NEW SCAN BACK: Rencay 1,38 GigaPixel 70x120mm

[Sdrubansky]

Website here:

http://rencay.com/index-e.html

Not much information, not even price or date of release.
But stated scan size makes it seem like it
could be called Digital Large Format for real.

Mat

[vinny]

I ten years they'll be saying "can you still get software for that?"

[Noah A]

And it can also be used to scan. I'm interested in hearing more. Especially the scan speed and price!

[Kirk Gittings]

I ten years they'll be saying "can you still get software for that?"

similar to "can you still get film for that?"

[Henry Ambrose]

I'm surprised to see this.
It seems like for most practical purposes scan backs were killed off about 10 years ago.
It would make a great scanner. But so would simply buying a real scanner.
I suspect the price is astronomical.

[Noah A]

I don't see why scan backs have to be terribly expensive, though I fear this one will be. I'm not sure why scan backs died off, I guess since single-shot backs are good enough for commercial applications and film is still available for artists and hobbyists.

It's interesting that there is also a 320MP version. If that one is affordable, and if it's a real 320MP, it could be a winner.

If it works well as both a scanner and an LF back, it would be a great tool. And it's nice to see some more options out there for those of us who like view cameras.

If it works well with normal LF lenses (which it may due to the larger scan area) then you'll save a ton of money on lenses.

[Richard Wasserman]

Here's more info. It's in German and has prices. http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/320-MP-Minimum-Hochaufloesende-Scanbacks-von-Rencay

[Kirk Gittings]

ouch! 22K.

[Lenny Eiger]

The numbers are strange. I can do a scan of an 8x10 at 8,000 (at 2666ppi), and get 26660 x 21328. This is supposedly similar, his are 26600x16000. That should equal 425.6 megapixels. How does he get 1.28 Gigapixels? The file, at that size (in my case 568 megapixels) is 24 Gigabytes, quite a bit for PShop. But where does he get those Gigas?

Also, the price of the larger oner is 32.900 Euros. That's $44,259.87 in US Dollars...

Yeah, ouch...

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

For that kind of coin I would for sure like a built in display screen so I could shoot unteathered in the field.

[alexn]

The numbers are strange. I can do a scan of an 8x10 at 8,000 (at 2666ppi), and get 26660 x 21328. This is supposedly similar, his are 26600x16000. That should equal 425.6 megapixels. How does he get 1.28 Gigapixels? The file, at that size (in my case 568 megapixels) is 24 Gigabytes, quite a bit for PShop. But where does he get those Gigas?

Also, the price of the larger oner is 32.900 Euros. That's $44,259.87 in US Dollars...

Yeah, ouch...

Lenny

It states 26660 x 12328 x RGB. Meaning 425mp Red image, 425mp Green image 425mp Blue image. 1276.8mp or 1.24 Gigapixels..

[Henry Ambrose]

Noah, you're right about why scan backs were kicked off in the weeds. The other stuff (single shot backs and even DSLRs) is plenty good enough for most all work. The other thing is that scan backs are only going to work on absolutely still scenes, with absolutely consistent lighting for the entire time of the scan. The files can be breath taking though and carry few of the flaws that instant capture sensors.

I used to shoot with scanning cameras and they were the top of the heap for a while, about 1990 through 2000. In that same time frame, DSLRs went from 1 MB files to over ten times that and the files just got better and better, until they were plenty good enough for most commercial work. And you could carry it around with you, not tethered to a computer and you could stop motion. What we have now is utterly amazing compared to just 20 years ago. That is why I am so surprised to see this back.

[alexn]

im blown away by the quality of the images I've seen from the scanning 617 camera I saw on google a few weeks back... Having said that, I shoot waterfalls and seascapes regularly.. No go with a scanner. I'd honestly be happy with a reasonably priced 4x5 digital back around 80mp, zero noise... I don't care if I have to expose at ISO:25 to be noise free, or even slower... Long exposures dont scare me... But 80mp digital images straight from the camera would be great. Although again, it would have to be an all in one unit, laptops and breaking waves over rocks don't mix...

[drew.saunders]

im blown away by the quality of the images I've seen from the scanning 617 camera I saw on google a few weeks back... Having said that, I shoot waterfalls and seascapes regularly.. No go with a scanner. I'd honestly be happy with a reasonably priced 4x5 digital back around 80mp, zero noise... I don't care if I have to expose at ISO:25 to be noise free, or even slower... Long exposures dont scare me... But 80mp digital images straight from the camera would be great. Although again, it would have to be an all in one unit, laptops and breaking waves over rocks don't mix...

That's the Seitz 6x17 scanning camera, which does the whole image in one second, so can be used for waterfalls. They have samples and explain how it can capture such images at: http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f1000.cfm

Only 33,000 euros. Cheap!

How is this new scan back better than betterlight? http://www.betterlight.com/

[B.S.Kumar]

Martin Langfeld, the founder of Rencay, also founded Anagramm. So I guess he knows a bit about scanning backs. He says that the new back uses TDIC (Time Delay Integration) technology, which is the same, or similar to the Seitz technology. I guess it is simply a larger version of the Seitz. Seitz was supposed to come up with a version suitable for regular 4x5 cameras. I guess this new back is that version. It is important to know that the data is not true RGB, but is interpolated.
See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/seitz-d3.shtml for more on the Seitz.

Kumar

[Noah A]

Me too, Kirk. At those prices they may sell a few to libraries, archives and museums. But I'm not really sure what their backs will offer that can't be done just as well for a lot less money.

Now if the price was a third of what they're asking that would be a different story. I'm sure they're very precise and they'll be low-volume products and so the cost per unit is high. But they don't require a huge sensor and it's not really ground-breaking technology.

I guess I'll wait for the 4x5 100mp single shot back that's the size of a film holder and gives me previews on my iPhone. Or I'll just stick with film!

[Lenny Eiger]

It states 26660 x 12328 x RGB. Meaning 425mp Red image, 425mp Green image 425mp Blue image. 1276.8mp or 1.24 Gigapixels..

Alex, thanks for the clarification.

I guess that makes my drum scanner a 1.5+ Gigapixel scanner. I used to harp on Imacon for making wild, or theoretical, claims vs reality (their 4.8 dmax which was ridiculous, film tops out at 4.6 so what are they talking about?). These folks are taking the same numbers we all use and twisting them to their advantage. if one wants to compares apples with apples, its a 425mp as far as I am concerned.

Of course, that's still great... if it works well, and comes down in price...

Lenny

[pjotr]

the website of rencay has been updated.

www.rencay.de

pjotr

[Kirk Gittings]

Not much different really that I can tell. Still lacking in allot of essential details.

[Bob Salomon]

Well I have an appointment with Martin in a few days at Photokina so if anyone has any specific questions about his products I will be happy to pass them on to him.

But if you do send them to my email address bob@hpmarketingcorp.com

[Kirk Gittings]

Price and capture speed of the 800.

[Bruce Watson]

It seems like for most practical purposes scan backs were killed off about 10 years ago.

The Better Light (http://www.betterlight.com/) people might object to this idea. ;)

Last I checked they've got some pretty impressive technology. They list their top end scanning back at $23k (US or Canada?), so it's not cheap. Their big niche seems to be art repro.

Just sayin'.

[bob carnie]

That would be 22.998 Canadian right now Bruce.
I have always wanted a scan back much like the betterlight , we have seen some pretty nice files as compared to phase.

Speed of capture would be a big point for me.

I don't mind long exposures, so I would be interested in the speed of this system.


The Better Light (http://www.betterlight.com/) people might object to this idea. ;)

Last I checked they've got some pretty impressive technology. They list their top end scanning back at $23k (US or Canada?), so it's not cheap. Their big niche seems to be art repro.

Just sayin'.

[Bob Salomon]

Price and capture speed of the 800.

I thought that was already on their web site.

[Kirk Gittings]

I thought that was already on their web site.

Not that I can find. Are you guys the US Distributer?

[Bob Salomon]

No, just know him from when he was Anagramm since their was a relationship between Anagramm and Linhof and they sometimes exhibited in Linhof's booth at Photokina.

[Bob Salomon]

Not that I can find. Are you guys the US Distributer?

Can't find price but this page has size and speeds.

http://www.rencay.de/en/rencay/products/scanbacks.html

[Amedeus]

Looking forward seeing this at PhotoKina ... I worked with scan backs in the past and they're a lot of fun with great quality for the right application ... It's expensive, yes but so are the 60 and 80MB backs ... different application, different file. The pixels are large and TDI is by now good mature technology ... ymmv

[Adamphotoman]

Rencay took over Anagramm. When everyone was laid off the head technician took over and is continuing the company under his name.
Betterlight on the other hand is in the process of moving to a semi retired location. After shutting down for a month during the move (October) Betterlight will reopen as a service center only and will cease to manufacture new scanning backs or pano adapters.
The discontinued Kodak sensor is in betterlight but the digital imaging size or throat is longer in the anagramm. There are pros and cons as the sweet spot of the lens is not as sweet with the longer scan area. 72mmX120mm versus 72mmX96mm.
I have used both for scanning landscapes art repro and for scanning negs and transparencies. Super 6K units are preferable for out door work as the Super 8K and Super 10K require more and more light which means longer line times and more motion artifacts. Then there is the panoscan MK3 made by Ted which uses the same Kodak chip and Beterlights Viewfinder software to drive the capture. Both the Rencay and Betterlight are able to capture images using different modes. When a traditional approach is used the scan moves across the film plane and covers an area slightly smaller than a 4X5 sheet. Shifts, rise and fall and tilts can all be employed. When the pano adapter is used, software moves and locks the trilinear Sensor in the centre of the scanning area and then the software drives the pano adapter to rotate the whole rig. The MK-3 panoscan only works in pano mode.
Grant

[pjotr]

so, no news from photokina?

pjotr