6x7 RangeFinder

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2009 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · 6x7 RangeFinder

kosmoskatten wrote:
LotusM50: it would be nice to see the whole picture as well.

Varsågod. This version (posted a while ago in another thread) is a little cold in color balance, but at least you'll get a good idea of the overall image. The crop is from near the lower left edge of the image.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Feb 23, 2009 at 11:47 PM

mmurph
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Lotusm50 wrote:
just be aware that it is basically an averaging meter with the 80mm lens so think about what it is you are metering.

It has a very odd weighting to the lower right, in an arc, below the center focus point.

Take it into a dark room with just a single lightbulb on across teh room. Move the viewfinder systematically back and forth, moving up or down one "row" each time, and watch the meter. You will get a good feel for the pattern. You need to do that with each lens.

My favorite lens was the 65mm. I owned all the wides, plus the 80, but I used the 65 almost exclusively! But then, too, when I first bought my Canon F1 years ago the only lens I owned for quite a while was a 35mm.

Great camera, great image quality. But quality Astia or Portra film with pro development comes to about $1 per frame. I used to spend $5,000 a year just on film and developing. No prints, proofs or anything. Then add the cost and time to scan, etc. I just couldn't afford to really use my 7II any more.

I do shoot a bit of 4x5 still. I also have a Mamiya 645, but never really use it. Oh well ...

New lenses are as cheap in the UK as used ones are in the US on Ebay.

Have fun.

Best,
Michael

Feb 24, 2009 at 12:10 AM

Peter Figen
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · 6x7 RangeFinder

"Keep in mind that the Howtek maintains true optical resolution up to a 4000ppi scan. We just chose 3200 because that supports a 40X50 print at 300ppi"

Howtek 4500's scan at either 2000 ppi or 4000 ppi for the two highest resolutions. Howtek 8000's add a 2667 ppi as an intermediate optical hardware resolution. When you choose 3200 ppi, the scanner scans at 4000 and the software downsamples to 3200. In the extensive testing I did, it was MUCH faster to just scan at 4000 ppi and then downsample in Ps, which takes only a few seconds. The quality of the interpolation in better in Photoshop as well. It's also much faster to do any 90 degree rotations in Ps as well.

Any drum scanner that is having problems with E-6 densities probably needs new pmt's. There should be no problem whatsoever in recording all the detail you can see on a transparency, and then some.

Having a Mamiya 7 myself with the 43mm, 50mm, 65mm and 80mm lenses, all I can say is that ANY scanner less than a Howtek or ICG will not come close to giving you what your lenses can deliver, and these lenses are about as good as they get, anywhere. It's the density range as well as the resolution.

Feb 24, 2009 at 03:05 AM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Peter Figen wrote:
{snip} all I can say is that ANY scanner less than a Howtek or ICG will not come close to giving you what your lenses can deliver,

Peter-

Can you post any unsharpened 100% crops from the Howteck or ICG 4000 dpi scans? I'd really be interested in seeing what they are capable of, and what I might be missing in my Nikon scans. My impression and assessment to date is that I'm not really missing all that much, but I'd like to get a better feel for the potential difference.

Feb 24, 2009 at 03:34 AM

Peter Figen
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Lotus -

The only comparison that would make any sense would be to have scans from both scanners from the same piece of film.

Here's what you do get: about two stops of usable shadow detail and better highlight detail. The Howtek can "see" down to about a 3.88 density while the Nikon, no matter what the claims are, is only good to about 3.0 at best. Velvia hits around 3.6-3.7 while Ektachrome is a bit less at 3.5-3.6.

The other things you will see in a good drum scan other than being easily able to scan over 100% of your frame, are not only sharper images, but images that are completely and accurately focused across the frame. Tonal transitions and gradations are smoother from analog sensors than from CCDs. Fluid mounting makes images sharper to the scanner lens, eliminates Newton's Rings, drastically cuts the amount of dust in the scan, and fills in micro-voids in the emulsion giving a smoother look to the grain structure when scanning at extremely high resolution. And then there's the putting 30 slides on a drum, queuing them up and going to lunch while they scan by themselves.

Feb 24, 2009 at 04:58 AM

coffeeshakes
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · 6x7 RangeFinder

I've scanned a lot of 6x6-6x12 film on imacon's and epsons, and have had creo and drum scans done be reputable (wci) companies.

I found the Imacon to give fantastic results, and was both easy and fast to use. Was happier with my own scanning from the 646 than the commercial drum scans. Output was prints up to 3'x6'.

Epson was a no go.

Feb 24, 2009 at 05:06 AM

espressogeek
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · 6x7 RangeFinder

A lot of great info guys. I don't know if I can afford to do the drum scan thing. The learning curve etc would be a real struggle. But that Nikon 8000 scan looked great and a low end Imacon might be doable.

Feb 24, 2009 at 06:19 AM

Peter Figen
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Coffeshakes has illustrated one of the perennial problems with scanning, drum or otherwise. It's the scanner operator that makes more difference than anything else. The statement that West Coast Imaging is reputable but that you make better scans on a lesser scanner both illustrates the point and make one question just how good West Coat Imaging is. Even with the resolution limitations of their Tango scanner, if it was operated by a great operator, it should have walked all over the Imacon, which is really not any better than the Nikon.

I don't doubt that you're thrilled with you Imacon. I also don't doubt that scans from great scanner and a great operator would have a different result.

When I was buying my first drum scanner, and for some time after, I made many comparison scans, and the Imacon I had in the studio was not even close to the Howtek 4500 I had at the time. I also did comparisons with the legendary Hell 3300, which was slightly behind the Howtek.

It took me several years to learn how to be a great scanner operator. It's not as easy as you might think, especially when learning a fairly sophisticated piece of software like Trident for the Howtek. At one point I was sending so much feedback back to Colorbyte on Trident that they considered me their chief beta tester.

Feb 24, 2009 at 07:23 AM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Peter Figen wrote:
The only comparison that would make any sense would be to have scans from both scanners from the same piece of film.

While this is true, it still wouldn't hurt to see a crop from a scan. At least in an absolute sense, you'll be able to see how good it might be.

Peter Figen wrote:The other things you will see in a good drum scan other than being easily able to scan over 100% of your frame, are not only sharper images, but images that are completely and accurately focused across the frame. Tonal transitions and gradations are smoother from analog sensors than from CCDs. Fluid mounting makes images sharper to the scanner lens, eliminates Newton's Rings, drastically cuts the amount of dust in the scan, and fills in micro-voids in the emulsion giving a smoother look to the grain structure when scanning at extremely high resolution. And then there's the putting 30 slides on a drum, queuing them up and going to lunch while they scan by themselves.

This is an issue you have only with the standard film holders in the Nikon. They are crap. You must, at least, use the optional glass film holder for the Nikon. With this you will get a sharp scan across the entire frame. You can also go one more step with an get a glass film holder from a third-party suppliers designed for fluid mounting. These film holder truly expand, enhance and/or improve the capabilities and performance of the Nikon 8000 and 9000 film scanners. With these better film holders, the difference between the Nikons and the Howtek or ICG scanners is reduced. While ultimately, the Howtek might be better, in a practical sense, that difference might be inconsequential in your ultimate output. The price/performance ratio of the Nikon is hard to beat and I think they represent an excellent value -- especially if you don't need to scan 30 slides at the same time (or perhaps, aren't regularly producing 40x60 inch prints).

Feb 24, 2009 at 12:47 PM

mrladewig
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · 6x7 RangeFinder

I've got to go with Peter on the focus issue. Because of the way drum scanners work, they sample each point on the film straight on. The drums have a very tight tolerance for radius, so a piece of film will be in focus throughout the scan surface. The Nikon uses a very good lens, but I really don't think it can compete with a drum for focus across the entire sheet simply because it is using a conventional flat field macro lens to read the entire image at once. The Nikon makes REALLY nice scans, is an excellent value and its easier to operate, but most drum scanners have some advantages by design. At the same time, any drum scanner is a pretty big investment for use at home, in cost, time, space and developing the skills you need to use the scanner, the mounting station, the mounting fluids, the software...

I've had my eye on a Howtek 4500, but am not sure I want to tackle all of these other issues and cannot print to 40X50 at home anyways. There is a risk with one of these machines that it will require service and those trips are extremely expensive.

Regarding scan operators, I agree that you'll probably always scan your own film closer to your own preferences than any operator once you've crossed the threshold of learning the software and the process of film scanning. It takes a while to learn the software and to get a rhythm, even with basic programs like Epson Scan or Nikon Scan.

I didn't know about the bit on the Howtek only doing hardware scans at 2000/4000. 3200ppi was just chosen to keep the file size reasonable since the scan was coming from 4X5 film, but that's helpful for the future.

Feb 24, 2009 at 03:06 PM

Peter Figen
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · 6x7 RangeFinder

There's no doubt that you can get good scans from a Nikon. This thread has also been about using a camera with extraordinary lenses and how to get the most out of them. Not everyone is going to be able to use a drum scanner but they should know what they may be missing out on rather than thinking that their Nikon or Imacon scans are as good as it gets.

I've been seeing used Howtek 8000's going for as low as $2500 recently. It's true that there is as learning curve and a pretty steep one at that, but that's never stopped people dedicated to their craft and people who strive for that last bit of quality and who don't want to make excuses for their equipment. It's also true that drum scanners are very expensive to repair, but at least the Howteks can still BE repaired. Parts and service are readily available. Thankfully, the most common service items - drive belts and bulbs - are under $20 and for most people are about a yearly mainentence.

For me getting into drum scanners ten years ago was a big leap, but one I've never ever regretted. My first scanner paid for itself in four months. That fast payback is unlikely to happen today as there is just not that much scanning work out there. I bought it primarily to do my own scans and ended up doing all my clients' scans taking away the service bureau work because I did a better job.

Those scanning skills transferred directly to digital capture and sort of sideways into large format Epson printers, which have since replaced the scanners as huge profit centers in my studio.

Feb 24, 2009 at 04:13 PM

Tariq Gibran
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Concerning the used drum scanners that often go for very reasonable prices, is it true that most of these must be used with older hardware? For instance, SCSI and older, pre-OSX macs? or, is there current software available for newer systems?

Peter Figen wrote:
There's no doubt that you can get good scans from a Nikon. This thread has also been about using a camera with extraordinary lenses and how to get the most out of them. Not everyone is going to be able to use a drum scanner but they should know what they may be missing out on rather than thinking that their Nikon or Imacon scans are as good as it gets.

I've been seeing used Howtek 8000's going for as low as $2500 recently. It's true that there is as learning curve and a pretty steep one at that, but that's never stopped people dedicated to their craft and people who strive for that last bit of quality and who don't want to make excuses for their equipment. It's also true that drum scanners are very expensive to repair, but at least the Howteks can still BE repaired. Parts and service are readily available. Thankfully, the most common service items - drive belts and bulbs - are under $20 and for most people are about a yearly mainentence.

For me getting into drum scanners ten years ago was a big leap, but one I've never ever regretted. My first scanner paid for itself in four months. That fast payback is unlikely to happen today as there is just not that much scanning work out there. I bought it primarily to do my own scans and ended up doing all my clients' scans taking away the service bureau work because I did a better job.

Those scanning skills transferred directly to digital capture and sort of sideways into large format Epson printers, which have since replaced the scanners as huge profit centers in my studio.

Feb 24, 2009 at 04:37 PM

mrladewig
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Not by default. Aztek supports Howtek Scanners (actually took over that line) and their DPL software will run on Vista, XP.... Silverfast also supports Howtek scanners.

I'm not sure what the situation is for ICG, the other drum manufacturer in business. But I would guess they make software for modern OS systems.

There are also professional flatbeds like Kodak/Creo which run on Oxygen software, which is still supported and therefore the apps are built for modern Mac or Windows platforms.

But there are also many cases where the scanner will need to come with an older computer to run the scan software.

Feb 24, 2009 at 05:21 PM

Peter Figen
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Tariq,

Yes, you do have to use SCSI interface cards. That's part of the price of admission. And yes, unfortunately, the best software for the Howtek only runs on Mac OS9, but it's not really that hard to dedicate an older Mac to a scanning station. What's a G4 run these days - maybe $250.

For the Howtek 4000, 4500, and 7500, you can use Silverfast on OSX or OS9. Funny thing is that even though the 8000 is not officially supported by SF, it seems to drive my scanner anyway, including seeing all the aperture stops. The other alternative is the extremely non-intuitive Digital Photo Lab from Aztek. While Aztek is great for parts and service, their software is not.

I spent considerable time trying to convince John Pannazzo at ColorByte to update Trident for OSX but he claimed it would cost him over $250,000 to do so. I wonder about that, especially after seeing so many of the Trident "modules" in ImagePrint. Most of the work was probably writing the SCSI libraries for OSX. The reality of the situation is that Howtek never kept a comprehensive customer database and with declining film sales and subsequent scanning, there was never a financial reason for further work on the application.

There is definitely something that Trident does that is different that everything else I've used on the Howtek. I spent a solid month comparing it to DPL and the things that stood out the most were much smoother gradients in Trident, color management that actually worked despite a couple of minor bugs, and no clipped highlights or shadows on negs, which was a big problem in DPL even when the Aztek people did test scans for me. When I bought DPL I also had to pay $800 for a day of training at Aztek, after which I spent the month testing. It's amazing how fast a month can fly by when you're hauling your scanner between a Mac and a PC.

Another aspect comparing drums to CCDs is the amount of lens flare you encounter with scanners like the Imacon and Nikon and especially the high end flat beds. That's one area where I really saw a difference in scanning difficult transparencies.

Feb 24, 2009 at 05:34 PM

Tariq Gibran
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Thanks very much for that detailed explanation. I will be saving it!

I happen to have a couple of older G4 Sawtooth's loaded with OS9 sitting around the studio which I keep for backup and printing purposes. I picked them up a few years back for $75ea.!, so they can be extremely inexpensive.

On a side note, one funny thing about OS9 is that, for whatever reason, the Epson print drivers which they put out for my older Epson 9600 wide format printer work so much better than anything Epson came out with for OSX. For some jobs, I actually have to print out of OS9 for more accurate image alignment on the page. OS9 also seems to spool large images much faster than OSX via classic on later hardware. The expensive RIP's are the only way around this issue I am aware of.

Peter Figen wrote:
Tariq,

Yes, you do have to use SCSI interface cards. That's part of the price of admission. And yes, unfortunately, the best software for the Howtek only runs on Mac OS9, but it's not really that hard to dedicate an older Mac to a scanning station. What's a G4 run these days - maybe $250.

For the Howtek 4000, 4500, and 7500, you can use Silverfast on OSX or OS9. Funny thing is that even though the 8000 is not officially supported by SF, it seems to drive my scanner anyway, including seeing all the aperture stops. The other alternative is the extremely non-intuitive Digital Photo Lab from Aztek. While Aztek is great for parts and service, their software is not.

I spent considerable time trying to convince John Pannazzo at ColorByte to update Trident for OSX but he claimed it would cost him over $250,000 to do so. I wonder about that, especially after seeing so many of the Trident "modules" in ImagePrint. Most of the work was probably writing the SCSI libraries for OSX. The reality of the situation is that Howtek never kept a comprehensive customer database and with declining film sales and subsequent scanning, there was never a financial reason for further work on the application.

There is definitely something that Trident does that is different that everything else I've used on the Howtek. I spent a solid month comparing it to DPL and the things that stood out the most were much smoother gradients in Trident, color management that actually worked despite a couple of minor bugs, and no clipped highlights or shadows on negs, which was a big problem in DPL even when the Aztek people did test scans for me. When I bought DPL I also had to pay $800 for a day of training at Aztek, after which I spent the month testing. It's amazing how fast a month can fly by when you're hauling your scanner between a Mac and a PC.

Another aspect comparing drums to CCDs is the amount of lens flare you encounter with scanners like the Imacon and Nikon and especially the high end flat beds. That's one area where I really saw a difference in scanning difficult transparencies.

Feb 24, 2009 at 06:01 PM

SoundHound
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Oh what did I start? My experience, with bigger than 35 negatives, is that scenics can never have enough detail or enlargement. But for people and other subjects you can make stunning prints even with a 6Mp sensor DSLR up to 24x36" with careful "preparation."

I do agree that all in house equipment makes it possible to achieve results that outsourcing can't match. That's why I have a Z3100 and the V750 just for my own prints. But I have resisting buying a bigger than 24" carriage printer because my, and many other's, wallspace is limited. Also I think it's only a matter of months before there are large, self contained, thin panel digital displays for minute by minute, daily, weekly programmed display of favorite images.

Feb 25, 2009 at 07:23 PM

kosmoskatten
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · 6x7 RangeFinder

LotusM50: tack!

I totally agree on the idea that any scanning equipment is no better than the operator. The Imacon Flextight (forgot the model name, it was the HUGE one) I was using at work was a great piece of equipment, quite an improvement over the older Imacons. The Flextights work with a magnetic negative mask that bends during scanning (sort of like a drum scanner) and I was very pleased with the results. Scanning is not that tricky but a few things to consider. Now I haven't done it for what seems like an eternity but I do miss shooting my old Hassy SWC and the Mamiyas...

Feb 25, 2009 at 07:36 PM

Peter Figen
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Okay. I got around to making a couple of scans this afternoon. 4000 ppi on the Howtek HR8000. Mamiya 7. Velvia. Hwy395 is a 65mm lens. Alabama Hills either a 43 or 50. Not sure. These are 100 percent detail crops with a full frame inset for context.

Peter

2012 © Peter Figen

Feb 26, 2009 at 02:34 AM

ManfredSchu
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · 6x7 RangeFinder

I am thinking about buying a Mamiya M7. Is the image quality (resolution etc.) comparable to a 5D2, or is it better? What megapixel resolution can an optimal scan offer? Thanks for looking into the questions.

Nov 04, 2009 at 08:34 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · 6x7 RangeFinder

ManfredSchu wrote:
I am thinking about buying a Mamiya M7. Is the image quality (resolution etc.) comparable to a 5D2, or is it better? What megapixel resolution can an optimal scan offer? Thanks for looking into the questions.

I haven't got around to getting a 5Dll yet, but from everything I have seen, I would say that the Mamiya 7 is still noticeably better. It's a little closer to it than the original 5D but it still has some way to go.

Nov 04, 2009 at 08:42 PM

Tariq Gibran
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #21 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Ultimately, it's probably going to come down to your scanning equipment, film used and your technique/capabilities with both the scanner and the camera - Drum scanner, best ISO 100 or slower film and a lot of time + expertise, the Mamiya 7 would come out on top if you were going for very large prints of say wide angle landscapes. A dedicated, decent, desktop 4000ppi film scanner would likely be close to what a good 20+MP DSLR could achieve with proper technique. Put it this way, I sold my "cold, dead hands" MF Hasselblad after getting my Sony a900. There are plenty of other reasons to shoot film beyond simple resolution that may or may not be important to you.

Nov 04, 2009 at 09:10 PM

carstenw
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #22 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Lotusm50 wrote:
Well here is a 100% crop from a Nikon 8000 scan (very nearly as good as a 9000). This is a 4000 dpi scan of a 6x7 Velvia 100F slide from a Mamiya 7 and 43mm lens. The resulting files is over 97 megapixels. This 100% crop is completely unsharpened.

Lotus, I scaled this down in CS4 to half the dimensions on each side, and then back up again to full size, and I could see no significant difference between the original and the end result. I think there isn't 97MP resolution in such an image, regardless of the number of pixels.

With Adox CHS 25 (same as Efke), I find that I can get a high-res 6x6 scan with my V750 resulting in about 25MP. If I go much above that resolution, I get a strong case of diminishing returns. The Nikon 8000/9000 are slightly better, and the Imacons a bit better still, so probably you could get a more with them. The difference isn't huge though.

Nov 04, 2009 at 09:49 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #23 · 6x7 RangeFinder

carstenw wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
Well here is a 100% crop from a Nikon 8000 scan (very nearly as good as a 9000). This is a 4000 dpi scan of a 6x7 Velvia 100F slide from a Mamiya 7 and 43mm lens. The resulting files is over 97 megapixels. This 100% crop is completely unsharpened.

Lotus, I scaled this down in CS4 to half the dimensions on each side, and then back up again to full size, and I could see no significant difference between the original and the end result. I think there isn't 97MP resolution in such an image, regardless of the number of pixels.

With Adox CHS 25 (same as Efke), I find that I can get a high-res 6x6 scan with my V750 resulting in about 25MP. If I go much above that resolution, I get a strong case of diminishing returns. The Nikon 8000/9000 are slightly better, and the Imacons a bit better still, so probably you could get a more with them. The difference isn't huge though.

Carsten-
I didn't mean to suggest that there was 97mp worth of resolution, merely that the "resulting files are over 97 megapixels" in size. A drum scanner might get you a little more resolution than the Nikon at 4000 dpi, the Imacons may see a slight advantage (not sure it's worth the much higher cost of the Imacons).

From what I see from by 4000dpi 6x7 scans of 100 IS0 slide film, that it can easily exceed the 21-24 mp DLSR resolution. The detail, at least with the Mamiya 7 lenses, just keep coming. The 39 mp backs would probably on balance be comparable.

Nov 05, 2009 at 12:19 AM

Ed Sawyer
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #24 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Damn. I just got a Mamiya 7 with the 65 and 150. Now I want (need!) the 43. And the 80. And maybe the 50, hell - why not.

Anyone got any of those 3 lenses they want to sell/trade/?

Nov 05, 2009 at 01:13 AM

winnonlin
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #25 · 6x7 RangeFinder

Ed Sawyer wrote:
Damn. I just got a Mamiya 7 with the 65 and 150. Now I want (need!) the 43. And the 80. And maybe the 50, hell - why not.

Anyone got any of those 3 lenses they want to sell/trade/?

I have none, but have been dreaming about buying one.

Based on my reading, people go for 43, 65, 150 (for those love wide angle) or 43, 80, 150 (for the sake of covering the more evenly distributed range).

Go for 43, 50, 65, 80, 150, IMHO, is a bit waste. I would buy a better scanner in this case -- this thread has turned from midium format rangefinder to how to scan your pictures anyways.

Nov 05, 2009 at 03:22 AM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end