Digital BW, The Print

Well, from what I have been able to gather from those of you that 
work with MF film, is that there is a clear advantage to using a 
4000 dpi scanner over others.  Sounds like most of you prefer the 
Nikon (8000) scanners.  Are there any other contenders or is there a 
clear advantage that the Nikon has over the others?  Does Nikon make 
any other MF 4000 dpi scanners or is the 8000 & 9000 it?
Thanks again,
Randy

Randy --

I presume by "others" you mean a high-resolution flat-bed scanner. I 
believe that a properly used film scanner -- one dedicated to scanning film 
-- will provide scans superior to those made with a flat-bed scanner of 
similar specifications. Part of this may be superior optics; part may be 
the interface of hardware and software that's been designed for a specific 
purpose.

This being said, there are several reasons why I consider the Polaroid 
SprintScan120 (available used on eBay and elsewhere) or the similar 
Microtek ArtixScan 120tf (currently available from retail sources such as 
www.bhphoto.com for $1700) to provide superior 4000 dpi scanning for 
black-and-white negatives. These are:

1. The Polaroid and Microtek scanners use a diffuse light source; the Nikon 
uses a highly collimated source. A diffuse source reduces the appearance of 
dust and scratches. Nikon includes "Digital Ice" with their scanner which 
is highly effective with dye-based films such as chromogenic 
black-and-white films, but DOES NOT WORK with silver-image black-and-white 
negatives (or incidentally with Kodachrome) . This may be the best reason 
to prefer a Polaroid or Microtek scanner to the Nikon.

2. The Nikon scanner uses a dimmer light source than the Polaroid or 
Microtek so that its lens must work at a larger aperture. However excellent 
the Nikon optics may be, the large aperture provides less depth of field so 
that unless the film is held flat in a glass film holder, normally buckled 
film is likely to show some loss of sharpness at its edges or corners. The 
smaller aperture lens in the Polaroid or Microtek scanners provides a 
satisfactorily sharp image all the way to the corners even with film held 
in a glassless carrier. The advantage of a glassless carrier is that you 
only have the two surfaces of the film to keep clean instead of the six 
surfaces of film plus two pieces of glass. The dust that may appear on a 
Nikon scan is additionally problematic since the Nikon's collimated light 
source will project it more sharply than would the Polaroid or Microtek's 
diffuse source.

3. There have been reports that scans made with the Nikon 8000 may show 
banding in areas of even tonality if the scanner is used in its high-speed 
mode which I believe scans three lines at a time. I don't know if Nikon has 
remedied this in the 9000. The banding is eliminated if you turn off the 
high-speed mode so that scans are made one line at a time, but then a scan 
takes three times as long. There is no such problem with the Polaroid or 
Microtek scanners.

4. A few more mundane considerations: the Polaroid or Microtek scanner is 
smaller, quieter, and cheaper. My Polaroid SprintScan 120 came with the 
full version of SilverFast AI software which I've updated to the latest 
version. The current version of SilverFast is stable and powerful and 
includes remarkably satisfactory dedicated profiles of dozens of 
black-and-white films.

I went through a similar decision process prior to buying my Polaroid 120. 
Even though Polaroid has discontinued their line of scanners, my SprintScan 
120 continues to provide superior scans; it has never required warranty 
service; and I remain satisfied with my purchase.

Hope this has been useful.

-- Victor Landweber


At 07:34 PM 2/18/2004, randyrancier wrote:

>Well, from what I have been able to gather from those of you that
>work with MF film, is that there is a clear advantage to using a
>4000 dpi scanner over others.  Sounds like most of you prefer the
>Nikon (8000) scanners.  Are there any other contenders or is there a
>clear advantage that the Nikon has over the others?  Does Nikon make
>any other MF 4000 dpi scanners or is the 8000 & 9000 it?
>Thanks again,
>Randy

randyrancier writes:

> Well, from what I have been able to gather from those of you that 
> work with MF film, is that there is a clear advantage to using a 
> 4000 dpi scanner over others.

There's a clear advantage to using a scanner intended for MF, no doubt
about that.  The higher the dpi, the better, all else being equal, but
you do need to look at the quality of the pixels scanned, as well as
their number.

> Sounds like most of you prefer the Nikon (8000) scanners.

I like mine but I haven't tried others (although I've seen results from
others).  The Imacon scanners work very well, but they are much more
expensive than the Nikon; other results I've seen from other desktop
scanners don't impress me that much.  Overall, I'm very pleased with the
Nikon.  Not only is it 4000 dpi, which is pretty good, but the pixels
are of high quality.

Hi Randy,

We looked at the same things a few months ago and bought the Minolta 
Scan Multi Pro. This does MF up to 6x9 at 3200ppi and 35mm at 4800ppi.

In a lot of searching on the Web we found less moaning about the Minolta 
than the Nikon apart from the software, which has now been improved, and 
I never intended to use anything but Vuescan anyway. The main advantages 
of the Minolta are better depth of field and better film carriers as 
standard. The claimed Dmax figures are as daft as everyone else's and 
hardly relevant for B&W anyway. We have found that the Scanhancer 
diffuser gives an improvement in apparent grain with fine grain film (eg 
Pan F) but not quite so much on Delta 3200 (which we use for pinholes).

Whichever scanner you choose, you should use 16 bit files as far as 
possible for B&W, which means you need lots of computing power, memory 
and storage space. A 120 film scanned at 3200ppi comes to about 1.5GB!

HTH,

Colin

http://www.travelling-light.net/

randyrancier wrote:

> Well, from what I have been able to gather from those of you that 
> work with MF film, is that there is a clear advantage to using a 
> 4000 dpi scanner over others.  Sounds like most of you prefer the 
> Nikon (8000) scanners.  Are there any other contenders or is there a 
> clear advantage that the Nikon has over the others?  Does Nikon make 
> any other MF 4000 dpi scanners or is the 8000 & 9000 it?
> Thanks again,
> Randy

Randy, Colin, et. al. --

I also looked at the Minolta when deciding about a scanner purchase. I read 
that the Scan Multi Pro always sharpens a scan, even when it seems you've 
disabled sharpening in software. It may be that  a sharpening routine is 
built into its hardware or into its driver, but it this is the case it is 
so serious a limitation as to eliminate the Minolta from further 
consideration. Sharpening should always be applied as the last step after 
image sizing and before printing. Otherwise you will find yourself 
manipulating, and likely exaggerating, the inevitable artifacts produced by 
sharpening -- doubtlessly detrimental to your images.

-- Victor Landweber


At 11:18 PM 2/18/2004, you wrote:

>Hi Randy,
>
>We looked at the same things a few months ago and bought the Minolta Scan 
>Multi Pro. This does MF up to 6x9 at 3200ppi and 35mm at 4800ppi.
>
>In a lot of searching on the Web we found less moaning about the Minolta 
>than the Nikon apart from the software, which has now been improved, and I 
>never intended to use anything but Vuescan anyway. The main advantages of 
>the Minolta are better depth of field and better film carriers as 
>standard. The claimed Dmax figures are as daft as everyone else's and 
>hardly relevant for B&W anyway. We have found that the Scanhancer diffuser 
>gives an improvement in apparent grain with fine grain film (eg Pan F) but 
>not quite so much on Delta 3200 (which we use for pinholes).
>
>Whichever scanner you choose, you should use 16 bit files as far as 
>possible for B&W, which means you need lots of computing power, memory and 
>storage space. A 120 film scanned at 3200ppi comes to about 1.5GB!
>
>HTH,
>
>Colin
>
>http://www.travelling-light.net/
>
>randyrancier wrote:
>Well, from what I have been able to gather from those of you that work 
>with MF film, is that there is a clear advantage to using a 4000 dpi 
>scanner over others.  Sounds like most of you prefer the Nikon (8000) 
>scanners.  Are there any other contenders or is there a clear advantage 
>that the Nikon has over the others?  Does Nikon make any other MF 4000 dpi 
>scanners or is the 8000 & 9000 it?
>Thanks again,
>Randy

Hi Victor,

Where did this come from? I have certainly never heard of this, and 
there is no hardware sharpening going on. What the Minolta driver does I 
neither know nor care. Having said that, I would take issue with the 
flat claim that "Sharpening should always be applied as the last step 
after image sizing and before printing.". We use Photokit Sharpener, 
which is a 3 step sharpening workflow. These steps are capture, creative 
and output, and when used with Photoshop CS allow sharpening via layers 
on 16 bit files. The output sharpening is certainly applied after final 
sizing, but the capture is applied after spotting and any noise 
reduction, and the creative is optional and can be used at any time.

Cheers,

Colin

http://www.travelling-light.com/

Victor Landweber wrote:

> Randy, Colin, et. al. --
> 
> I also looked at the Minolta when deciding about a scanner purchase. I read 
> that the Scan Multi Pro always sharpens a scan, even when it seems you've 
> disabled sharpening in software. It may be that  a sharpening routine is 
> built into its hardware or into its driver, but it this is the case it is 
> so serious a limitation as to eliminate the Minolta from further 
> consideration. Sharpening should always be applied as the last step after 
> image sizing and before printing. Otherwise you will find yourself 
> manipulating, and likely exaggerating, the inevitable artifacts produced by 
> sharpening -- doubtlessly detrimental to your images.
> 
> -- Victor Landweber
>

Colin & Linda McKie writes:

> Having said that, I would take issue with the
> flat claim that "Sharpening should always be applied as the last step 
> after image sizing and before printing."

Sharpening should always be the last step, for two reasons: (1) it
degrades image quality; and (2) the degree of sharpening required
depends on the exact use of the final image (printing or display, type
of printer or press, reproduction size, dot gain, screen frequency,
etc.).

> We use Photokit Sharpener, which is a 3 step sharpening workflow.

You can use whatever you want, but sharpening should still be the very
last step.  Archived images should never be sharpened, for the reasons
already stated above.  Scans should never be sharpened, either.  You
only sharpen just before you print or display (that is, only when
preparing a specific copy of an image for printing or display).

Victor, thank you so much for the information, so many others get 
off on tangents.

No I am only considering film scanners.  From what your saying 
sounds like the old debate of difussion vs. condensor enlargers.  I 
will probably be shooting primarily chromogenic BW film, but I will 
also be doing a lot of color; I would also like to scan some of my 
old BW negs and would like to be able to have the option to shoot 
and develope convientional BW film; would the Poloroid and Microtek 
scanner work well for all of these applications?  Also, if Poloroid 
isn't supporting these scanners, is there any problem getting them 
serviced if I was to pick up a used one or should I stick with 
Microtek at this point, in your opinion?
Thanks
Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Victor 
Landweber <victor@l...> wrote:
> Randy --
> 
> I presume by "others" you mean a high-resolution flat-bed scanner. 
I 
> believe that a properly used film scanner -- one dedicated to 
scanning film 
> -- will provide scans superior to those made with a flat-bed 
scanner of 
> similar specifications. Part of this may be superior optics; part 
may be 
> the interface of hardware and software that's been designed for a 
specific 
> purpose.
> 
> This being said, there are several reasons why I consider the 
Polaroid 
> SprintScan120 (available used on eBay and elsewhere) or the 
similar 
> Microtek ArtixScan 120tf (currently available from retail sources 
such as 
> www.bhphoto.com for $1700) to provide superior 4000 dpi scanning 
for 
> black-and-white negatives. These are:
> 
> 1. The Polaroid and Microtek scanners use a diffuse light source; 
the Nikon 
> uses a highly collimated source. A diffuse source reduces the 
appearance of 
> dust and scratches. Nikon includes "Digital Ice" with their 
scanner which 
> is highly effective with dye-based films such as chromogenic 
> black-and-white films, but DOES NOT WORK with silver-image black-
and-white 
> negatives (or incidentally with Kodachrome) . This may be the best 
reason 
> to prefer a Polaroid or Microtek scanner to the Nikon.
> 
> 2. The Nikon scanner uses a dimmer light source than the Polaroid 
or 
> Microtek so that its lens must work at a larger aperture. However 
excellent 
> the Nikon optics may be, the large aperture provides less depth of 
field so 
> that unless the film is held flat in a glass film holder, normally 
buckled 
> film is likely to show some loss of sharpness at its edges or 
corners. The 
> smaller aperture lens in the Polaroid or Microtek scanners 
provides a 
> satisfactorily sharp image all the way to the corners even with 
film held 
> in a glassless carrier. The advantage of a glassless carrier is 
that you 
> only have the two surfaces of the film to keep clean instead of 
the six 
> surfaces of film plus two pieces of glass. The dust that may 
appear on a 
> Nikon scan is additionally problematic since the Nikon's 
collimated light 
> source will project it more sharply than would the Polaroid or 
Microtek's 
> diffuse source.
> 
> 3. There have been reports that scans made with the Nikon 8000 may 
show 
> banding in areas of even tonality if the scanner is used in its 
high-speed 
> mode which I believe scans three lines at a time. I don't know if 
Nikon has 
> remedied this in the 9000. The banding is eliminated if you turn 
off the 
> high-speed mode so that scans are made one line at a time, but 
then a scan 
> takes three times as long. There is no such problem with the 
Polaroid or 
> Microtek scanners.
> 
> 4. A few more mundane considerations: the Polaroid or Microtek 
scanner is 
> smaller, quieter, and cheaper. My Polaroid SprintScan 120 came 
with the 
> full version of SilverFast AI software which I've updated to the 
latest 
> version. The current version of SilverFast is stable and powerful 
and 
> includes remarkably satisfactory dedicated profiles of dozens of 
> black-and-white films.
> 
> I went through a similar decision process prior to buying my 
Polaroid 120. 
> Even though Polaroid has discontinued their line of scanners, my 
SprintScan 
> 120 continues to provide superior scans; it has never required 
warranty 
> service; and I remain satisfied with my purchase.
> 
> Hope this has been useful.
> 
> -- Victor Landweber
> 
> 
> At 07:34 PM 2/18/2004, randyrancier wrote:
> >Well, from what I have been able to gather from those of you that
> >work with MF film, is that there is a clear advantage to using a
> >4000 dpi scanner over others.  Sounds like most of you prefer the
> >Nikon (8000) scanners.  Are there any other contenders or is 
there a
> >clear advantage that the Nikon has over the others?  Does Nikon 
make

> >any other MF 4000 dpi scanners or is the 8000 & 9000 it?
> >Thanks again,
> >Randy

Wow,  How much RAM do you need for this??  Does my 2.4Mh processor 
have evough umph to handle it, or will I need to upgrade?
Thanks,
Randy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Colin & Linda 
McKie <colinmckie@x> wrote:
> Hi Randy,
> 
> We looked at the same things a few months ago and bought the 
Minolta 
> Scan Multi Pro. This does MF up to 6x9 at 3200ppi and 35mm at 
4800ppi.
> 
> In a lot of searching on the Web we found less moaning about the 
Minolta 
> than the Nikon apart from the software, which has now been 
improved, and 
> I never intended to use anything but Vuescan anyway. The main 
advantages 
> of the Minolta are better depth of field and better film carriers 
as 
> standard. The claimed Dmax figures are as daft as everyone else's 
and 
> hardly relevant for B&W anyway. We have found that the Scanhancer 
> diffuser gives an improvement in apparent grain with fine grain 
film (eg 
> Pan F) but not quite so much on Delta 3200 (which we use for 
pinholes).
> 
> Whichever scanner you choose, you should use 16 bit files as far 
as 
> possible for B&W, which means you need lots of computing power, 
memory 
> and storage space. A 120 film scanned at 3200ppi comes to about 
1.5GB!
> 
> HTH,
> 
> Colin
> 
> http://www.travelling-light.net/
> 
> randyrancier wrote:
> > Well, from what I have been able to gather from those of you 
that 
> > work with MF film, is that there is a clear advantage to using a 
> > 4000 dpi scanner over others.  Sounds like most of you prefer 
the 
> > Nikon (8000) scanners.  Are there any other contenders or is 
there a 
> > clear advantage that the Nikon has over the others?  Does Nikon 
make 

> > any other MF 4000 dpi scanners or is the 8000 & 9000 it?
> > Thanks again,
> > Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Victor Landweber 
<victor@l...> wrote:
> Randy --
> 
> I presume by "others" you mean a high-resolution flat-bed scanner. 
I 
> believe that a properly used film scanner -- one dedicated to 
scanning film 
> -- will provide scans superior to those made with a flat-bed 
scanner of 
> similar specifications. Part of this may be superior optics; part 
may be 
> the interface of hardware and software that's been designed for a 
specific 
> purpose.
> 
> This being said, there are several reasons why I consider the 
Polaroid 
> SprintScan120 

I love Victor Landwebers work-I've watched your stuff for at least 30 
years-right?
Anyway, for all the reasons listed by victor I also purchased the 
Polaroid for my work at home--not as good as drumscans but not bad 
either. I bought the Nikon for the lab at work at it gives by far and 
away much better scans-almost no comparison- than the polaroid- the 
nikon scanware is much more flexible and I think the Scan software 
that came with the polaroid ( i paid extra for it)is horrible -the 
polascan isn't too bad but no real flexibility-good automatic scans 
(based on histogram)- iprobably shouldn't post this as I am 
considering selling the SS120 
jack (no charge)

Randy et. al. --

It's exactly the same old diffusion vs. condenser enlarger discussion. My 
early darkroom prints were made with condenser enlargers, but after ten 
years or so of photographic printing I discovered the benefits of using an 
enlarger with a diffuse light source -- improved highlight separation was 
the major improvement, but softer, more easily spotted dust was also a plus.

The reasons to prefer one scanner over the other becomes less certain since 
your present work is largely with color and B&W chromogenic films. However, 
I believe you'd find the Polaroid/Microtek scanner to be the preferred 
device for scanning your old negatives, old Kodachromes, as well as any new 
work you might do with silver-image film. I felt certain about purchasing 
the Polaroid since I have an accumulation of many years of conventional B&W 
negatives, quite a few Kodachrome slides, and I continue to expose a fair 
amount of 400-speed Tri-X. The Polaroid/Microtek scanner is also capable of 
producing fine scans from chromogenic films though this wouldn't be a 
reason to prefer the SprintScan over the Nikon scanner which should be 
equally excellent at this particular task.

If you can find a dealer with a new Polaroid SprintScan 120, I believe that 
Polaroid continues their warranty support. I understand that paid, 
out-of-warranty support is also still available. Even so, if I were 
replacing mine with a NEW unit, I would seriously consider buying a 
Microtek 120tf. I understand that the Polaroid units were actually 
manufactured by Microtek under contract to Polaroid, and the 120tf should 
be the same scanner.

On the other hand, saving money is also a virtue, and a purchase decision 
might also hinge on the prices found on eBay where I see that recent sales 
of the Polaroid 120 have been for $1750 NEW and $1250 MINT. As I wrote 
previously, the Microtek is available for $1700 NEW from www.bhphoto.com.

The software package that comes with the scanner might also influence your 
choice. SilverFast software is bundled with the Microtek 120tf. The 
Polaroid 120 comes with either of two packages: Polacolor Insight alone or 
SilverFast AI in addition to Insight. I've tried Insight, SilverFast, and 
VueScan and much prefer the control and flexibility of SilverFast. The 
version provided with the SprintScan 120, however, is v.5 or v5.2 or v.5.5 
all of which include a few non-working features. I found it very much worth 
spending $77 to upgrade to their current v.6.2 in which everything works. 
Should you decide to buy a full, after-market copy of SilverFast, it will 
cost you $424, so it's worth making sure it's included with whatever 
scanner you buy.

Hope this helps.

-- Victor Landweber



At 06:26 AM 2/19/2004, randyrancier wrote:

>Victor, thank you so much for the information, so many others get
>off on tangents.
>
>No I am only considering film scanners.  From what your saying
>sounds like the old debate of difussion vs. condensor enlargers.  I
>will probably be shooting primarily chromogenic BW film, but I will
>also be doing a lot of color; I would also like to scan some of my
>old BW negs and would like to be able to have the option to shoot
>and develope convientional BW film; would the Poloroid and Microtek
>scanner work well for all of these applications?  Also, if Poloroid
>isn't supporting these scanners, is there any problem getting them
>serviced if I was to pick up a used one or should I stick with
>Microtek at this point, in your opinion?
>Thanks
>Randy

randyrancier writes:

> Wow,  How much RAM do you need for this??

On a Windows machine, at least 1.5 GB total RAM for 6x6 color images
scanned at 4000 dpi and 16-bit color.  The images themselves are about
470 MB.

> Does my 2.4Mh processor have evough umph to handle it,
> or will I need to upgrade?

Processor speed isn't nearly as important as RAM.  And 2.4 GHz is fine.

Jack --

Thanks for the boost. Yup, 30 years at least.

Have you tried the latest SilverFast upgrade? V6 looks pretty much the same 
as V5, but everything works and it doesn't crash. SF includes flexible 
exposure and tonal response adjustments, convenient 16-bit scans, and the 
best curves adjustment dialog I've seen anywhere.

-- Victor Landweber

>I love Victor Landwebers work-I've watched your stuff for at least 30
>years-right?
>Anyway, for all the reasons listed by victor I also purchased the
>Polaroid for my work at home--not as good as drumscans but not bad
>either. I bought the Nikon for the lab at work at it gives by far and
>away much better scans-almost no comparison- than the polaroid- the
>nikon scanware is much more flexible and I think the Scan software
>that came with the polaroid ( i paid extra for it)is horrible -the
>polascan isn't too bad but no real flexibility-good automatic scans
>(based on histogram)- iprobably shouldn't post this as I am
>considering selling the SS120
>jack (no charge)