I used to do printing of Ektar 100 onto Kodak paper. You can run the RA4 process for Kodak paper at room temp and the results were absolutely beautiful. With Ektar you could blow the frame up optically to 16x20 from a 35mm negative with no grain. Being honest, the quality of it really put me off of digital for quite some time, especially the color handling around highlights. Sadly maintaining an RA4 darkroom is no small task now that I'm leasing and moving frequently. They also discontinued cut sheets of paper back in 2011 I think, but the rolls do work for optical printing if you have the patience to cut them up. The papers they have are pretty amazing, albeit there are no real grades available anymore so there's only one contrast and saturation possibility for a given negative. I actually still have quite a few boxes of the Kodak RA4 paper back from 2011 although it hasn't been stored particularly well. Should give it another try sometime now that 4x5 dichro heads are basically being thrown out.
I'm absolutely amazed at the level of detail the 4x5 provides. Its mind blowing when comparing it to 35 mm. I can only imagine what it must be like without RU-vid's compression. Thanks for the video!
Thanks for watching! It's always downright amazing to find details in these 4x5 sheets, looking through a loupe on a light table is quite the experience too!
@@AlexBurke and I can't imagine how an 8x10 sheet would look like. I'm also very curious about 35mm, I want to see its true potential, could you make a video showing a drum scan of a 35mm negative or slide?
I was a scanner operator for a many years, ran a Crosfield 646 horizontal drum scanner and then a Hell scanner like the one in your video. The last scanner I ran was a flatbed Scitex scanner, nowhere near as good as the drum scanners, you couldn't do oil mounting with the flatbed which made for dusty scans. Was a great trade back in the good old days of print.
Thank you Alex for posting this 👍 Drum scanning is one of those old gems built in the days where engineers where given free reign to solve problems to the best of their abilities - that's why it's still unbeatable (quality wise) today.
@@AlexBurke And still ticking along! If you ever make a follow up video, it would be great to see what DPI you choose to scan against which format size and what output resolutions those formats yield. Thank you for keeping film alive.
Im trying to build my own scanner, those drum scanners are just so insanely expensive. mine might not be as fast but should be on another whole level regarding dynamic range, color reproduction (both thanks to a multi spectral modulated light source) and resolution of at least 25,000 DPI.
I've sent a handful of my favorite images to Alex for drum scanning, and the ends results are nothing short of mind-blowing. I highly recommend his scanning services!
@@AlexBurke Now that I am aware of your service, I will for sure be sending in some slides to get them drum scanned because I havent been happy with my epson or the local photolabs Noritsu scans.
@@pilsplease7561 awesome! I think you'll be quite amazed at the results from the drum scanner. Looking forward to seeing film from you! Feel free to send an email (on my website) for details when you're ready.
Everyone should sent at least one frame to be drum scanner, even if they have some consumer level scanner at home. Simply to have a reference point in their mind to know what film is actually capable of. Consumer flatbeds & poor scanning skills simply distort people's view of film.
I trained in color scanning in printer college, 1988, (years ago) but could not find a job operating a Hell Color Scanner. I did work in pre-press though. I even worked on the National Geographic Magazine in pre-press. I also visited printing companies in NY and Delaware, on some field trips. They demonstrated, in 1988, software called Scitech or something like that that was actually like Photo Shop today. The new desktop computers changed everything. What I saw them doing up there, on expensive equipment, can now be done on desktop computers. Most photographers , including myself, don't shoot slide or negative film today They shoot in digital and they don't shoot in medium format. Since digital came, drum scanning is old technology.
That's a cool backstory! Yeah there's been a lot of changes in the industry. Prepress hardly exists in the capacity that it did before, it's almost done entirely by the photographers themselves. It's still pretty impressive what a drum scanner can do with a great slide or negative.
They are truly amazing. And to think not even drum scanners are equal. Your Heidelberg Tango is among the top in my opinion. The best scans I saw were from a Dainippon scanner. I can only guess how much would one shot cost. You could see the emulsion itself at 100 % crop. I use a Nikon Coolscan 5000, so when I can't get more out of my negatives, I can just say to myself that the next step would be a Hasselblad scanner or a drum scanner, neither of which I could ever afford. It makes me feel satisfied.
Glad you've had some experience with these amazing machines! I also agree with your point about how sometimes what you have is plenty enough. It was definitely a plunge when I decided to get into drum scanning. Worth it for me but certainly not something that everyone would want to dive into!
These Heidelberg scanners are really unmatched. I will only use these in future. Allot of newcomers don’t even know the old tech exists. It is superior in every way. Great video
Thanks for watching, glad you enjoyed! I love nerding out over this scanner, it's a blast to use and the results continue to amaze. Maybe there will be more videos in the future!
That brings back memories. I operated a Chromagraph S3300 as a scanner operator in the 90's. The tango is certainly equal to that. I hope you will always get enough spare parts and service... Good luck for the future
Alex have been following you on instagram for some time now. You click one of the most crisp photos on the gram be it digital or film. Only last week i found out that your used drum scanning via an insta post about the pittsburgh pirates stadium shot. I wish you posted on youtube more often. I have 100% sure more people would be interested to watch your photography journey.
Me: oh boy I'm sure as hell excited to scan these negatives from this recent trip *loads all of the photos on the scanner and starts scanning* House: *power outage* Me: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!
I decided to google the price of a drum scanner and damn I just got a rush of anxiety hahaha They’re definitely worth every penny it’s amazing the quality
I hope to have something I feel worthy of sending to you for drum scanning some day. However, I'll probably wait until I have a few such things. In the mean time, I get by with a Nikon CoolScan 9000 for smaller format and an Epson V850 for larger/weirder formats.
Thanks for watching, Derek. You'd love to see the results from a drum scanner, it's mind blowing! But, for most peoples purposes, the smaller scanners get the job done quite well. The drum scanner just has that extra edge when you really need it.
Thanks for this great video. There is another aspect why I use the Heidelberg: you can scan formats up to 16x20 - this is the only way I can get digital clones from my ULF sheets before I mess them up with alternative processes.
Thanks for watching! Yes you can really get some big sheets on the larger Heidelberg sizes. That's great to be able to make a high-quality copy before you dive into the destructive processes that can't be reversed! Such outstanding machines.
Haha, Yeah everyone does. Its not worth me buying anything better than a epson for just digitizing images for personal use. But if i have any that i want to print ill be having alex drum scan them for me.
Nailed the 5 minutes exposure on Velvia passed sunset, impressive! The only other scanner that can match or exceed the Heidelberg D8200/8400 in quality is a Hell Chromagraph.
Great work, keep it up:D A little critique however I will give: you should upload your videos in 4K, even if you only filmed in 1080 because that way we the end viewer can have a better experience. Cheers:D
Thanks for watching, Martin! Currently I am trying out a new video software (as I'm sure you can tell photo is more my thing than video) and this version of it does not allow for 4k. Perhaps I will go with the full version soon.
I think the magic here is the way the film is mounted on the drum, placing a medium with higher IOR than air between the interfaces between the drum and the film will reduce reflections, fringing and increase contrast, I think this is the key, i wonder what would happen if I were to add some water to a flat bed scanner? of course after tinkering with it so it can handle the water.
People wet mount on their flatbeds all the time. Definitely don't use water, use a proper mounting fluid such as Kami. The difference is very slight on a flatbed. There can be a reduction in dust and scratches, and some people may find a little more sharpness, but it generally doesn't really work a miracle with the flatbed scanner optics.
Drum scanning is cool, but seeing your close ups. I think its safe to say at this point that digital has surpassed film. Some of these 60 MP cameras coming out for 4-5k, you can crop them in and see far more detail, and even then, print them to large sizes with out the loss of that detail. Nevermind medium format digital, but then you're spending a ridiculous 10-15k+, LOL.
@@Adrian-wd4rn are you disagreeing with me? Can you show me or point me to a 60mp image thats comparable ? Seems you can get 5k which on a piece of film as shown in this video at 4x5 will be 20000x25000 px which is 500MP also given these are not going through a bayer filter means you would need approx 3x the sensor resolution to achieve similar with a ‘camera’ theres nothing on market that can even come close
Question Alex. Whatever software you are using prior to the scan, don't you have to make different adjustments for each piece of film? With that said, to achieve optimal results isn't it best to scan each piece of film separately, rather than batch scanning film that may have different contrast and exposure values?
Good question, yes the software allows me to make individual adjustments to every piece of film on the drum. It's not treated as a batch but rather individual frames so I can perfect each one. For negatives, I have an exact profiled setting that I use for each one and then do the inversion manually after scanning, but with slides I make little tweaks to each image before scanning.
I spent 33 years in the prepress & printing trade, 10 of it at a color separation house (1-32" square process camera, 2-30x40 drum scanners and the original Scitex work station) and this is why I just shake my head when discussing sensor resolution, film resolution, and final image rasterization with other photographers. They just don't have any concept of what image detail and reproduction detail is from film. FYI, I've bookmarked this video for reference.
Glad to hear you have the experience! The drum scanners are a different world. People often just talk about the dpi resolution, which you can crank up to silly amounts on those Epson flatbeds, but it doesn't really mean anything when the optics are comparative junk.
I am a pro drum scanning tech. One secret for you. Get 5500 kelvin light bulbs. Usually led. Find them at your major Home Depot. Really expensive. Reason for this is that the light is 5500 kelvin outdoors. Light is everything, from A to Z.
Out of curiosity, is this an 8bit or 16bit colour depth scanner? I recently acquired an 8bit 8000dpi drum scanner for the cost of shipping, and it's great, but you always wonder if the next step up is better again
That's always a challenging question and depends on your expectations. That's asking a lot from 6x7cm film, but the print would likely look quite good if you stood back to a distance where it can be appreciated in full. If you get close to the print, the grain size will be large and sharpness not all that incredible. But generally we shouldn't be viewing prints that closely anyway.
i still dont understand why does it need to spin - and spin what it looks to be at very high speeds. i do see the quality but is there a reasons for it to be curved in a drum instead of flat? thanks for answering my question
It allows the engineers to create a very large image capture device (optics, tubes, electronics) that is highly focused on a small spot and relatively stationary while the film moves. It was likely an engineering challenge and this was the best solution.
I mean if you think about it, this is just doing digital photography the hard way. Also almost no one is using large or med format film. Maybe a few % each, so yes "not all" is a bit of an understatement. Is it fun? Yes, but lets keep prospective.
Hello! I did compare them on my website (link in show notes) to what I was getting out of my Epson, which is generally considered a "good" flatbed. As far as a great flatbed goes, I only have room for one ridiculously huge piece of scanning equipment in my home :)
It doesn't really have any software solutions for that, but it wouldn't be very necessary either since it has such incredible dynamic range. A good, properly profiled base scan will have all the shadow detail that can be reasonably pulled out of the slide, then if needed shadows can be lifted with care using luminosity masks, etc.
@@mikemeyerphotopro Kodachrome scans amazingly! I was always blown away by both the highlight detail and color in that film. Several people have sent me some old Kodachrome slides to scan and they really sing. Shadows come out quite well too.
@@AlexBurke Sounds good. I may send some your way. I'm scanning all the old family slides. I think 1955 is the oldest Kodachrome I have of my Mom and Dad in college. I have a Epson V600 which is really good for only $225
@@mikemeyerphotopro sounds good! I think you'll be quite happy with the results if you decide to send some. Shoot me an email (on my website) if you'd like shipping info to send film. The Epsons really do a great job for their price, I used the v700 for years and with big film it was alright. That's why a lot of people get one of them for the majority of images and then send the most important or best images out for drum scanning.
@@josephomalley1526 glad to help, I've heard that back in the day many scanner operators actually used baby oil which was awful to remove. The newer fluids are far more expensive but quite impressive!
That's a lot of pixels (and megabytes, too). Too bad we don't have any drum scanning services here in our country (PHL). So when I have (hopefully) got a chance to take a photo with a view camera, I had to ship it elsewhere to get drum scanned there...
Yeah the files are really quite impressive! Well if you can't find anyone locally to scan for you I've certainly helped people out with international scanning.
Hey Alex, thanks for this video, years waintig. Are Drums Scanners in production ? I know Germans Scanners are the best, Which is the very best ? How much cost ?, Maybe make a top 5 of best Drum Scanners, olds and news, resolution, capability, where they are made, etc. Thanks again.
I don't believe any are still in production. Most pre-press companies carted their machines into dumpsters when switching to a digital workflow. My research landed me on the Tango, mostly because of it's small footprint and that they can still be serviced these days by Karl Hudson. I don't think I'll ever have 5 drum scanners laying around to make a top five comparison!! One is plenty good for me. Any of the machines, if operated with skill, will produce excellent results.
Well of course you get better results with more expensive scanning gear. Problem is, this is not something anyone has available. And it's insane that in the age of cheaper & better electronics & better sensors and readily available storage space... there are still no affordable amazing filmscanners for everyone.... I have so much stuff shot on film over many decades just waiting to be scanned but actual good scanners are rare and expensive as hell.
Yeah film scanning was really left in the dust and forgotten by large companies. The engineering it took to make drum scanners required a lot of capital, and Heidelberg watched their sales remain steady until 2003 when they dropped off a cliff. At that point they immediately pulled the plug, there was no way to make a profit if they only sold a few dozen machines a year.
I would love to get some of my images drum scanned. Unfortunately the price is very prohibitive for me. I have a tough time just keeping up with film costs. The cost of scanning one image with a drum scan could buy me a lot of film. Unfortunate that cost is the reason many give up on shooting film.
Yes, that's why many people use a flatbed or DSLR to scan the majority of their frames, sending out only the best for a drum scan. I saw that labs were charging insane amounts for drum scans which is why I only charge about a quarter of what they do to help out the film community.
@@AlexBurke I was not complaining about your costs. I understand the time you put in and the cost of the scanner itself. I am more just lamenting my financial status. I apologize if I sounded like I was criticizing. I have to use a v600 and scan half and half and stitch. I just started large format so if I get that image that I just have to get the best out of I will keep you in mind. Thank you for your reply and thanks for helping keep film alive.
@@thomaspopple2291 oh yeah I totally understand! Film itself can get expensive, especially with large format. It's the constant gripe we all have when shooting hahaha! Hopefully you find it worth it and enjoy the process and results! In some ways it can also be cheap, with so many money saving hacks that people come up with.
Hello, I'm thinking of buying a used drum scanner. My budget 3000 $ would it be enough? At what models should I pay attention. What scanner is better to buy so i could find sare parts for it in the future? And please tell me the model of your scanner. P.S. So sad to see that drum scanners are a deal of a past. Nowadays nobody produces them anymore.
@@gusatvoschiavon no its not really any extra challenge, I just don't shoot any 35mm so it's not in the video. I scan it all the time for clients though.
@@ionluv not necessarily, I can fit about 30 35mm frames on a drum. I just request that people send only the frames they want scanned, not full strips.
Hello everyone, I represent a historic company of graphics in decommissioning in the province of Naples, in San Giorgio a Cremano. For sale for end of business Crosfield Magnascan 600 drum scanner late 90s, including dedicated Apple G3 workstation, original manuals and various spare parts, including 3 additional cylinders. Available for any test. No exchanges. Pick up by hand only.
No, I still don't have a clue. If this presentation should point at the differences the film material should be scanned on a flat bed scanner too and the results evaluated side by side. No real explanation is brought here to clarify why the analog conversion to digital representation should make any difference. This video just seems to be a new chapter in the ongoing hyping of drum scanners without bringing any scientific explanation of why a drum scanner should be superior.
4:05 BS! The CCD or CMOS sensor in a regular scanner is just as analog as the tube in the drum scanner. And the signal is made digital at exactly the same point in the chain. Drum scanners are redundant for anything but large format, which (sadly) is a niche of a niche. They are 1960s technology, that was found to be good for general film scanning in the 80s. The basic idea is long past due retirement though. Other smaller formats are much better served with camera macro scanning.
The key aspect of drum scanning is that photomultipliers are the sensor which has a completely different response than CCD or CMOS. A photomultiplier can count a single photon and is standard to calibrate lasers and high precision optical equipment because of that (for example the $100m plus photolithography wafer etchers used to make modern CPUs and GPUs). Technically speaking, if you know your light source profile, a photomultiplier has infinite dynamic range - because it can count photons - hence being able to resolve incredible detail from the scanned medium. It's a major departure from the modern combo of linear sensor arrays plus complex focus optics which induce light loss and optical distortion (also the reason why the X series of Hasselblad scanners use super expensive large format optics). While any contemporary Sony mirrorless camera can effectively "see in the dark" it cannot do so without noise, optical distortion and limited dynamic range. Even the fact that the sensor uses a Bayer arrangement means irreversible loss compared to a drum scanner capture. Ultimately, commercial reasoning dictated the demise of drum scanning because it's bulky and expensive to build - flat scanners are so much more profitable. Drum scanners are still workhorses in archival, restoration and forensics - I doubt there will ever be new hardware made though.
Rearu Sato You don’t need the ability to detect a single photon, when you have all the light you want/need and more than enough time to pick it up/accumulate. The disadvantages of the Bayer array becomes somewhat less, when you have a high enough macro level, and do many overlapping shots. It would be nice though to have a bayerless sensor. The main problem with a drum scanner is that the aperture decides the resolution and the scanning action introduces artifacts. Therefore it’s not optimal for smaller formats and it isn’t even really optimal for large format if you want to max out the resolution (that’s rare though since there is so much).
@@Frisenette Correct: CCDs have high quantum efficiency and good linearity, which is why they are used by astronomers, and in laboratory situations. CMOS can nearly match CCDs now for sensitivity, but this not relevant in a scanner where there is a sufficiently strong source of light. It is also correct to say that the aperture of the lens determines the resolution of the image. This is governed by the laws of physics, as described by Fourier optics. Thus, at the image plane, to a fair approximation, the smallest resolvable detail expressed in micrometres is about 4f/3, where f is the focal ratio of the lens used to take the photograph. However, it is extremely difficult to achieve this theoretical limit for apertures faster than about f/5.6 or f/8, where lens aberrations become the dominant factor. Finally, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem tells us that the pixel pitch needs to be smaller than half the size of the smallest resolvable detail.
cdl0 you misunderstand. Drum scanners are variation on the flying dot scanner. They have an aperture emanating intense light, that is focused on the film. That is the smallest possible detail it can resolve. That is a real limitation, when you are talking medium format and 135 film.
@@Frisenette Yes, I see now. In fact both factors are relevant, namely the aperture of the lens taking the photograph, and the optical system of the scanner, which is also described by the laws of Fourier optics. This similar to a microscope, and is summarized by Abbe's formula, d = λ/(2NA). The practical limit is about 200 nm for λ = 550 nm. However, this is much smaller than the finest detail resolvable by the lens taking the photograph. If the f-ratio of the camera lens is about f/5.6, then the finest detail on the film (or a digital sensor) will be about 7.5 µm across, so the pixel pitch needs to be about 3.75 µm (or 3750 nm) to capture this without aliasing. Even with the budget of a space agency, it is not really possible to do better than this.
Well, even medium format film is sharper than a digital full frame camera, if scanned with a drum scanner. Film is capable of really high resolution, specially slide film, if you can pull all the detail out. Even a 35mm slide can be fantastic. Until digital came along, slide film was the gold standart for really high resolution images, in magazines, National Geographic, and fashion photography, slides shined with their vivid colors, unmatched by any digital sensor until the modern digital era.
