another V750 question- sorry....

[timbo10ca]

If I am using scanner software other than the Epson scan software, how do I specify whether I am using film on glass or in holder so the scanner knows where to focus? I am about to start some elevation tests using a fluid mount and am unsure if I have to (or how to) specify anything like this in other software. I have the Silverfast Ai 6 that came with it and Vuescan.

Thanks,
Tim

[Walter Calahan]

Using Silverfast I've never had to tell the software where to focus, but it could that I need to, but too dumb to know.

[Scott Knowles]

I agree, Silverfast seems to know. You might want to check for free updates and look at upgrades with Silverfast. The upgrades aren't cheap but offer more features. They also have calibration film and sheets with the IT8 option.

[Doug Fisher]

Yes, you do have to switch the software settings to make sure your are using the correct lens (one is supposed to be focused at the glass bed level and one at 3mm off the glass) in both software packages. In EpsonScan you have to switch between "film with film holder" and "film with area guide" or something like that. With Silverfast, I believe the two choices are "transparency" and "transparency full area."

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[timbo10ca]

Yes, you do have to switch the software settings to make sure your are using the correct lens (one is supposed to be focused at the glass bed level and one at 3mm off the glass) in both software packages. In EpsonScan you have to switch between "film with film holder" and "film with area guide" or something like that. With Silverfast, I believe the two choices are "transparency" and "transparency full area."

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

Thanks- It looks as though "transparency full area" is the equivalent of "film with guide area (flat on glass)", judging from their pre-scan appearances.

I have a question regarding the above glass lens though:

I'm doing some rough focus height tests and I was under the impression that the V750 started scanning at 1.5mm above the glass, but you indicate it's 3mm. Is this from your experience with developing your mounting stations, or am I incorrect on the 1.5mm? I am asking because I am finding the sharpest on-screen image to be at a height of 2.5-3mm (a dime and a quarter to a nickel and a quarter :p ), measuring from the glass to the plastic frame of the fluid mount accessory (not the negative itself). I have the negative taped to the bottom of the glass, with emulsion side down toward the scanner, mounted with Prazio anti-newton spray).

I am quite surprised that I am not seeing much of a difference between the 2.5 and 3mm heights after reading how much fine-tuning people seem to require to get the sweet spot. Do I need to make prints to see the big difference, or is it more likely that I just haven't hit the sweet spot, but just either side of it (i.e. 2.7mm)? I would be surprised if I could get it much sharper, because I'm using quite a small area of my 5x7 transparency to scan (maybe equivalent to 3/4x1"), in order to keep the file size small, then zooming in considerably in ACDSee to compare the scans and they look pretty darn good for what this scanner cost. They are raw scans, no sharpening/etc. They appear a bit fuzzy along the lines and there is some very fine detail loss, but the two scans at 2.5 and 3 mm seem to have this to the same effect, and less so than scans done at 2 and 3.5mm).

Thanks again,
Tim

[PenGun]

Just scanning 35mm in strips on my V700 I found the sharpest was with no feet at all. No doubt they are all different.

[timbo10ca]

Just scanning 35mm in strips on my V700 I found the sharpest was with no feet at all. No doubt they are all different.

yes, but should I be seeing much difference between 2.5 and 3mm heights? Should I be futzing with .1mm increments?

[PenGun]

yes, but should I be seeing much difference between 2.5 and 3mm heights? Should I be futzing with .1mm increments?

All I have done is try 6400 SPI scans on a very sharp slide of a pine flower which is a spiky thing. The + foot position is blurriest and no feet is sharpest. I'm not sure even lower is not better but a 16x20 print is pretty nice for stuff scanned at that level which is more than I expected from a 35mm slide scan.

I'm pretty sure the exact position of the focus point is different for each scanner as this is not a professional machine. I think you need to test each machine for it's sweet spot. How exacting is up to you. I have more testing to do myself.

I'd guess that if you are seeing little difference between 2.5 and 3 it's because you are pretty close there. It ain't never gonna be pretty at 200% ;).

[timbo10ca]

All I have done is try 6400 SPI scans on a very sharp slide of a pine flower which is a spiky thing. The + foot position is blurriest and no feet is sharpest. I'm not sure even lower is not better but a 16x20 print is pretty nice for stuff scanned at that level which is more than I expected from a 35mm slide scan.

I'm pretty sure the exact position of the focus point is different for each scanner as this is not a professional machine. I think you need to test each machine for it's sweet spot. How exacting is up to you. I have more testing to do myself.

I'd guess that if you are seeing little difference between 2.5 and 3 it's because you are pretty close there. It ain't never gonna be pretty at 200% ;).

True true..... I measured my scan area and it comes to 1/4 the width and 1/4 the height of the actual 5x7. I then printed at the scanned resolution of 6400 on 4x6 paper and could see no difference between the 2.5 and 3mm heights. If the sweet spot truly is somewhere in between, finding it is far more trouble than it's worth as I don't think it'll improve things much at all. I then downresed the 3mm scan to 2400 and saw no difference from the 6400 scan (so I can save alot of disk space now) on the print. I then sharpened the 2400dpi scan and printed it off and things looked good.... *real* good. I read somewhere that doing a double small sharpen is better than a single large one, so I sharpened it again equally and printed it.... Wow! It looked pretty awesome for a scanner of this price, considering that all the fine details (tree limbs in the distance) were sharp as razor blades, on a print that would be equivalent to 20x28 made on a $150 printer.

One observation I made was that I was in fact able to judge sharpness variation on my computer screen (zoomed in) similarly or even better than that in the print (life-size, not looking through loop- I'll try this as well for academia), so this will save me having to run off a bunch of prints to compare in the future. I also saw that what looks oversharpened on screen looks correct in the print. I believe I've read this a few times before as well, but never put it to the test.

Tim

[Peter De Smidt]

On my consumer flatbed, scan heights between .3mm and .7mm produced very similar results. Thus at least for my scanner there was a range of heights that worked equally well. Above or below that, though, the image became noticeably softer. As a result, I kept the negative's emulsion at .5.

[mandoman7]

I used a very small area from a sharp neg to test the height options and found the highest setting was clearly better, "3.5mm" I believe. This after printing and selling a fair number of prints from this machine with the slightly-off (for me) default setting. It translates to a small difference on a 16x20, but a difference nonetheless.

What I found surprising was how observably better in a high degree of enlargement the higher setting was. Grain was clearly less defined in the lower settings. Changing the little tabs seems a little funky but it seems to work. Like all things in photography, a little testing can be instructive.

JY