how do you guys scan your panoramas?

S

Spanik

Well-known
Local time
5:20 PM
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
1,422
I wanted to scan a pano I made with the G617. Put it on the scanner and pressed "SCAN".

And ended up with a 3.6GB file...

So I started with 48bit/6400dpi .tif. Maybe a bit OTT. But what would be acceptable? Dropping down color space or resolution first? Going to jpeg would help, but then doing a bit of manipulation might give trouble.
 
48bit if you intend to do any additional colour manipultaion after scanning. You can go for even higher size reduction if you won't print very big. I suggested 4x size reduction because that gives you 1600dpi file which is probably around what your scanner is really capable of (6400dpi is not your scanner's (flatbed I assume) true resolution).
 
Scanning at 6400dpi is a waste of time. Few 35mm scanners actually have that optical resolution, let alone medium-format ones capable of scanning a 6x17 frame (the G617 lens itself will easily resolve 100 lp/mm halfway to the edge of the frame). The scanner lens itself (typically pinhole lenses on most flatbeds) is your limiting factor, and possibly the CCD resolution as well. If your scanner lists some bogus figure like 3200x6400, that simply means the stepping motors can do 6400dpi in one direction, but the sensor and optics themselves can at best do 3200dpi. If you drop the scan resolution to the real 3200dpi of the scanner, you've divided file size by 4. Most flatbed scanners are far below that, typically around 1200-1800dpi in real-world resolution. You'd need a Hasselblad/Imacon Flextight, a prepress scanner (like a Creo Scitex of Fuji Lanovia, but those haven't been made in over 10 years) or a drum scan to actually get even close to 6400dpi.

Current full-frame DSLRs like the D810 have RAW files that are around 50MB in size, and the 6x17 frame has 8 times the surface area of 24x36mm, plus 3 times the color information (no Bayer interpolation), so you would expect 1.2GB (compressed). Isn't massive information the whole point of shooting with an impractically large format like 6x17 compared to more convenient alternatives like the X-Pan?

My Nikon Super Coolscan 9000ED can't scan the whole frame in a single pass, so I have to scan two halves then stitch them, a painfully slow process that I seldom undertake any more. I usually settle for a 1200dpi scan on my Epson.
 
6400dpi is the listed ccd resolution of the V700.

I take it my current problem is that the tif isn't (non-lossy) compressed. I don't mind the 3.6GB in itself. It's not that I have hundreds of 6x17's to scan. A few tens at most.

Scanning at 3200 and printing at 600 would give a print of about 300x900. Not impressive compared to the slide you start from. Why bother scanning then?
 
I'd say you should get 8x magnification from V700 if you scan at 6400 and downsample to 2400dpi. Printing at 300dpi then gives you well over 1m at wide side. Not enough? You'll need a better scanner...

Yes, tiffs are not compressed and there is not that much you can do about file size unless you go for a lossy compression algorithm.
 
Spanik said:
6400dpi is the listed ccd resolution of the V700
Click to expand...

The V700 is better than most flatbeds in that it has a real lens (two, in fact) rather than just pinholes in front of the CCD.

Still, the 6400dpi figure is misleading marketing. The real resolution is 2300 dpi for 35mm film, probably less for larger formats, as per ScanDig:
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html

Spanik said:
I take it my current problem is that the tif isn't (non-lossy) compressed.
Click to expand...

TIFF supports ZIP compression. Not all programs handle it, but Photoshop certainly does. You may want to recompress the image (with a Photoshop action, or command-line scripts using ImageMagick or the like).

Spanik said:
Scanning at 3200 and printing at 600 would give a print of about 300x900. Not impressive compared to the slide you start from. Why bother scanning then?
Click to expand...

Why would you print at 600? 300 is generally considered exhibition-grade.

If you are going to print that large, you can afford to have the slide professionally scanned on a drum scanner. Depending on where you live, you could also rent time on an Imacon. The cost of the scan will be a small portion of the cost of the print.
 
So you scan at 400dpi and just output to 12"?

Having it scanned isn't an option, that service isn't offered around here. I can have 6x6 scanned during development but nothing larger and at low resolution (more for organising).
 
Currently owning a v750 and having owned a Fuji Lanovia Quattro for several years I can say that the v750 resolution numbers are completely bogus. I currently own an Imacon 848 which is very comparable to the Fuji. Most low price scanners under $10k are not what they're said to be.
 
x-ray said:
Currently owning a v750 and having owned a Fuji Lanovia Quattro for several years I can say that the v750 resolution numbers are completely bogus. I currently own an Imacon 848 which is very comparable to the Fuji. Most low price scanners under $10k are not what they're said to be.
Click to expand...

But are they bad?

I use a V700 for 120 and larger. It's perfectly reasonable for preview. In fact I say good.
I never use those epson files for printing.
May as well use a digital camera.
The epson smooths grain too much..... My biggest complaint.
 
f16sunshine said:
But are they bad?

I use a V700 for 120 and larger. It's perfectly reasonable for preview. In fact I say good.
I never use those epson files for printing.
May as well use a digital camera.
The epson smooths grain too much..... My biggest complaint.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call them terrible but they're a long way from the output from a high end scanner. Of course it depends on how large you're going to reproduce from a specific format. 35mm they're not good for much enlargement unless you get a film holder you can adjust the height for proper focus. I don't use mine for 35mm but have seen ok results with adjustable holders.

I use my 750 to scan 8x10 negs, full page negfiles for digital contacts and prints. It's fine for my use. All other formats are done on my Imacon 848.

The big differences are sharpness and actual dynamic range. The lens in Epsons machines are ok but not great. Focus is not accurate so grain is mushy. Dynamic range isn't what epson claims as is the case with lower priced scanners. All in all though they'd can be setup with good holders and good scans can be made from negs especially larger ones.

The Imacon is t really a drum scanner. It actually a flatbed that the film moves around a drum as it travels over the CCD. The film holders and the curvature around the "drum" help keep the film flat and do an excellent job. The lens is I believe a Rodenstock Apo lens. I could be wrong about the brand but seem to remember the tech at Hasselblad said it was. I think all but the 343 autofocus. I owned one before getting a Fuji Lanovia Quattro.

The Imacon / Hasselblad machines are excellent but they come with a high price. The Imacon and other high end scanners use a cold cathode light not led. This produces smoother tones but retains sharpness much like diffusion enlarging heads. The CCD is too of the line and focus is precise. I might be wrong but I think the 848 has an actual Dmax rating of greater than 4. Figures on top of the line machines are generally accurate. Speed is another advantage of better machines along with durability.

I owned both a Fuji Finescan 5000 and Lanovia Quattro. Theyre essentially the same machine with the LQ being a later model and faster. These machines autofocus up to a depth of 10mm and use XY axis scanning. XY axis ensures ever bit of the 13x18 film platen is the sweet spot. The performance is the same no matter where you put your film. Dmax exceeds 4 and the speed of scanning is unmatched with the LQ. Resolution is a true 5000 dpi. There are 3 premium Apo process lenses made by fuji in them. Depending on the enlargement dictated which lens. These are remarkable machines.

I bought my Fuji machines from Fuji direct. These are very large, complex and crazy expensive. New they were in the $40k range each without accessories. They are big and accomidate film on the platen up to 13x18" or in special holders. You can fill the plate with mixed types of film, color negs, transparencies and B&W negs and scan all together. You can setup each piece of film individually and then push a button and come back in a short while and your scans will be done.

Shortly after I boughtvtge Fuji machines Fuji discontinued their scanners, parts, service and phone support. Fortunately I have some experience in broadcast engineering and bought a bu cb of spare parts like servos, bulbs, belts and boards. I had all the calibration negs and 500 page service manual. Fortunately I was able to keep everything going except the 5000 which developed a bad logic board and I couldn't find a spare. I even bought another machine for parts but that board was missing.

As mentioned the machines are huge, 150 pound. They run on legacy computers that you have to keep running and the software will only run on XP, os9 and early OS X. This is provided you have the software and the dongle with unlock codes. I was fortunate in that I had all the platforms of software and a computer with os9 & OS X as well as an xp machine. I also had all the dongles and unlick codes.

I saw tge end coming when I couldn't get parts so I sold it. Hated to see it go but I replaced it with the 848 Imacon. It's not as versatile but pretty much the same level of scan.

It's sad to say but scanners like the older Imacon units before FireWire, Cezanne, Fuji, Agfa and most drum scanners run on legacy software and machines. They're hard to repair if at all possible and expensive if you can. The only two pro level scanners currently made to my knowledge are the Kodak IQ Smart and Aztec drum scanner. The Aztec I brlievevis around $70k and the IQ starts around $15k and go up or atleast used to. Kodak service is very expensive and unless you have their service contract they won't sell parts.

I'm afraid the epson machines and Plustek film scanners are about the only game in town for new machines that are acceptable.
 
I normally set my Plustek 120 to 1600, rarely to 3200. Same deal with my Imacon 323 before. Jpeg files from 6x6 negs are 5-6 feet across on my screen and easily good enough for my printing purposes... up to 24x24 inches. I also just got back some 6x12s that were scanned to jpeg on the Noritsu... easily good enough to print 24x48 inches. If I scan 6x12s at 3200 at home I get a file 8-10 feet across. The print sizes I mention are not limited by scan quality, but rather by the size of my printer!
How big you gonna print?
 
Bisakok said:
I normally set my Plustek 120 to 1600, rarely to 3200. Same deal with my Imacon 323 before. Jpeg files from 6x6 negs are 5-6 feet across on my screen and easily good enough for my printing purposes... up to 24x24 inches. I also just got back some 6x12s that were scanned to jpeg on the Noritsu... easily good enough to print 24x48 inches. If I scan 6x12s at 3200 at home I get a file 8-10 feet across. The print sizes I mention are not limited by scan quality, but rather by the size of my printer!
How big you gonna print?
Click to expand...

How does your Imacon image quality compare with the Plustek's?
 
Well the Imacon is now in recycling. After 10 years the main circuit board needed changing. The cost of sending it to a former Imacon repair guy in Denmark, replacing the parts etc was more than the cost of buying a brand new Plustek. So I sent the film holders to a friend and forum member in Holland, and tossed the big box. The image quality from both scanners is superb. The main difference as far as how do you prefer to spend your evenings is that the Plustek has dust removal which the 323 did not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top