Drum scanning..

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by BenF, Feb 24, 2006.

  1. BenF

    BenF Guest

    Hey all

    Got quite a few landscape trannys (shot with xpan), that i want to get
    scanned for reproduction.

    I am in perth, but i am prepared to send over east/seas if its cheaper.
    Ive found that places here seem to be very expensive, using their mega
    expensive imacon scanners. Good quality tho...

    Im wondering if anybody knows any places that are affordable and do a
    good job.

    Thanks in advance :p
     
    BenF, Feb 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. BenF

    NikonF4 Guest

    Ring Max on 9382 8800 Subiaco
     
    NikonF4, Feb 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. BenF

    BenF Guest

    Thanks nikon, what company is that?
     
    BenF, Feb 24, 2006
    #3
  4. BenF

    k Guest

    |
    | Thanks nikon, what company is that?




    max Dellaway.. ?

    k
     
    k, Feb 24, 2006
    #4
  5. BenF

    Fred Guest

    The phone book says.

    Dellaway Max Camera Repair Service
    336 Churchill Avenue (Ste14/)
    SUBIACO WA 6008
     
    Fred, Feb 24, 2006
    #5
  6. BenF

    BenF Guest

    Why would a camera repair guy do drum scanning?
    Dont get it ...
     
    BenF, Feb 25, 2006
    #6
  7. BenF

    Mr.T Guest

    Because he has a drum scanner?
    (He probably bought it partly for his own use, but needs to cover the cost
    somehow, and needs to justify it as a tax deduction.)
    I guess he does.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Feb 25, 2006
    #7
  8. BenF

    Steve Davies Guest

    ___Dont get it ...


    Same here, the original post quoted " Ring Max on 9382 8800 Subiaco "

    My search gave the following for a haridressers , maybe numbers have
    changed.



    Salon FX

    Corner Barker & Thomas Sts Subiaco WA 6008 
    (08) 93828800







    Steve
     
    Steve Davies, Feb 25, 2006
    #8
  9. BenF

    NikonF4 Guest

    He does camera repairs. Also photography work, and all sorts of scanning
    and large format printing.
     
    NikonF4, Feb 25, 2006
    #9
  10. I think he has a Nikon 9000 or 8000 coolscan, last time I saw it sitting on
    his bench, though that was about 6 months ago...thats no drum scanner tho,
    but it gives good scans..
    Try Zimmermans they might be cheaper and have the same Nikon scanner...just
    dont forget to tell them to scan it on that and NOT give you a jpg image.
     
    Jacek Gonsalves, Feb 25, 2006
    #10
  11. BenF

    BenF Guest

    Nikon 9000 or 8000 coolscan ....
    problem is mine are xpan trannys, so the coolscans require scanning
    each side then stitching correct???

    which is why i need to use someone with a flextight, and they give best
    results.
     
    BenF, Feb 26, 2006
    #11
  12. BenF

    k Guest

    |
    | Nikon 9000 or 8000 coolscan ....
    | problem is mine are xpan trannys, so the coolscans require scanning
    | each side then stitching correct???
    |
    | which is why i need to use someone with a flextight, and they give best
    | results.


    maybe talk to matt at pra, he has a pretty snazzy scanner

    k
     
    k, Feb 26, 2006
    #12
  13. BenF

    BenF Guest

    Okay, so i found www.imagescience.com.au , they offer flextight scanning
    of xpan trannys..

    X-8-Medium 3150 / 8 bit 68 Mb 26 by 10 inches (68 by 25 cm) $ 7.50

    X-16-Medium 3150 / 16 bit 136 Mb 26 by 10 inches (68 by 25 cm) $ 10

    X-8-High 6300 / 8 bit 225 Mb 54 by 20 inches (136 by 50 cm) $ 15
    X-16-High 6300 / 16 bit 550 Mb 54 by 20 inches (136 by 50 cm) $ 20



    What i dont get is, when i took a few trannys in to a perth lab, and
    wanted them printed at 30 X 10", they told me id need a 70MB scan,
    which i subsequently got and the print looked good.

    I dont understand why the above file sizes are so big??
    eg X-16-Medium 3150 / 16 bit 136 Mb 26 by 10 inches (68 by 25 cm) $
    10

    136mb file, for a 26 x 10" print????

    Can anyone explain?
     
    BenF, Feb 26, 2006
    #13
  14. BenF

    Ken Chandler Guest

    30 x 10" at 300dpi 8 bits per pixel = 77.2MB
    They are 16 bits per pixel vs. 8 bits per pixel.
     
    Ken Chandler, Feb 26, 2006
    #14
  15. BenF

    k Guest

    | X-8-Medium 3150 / 8 bit 68 Mb 26 by 10 inches (68 by 25 cm) $ 7.50
    |
    | X-16-Medium 3150 / 16 bit 136 Mb 26 by 10 inches (68 by 25 cm) $ 10
    |
    | X-8-High 6300 / 8 bit 225 Mb 54 by 20 inches (136 by 50 cm) $ 15
    | X-16-High 6300 / 16 bit 550 Mb 54 by 20 inches (136 by 50 cm) $ 20





    | I dont understand why the above file sizes are so big??
    | eg X-16-Medium 3150 / 16 bit 136 Mb 26 by 10 inches (68 by 25 cm) $
    | 10
    |
    | 136mb file, for a 26 x 10" print????
    |
    | Can anyone explain?



    the numbers suggest they're outputting tif's (jpegs would be a fraction of
    the size)

    funny though that they'd output an 8 bit tif as well as a 16 bit tif when a
    jpeg would suffice at 8 bit


    k
     
    k, Feb 27, 2006
    #15
  16. BenF

    BenF Guest

    well the few scans i have had done before are all .tiffs, and isnt it
    better quality and standard for photoshop usage???

    and 8/16 bit is same as 24/48 bit ? From what they say, the 8 bit scans
    are easily capable of pro quality prints, however the 16 bits are better
    for usage with photoshop. Apparently :)
     
    BenF, Feb 27, 2006
    #16
  17. BenF

    Poxy Guest

    Drum scanning is mainly aimed at press work where the traditions and
    customary file formats were established long before digital photography.
    Thus the standard delivery format is TIFF with no issue of compression loss
    whatsoever.
    A 24 bit scan is an RGB scan with 8 bits per channel. If you're going to
    post-process significantly in Photoshop, then you might get a 16 bit per
    channel RGB scan which gives you more dynamic range to play with.

    If you're going to press with the scan, you'd normally get a CMYK scan at 8
    bits per channel, which is sometimes called a 32 bit scan.
     
    Poxy, Feb 27, 2006
    #17
  18. BenF

    Rob Guest


    The xpan is a 24x65mm image right? (used in this mode)

    The Nikon Coolscan is a 120 scanner which will cover a 60x90mm tranny at
    4000dpi.

    I do think that a 24x65mm piece of film will fit and are able to be
    scanned in a single bound.
     
    Rob, Feb 27, 2006
    #18
  19. BenF

    k Guest

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "BenF" <>
    Newsgroups: aus.photo
    Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:03 PM
    Subject: Re: Drum scanning..


    :
    : well the few scans i have had done before are all .tiffs, and isnt it
    : better quality and standard for photoshop usage???
    :
    : and 8/16 bit is same as 24/48 bit ? From what they say, the 8 bit scans
    : are easily capable of pro quality prints, however the 16 bits are better
    : for usage with photoshop. Apparently :)


    jpegs are limited to 8 bit, TIF to 16 bit.. though PS *really* only uses 15
    bit*..


    so an 8 bit TIF is really a very large file for something that could be
    saved smaller with the *same* detail (uncompressed) as it's larger TIF
    counterpart - note that I've heard it said that post PS 7, TIF as owned by
    Adobe® is also now a compressed format.. anyone want to check this? I'm
    not running CS so I can't check, though a lot of TIFs I've seen recently
    supposedly saved as not compressed by PS, are compressed (check the memory
    usage)


    k




    (* http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/photoshop/v5/16-bit_noise.htm
    "Yes, Photoshop has only 15-bit space, not 16-bit mode !
    I created a gradation from level 0 to level 255 with one level steps in
    double byte hex (16-bit space) using VisualBasic for application, saved
    this as gradation.raw. Opened it into Photoshop, saved it as gradation.psd,
    closed this and re-opened it, then saved it as gradation_ps.raw. Now the
    gradation.raw and gradation_ps.raw should be the exactly the same, but
    there are only 128 different values in the gradation_ps.raw, stepping is by
    two levels. So one bit is missing, it is only 15-bit space.

    This means that when the acquire device is 12/36 bit or better and it's
    Twain module applies calibration or other operations over the image data in
    a true 16/48 bit space then some image information will be lost when
    Photoshop convert that image into the 15-bit space. Addmittedly this loss
    is not large. This is propably the reason why some Twain acquire modules
    only work with Photoshop, they know that Photoshop wants 15-bit data
    instead 16-bit. ")
     
    k, Feb 27, 2006
    #19
  20. BenF

    doug Guest

    Hi There,

    Check out www.onasiadigital.com. We offer a low cost outsourcing option
    for people who want to scan images. We're based in Bangkok, Thailand.
    We use Nikon 5000 and 9000 scanners.

    Our clients include the historical collection of the International
    Committee of the Red Cross and the collections of many professional
    photographers. We've also scanned over 80,000 images for our own
    collection which you can see at www.onasia.com.

    Thanks,

    Doug
     
    doug, Feb 28, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.