Flatbed scanner woes

[Slammer]

Uff! Just spent a vigorous few seconds searching the web for a new high end flatbed for a customer. Now I know that I have been out of the loop for a while, but apart from a few Umax and Epson boxes with a Mitsubishi engine and a handful of cheapy HP things the scanner market seems to be in a 1990ies groundhog loop, I worked on some of them during the last millennia.
Is there nothing new, fast and shiny on the market these days?

 

[dabob]

Slammer . . . what does your customer want to do with the scanner . . . impress someone with fast and shiny???? Art Reproduciton . . . a little more information might be helpful but if you have looked at UMax and Epson . . . as far as I can tell thats pretty much whats out there. The reason scanners have fallen out of development is that with the advent of the digital cameras - nobody needs them anymore. - the most use our scanner (Epson V700) sees is to scan a logo or some art that we need to rebuild . . all of our photos are delivered digitally.

 

[Puch]

IMHO Epson is the best you can get at a consumer level. If you want a brand new "high-end" scanner: that's nonexistent today. My best bet is that you can try to persuade a Kodak rep. to sell you a late IQSmart which may collecting dust somewhere in their channels. The Oxygen software they give away with that scanner might run on most modern hardware / operating systems.

 

[Slammer]

The customer wants to reproduce artwork from artists and graphic designers that still use analog systems (aka. paintbrush, pencil and charcoal) I live on Malta and our finest is still stuck in the last century, do you know printers that still use two room reprocameras? And I swear to god the amount of printers using Heldelberg Tiegel for actual printing has to be seen to be believed.
At the moment the customer has a IQSmart but that is on it´s last legs, also the oxygen software won´t run on any of the newer systems.
Methinks I am going to run with the Umax.

 

[dabob]

Umax makes the largest one I could see out there but a high resolution copy camera might work well also look for something like this . . .

http://meyerinst.com/digital-cameras/kaiser/index.htm

funny you being on Malta, we used to have a pressman that was from there . . . still stops in occassionaly - funny guy

 

[Slammer]

Umax makes the largest one I could see out there but a high resolution copy camera might work well also look for something like this . . .

http://meyerinst.com/digital-cameras/kaiser/index.htm

funny you being on Malta, we used to have a pressman that was from there . . . still stops in occassionaly - funny guy

Going to go with the Umax, the Meyer thing reminds me of the short lived Optotec scanner

 

[Mikie]

We have one of these. http://www.crusescanner.us

 

[dabob]

Going to go with the Umax, the Meyer thing reminds me of the short lived Optotec scanner

I was only suggesting it because if you work with artists you might be getting in art larger than 12x18 . . . . which is the largest the UMax can handle . . .

 

[gordo]

The Cruse scanner looks awesome. AFAIK most art is reproduced these days by using a digital camera - either a 4x5 camera with a digital back or even with a digital DSLR with sufficient megapixels for the final print size and a quality lens.

 

[k_graham]

The standard would be a scanner on a color copier, 600 dpi capable, 11.5x17 & A3, 30 to 100 scans per minute or simple 1 at a time placed on the glass. More recent units in the last 5 years include calibration capability using a provided target. Ken

 

[Slammer]

It seems that even Umax no longer distributes scanners, currently all stock is 'unavailable at this moment' I find it hard to believe that hi end flatties have vanished from the market so suddenly, looks like time to re-evaluate my strategy.

 

[Stephen Marsh]

If you have an old Silvermaster or vertical repro camera in storage, one could rig up a great digital copy stand with a good DSLR and lens. There is still a niche market for digitising large format originals.


Stephen Marsh

The Cruse scanner looks awesome. AFAIK most art is reproduced these days by using a digital camera - either a 4x5 camera with a digital back or even with a digital DSLR with sufficient megapixels for the final print size and a quality lens.

 

[Slammer]

I doubt that the customer would go for a MacGyver solution, I am getting in touch with Cruise for a quote, see what they have to offer.
Is it just me or has the industry taken a step backwards over the last four years where I have been away? No decent scanners, closed systems from Kodak, Agfa, Esko etc, icc profilecreators where you can´t edit the icc´s or is it just me pining for the good old days of hands on instead of pushing buttons and hoping the software does it´s stuff.

 

[Possumgal]

For "hands on", nothing beats scanning a large piece in parts, then reassembling them in Photoshop. Quite an adventure, especially if the scans aren't all perfectly straight.

 

[DCurry]

For "hands on", nothing beats scanning a large piece in parts, then reassembling them in Photoshop. Quite an adventure, especially if the scans aren't all perfectly straight.

I've done my share of that! Much easier to straighten the individual scans first. Then along came the Photomerge feature in Photoshop, which does a great job of stitching the pieces together, even if they aren't straight.

 

[Slammer]

Well we put in a quote for the Cruise scanner, the customer did want to produce quality stuff, but when he saw the 70.000 Grand price tag he decided that quality wasn´t such a big deal after all.