High Quality Drum Kit

[Muredac Ford]

IfI buy MF camera now, I cannot afford the luxury to send films to labs to be scanned. I should think this for long term purpose, but I like to know what is the best solution for now with very limited budget..

The reason the comparison is required is to answer the question of whether you lose so much quality using a flat bed scanner on medium format film that it completely negates the advantage of buying a medium format camera.

I don't know the answer to this, but I want to make a couple of points. Firstly I have an old Epson 3170 flatbed, and a Microtek TF120 film scanner. I would say MF scanned on the Epson contains fractionally more detail than 35mm, and you get some of the nicer tonality of MF. So yes there still is an advantage in MF. Furthermore I understand modern flatbeds are hugely better than mine, and, of, course, you will still have the negatives for when you do get a better scanner.

But, secondly, my Microtek, which is old, noisy, heavy, huge, produces scans which are in a different league than my flatbed. These scanners are now quite cheap on Ebay. I saw one go for abut $400 recently (in the UK). It's not as good as the Nikon, and far short of a drum scan, but is a possible interim solution.

I am not that expert, but I did some scans with a Minolta film scanner with 5400 DPI, or what they claime are 5400 DPI and I was on the film grain, and what I remember the film was Velvia 50. So IMO if you not use very special film you have no advantage of drum scans with 8000 DPI. And I doubt you get 40" prints from 35mm; also not from MF and flatbed. I scan MF (6x7) with a Canon 9950F, which is similar to the better Epsons, but I wouldnt print much over 20".

Medium format scanned at 4000 ppi is better than 35mm scanned at ANY resolution. Conversely, 35mm film scanned at 4000+ ppi is better (except for visible grain) than medium format film scanned on any consumer-grade flatbed scanner.

Increasing the scan resolution won't necessarily extract more useful information. You see film grain easily at 4000 ppi, as well as the diffusion of the actual image. At 8000 ppi you would see grain more clearly, and more diffusion.

The resolution of flatbed scanners is quite low and with less contrast than a Nikon film scanner. The practical resolution of consumer-level flatbeds is equivalent to a Nikon scanner set to 1200 ppi (Epson 2450) to about 2000 ppi (Epson V750). This test actually exaggerates the flatbed performance, since the Nikon always scans at 4000 ppi then downsamples to the desired output resolution.

You don't really say what type of work you are doing and the goals. If shooting for landscape, with the time and effort and sometimes small windows of opportunity for the those rare shots, get that stuff down onto the highest resolution possible, ie. 645, 6x6 or 6x7. Worry about the rest later.

For medium sized ( say 20" x 16") prints at normal viewing distances or large prints at extended viewing distances then scan on a dedicated film scanner of Imacon. Buy one if your volume makes it worthwhile, otherwise use a lab but be prepared to tweak the file yourself to get the effect you want.

The Nikon 9000 is a superb scanner for formats up to 6 by 9 cm. It is much less than the Imacon. If you can afford the Nikon 9000 and a MF system, then you will be very pleased with the results, and it should blow away what you can do with a 35mm system.

Unless you are a professional, getting many drumscans will soon break the bank. Think carefully what your needs/desires are. Don't overspend unless you have cash to burn. Will a 35mm system with a Nikon 35mm scanner (about $550) serve your needs?

Hello. I have a Minolta 5400 II and also an Edmonds Scientific soda glass 2x2 transparency test target. The Minolta DOES give a real 5400 PPI. The 4000 rated Nikon 9000 gives closer to 3500-3600 PPI. The Epson 4180, rated at 4088 PPI is lucky to hit 3200. Yes, the 5400 gets pretty close to the grain level (actually dye clumps) on the best films.

54000 PPI is 106 line pairs per mm. The contrast level in the exposure even on Velvia 50 has to be pretty high to have detail detected at that many lp/mm. I think Velvia is rated at 80 lp/mm at 6:1 contrast and about 140 at 1000:1 contrast.

If you scan a medium format transparency done with a good lens on high definition film at 4000 PPI you may get more information than you really get on an 8000 PPI 35mm scan. You will certainly get better tonality and color transition.

The fundamental problem, though, is that even largish MF film like 6x7 really don't carry enough inherent resolution for sharp prints of detailed scenes at 40x30. Personally, I think about a 10x enlargement is about the limit for any format.

I've two suggestions. First, still move up to MF from 135. When a Mamiya 6x7 kit can be had for $200, there's no reason not to. However, buy a cheap flatbed (around $150) for proofing the film. These will be good for up to 2000dpi or so, and you can expect gorgeous 8x10 prints. Still drum scan the occasional frame for 30x40 enlargement, and see how you like them.

Second, explore alternative capture techniques. Nothing beats sensor area. This used to mean only LF film as a recourse, but now digitally stitched composites are credible. This works well for scenes that can stand to be captured over a span of minutes. I've done test shots that could be printed 80x50 at 300dpi. The prints would have sharply resolved scene detail at the limits of unaided vision, without grain and independent of viewing distance.

I have 36" sq prints here from 6x6 that I'm quite happy with and which do not require extended viewing distance to seem sharp. I have no doubt that given competence at each stage in the process (photography, scanning, file preparation, printing) then a quality 30" x 40" from a 67 original is eminently achievable from a LightJet or Chromira.

But this is from drum scans. Whilst I can vouch for the qualities of a Nikon 9000 film scanner for prints of up to 18" sq from 6x6 I have not tried to go larger - firstly because I haven't yet had a need but also because when viewed at 100% the Nikon Scan doesn't look quite as sharp to me as the drum scans I get from WCI. My own working philosophy for the moment is to scan myself on the Nikon unless I want to print over 18" sq in which case I'll continue to get a drum scan. That strategy is driven by economics, not because I think the Nikon makes better scans.

Speaking of which how many 30" x 40" prints are you thinking of making? They aren't real easy to view or store and they are too big to look well in volume in most domestic environments. Once mounted they aren't even easy to transport or show people. Unless you have a thriving gallery sale, do you need enough 30" x 40" prints to justify gearing up to scan them yourself? If so you might consider the Imacon scanners though they are more expensive than the Nikon and the volume horizon to justify the purchase goes up accordingly.

"MF" covers a range of beasts, many of which don't rival average-good 35mm optics: might be worth considering. Some folks imagine 645 "medium format" (rather than simply another small format), then hamstring themselves with mediocre lenses (zooms etc).

Stitching digital images produces great results on panoramics but for more squarish prints I would not want to go through the effort. I imagine iso 50-160 speed 6x7 film scanned with the Nikon would do quite well at 30x40. Yes, stitching from 10-20 10 MP DSLR files would be cleaner but really how much work do you want to do on a single image? And remember that the shots would not be simultaneous when stitching. When doing stitched panoramas of riverside cities I constantly run into a boat or something being present in two parts of the final print due to movement.

The world of drums and drum sets is an ever changing one, and whilst some companies come and go, there is a core group of brands which produce consistently impressive drums. The companies on this list all make great, versatile drums - but they all have certain qualities which make them more suited to specific styles of music or playing.

Gretsch drums are iconic in the music industry. With a firm grip on the world of jazz drums from the early days, and now a roster which includes Underoath's Aaron Gillespie, Green Day's Tre Cool, and Taylor Hawkins of Foo Fighters, Gretsch drums have been proven to cope with plenty of different playing and musical styles. Gretsch fans often comment on how warm, rich and resonant Gretsch drums are - great for anyone who wants a really full drum sound.

Tama drums are another brand which has a rich and interesting history. Made in Japan since the mid-'70s, Tama drums have had a varied catalogue of artists, from Vinnie Paul and Lars Ulrich to Billy Cobham and Peter Erskine. Currently, Tama drums are loved for their punchy and bright tones, thanks to Maple and Birch being commonly used in shells.

Pearl makes some of the world's most highly regarded drum sets around. With the Export drums being the best-selling drum set in history, they know a thing or two about creating a versatile, value-for-money drum set - and their Masters, Reference and Masterworks kits are some of the best high-end kits money can buy. Expect punchy drums that respond well to your playing dynamics - as most Pearl kits use Poplar, Mahogany or Maple for their shells.

Mapex is another brand who seems to create drum sets which work in nearly all musical scenarios. Its Saturn drum set is an industry favourite due to its maple/walnut shell materials, and the more affordable Mars, Armory and Storm kits follow in the 'ultimate versatility' footsteps. Mapex drums tend to be pretty lively sounding - all about that 'punch'.

Of course, there are many other brands we could list. Yamaha, Ludwig, DW, Sonor - the list could go on forever. They all make killer drums, which are great in their own right. Go and find out which ones are best for you!

3a8082e126