8x10 digital back vs. drum scan

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by P. Meschter, Mar 15, 2005.

  1. P. Meschter

    P. Meschter Guest

    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
    P. Meschter, Mar 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:OnAZd.314$...
    > 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
    >
    >
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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/gallerie...orado.fall.c10.01.2003.L4.9536.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/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

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

    Roger
    http://www.clarkvision.com
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Mar 15, 2005
    #3
  4. P. Meschter

    rafe bustin Guest

    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:50:38 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
    <> 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
    rafe bustin, Mar 15, 2005
    #4
  5. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >
    > I assume when you say 8x10 ASA50 Fujichrome, you mean Velvia.


    Requiescat in pacem. Sic transit gloria.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 15, 2005
    #5
  6. >
    > 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.
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 15, 2005
    #6
  7. P. Meschter

    rafeb Guest

    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
    rafeb, Mar 15, 2005
    #7
  8. P. Meschter

    David Chien Guest

    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.
    David Chien, Mar 15, 2005
    #8
  9. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    P. Meschter
    <>], who wrote in article <OnAZd.314$>:
    > 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
    Ilya Zakharevich, Mar 22, 2005
    #9
  10. I wrote in article <d1q5ek$2600$>:
    > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
    > P. Meschter
    > <>], who wrote in article <OnAZd.314$>:
    > > 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
    Ilya Zakharevich, Mar 23, 2005
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Einton Newstein

    Drum Scanner Less Grainier?

    Einton Newstein, Jun 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    653
    nobody nowhere
    Jun 10, 2004
  2. ixxe13

    FS: Roland TR-707 drum machine

    ixxe13, Oct 20, 2003, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,433
    ixxe13
    Oct 20, 2003
  3. Silverstrand

    Spotswood L-18 Wooden Drum Case:

    Silverstrand, Oct 26, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,042
    Silverstrand
    Oct 26, 2006
  4. P. Meschter

    8x10 digital back?

    P. Meschter, Mar 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,784
    hotchkisstrio
    Mar 17, 2005
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    307
Loading...

Share This Page