NancyScans and other drum-scan facilities
Matt Clara
think of the quality/service/price? If not, where do you get medium-format
drum scanned? I suddenly have a need to make a wall-sized print from 6x6,
so I think I need something a step up from my 8000ED.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Bill Hilton
>
>Anyone ever use NancyScans? http://www.nancyscans.com/ If so, what did
>you think of the quality/service/price?
Haven't used them myself but know two pros who have used them and said
the quality and service was fine.
>If not, where do you get medium-format drum scanned?
These cost a bit more than Nancy but are the two I'm familiar with ...
these are the two main scan and print outfits guys like Jack Dykinga,
Galen Rowell, Bill Atkinson, Robert Glenn Ketchum, William Neil, Franz
Lanting etc etc use (or used to use in Galen's case) but for just scans
I'd think you could find a local outfit with a drum scanner who could
do a good job as well so long as you're going to do the Photoshop work
afterwards.
Calypso Imaging http://www.calypsoinc.com/
West Coast Imaging http://www.westcoastimaging.com/
>I suddenly have a need to make a wall-sized print from 6x6,
>so I think I need something a step up from my 8000ED
Will be interesting to see how much extra you actually gain from the
drum scan ... most of us with the 8000 who've compared it to drum scans
feel it's about 90-95% as good as a drum scan except for shadow detail.
Let us know what you find out ... I think Rafe B has a web site
showing various drum scans vs 8000 and similar scans (where did Rafe B
go anyway?).
Bill
Matt Clara
news:1127852727.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thanks, Bill--it was WCI's prices that drove me to enquire about the
NancyScans. Also, I'm not worried about the quality of the 8000ED, I just
want the largest resolution straight from scan to fill an 8 foot by 8 foot
wall.
Dave the Guy
Can you really blow up a 6x6cm that big and still retain clarity?
Matt Clara
news:1127875899.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> 8'x8'? I'm new to MF, but holy crap!
>
> Can you really blow up a 6x6cm that big and still retain clarity?
>
I have no idea. There's a place here in Lansing that has software for
creating murals on wallpaper. I talked to the salesman and he said this
route would be ideal. I'm just going to try to get them the largest file I
can.
Philip Homburg
Dave the Guy <hairles...@gmail.com> wrote:
>8'x8'? I'm new to MF, but holy crap!
>
>Can you really blow up a 6x6cm that big and still retain clarity?
Using David J. Littleboy's assumption (that you can downsample medium format
scans to 2000 ppi without losing significant details), and assuming 56x56mm
for 6x6, you get (56/25.4*2000)/(8*12) = 46 'real' pixels per inch on the
print. The print should look good from about 6' distance.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Bill Hilton
>
>8'x8'? I'm new to MF, but holy crap!
>
>Can you really blow up a 6x6cm that big and still retain clarity?
I saw an Annie Leibowitz exhibit once (I think it was "Women") where
she had used a Mamiya 6x7 cm camera for portraits (mostly b/w, some
color) and printed them something like 4 ft x 6 ft, maybe a couple a
foot larger each dimension ... from a 'normal viewing distance' they
looked good, but if you moved in close and looked at the details they
looked really grainy.
Also saw a Richard Avedon exhibit a couple years earlier ("In the
American West" or something like that) where he printed even larger
(some 6 ft x 8 ft) with images from an 8x10" view camera and
fine-grained b/w film, and even at very close range these looked
smooth. Sometimes bigger is better ...
Bill Hilton
>
>Thanks, Bill--it was WCI's prices that drove me to enquire about the
>NancyScans
Yeah, that's what drove me to get an 8000 :)
>I'm not worried about the quality of the 8000ED, I just want the largest
>resolution straight from scan to fill an 8 foot by 8 foot wall.
Bill Atkinson said at a workshop that he felt scanning at anything
above 5,000 dpi with Velvia and a drum scanner was pointless (he has
his own Tango drum scanner at home and tested it up to 10,000 dpi with
Velvia shot on a Hasselblad). This will give you a nice bump up from
the 4,000 dpi from the Nikon and means you can print at about 115 ppi
without resampling (probably their printer will resample internally).
Should be OK at 'normal viewing distances' ... situations like this are
where the extra rez of a drum scanner comes in handy. Should be
interesting ...
Bill
Matt Clara
Can you (or anyone) recommend a high res film for this use? I was thinking
I'd use my usual Portra 160NC or VC.
Dave the Guy
Matt Clara
> Curious as to how much they quoted you for making this custom wallpaper.
>
Ah, well, it's not for me, but for a client (read, "guy from work who wants
to do this as cheaply as possible"). He did say they were giving it to him
at cost as he's their first in the area and they want to populate a few
places with this kinda work for reference. But he didn't say how much "at
cost" was. Art Craft Signs in Lansing, MI.
http://www.acsignshop.com/flash.htm
Gregory Blank
"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.com> wrote:
> Will be interesting to see how much extra you actually gain from the
> drum scan ... most of us with the 8000 who've compared it to drum scans
> feel it's about 90-95% as good as a drum scan except for shadow detail.
> Let us know what you find out ... I think Rafe B has a web site
> showing various drum scans vs 8000 and similar scans (where did Rafe B
> go anyway?).
>
> Bill
Off hand do you think an Imacon would beat the 8000?
--
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
"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.com> wrote:
At certain viewing distances 2" between pixels in adequate.
Bill Hilton
Looks like the better Imacon wins, the one that does larger films (up
to 5x7" or so?) and something like 5760 dpi (or whatever it is) and
used to cost $10,000. The cheaper 3200 dpi Imacon (which also used to
cost a lot before a price reduction a few years back) looks like more
of an even match, from what I saw. Maybe a little bit better, maybe
not.
Guys who've used Imacons (I haven't) complain about the time spent
cloning out dust spots, something that digital ICE fixes on the 8000.