MF Scanner Questions.

I am sure some may find fault with me asking the
following questions here, never the less here goes:

A few weeks back if some recall I was deliberating
having higher end scans done for a client versus
doing them myself from a 6x6 transparency with my
Epson 2450.

I've been contemplating the purchase of a dedicated
MF scanner since that time. This morning I looked at
the scans I initially did on the 2450 versus scans
I did on a Nikon 8000 cool scan. Thinking I would see some
vast or at least apparent difference on screen between the two in terms
of apparent sharpness I must say on my humble LCD screen it is almost
non existent.

The Cool Scan 8000 did produce cleaner dust free scans but thats about
all. The Cool scans were done in 16 bit mode the 2450 scans eight bit.
There still is very little difference. Would down sampling to 300 dpi
make them appear relatively similar? The initial CS 8000 scans were
at 4000 dpi.

I just wonder whether its worth spending 1700 for and Artix scanner
or 2000 for the Cool scan?

Thx

Greg

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Gregory Blank wrote:

I am sure some may find fault with me asking the
following questions here, never the less here goes:

A few weeks back if some recall I was deliberating
having higher end scans done for a client versus
doing them myself from a 6x6 transparency with my
Epson 2450.

I've been contemplating the purchase of a dedicated
MF scanner since that time. This morning I looked at
the scans I initially did on the 2450 versus scans
I did on a Nikon 8000 cool scan. Thinking I would see some
vast or at least apparent difference on screen between the two in terms
of apparent sharpness I must say on my humble LCD screen it is almost
non existent.

The Cool Scan 8000 did produce cleaner dust free scans but thats about
all. The Cool scans were done in 16 bit mode the 2450 scans eight bit.
There still is very little difference. Would down sampling to 300 dpi
make them appear relatively similar? The initial CS 8000 scans were
at 4000 dpi.

I just wonder whether its worth spending 1700 for and Artix scanner
or 2000 for the Cool scan?

Thx

Greg

In general, I think you would be better off matching your final printing
requirements to your resolution needs for scanning. If you predominantly
need only smaller printed dimensions, then a less capable scanner makes
more economic sense. When you have an occasional need for larger dimension
printing capability, then you can pay to outsource scans. The rule of
thumb I use is to calculate how many scans at maximum quality you would
need to pay to get, and compare that to the cost of the scanner. If the
scanner costs more than 200 high quality scans (for example), then the
choice might be tougher.

While I would imagine you already know this, you should not judge scan
quality on a computer monitor. You could use a sampling tool, or look at
the numerical data of the scans, but just viewing on a monitor is not a
good choice for judgement, unless you only want to use those scans on a
monitor. A better method is to compare printed outputs of those scans.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Gregory Blank wrote:

I am sure some may find fault with me asking the
following questions here, never the less here goes:

A few weeks back if some recall I was deliberating
having higher end scans done for a client versus
doing them myself from a 6x6 transparency with my
Epson 2450.

I've been contemplating the purchase of a dedicated
MF scanner since that time. This morning I looked at
the scans I initially did on the 2450 versus scans
I did on a Nikon 8000 cool scan. Thinking I would see some
vast or at least apparent difference on screen between the two in terms
of apparent sharpness I must say on my humble LCD screen it is almost
non existent.

The Cool Scan 8000 did produce cleaner dust free scans but thats about
all. The Cool scans were done in 16 bit mode the 2450 scans eight bit.
There still is very little difference. Would down sampling to 300 dpi
make them appear relatively similar? The initial CS 8000 scans were
at 4000 dpi.

I just wonder whether its worth spending 1700 for and Artix scanner
or 2000 for the Cool scan?

Thx

Greg

In general, I think you would be better off matching your final printing
requirements to your resolution needs for scanning. If you predominantly
need only smaller printed dimensions, then a less capable scanner makes
more economic sense. When you have an occasional need for larger dimension
printing capability, then you can pay to outsource scans. The rule of
thumb I use is to calculate how many scans at maximum quality you would
need to pay to get, and compare that to the cost of the scanner. If the
scanner costs more than 200 high quality scans (for example), then the
choice might be tougher.

While I would imagine you already know this, you should not judge scan
quality on a computer monitor. You could use a sampling tool, or look at
the numerical data of the scans, but just viewing on a monitor is not a
good choice for judgement, unless you only want to use those scans on a
monitor. A better method is to compare printed outputs of those scans.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

In general, I think you would be better off matching your final printing
requirements to your resolution needs for scanning. If you predominantly
need only smaller printed dimensions, then a less capable scanner makes
more economic sense. When you have an occasional need for larger dimension
printing capability, then you can pay to outsource scans. The rule of
thumb I use is to calculate how many scans at maximum quality you would
need to pay to get, and compare that to the cost of the scanner. If the
scanner costs more than 200 high quality scans (for example), then the
choice might be tougher.

While I would imagine you already know this, you should not judge scan
quality on a computer monitor. You could use a sampling tool, or look at
the numerical data of the scans, but just viewing on a monitor is not a
good choice for judgement, unless you only want to use those scans on a
monitor. A better method is to compare printed outputs of those scans.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Its appreciated insight, realistically what my needs a decent
capability, to give the client something they can have
offset printed probably 8.1/2x11 max 300 to 600 dpi. I figure at
45.00 USD per scan the 1700 USD Artix scanner would pay for itself after
37 scans, then there's the time factor of me running 50 miles one way to
get a scan when I have a rather full schedule all ready.

What kind of numeric data should I look at?

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

In general, I think you would be better off matching your final printing
requirements to your resolution needs for scanning. If you predominantly
need only smaller printed dimensions, then a less capable scanner makes
more economic sense. When you have an occasional need for larger dimension
printing capability, then you can pay to outsource scans. The rule of
thumb I use is to calculate how many scans at maximum quality you would
need to pay to get, and compare that to the cost of the scanner. If the
scanner costs more than 200 high quality scans (for example), then the
choice might be tougher.

While I would imagine you already know this, you should not judge scan
quality on a computer monitor. You could use a sampling tool, or look at
the numerical data of the scans, but just viewing on a monitor is not a
good choice for judgement, unless you only want to use those scans on a
monitor. A better method is to compare printed outputs of those scans.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Its appreciated insight, realistically what my needs a decent
capability, to give the client something they can have
offset printed probably 8.1/2x11 max 300 to 600 dpi. I figure at
45.00 USD per scan the 1700 USD Artix scanner would pay for itself after
37 scans, then there's the time factor of me running 50 miles one way to
get a scan when I have a rather full schedule all ready.

What kind of numeric data should I look at?

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

In general, I think you would be better off matching your final printing
requirements to your resolution needs for scanning. If you predominantly
need only smaller printed dimensions, then a less capable scanner makes
more economic sense. When you have an occasional need for larger dimension
printing capability, then you can pay to outsource scans. The rule of
thumb I use is to calculate how many scans at maximum quality you would
need to pay to get, and compare that to the cost of the scanner. If the
scanner costs more than 200 high quality scans (for example), then the
choice might be tougher.

While I would imagine you already know this, you should not judge scan
quality on a computer monitor. You could use a sampling tool, or look at
the numerical data of the scans, but just viewing on a monitor is not a
good choice for judgement, unless you only want to use those scans on a
monitor. A better method is to compare printed outputs of those scans.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Its appreciated insight, realistically what my needs a decent
capability, to give the client something they can have
offset printed probably 8.1/2x11 max 300 to 600 dpi. I figure at
45.00 USD per scan the 1700 USD Artix scanner would pay for itself after
37 scans, then there's the time factor of me running 50 miles one way to
get a scan when I have a rather full schedule all ready.

I think at that level, the economics point more towards getting the scanner.
The Artix is actually the older Polaroid. It is not a bad scanner, but would be
much better with the full version of SilverFast. If you also budget for the
scanning software, I still think it would be a good deal. One thing about
SilverFast is that it minimizes the amount of post processing needed in
PhotoShop, which means it would save you time.



What kind of numeric data should I look at?

The Histogram information is one area, with the total numerical information
being a good comparison tool between scans. I will assume you are mostly using
PhotoShop, so the other main tool of use is the eyedropper tool. If you hold
down the shift key, and click on a spot, the information will show on the info
palette, and stay there through changes. This is true of every version since
PhotoShop 3.0, so it should cover which one you use now. The information
palette can show you total ink level (very important in press printed images),
and colour levels in CMYK. If you want to save time, and not switch to total
ink % measurements, you can add the CMYK % values of a spot to get an idea of
total ink. Most modern papers can handle 300% total ink, which is a good number
to approach.

There are colours that print, but cannot be displayed on a computer monitor.
The eyedropper tool in PhotoShop allows you to see those values. Anything near
Cyan, some greens, Yellow, and some of the deeper red hues can be measured, but
will not display as they can print, when viewed on any monitor.

An example of this was a music CD package I recently did, in which a green hue
was used on the insert pages, and it could not be viewed on any computer
monitor. We did soft proofs on PDF files for approval, but warned the clients
they would not see the true colour on screen. One of the band members wanted to
view an actual print proof, and then understood how the colour should appear in
print. The band were very happy with the end results. While this is only one
recent example, this is the sort of thing I run into often.

I also use some other colour sampling tools in software, though they are just
more refined versions of the eyedropper tool from PhotoShop. Some other editing
software allows for similar tools, and information.

The Histogram is also valuable in that it can indicate smoothness of tonality,
and colour range transitions. Gaps or more jagged edges could indicate later
problems with printed outputs. Most actions in PhotoShop are destructive, so
limiting post processing can minimize increasing problems.

Please feel free to ask more questions, if there is something that did not make
sense, or something I did not cover adequately. If you are worried about this
being too specific, or too off topic, you can contact me by e-mail.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

In general, I think you would be better off matching your final printing
requirements to your resolution needs for scanning. If you predominantly
need only smaller printed dimensions, then a less capable scanner makes
more economic sense. When you have an occasional need for larger dimension
printing capability, then you can pay to outsource scans. The rule of
thumb I use is to calculate how many scans at maximum quality you would
need to pay to get, and compare that to the cost of the scanner. If the
scanner costs more than 200 high quality scans (for example), then the
choice might be tougher.

While I would imagine you already know this, you should not judge scan
quality on a computer monitor. You could use a sampling tool, or look at
the numerical data of the scans, but just viewing on a monitor is not a
good choice for judgement, unless you only want to use those scans on a
monitor. A better method is to compare printed outputs of those scans.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Its appreciated insight, realistically what my needs a decent
capability, to give the client something they can have
offset printed probably 8.1/2x11 max 300 to 600 dpi. I figure at
45.00 USD per scan the 1700 USD Artix scanner would pay for itself after
37 scans, then there's the time factor of me running 50 miles one way to
get a scan when I have a rather full schedule all ready.

I think at that level, the economics point more towards getting the scanner.
The Artix is actually the older Polaroid. It is not a bad scanner, but would be
much better with the full version of SilverFast. If you also budget for the
scanning software, I still think it would be a good deal. One thing about
SilverFast is that it minimizes the amount of post processing needed in
PhotoShop, which means it would save you time.



What kind of numeric data should I look at?

The Histogram information is one area, with the total numerical information
being a good comparison tool between scans. I will assume you are mostly using
PhotoShop, so the other main tool of use is the eyedropper tool. If you hold
down the shift key, and click on a spot, the information will show on the info
palette, and stay there through changes. This is true of every version since
PhotoShop 3.0, so it should cover which one you use now. The information
palette can show you total ink level (very important in press printed images),
and colour levels in CMYK. If you want to save time, and not switch to total
ink % measurements, you can add the CMYK % values of a spot to get an idea of
total ink. Most modern papers can handle 300% total ink, which is a good number
to approach.

There are colours that print, but cannot be displayed on a computer monitor.
The eyedropper tool in PhotoShop allows you to see those values. Anything near
Cyan, some greens, Yellow, and some of the deeper red hues can be measured, but
will not display as they can print, when viewed on any monitor.

An example of this was a music CD package I recently did, in which a green hue
was used on the insert pages, and it could not be viewed on any computer
monitor. We did soft proofs on PDF files for approval, but warned the clients
they would not see the true colour on screen. One of the band members wanted to
view an actual print proof, and then understood how the colour should appear in
print. The band were very happy with the end results. While this is only one
recent example, this is the sort of thing I run into often.

I also use some other colour sampling tools in software, though they are just
more refined versions of the eyedropper tool from PhotoShop. Some other editing
software allows for similar tools, and information.

The Histogram is also valuable in that it can indicate smoothness of tonality,
and colour range transitions. Gaps or more jagged edges could indicate later
problems with printed outputs. Most actions in PhotoShop are destructive, so
limiting post processing can minimize increasing problems.

Please feel free to ask more questions, if there is something that did not make
sense, or something I did not cover adequately. If you are worried about this
being too specific, or too off topic, you can contact me by e-mail.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Gregory Blank wrote:

Its appreciated insight, realistically what my needs a decent
capability, to give the client something they can have
offset printed probably 8.1/2x11 max 300 to 600 dpi. I figure at
45.00 USD per scan the 1700 USD Artix scanner would pay for itself after
37 scans, then there's the time factor of me running 50 miles one way to
get a scan when I have a rather full schedule all ready.

What kind of numeric data should I look at?


The pixel size you're talking about (8.5x11 inches, 300 to 600 ppi)
would be between 12 and 48 megapixels. My old (1996 vintage) Agfa Arcus
1200 can get almost 1.5 MP from a 35 mm frame, scanning at 2400 ppi. I
can get about 5.5 megapixel from 6x4.5, and it'll scan up to 4x5 in a
glassless carrier (with homemade adapters, in some cases), which
produces a bit more than 90 MP. Most modern scanners that handle 35 mm
film natively will easily beat these figures, giving between 14 and 22
MP from a 35 mm frame, though some flatbeds with adapters on the glass
give much less actual resolution than their advertised figure.

Few people can see the difference without magnification, in color,
between 300 ppi and 600 ppi, which means nearly all dedicated film
scanners would produce files adquate for your needs from 35 mm, and
pretty much anything current that will scan medium format glassless will
do the job.

If your clients are shooting in 4x5 but only need to print to magazine
page size, you could give them what they need with a scanner for which I
paid $135 including shipping (well, plus another $35 for the SCSI card
and cable).

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:
What kind of numeric data should I look at?


The Histogram information is one area, with the total numerical information
being a good comparison tool between scans. I will assume you are mostly
using
PhotoShop, so the other main tool of use is the eyedropper tool. If you hold
down the shift key, and click on a spot, the information will show on the
info
palette, and stay there through changes. This is true of every version since
PhotoShop 3.0, so it should cover which one you use now. The information
palette can show you total ink level (very important in press printed
images),
and colour levels in CMYK. If you want to save time, and not switch to total
ink % measurements, you can add the CMYK % values of a spot to get an idea of
total ink. Most modern papers can handle 300% total ink, which is a good
number
to approach.

There are colours that print, but cannot be displayed on a computer monitor.
The eyedropper tool in PhotoShop allows you to see those values. Anything
near
Cyan, some greens, Yellow, and some of the deeper red hues can be measured,
but
will not display as they can print, when viewed on any monitor.

An example of this was a music CD package I recently did, in which a green
hue
was used on the insert pages, and it could not be viewed on any computer
monitor. We did soft proofs on PDF files for approval, but warned the clients
they would not see the true colour on screen. One of the band members wanted
to
view an actual print proof, and then understood how the colour should appear
in
print. The band were very happy with the end results. While this is only one
recent example, this is the sort of thing I run into often.

I also use some other colour sampling tools in software, though they are just
more refined versions of the eyedropper tool from PhotoShop. Some other
editing
software allows for similar tools, and information.

The Histogram is also valuable in that it can indicate smoothness of
tonality,
and colour range transitions. Gaps or more jagged edges could indicate later
problems with printed outputs. Most actions in PhotoShop are destructive, so
limiting post processing can minimize increasing problems.

Please feel free to ask more questions, if there is something that did not
make
sense, or something I did not cover adequately. If you are worried about this
being too specific, or too off topic, you can contact me by e-mail.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Its really a good lot of information and its appreciated. I printed it
out for reference but I understand everything you have wrote.

Thanks!

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:
What kind of numeric data should I look at?


The Histogram information is one area, with the total numerical information
being a good comparison tool between scans. I will assume you are mostly
using
PhotoShop, so the other main tool of use is the eyedropper tool. If you hold
down the shift key, and click on a spot, the information will show on the
info
palette, and stay there through changes. This is true of every version since
PhotoShop 3.0, so it should cover which one you use now. The information
palette can show you total ink level (very important in press printed
images),
and colour levels in CMYK. If you want to save time, and not switch to total
ink % measurements, you can add the CMYK % values of a spot to get an idea of
total ink. Most modern papers can handle 300% total ink, which is a good
number
to approach.

There are colours that print, but cannot be displayed on a computer monitor.
The eyedropper tool in PhotoShop allows you to see those values. Anything
near
Cyan, some greens, Yellow, and some of the deeper red hues can be measured,
but
will not display as they can print, when viewed on any monitor.

An example of this was a music CD package I recently did, in which a green
hue
was used on the insert pages, and it could not be viewed on any computer
monitor. We did soft proofs on PDF files for approval, but warned the clients
they would not see the true colour on screen. One of the band members wanted
to
view an actual print proof, and then understood how the colour should appear
in
print. The band were very happy with the end results. While this is only one
recent example, this is the sort of thing I run into often.

I also use some other colour sampling tools in software, though they are just
more refined versions of the eyedropper tool from PhotoShop. Some other
editing
software allows for similar tools, and information.

The Histogram is also valuable in that it can indicate smoothness of
tonality,
and colour range transitions. Gaps or more jagged edges could indicate later
problems with printed outputs. Most actions in PhotoShop are destructive, so
limiting post processing can minimize increasing problems.

Please feel free to ask more questions, if there is something that did not
make
sense, or something I did not cover adequately. If you are worried about this
being too specific, or too off topic, you can contact me by e-mail.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Its really a good lot of information and its appreciated. I printed it
out for reference but I understand everything you have wrote.

Thanks!

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918