Robert Randall wrote:
I read stuff like this all the time, and I think this attitude is the result of not having experienced a real drum scan before. The notion that there is as much information available on a medium format digital capture, as there is available on a quality drum scan, is preposterous. The scanner used in this example is an Isomet 405XX. It was developed for the military in conjunction with some Kodak products, for obvious purposes. The technology was released to the public around 1993, and was marketed in tandem with the Kodak LVT until the late 90's. Its original purchase price was $160,000.00.

If you click the link, you will see a one inch square section of a res 60 (1524 PPI) scan of a portion of a 6X7 BW negative. I say portion, because it was my habit to eliminate the frame of the file whenever possible. The film is unknown to me, as this file is 10 years old, and the film wasn't in the job bag with the CD. The square cut you will be looking at is 1524X1524, or approximately 5 inches at 300 PPI. The full frame is there for an indication of relativity.

Edit... There was no sharpening applied to this file, either on the scan side, or the PS side. It was intended to be output on the LVT, and therefore, sharpening would be detrimental. Also, the camera was an RZ Pro II with a 110 lens.

http://www.robert-randall.com/MM2/res60.scan.jpg

Bob,

He's also referring to a Minota DiMage or Nikon Coolscan, not a true drum scan.  Regardless, I'll still stick to the simplicity of capture, ease of file generation, and ample quality provided by a MFDB over scanning (yes, that includes drum scanning) anyday.  I've used the Phase P30 for quite some time with great results; the subsequent jump to the P45+ led to a bit more quality.  The P65+ is really quite astounding.  And again, all with the simple squeeze of the shutter.

ken

Ken Doo Photo wrote:
Bob,

He's also referring to a Minota DiMage or Nikon Coolscan, not a true drum scan.  Regardless, I'll still stick to the simplicity of capture, ease of file generation, and ample quality provided by a MFDB over scanning (yes, that includes drum scanning) anyday.  I've used the Phase P30 for quite some time with great results; the subsequent jump to the P45+ led to a bit more quality.  The P65+ is really quite astounding.  And again, all with the simple squeeze of the shutter.

ken

Robert Randall wrote:
I read stuff like this all the time, and I think this attitude is the result of not having experienced a real drum scan before. The notion that there is as much information available on a medium format digital capture, as there is available on a quality drum scan, is preposterous. The scanner used in this example is an Isomet 405XX. It was developed for the military in conjunction with some Kodak products, for obvious purposes. The technology was released to the public around 1993, and was marketed in tandem with the Kodak LVT until the late 90's. Its original purchase price was $160,000.00.

If you click the link, you will see a one inch square section of a res 60 (1524 PPI) scan of a portion of a 6X7 BW negative. I say portion, because it was my habit to eliminate the frame of the file whenever possible. The film is unknown to me, as this file is 10 years old, and the film wasn't in the job bag with the CD. The square cut you will be looking at is 1524X1524, or approximately 5 inches at 300 PPI. The full frame is there for an indication of relativity.

Edit... There was no sharpening applied to this file, either on the scan side, or the PS side. It was intended to be output on the LVT, and therefore, sharpening would be detrimental. Also, the camera was an RZ Pro II with a 110 lens.

http://www.robert-randall.com/MM2/res60.scan.jpg

Ken Doo Photo wrote:
You can bump up the file size of scans of 6x7 chromes all you want---but the level of detail, amount of QUALITY information in the file, and quality of a capture made with a P45+/P65+ (or equivalent from Leaf and Hasselblad) will far exceed the film scan.

And that's with the simple press of the shutter button.

Let's print big.

You didn't mention anything about a Minota DiMage or Nikon Coolscan in the post I responded to.

Robert Randall wrote:

Ken Doo Photo wrote:
Bob,

He's also referring to a Minota DiMage or Nikon Coolscan, not a true drum scan.  Regardless, I'll still stick to the simplicity of capture, ease of file generation, and ample quality provided by a MFDB over scanning (yes, that includes drum scanning) anyday.  I've used the Phase P30 for quite some time with great results; the subsequent jump to the P45+ led to a bit more quality.  The P65+ is really quite astounding.  And again, all with the simple squeeze of the shutter.

ken

You didn't mention anything about a Minota DiMage or Nikon Coolscan in the post I responded to.

Bob, I was responding to his post (which mentioned his scanning with the DiMage or Coolscan.....  (Damn---school teacher can b*tch slap me for not writing complete sentences)  But I'll still stand by my opinion that a MFDB file produces better quality files easier---much easier, than scanning.  Michael Reichman's review of the P65+, albeit glowing, concluded that the P65+ produced files exceeding those of drum scanned 4x5:

"A high-res drum scan from 4"X5" film is likely comparable in resolution, but definitely not in terms of image clarity and cleanness. Drum scans always show grain and the inevitable schmutz that scans invariably capture, that sometimes can take hours to remove.  No, there really is no comparison, and given that a 645 camera with a back like this can be hand-held, can be shot at up to 1/4,000 second, and at up to ISO 800, it's no contest. This is about as good as it gets for most types of photography, now, in 2009."

Now I've never compared a drum scan to a P65+ file-----but I have used the P30, P45+ and now the P65+.....  It is at the very least something that makes you stop and say, wow---look at that--- and without sending out for a drum scan.  In my experience with the P65+, I don't agree with Reichmann that the P65+ produces that same type of quality full res shooting above 400.  (The P65+ can shoot at up to 3200 with Sensor+)

ken

p.s.  You've got an open invitation to come out and play.

Ken Doo Photo wrote:

Bob, I was responding to his post (which mentioned his scanning with the DiMage or Coolscan.....  (Damn---school teacher can b*tch slap me for not writing complete sentences)  But I'll still stand by my opinion that a MFDB file produces better quality files easier---much easier, than scanning.  Michael Reichman's review of the P65+, albeit glowing, concluded that the P65+ produced files exceeding those of drum scanned 4x5:

"A high-res drum scan from 4"X5" film is likely comparable in resolution, but definitely not in terms of image clarity and cleanness. Drum scans always show grain and the inevitable schmutz that scans invariably capture, that sometimes can take hours to remove.  No, there really is no comparison, and given that a 645 camera with a back like this can be hand-held, can be shot at up to 1/4,000 second, and at up to ISO 800, it's no contest. This is about as good as it gets for most types of photography, now, in 2009."

Now I've never compared a drum scan to a P65+ file-----but I have used the P30, P45+ and now the P65+.....  It is at the very least something that makes you stop and say, wow---look at that--- and without sending out for a drum scan.  In my experience with the P65+, I don't agree with Reichmann that the P65+ produces that same type of quality full res shooting above 400.  (The P65+ can shoot at up to 3200 with Sensor+)

ken

p.s.  You've got an open invitation to come out and play.

Michael is either an idiot, or he has never seen a quality drum scan. The scan I supplied was at res 60. It could easily been done at res 120, which would have made the native resolution of the file produce a print about 60 inches wide at 300 PPI.

In fairness to all, the Isomet is a rare bird indeed. The only scanner I've ever seen come close is a Screen. Most people equate the quality of drum scans and photography with pre press scanners such as Crossfields. Its possible this Michael guy was looking at an over sharpened Crossfield scan for comparison.

You are correct, pushing a button is far easier than acquiring a quality drum scan.