fine.

Of course if you just want a good print made the analog route would be the first I would consider given you are starting from a negative.

[jd callow]

L Gebhardt
Is right on the money on all counts.

[esearing]

Some of the Microtek scanners have a higher dmax. You can also scan for higher shadow detail or highlight detail and overlay the images in PS.

If you have PS_CS then read about "CTRL ~" which overlays the top 5% highlight areas from your darker scan and allows you to create a gradient mask for the highlights. It may reduce shadows somewhat so you can erase the areas you do not want affected.

[Ole]

I have a flatbed scanner - AGFA Duoscan T1200 - which scans up to 8x10" film. I have used it a lot, and been quite satisfied with the results.
Then I got an offer of a free scan on an Imacon 848... Sent off a 5x7" transparency I had scanned earlier myself.

I was blown away at the difference. Fortunately (for me) the Imacon costs more than a new car, so there is no tempation to buy one!