BOD
Member
Hi there,
I was talking to a photographer today who has one gathering dust.
He says he paid 40k for it back in the day and is open to any reasonable offer!
I know very little about it, what it's capable of, the learning curve, or what it might be worth.
Can anyone shed any light on this for me please?
Thanks
Bren
I was talking to a photographer today who has one gathering dust.
He says he paid 40k for it back in the day and is open to any reasonable offer!
I know very little about it, what it's capable of, the learning curve, or what it might be worth.
Can anyone shed any light on this for me please?
Thanks
Bren
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Drum scanners are very hard to use. The film must be oil mounted, meaning you soak the film in oil to make it adhere to the glass drum. You also use tape. Cleaning the film afterward is a pain, and getting it all free of dust nearly impossible in a home-use situation.
BOD
Member
Apparently, this drum scanner does not use ANY liquids... I viewed it... And all he used was anti-newton spray and tape...
Can you speak specifically about this upright drum scanner?
Can you speak specifically about this upright drum scanner?
ChrisLivsey
Mentor
I fear that obtaining any service and parts may be a problem, this scanner dates to around 1995 and will require computing software and hardware compatibility of that vintage.
Whilst the results should be top quality to obtain them requires a highly skilled operator. You may find that if you need/would like drum scans you could buy them in fairly large quantities at a known quality from eg http://cheapdrumscanning.com/ (no connection) for the cost of the machine and your time in getting to the point where you could match their output.
Are you paying for drum scanning now or do you just want to play or set up a business scanning? This is not being patronising you are not clear what you actually want to do.
If it was free, or near enough, with all the ancillary parts then by all means have a play otherwise seriously think why.
If you do take it on these machines in general require specific lock downs of moving parts before being transported otherwise damage may be terminal, seek advice.
Whilst the results should be top quality to obtain them requires a highly skilled operator. You may find that if you need/would like drum scans you could buy them in fairly large quantities at a known quality from eg http://cheapdrumscanning.com/ (no connection) for the cost of the machine and your time in getting to the point where you could match their output.
Are you paying for drum scanning now or do you just want to play or set up a business scanning? This is not being patronising you are not clear what you actually want to do.
If it was free, or near enough, with all the ancillary parts then by all means have a play otherwise seriously think why.
If you do take it on these machines in general require specific lock downs of moving parts before being transported otherwise damage may be terminal, seek advice.
BOD
Member
Ok, all good advice, thanks!
As for how I want to use it... I am not a photographer by profession, I'm an engineer, but I make enough from photography on the side to have fully funded my many cameras and lenses over the years.
However, unlike digital, film photography is purely a hobby, although I do have lot of MF negs that I'd like to print large. I currently use an Epson V700 for MF and a coolscan 4000 for my 35mm. I have been watching the Plustek Opticfilm 120 keenly since early last year, and while it seems OK so far, I am waiting for further reviews.
That's when I happened upon the 330i.
I was actually featuring in a billboard ad with my wife and two kids and the photographer mentioned he had the drum scanner just sitting there when we discussed film photography briefly.
Given the suspected service issues etc, what might be a reasonable offer on the unit?
As for how I want to use it... I am not a photographer by profession, I'm an engineer, but I make enough from photography on the side to have fully funded my many cameras and lenses over the years.
However, unlike digital, film photography is purely a hobby, although I do have lot of MF negs that I'd like to print large. I currently use an Epson V700 for MF and a coolscan 4000 for my 35mm. I have been watching the Plustek Opticfilm 120 keenly since early last year, and while it seems OK so far, I am waiting for further reviews.
That's when I happened upon the 330i.
I was actually featuring in a billboard ad with my wife and two kids and the photographer mentioned he had the drum scanner just sitting there when we discussed film photography briefly.
Given the suspected service issues etc, what might be a reasonable offer on the unit?
XFer
-
Hi Bren,
with two friends, we bought three drum scanners; while they are no ICGs, I have some experience in drum scanners and I know ICG indirectly.
ICG scanners are are 1) upright (vertical) models, and 2) quite large and heavy. All good things.
1) Scanners do suffer from wow&flutter. This is largely because their high rotational speed prevents the use of stepmotors; so they employ servocontrolled AC or DC motors, with encoders.
Non-stepper motors natively suffer from some wow&flutter.
Wow&flutter is bad for scanning, because it translates in small "waves" and jaggies, mostly visible along high-contrast edges.
A high rotational inertia (heavy rotor mass) helps here, because it more or less negates the effects of high-frequency wow&flutter (the most frequent kind of w&f in drum scanners).
But, you can't have a very heavy rotor on a horizontal drum scanner, because it would put much stress on the axis. So, ICGs are vertical. Good.
2) Mounting film on a drum is not my idea of fun, plus drum scanning is slow. So the more film you manage to mount on a drum at a time, the better. A large drum helps a lot (and, it's easier to mount film on a large drum, because it's less curved). So, ICG drums are large. Good.
Now the problems.
1) ICG still service drum scanners, so maybe they still have parts of the 330. This is very important, because drum scanner require maintanance. Including, among other things:
- lamps
- drums (which must be pristine)
- belts (not the ICG, it should be direct-driven)
- PSUs (they fail, after some years)
- bearings
and so on
No maintanance -> all sorts of problems
2) More often than not, drum scanners require specific proprietary software to operate, and quite often this means obsolete software, obsolete interfaces (SCSI), no compatibility with modern OSes. ICG offers software/firmware upgrades for some of their older models, but that's not free
3) Older models did not offer 16 bits/channel output, nor color management. Bad. No 16 bpc means limits when scanning negative film (quantization errors, posterizations), no color management means no custom correction profiles and sRGB or AppleRGB output only, which limits obtainable gamut
My advice:
If the 330 is a 16 bit model with at least 4000 ppi of resolution, is working, and its software runs on not-too-old hardware, test it with a resolution chart of sort and see that there are no artifacts (waves, jaggies, banding); if it passes the test, go for it.
Otherwise, it depends (on price, too).
Fernando
with two friends, we bought three drum scanners; while they are no ICGs, I have some experience in drum scanners and I know ICG indirectly.
ICG scanners are are 1) upright (vertical) models, and 2) quite large and heavy. All good things.
1) Scanners do suffer from wow&flutter. This is largely because their high rotational speed prevents the use of stepmotors; so they employ servocontrolled AC or DC motors, with encoders.
Non-stepper motors natively suffer from some wow&flutter.
Wow&flutter is bad for scanning, because it translates in small "waves" and jaggies, mostly visible along high-contrast edges.
A high rotational inertia (heavy rotor mass) helps here, because it more or less negates the effects of high-frequency wow&flutter (the most frequent kind of w&f in drum scanners).
But, you can't have a very heavy rotor on a horizontal drum scanner, because it would put much stress on the axis. So, ICGs are vertical. Good.
2) Mounting film on a drum is not my idea of fun, plus drum scanning is slow. So the more film you manage to mount on a drum at a time, the better. A large drum helps a lot (and, it's easier to mount film on a large drum, because it's less curved). So, ICG drums are large. Good.
Now the problems.
1) ICG still service drum scanners, so maybe they still have parts of the 330. This is very important, because drum scanner require maintanance. Including, among other things:
- lamps
- drums (which must be pristine)
- belts (not the ICG, it should be direct-driven)
- PSUs (they fail, after some years)
- bearings
and so on
No maintanance -> all sorts of problems
2) More often than not, drum scanners require specific proprietary software to operate, and quite often this means obsolete software, obsolete interfaces (SCSI), no compatibility with modern OSes. ICG offers software/firmware upgrades for some of their older models, but that's not free
3) Older models did not offer 16 bits/channel output, nor color management. Bad. No 16 bpc means limits when scanning negative film (quantization errors, posterizations), no color management means no custom correction profiles and sRGB or AppleRGB output only, which limits obtainable gamut
My advice:
If the 330 is a 16 bit model with at least 4000 ppi of resolution, is working, and its software runs on not-too-old hardware, test it with a resolution chart of sort and see that there are no artifacts (waves, jaggies, banding); if it passes the test, go for it.
Otherwise, it depends (on price, too).
Fernando
BOD
Member
Thanks Fernando, a lot of excellent advice there.
Given the obvious risks, what would be a reasonable offer on this unit?
I think a $2,000 Plustek will be a lot less hassle, so how low do you think is reasonable on the ICG?
Thanks again.
Given the obvious risks, what would be a reasonable offer on this unit?
I think a $2,000 Plustek will be a lot less hassle, so how low do you think is reasonable on the ICG?
Thanks again.
XFer
-
If you can't test it before, I'd say $500. It takes up a lot of space in his house! ;-)
If you can test it and seems nicely working, I'd offer $1000; and anyway, no more than $1500. Including software and original PC/Mac, of course (even in the $500 case).
You're right the Plustek is so much easier to use, but the ICG can do large format at its maximum resolution (vs., for example, Imacon/Hasselblad, which drops to 2048 ppi at 4x5").
Fernando
If you can test it and seems nicely working, I'd offer $1000; and anyway, no more than $1500. Including software and original PC/Mac, of course (even in the $500 case).
You're right the Plustek is so much easier to use, but the ICG can do large format at its maximum resolution (vs., for example, Imacon/Hasselblad, which drops to 2048 ppi at 4x5").
Fernando
ChrisLivsey
Mentor
You can buy a lot of drum scans in, for no learning curve, for that money and they will blow the plustek away for quality. If they don't then I'll buy the Plustek
BOD
Member
You can buy a lot of drum scans in, for no learning curve, for that money and they will blow the plustek away for quality. If they don't then I'll buy the Plustek
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that for that money, I could outsource a lot of drumscans, and not have to worry about the learning curve associated with owning a drum scanner?
ChrisLivsey
Mentor
BOD
Member
Exactly, of course you miss out the "get to play with a cool machine" bit
Argh..don't know what to do.. Maybe I'll just offer 500euro... I'm not concerned with the learning curve, that's where I excel (even if I do say so myself
)... I'm more worried that it is half the size of a family car and very dated.Roger Hicks
Mentor
The last drum scanner I missed went for scrap. For the reasons given above, they're worth next to nothing. That's why the friend who owned it didn't even bother to tell me (though I wish he had). It came (or rather, went) with the necessary computer and software, c. 2000, and represented almost $100,000 of investment over 10-20 years. The one you're talking about is worth at most 250€. If you don't buy it, it's probably worth nothing. Sad but true.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
XFer
-
Well, now, let's put stuff in the right perspective.
Drum scanners are not all created equal. Like ordinary "linear" scanners, where were low- and high-performance models.
Besides the "cons" already mentioned, at least some drum scanners can deliver a superior image quality vs ordinary scanners. Expecially with large originals.
Let's see a direct example.
I took a 645 slide and scanned with both my Nikon SuperCoolscan 8000ED (just serviced by a Nikon authorized lab) and my Scanview Scanmate 11000 (un-serviced, sadly).
Please note that we're NOT talking about resolution charts (where differences are larger): this is an ordinary 645 100iso slide, taken with a Pentax 645 some years ago.
To avoid showing different sizes, I carefully upsampled the Nikon 8000 scan to the 11'000 ppi resolution of the drum scan, and sharpened with much care.
Here is the comparison crop at pixel level (Nikon on the left).
Details are almost there (but still, the drum wins: see the gratings and the logo), but look at the effect of upsampling to the "grain" (not actually grain, let's say grain clouds). It's much finer on the drum scan.
The drum also has nicer, cleaner shadows and no trace of blooming in the highlights.
I don't have the original scans here now, only this crop; but in the future I'll post more comparisons if needed (but I'd prefer to have the Scanmate serviced, before).
Fernando
Drum scanners are not all created equal. Like ordinary "linear" scanners, where were low- and high-performance models.
Besides the "cons" already mentioned, at least some drum scanners can deliver a superior image quality vs ordinary scanners. Expecially with large originals.
Let's see a direct example.
I took a 645 slide and scanned with both my Nikon SuperCoolscan 8000ED (just serviced by a Nikon authorized lab) and my Scanview Scanmate 11000 (un-serviced, sadly).
Please note that we're NOT talking about resolution charts (where differences are larger): this is an ordinary 645 100iso slide, taken with a Pentax 645 some years ago.
To avoid showing different sizes, I carefully upsampled the Nikon 8000 scan to the 11'000 ppi resolution of the drum scan, and sharpened with much care.
Here is the comparison crop at pixel level (Nikon on the left).
Details are almost there (but still, the drum wins: see the gratings and the logo), but look at the effect of upsampling to the "grain" (not actually grain, let's say grain clouds). It's much finer on the drum scan.
The drum also has nicer, cleaner shadows and no trace of blooming in the highlights.
I don't have the original scans here now, only this crop; but in the future I'll post more comparisons if needed (but I'd prefer to have the Scanmate serviced, before).
Fernando
ChrisLivsey
Mentor
Fernando, if you print, view on screen, at a "normal size' (not talking billboards here but nodding that may be the requirement) can you(or better an independent viewer) then see that difference?
XFer
-
The difference in "grain" appearance is indeed visible past 10x, in print: for example, a drum scan downsampled from 11'000 to say 3'600 (10x native on an Epson printer) is essentially grain-free and can support a lot of sharpening. But if we talk about details... I don't think anyone could spot the difference in a "double blind" test, unless you enlarge a lot ( > 15x ) and have a truly excellent original.
Fernando
Fernando
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
IIRC the latest version of the IGC software will not run on anything later than a Mac G4. But the same probably goes for every drum or prepress flatbed scanner - you'll generally have to maintain a ten to twenty-five year old computer (which usually will cause more problems than the scanner itself).
ChrisLivsey
Mentor
Fernando, appreciated, no wonder the Nikon scanners are selling for the current prices, also the OP should think about that, final use is key.
I am always amazed how much data I throw away when I put pics on Flickr, but then again some 20 x 16 canvas portraits I have just had made needed every pixel I could find to be their best.
UK saying- Horses for courses.
I am always amazed how much data I throw away when I put pics on Flickr, but then again some 20 x 16 canvas portraits I have just had made needed every pixel I could find to be their best.
UK saying- Horses for courses.
XFer
-
ColorQuartet and ColorTrio (the software for Scanview drum scanners) work on XP and Mac Os X. I did not try it on Win7.
Icg used to sell an upgraded sw for Vista; I don't know if it works on Win7.
XFer
-
The whole frame (well it misses a small part at the bottom), just to put everything in context:
