Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 8x10 digital back vs. drum scan

Reply
Thread Tools

8x10 digital back vs. drum scan

 
 
P. Meschter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
Thank you all who responded to my post. I did not know there was a 5x5-inch
physical limit to sensors and that there was such a high failure rate during
manufacture.

My dilemma is this. I use 8x10 ASA50 Fujichrome to make 48x72-inch
Vibrachromes (similar to Ilfochrome) but have been informed by Duggal Visual
Solutions in New York that Ilfochrome is no longer available in this size
and Vibrachrome is stopping production. I was destroyed. Duggal made a drum
scan on one of my transparencies that came in at 320MB but printing at that
size (I was told) would still show pixels. I am now printing the last of the
analog medium of this size available on earth.

Does anyone know if drum scan technology is being improved, say up to 1GB
for an 8x10 transparency? What is the best scanner available on the market
today? Having spent years developing an ultra-high resolution system for
macro work, I'd hate to see my efforts reduced to pointilism.

Paul


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gene Palmiter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
Your questions has led to some interesting discussions. But, I don't see any
experts wading in. What I think I see is people like myself trying to recall
what we have read on a subject. I would like to know what you find
out....and here is where I think you might find out more.

http://www.large-format-printers.org/

Notice at the bottom of the page is links to other of their sites. They are
a University in the Mid-West that studies this stuff. They might know your
next step.

It might be time to go in a new direction.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com These guys know a thing or two about
quality and the digital process.

If money was no object I would have a Mamiya ZD...or maybe the associated
Digital Back if I have Large Format cameras and wanted the adjustments they
provide. (I shoot for an arts publication and for my own art. So the ability
to move around is very important.) I would have the Epson 9600 (but its
getting old and there might be something better coming along soon.)

There are also software that helps when enlarging a photo.... Genuine
Fractals works well. It cannot add details but it preserves contrast.

There is a group in Holland (I think) that uses a computer to take lots of
photos (the reverse of step and repeat) and then put them all together. This
might be the way large photos are done in the future.

As far as failure rate during manufacture of chips. Its the biggest factor
in the price of chips. The inclusions are spread out in the wafer. For
consumer camera chips that are small maybe 80% will be good. Pro chips on
the same wafer are more likely to hit an inclusion so maybe only half will
be good. Medium Format might have only 4 chips on a wafer. The chance that
none will be good has to be considered.


"P. Meschter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OnAZd.314$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thank you all who responded to my post. I did not know there was a

5x5-inch
> physical limit to sensors and that there was such a high failure rate

during
> manufacture.
>
> My dilemma is this. I use 8x10 ASA50 Fujichrome to make 48x72-inch
> Vibrachromes (similar to Ilfochrome) but have been informed by Duggal

Visual
> Solutions in New York that Ilfochrome is no longer available in this size
> and Vibrachrome is stopping production. I was destroyed. Duggal made a

drum
> scan on one of my transparencies that came in at 320MB but printing at

that
> size (I was told) would still show pixels. I am now printing the last of

the
> analog medium of this size available on earth.
>
> Does anyone know if drum scan technology is being improved, say up to 1GB
> for an 8x10 transparency? What is the best scanner available on the

market
> today? Having spent years developing an ultra-high resolution system for
> macro work, I'd hate to see my efforts reduced to pointilism.
>
> Paul
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
P. Meschter wrote:

> Thank you all who responded to my post. I did not know there was a 5x5-inch
> physical limit to sensors and that there was such a high failure rate during
> manufacture.
>
> My dilemma is this. I use 8x10 ASA50 Fujichrome to make 48x72-inch
> Vibrachromes (similar to Ilfochrome) but have been informed by Duggal Visual
> Solutions in New York that Ilfochrome is no longer available in this size
> and Vibrachrome is stopping production. I was destroyed. Duggal made a drum
> scan on one of my transparencies that came in at 320MB but printing at that
> size (I was told) would still show pixels. I am now printing the last of the
> analog medium of this size available on earth.
>
> Does anyone know if drum scan technology is being improved, say up to 1GB
> for an 8x10 transparency? What is the best scanner available on the market
> today? Having spent years developing an ultra-high resolution system for
> macro work, I'd hate to see my efforts reduced to pointilism.
>
> Paul
>
>

Paul,
Drum scans easily go to 1GB and beyond. I do 4x5 Fujichrome
Velvia and have drum scans up to 650 MB.
Lately I've switched to an Epson 4870 and it is very good. I've
even mosaicked 2 4x5 scans, creating a 1.6 GB file:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...a+b.c.700.html

For 8x10 you might look into the new 4990 epson scanner, which specs
say does 8x10. (I haven't seen one in the US yet, but saw one
in a store in Italy two weeks ago.) Check rec.photo.equipment.large-format

I have prints from 4x5 enlarged up to 48 x 60 inches and printed on
a lightjet. I used to get Ilfochrome prints, but my lab stopped
Ilfochrome a couple of years ago, so now I get Fuji Chrystal Archive
prints.

Digital pixels are not the same as film pixels. You need less digital
pixels than scanned film. E.g.:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...digital.1.html

I assume when you say 8x10 ASA50 Fujichrome, you mean Velvia.

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
rafe bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:50:38 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Your questions has led to some interesting discussions. But, I don't see any
>experts wading in. What I think I see is people like myself trying to recall
>what we have read on a subject. I would like to know what you find
>out....and here is where I think you might find out more.
>
>http://www.large-format-printers.org/
>
>Notice at the bottom of the page is links to other of their sites. They are
>a University in the Mid-West that studies this stuff. They might know your
>next step.



FLAAR is a for-profit institution. There's
no real research going on there, and their
information (IMO) is extremely biased.

Mr Meschter (the OP) might consider these options:

-- having his 8x10" trannies scanned on a
drum or Creo/Scitex

-- scaling down his 8x10" to 4x5", and using
a scanning back (a la Steve Johnson)


48x72" isn't that outrageous a print size,
if you're shooting LF and properly scanning
it. Printed at 240 dpi, this image will
need 200 Mpixels, which isn't the least bit
of a challenge when the input source is an 8x10"
transparency. Printed at 360 dpi, he'll need
447 Mpixels. Still no problem.

Mr. Meschter may wish to pursue this matter
on either of these two Yahoo forums:

*EpsonWideFormat
*ScanHi-End


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> I assume when you say 8x10 ASA50 Fujichrome, you mean Velvia.


Requiescat in pacem. Sic transit gloria.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
Gene Palmiter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
>
> FLAAR is a for-profit institution. There's
> no real research going on there, and their
> information (IMO) is extremely biased.



The web site says its non-profit. That doesn't mean they have to give
everything away for nothing. They actually are the Foundation for Latin
American Anthropological Research (F.L.A.A.R.).

I suppose they started learning about digital imaging for their own needs.

Biased? Well...they can only comment on what they have tested... that isn't
really a bias.


 
Reply With Quote
 
rafeb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005


Gene Palmiter wrote:
>>FLAAR is a for-profit institution. There's
>>no real research going on there, and their
>>information (IMO) is extremely biased.

>
>
>
> The web site says its non-profit. That doesn't mean they have to give
> everything away for nothing. They actually are the Foundation for Latin
> American Anthropological Research (F.L.A.A.R.).
>
> I suppose they started learning about digital imaging for their own needs.
>
> Biased? Well...they can only comment on what they have tested... that isn't
> really a bias.



The scuttlebut is that they'll plug whatever
gear they get handed for free or for cheap.

They "test" what they can get for free or
for cheap.

Then they'll let you come down to Bowling Green
and "play" with the gear... for a hefty sum.

They've been very negative about Epson printers
since day one (the original Epson 3000) even
though Epson has a formidable position in the
wide-format printing market.

Some of their other opinions (re, scanning gear,
for example) is also laughable or at least
horribly dated.

Bottom line, they're about as useful and
factual as a review in Pop Photo or Shutterbug,
only a lot more expensive.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Chien
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
You should forget about the Fujichrome and the analog process altogether
like many pros.

Simply visit www.betterlight.com or www.phaseone.com and take a look at
their 10000 x 10000+ pixel solutions. I'm sure that'll have more than
sufficient MP to print at the size you specified at drop-dead gorgeous
quality w/o any limitations.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ilya Zakharevich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2005
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
P. Meschter
<(E-Mail Removed)>], who wrote in article <OnAZd.314$(E-Mail Removed)>:
> My dilemma is this. I use 8x10 ASA50 Fujichrome to make 48x72-inch
> Vibrachromes (similar to Ilfochrome) but have been informed by Duggal Visual
> Solutions in New York that Ilfochrome is no longer available in this size
> and Vibrachrome is stopping production. I was destroyed. Duggal made a drum
> scan on one of my transparencies that came in at 320MB but printing at that
> size (I was told) would still show pixels. I am now printing the last of the
> analog medium of this size available on earth.


One immediate question is: what kind of lens and f-stop are you using
that it gives more than 320M "essentially different" pixels? If your
you use something like f/LARGE, then maybe a practical solution is to
interpolate these 320M pixels into whatever the resolution you need...

E.g, f/64 should distinguish about 60000 pixels per cm^2; with
20x25cm, you get only 30000000 of distinct pixels...

Puzzled,
Ilya
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ilya Zakharevich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2005
I wrote in article <d1q5ek$2600$(E-Mail Removed)>:
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
> P. Meschter
> <(E-Mail Removed)>], who wrote in article <OnAZd.314$(E-Mail Removed)>:
> > and Vibrachrome is stopping production. I was destroyed. Duggal made a drum
> > scan on one of my transparencies that came in at 320MB but printing at that
> > size (I was told) would still show pixels. I am now printing the last of the
> > analog medium of this size available on earth.


> One immediate question is: what kind of lens and f-stop are you using
> that it gives more than 320M "essentially different" pixels? If your
> you use something like f/LARGE, then maybe a practical solution is to
> interpolate these 320M pixels into whatever the resolution you need...
>
> E.g, f/64 should distinguish about 60000 pixels per cm^2; with
> 20x25cm, you get only 30000000 of distinct pixels...


Actually, diffraction on f/64 lens COMPLETELY kills all the spacial
frequencies with wavelength below k*64*2 (here k is the wavelength of
the illumination). So the Nyquist limit of scanning with step 0.4*64mkm
or below will keep ALL the information in the image. This is about 40
pixels/mm, on 50000 mm^2 film this is 80MPixels.

So to saturate 320MPixels scan you need f/32 or faster aperture.
Given that the sweet spot of 8x10in lense is about f/22, and f/22
sweet spot gives approximately the same amount of information as
diffration on f/32 iris, it is hard to see how more than 320MPixesl
may be needed to fetch all the information from the film.

In short: if you need larger *OUTPUT* resolution than 320MP, just
interpolate. Or are you using some super-duper lens with sweet spot
much better than f/22?

Hope this helps,
Ilya
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spotswood L-18 Wooden Drum Case: Silverstrand Front Page News 0 10-26-2006 09:28 PM
I have a very inexpensive howtek drum scanner, mounting station, rip, and two drums for sale on ebay. Please take a look timroyjordan@gmail.com Digital Photography 0 04-07-2005 06:37 PM
8x10 digital back? P. Meschter Digital Photography 21 03-17-2005 12:06 AM
Drum Scanner Less Grainier? Einton Newstein Digital Photography 11 06-10-2004 12:47 PM
FS: Roland TR-707 drum machine ixxe13 Computer Information 0 10-19-2003 11:33 PM



Advertisments