Scanner comparison: Epson V750 Pro added [Archive]

Lenny Eiger

3-Feb-2009, 10:11

But now I want a Tango :)

Paul, there are a number of fine scanners out there. Heidelberg, the maker of the Tango's has closed that division. Going forward that means less parts and less support. The Tango has a serious flaw when dealing with color negatives that need to be scanned at a flexible aperture. For chromes and b&w neg, they are fine machines - and I am not here to diss anyone's machine. I've seen some fine scans, many folks have learned to make that machine really deliver. But we are talking about a new purchase.

I would go with a Howtek, or Aztek Premier (for those who can afford it). There have been a number of Howtek 8000's out there lately for very reasonable prices, which would be a superior machine to the Tango - in the area of color neg, and would match or exceed it in the other categories.

There are also Colorgetters, ICG's and a few other drums that would satisfy the need for a drum scanner with a settable aperture....

Lenny

jvuokko

3-Feb-2009, 10:50

Raúl Sá Dantas has provided an Epson V750 Pro scan for the scanner comparison page (http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/).

Thank you very much!

This is answer to my question in the other thread concerning Epson 4990 vs. v700.
v750 ofcourse is bit better than v700, but I guess that there is not that much difference.

kurthbousman

7-Feb-2009, 11:26

Well for the price , the ease , and the availability , the epsons are a good choice . If they would release an update that had a focusable lens then it would be great. I'm happy with my v700 . The detail advantage from a Tango is offset by it's price and lack of availability , and the same for most of the drum scanners . The flatbed is just too easy to ignore for the small difference in quality , and I've found the files sharpen very well.

Lenny Eiger

7-Feb-2009, 11:46

The flatbed is just too easy to ignore for the small difference in quality , and I've found the files sharpen very well.

Well, that's it isn't it.... your perception is that there is a small difference in quality. My perception is that the difference is huge. I wouldn't consider a consumer flatbed.

For folks who think the difference is small, they should probably go with a flatbed. For folks who think the difference is large, they should look to other choices... like a drum...

Lenny

sanking

7-Feb-2009, 16:04

Well, Lenny pretty much nailed it. If one is not able to see the difference between a scan made with a drum scan and an Epson V750 it would be a waste of time to spend the money on the drum.

I don't have a drum, but I do have a fairly decent high end flatbed, a Scitex Eversmart Pro, and an Epson 4990. I have made numerous comparisons of prints of 4X magnification made from scans of both scanners, and I can definitely see a difference in image quality. With some prints the difference is subtle, with others quite dramatic, but always with advantage to the Eversmart.

And if one looks at the original scans on a monitor, the Epson scans are clealry so much inferior to those of the Eversmart one would have to be totally blind to not see the difference. Frankly, if anyone has compared a drum scan with a V750 scan and concluded that there were fairly equal in quality, you need to do the comparison again, or get a new pair of glasses. Folks, on the monitor it ain't even a ball game. The V750 scans might be a tad better than those made with the 4990, but in IMO the difference is not enough to amount to a hill of beans when the other comparison is a drum or high end flatbed.

Sandy

Well, that's it isn't it.... your perception is that there is a small difference in quality. My perception is that the difference is huge. I wouldn't consider a consumer flatbed.

For folks who think the difference is small, they should probably go with a flatbed. For folks who think the difference is large, they should look to other choices... like a drum...

Lenny

PenGun

7-Feb-2009, 17:39

There is some confusion as to the Epson V700/V750 and it's difference to the 4990. One can compare them 'on the glass' at 4800 spi and apparently they are quite close.

The 700/750 scanners however have another, supposedly, hi res system that scans above the glass. I have seen no useful comparisons of wet scans done at the 'right' distance above the glass to either a 4990 or to drum scanners. I say wet scan because all the drum scans are.

As the 'right' distance above the glass varies from machine to machine, mine is sharpest with no feet at all on the stock mounts for instance, the scans will differ quite a lot depending if you hit the focus plane or not.

Just pointing out a few things I have not seen well exposed. The various tests all have their own methods and I'm not sure an amateur machine with a focus plane variation of the hi res system somewhere in the 3mm range is well served by them.

aphexafx

7-Feb-2009, 17:49

sanking, I'm sorry, but who is arguing that a drum scanner will outperform a desktop flatbed? I've read this thread twice, and I cannot find anything even close to such a statement. It appears that everyone involved here is aware that a drum scanner can and will outperform a desktop flatbed. Whoopie…

What I do see is reference to the fact that the v750/700 is pretty decent for a flatbed (as the results in the link show). I agree, and that's why I own one. As an art student I can barely afford to pay for my sheet film and processing -> I cannot afford to get my chromes drum scanned on a regular basis. My v750 has allowed me to adopt a digital workflow and it has paid for itself twice already. I am quite impressed with it, as are some of the other members here, and I believe that it is a notable scanner. If I need something scanned at the next level, I always have that option at my local service bureau.

Quoting kurthbousman: "Well for the price , the ease , and the availability , the epsons are a good choice..."

I don't think anyone here is stupid or in need of better eyewear (lol). Please. :) I don't think this thread is about how much ~better~ drum scans can be. I think it's about the fairly impressive quality of the v750.

Personally, I think the fact that you can now produce wet mount scans as high quality as the v750 and other scanners like it are producing, on your desktop, at home, for < $700 is pretty amazing and a great thing.

sanking

7-Feb-2009, 17:53

Just to be clear, neither the 4990 or the V750 has a focusing mechanism. Therefore, if one wants to compare it is necessary to first determine the position of best of focus.

Regardless of the quality of the second lens, it is important to understand that in order to cover a wider angle of coverge there is a lot of compromise. This is true of both high end flatbeds like the Cezanne Elite and Eversmart Supreme. In other words, with a small format negative one might be able to take some advantage of the second lens son the V750, but with LF film that will not happen.

Sandy King

There is some confusion as to the Epson V700/V750 and it's difference to the 4990. One can compare them 'on the glass' at 4800 spi and apparently they are quite close.
.

sanking

7-Feb-2009, 17:57

In fact, I was responding to this.

"Paul, I think you will be pleasantly surprised with the Epson V700. Even my 4870 gave my drum scans a run for their money. Since it is a CCD rather than PMT capture, the look will be softer initially than the drum scan, but if you handle the file carefully (ie. judicious sharpening), the results are amazing."

Strictly speaking I think it is fair to say that the above message is favorably comparing a scan with a V700 or V750 with a drum scan.

We could quibble about intention, but basically that is how I read it?

I don't have any argument with your conclusion that for the price the Epson flatbeds are good value for the money. I own and use one. But, by any reasonable measure they are not even close to professional flatbeds and drums scans in performance.

Sandy King

sanking, I'm sorry, but who is arguing that a drum scanner will outperform a desktop flatbed? I've read this thread twice, and I cannot find anything even close to such a statement. It appears that everyone involved here is aware that a drum scanner can and will outperform a desktop flatbed. Whoopie…

What I do see is reference to the fact that the v750/700 is pretty decent for a flatbed (as the results in the link show). I agree, and that's why I own one. As an art student I can barely afford to pay for my sheet film and processing -> I cannot afford to get my chromes drum scanned on a regular basis. My v750 has allowed me to adopt a digital workflow and it has paid for itself twice already. I am quite impressed with it, as are some of the other members here, and I believe that it is a notable scanner. If I need something scanned at the next level, I always have that option at my local service bureau.

Quoting kurthbousman: "Well for the price , the ease , and the availability , the epsons are a good choice..."

I think that it is fully understood that a drum scan can produce a better file in general. I don't think anyone here is stupid or in need of better eyewear. Please. :)

Personally, I think the fact that you can now produce wet mount scans as high quality as the v750 and other scanners like it are producing, on your desktop, at home, for < $700 is pretty amazing and a great thing.

aphexafx

7-Feb-2009, 18:02

Strictly speaking I think it is fair to say that this message is favorably comparing a scan with a V700 or V7500 with a drum scan.

We could quibble about intention, but basically that is how I read it?

I see, yes we read it differently. I think the intention was to indicate that the results were amazing for a flatbed, which they kind of are. No need to quibble, cheers.

D. Bryant

7-Feb-2009, 18:16

I see, yes we read it differently. I think the intention was to indicate that the results were amazing for a flatbed, which they kind of are. No need to quibble, cheers.

FWIW, if one can purchase a 4990 and the BetterScanning variable height wet film mounting station I don't think one would see much difference in the wet scans made with the V700 or V750.

In fact the best way to optimize the IQ of the scans from any of these scanners is to use a variable height holder or experiment with the height of the Epson holders.

Don Bryant

sanking

7-Feb-2009, 18:21

Don,

Excellent point. If anyone wants to get the most out of their Epson flatbed scanner, get the BetterScanning variable height mounting station and use it as per directions. If you do, I seriously doubt that you will see a big difference in image quality between the 4990, V700, and V750. My own tests indicated a slight advantage for the V750, with the *emphasis* on slight.

Sandy King

FWIW, if one can purchase a 4990 and the BetterScanning variable height wet film mounting station I don't think one would see much difference in the wet scans made with the V700 or V750.

In fact the best way to optimize the IQ of the scans from any of these scanners is to use a variable height holder or experiment with the height of the Epson holders.

Don Bryant

PenGun

7-Feb-2009, 18:31

Just to be clear, neither the 4990 or the V750 has a focusing mechanism. Therefore, if one wants to compare it is necessary to first determine the position of best of focus.

Regardless of the quality of the second lens, it is important to understand that in order to cover a wider angle of coverge there is a lot of compromise. This is true of both high end flatbeds like the Cezanne Elite and Eversmart Supreme. In other words, with a small format negative one might be able to take some advantage of the second lens son the V750, but with LF film that will not happen.

Sandy King

The 'hi res' scan area on an Epson V750/V700 is 5.7" wide. So yes that will happen with 4x5 and 5x7 LF film.

As I said no one seems to have scanned 4x5 with the 'hi res' system and compared wet mount to wet mount.

sanking

7-Feb-2009, 18:54

The argument is pretty simple. If you have a scanner that does not focus it must cover a wider angle, with any given lens, to scan LF film than 35mm and MF film. This will lead to fall off in resolution for the large film size.

Please feel free to test and disprove my remarks if you believe they are in error.

Basically, the only logical reason for the two lenses that I can see is that one was meant to scan a smaller area of film at higher resolution.

Sandy

The 'hi res' scan area on an Epson V750/V700 is 5.7" wide. So yes that will happen with 4x5 and 5x7 LF film.

As I said no one seems to have scanned 4x5 with the 'hi res' system and compared wet mount to wet mount.

PenGun

7-Feb-2009, 19:07

The argument is pretty simple. If you have a scanner that does not focus it must cover a wider angle, with any given lens, to scan LF film than 35mm and MF film. This will lead to fall off in resolution for the large film size.

Please feel free to test and disprove my remarks if you believe they are in error.

Basically, the only logical reason for the two lenses that I can see is that one was meant to scan a smaller area of film at higher resolution.

Sandy

All the film mounts for the V750/V700 are aimed at 'above the glass' focus. Only the 8x10 'area guide' is intended for 'on the glass' focus. We have stock 4x5 film holders and the purpose of them is to scan 4x5 film with the 'hi res' lens 'above the glass'.

Logic has nothing to do with it.

There is religion mixed with science here.

sanking

7-Feb-2009, 19:19

Ron Marshall

7-Feb-2009, 20:27

I use my 4990 for 3x-4x enlargements, for which with most images it does a good job. When I plan to print larger I get a drumscan.

There is no mistaking a 4990 scan for a drumscan, either on screen or in a print.

PenGun

7-Feb-2009, 21:16

Take a break and read how how high end scanners like the Cezanne Elite and Eversmart deal with this problem, i.e. distance between the CCD and the material being scanner. The Cezanne uses a tecnique called XY-Zoom, the Eversmart XY-stitching.

There is no religion here, just optical facts. If one uses a focusing lens, there must be a compensation for focus (and area of coverage) for distance between the CCD and the material being scanned. If one uses a non-focusing lens, there must be compromises for area covered and distance between the CCD and scanned material. Some scanners deal with this issue by mowing the lawn in strips and then stitching (Eversmart), others by zooming out and re-focusing (Cezanne Elite). The Epson V750 does not deal with the issue of all other than by offering two lens that scan at about the same distance from the CCD, but do not focus. Is that about right?

Sandy King

No. They scan at different distances. One on the glass and the 'hi res' system above it. The film holders are all set for the above the glass focus which is the 'hi res' system.

The 8x10 'on the glass' scans are full width.

All the film holder scans are 5.7" wide which is enough for the 35mm holder to be 3 wide, the 120 to be 2 wide and the 4x5 is 1 wide above each other. I can see no evidence to support any of your suppositions. The 35mm test I use appears to be the same in the center or on either side.

You have made quite a few claims and do not have a V750/V700 and have assumed it is the same as your 4990. As I have pointed out I believe the 4990 is about the same as the 'low res' system used on the V750/V700.

Again. I have seen nothing wet mounted at the correct height using the 'hi res' system. I will get to it myself but probably not soon as I have so much to learn. I do know about where my 'hi res' system focuses but not too much more. The test scans on 35mm are much better than I thought they would be but as I pointed out I had to find the focus plane.

PenGun

7-Feb-2009, 21:28

Basically, the only logical reason for the two lenses that I can see is that one was meant to scan a smaller area of film at higher resolution.

Sandy

I'm slow tonight. Exactly. I have seen no tests of the "one was meant to scan a smaller area of film at higher resolution". Eh'.

Did you even test the 'hi res' system?

PenGun

7-Feb-2009, 21:39

Hi Pen Gun,

As for your comments, "you have made quite a few claims and do not have a V750/V700 and have assumed it is the same as your 4990". OK, you pretty much missed the launching. I have tested both the V700 and V750, in my environment. I just don't currently own one, primarily because on testing I did not find that either offered much of an improvement over the 4990.

Frankly, you can compare and test until hell freezes over, but it won't change the basic facts. End of message. End of exchange.

Regards,

Sandy King

I'm pretty sure you did not test the 'hi res' system as you seem to know very little about it. I will satisfy myself as to the facts with tests and the reason is to find out what the basic facts are.

They are not well revealed so far.

sanking

7-Feb-2009, 21:52

Thank you for placing things in perspective. I feel so simple and uninformed compared to a person like you with such vast knowledge and experience withi scanning equipment.

Sandy King

I'm pretty sure you did not test the 'hi res' system as you seem to know very little about it. I will satisfy myself as to the facts with tests and the reason is to find out what the basic facts are.

They are not well revealed so far.

PenGun

7-Feb-2009, 22:07

Thank you for placing things in perspective. I feel so simple and uninformed compared to a person like you.

Sandy King

Did you test the 'hi res' system?

Paul Kierstead

7-Feb-2009, 23:23

But, by any reasonable measure they are not even close to professional flatbeds and drums scans in performance.

Although I entirely agree with you on drum scans (though the Epson may give more then acceptable performance under certain conditions), I am not so sure about the professional flatbeds. Looking at the sample scans, they certainly did not knock my socks off like the drum scans, and might be debatable quality w.r.t. the Epson. I am not just talking about sharpness here, but more complete "feeling" of image quality I'll admit to not looking at all the samples, so may not have fully appreciated their advantages.

As a total aside, in the shadow noise department, the drum scanners seem to exhibit strong posterization. I don't think it would show in most ordinary work, but what is the cause of this over the otherwise inferior scanners?

sanking

8-Feb-2009, 08:51

It should also be noted that the actual difference in sharpness between the high end scanners and the Epson flatbeds is even greater that the scanner comparison indicates. As noted in the review, The comparison was based on the assumption that a scanner's potential owner might want to produce a large digital print, so the scan resolution is 2400 ppi. This allows a 10x enlargement when printed at 240 dpi, yielding a 40x50 inch print."

Some of the drum scanners and high end flatbeds are capable of achieving "real" resolution 5000 spi and more so keeping it low tends equal the playing field for the consumer flatbeds that are limited in "real" resolution to 2400 spi or less (regardless of the optical resolution claimed).

Even with this limitation there is a huge differnence between the sharpness of some of the drum scanners compared to the Epson V750. Just compare the Howtek 4500 to the V750. By contrast, the difference between the 4990 and V750 at 2400 spi is to small to discern, or minimal at best.

Sandy King

Although I entirely agree with you on drum scans (though the Epson may give more then acceptable performance under certain conditions), I am not so sure about the professional flatbeds. Looking at the sample scans, they certainly did not knock my socks off like the drum scans, and might be debatable quality w.r.t. the Epson. I am not just talking about sharpness here, but more complete "feeling" of image quality I'll admit to not looking at all the samples, so may not have fully appreciated their advantages.

As a total aside, in the shadow noise department, the drum scanners seem to exhibit strong posterization. I don't think it would show in most ordinary work, but what is the cause of this over the otherwise inferior scanners?

sanking

8-Feb-2009, 10:33

I am assuming that I did test the high res system, for what that is worth. In a previous post an owner of an Epson V750 wrote, "The hi-resolution lens on the v700/v750 is NOT "activated" by scanning at 6400 spi. The lens in question is "acitvated" by scanning above the platen using the transparency w/ film holder options and has a reduced coverage area over the normal platen-level lens. The lens is employed for any resolution when scanning with a holder or mounting tray."

In my tests of the V750 I scanned a target directly on the glass, image side down, and with the target in a holder, image side down.

My testing of the 4990 indicated effective resolution of 1800-2000 spi, the V750 tested at 2100-2300 spi. I did not test Dmax of either. In practice I have found that the 4990 does a good job with color and B&W negatives, even fairly dense ones. I don't scan transparencies.

BTW, the following document at the Epson web site makes it very clear that the area covered when using the "high resolution/6400 spi" lens is less than with the "4800 spi" lens. http://www.photo.epson.co.uk/technology/scanners/dual_lens.htm

Sandy King

QUOTE=PenGun;437972]Did you test the 'hi res' system?[/QUOTE]

aphexafx

8-Feb-2009, 11:40

I wrote that and it is correct.

Sandy, Epson's document only confirms exactly what PenGun has stated. What Epson calls the "Super Resolution Lens" (sic) has a smaller coverage area than the other lens which covers the entire platen. The Super Resolution Lens, covering an area of 5.9", then, does indeed cover 4x5 and even 5x7 film (with a third party film holder or mount). Now, as to the effective resolution of this lens beyond the center portion of this coverage area where larger film formats tread, which I perceive as your argument, I cannot comment, except to say that I get equal sharpness and detail edge to edge on my 4x5 transparencies, as far as I can tell - yes I know that this is not very scientific lol.

But the point is, however effective across it's coverage area, the 6400spi, or let's just say, Higher Resolution Lens, is employed for 4x5 and even 5x7 film when scanned in a holder or other elevator.

When you wrote: "In other words, with a small format negative one might be able to take some advantage of the second lens son the V750, but with LF film that will not happen."

I perceive that you mean, even though the higher resolution lens system is used, the fact that the film is large enough to extend well into the edges of the len's coverage area renders any gains obsolete? This should be evaluated.

sanking

8-Feb-2009, 12:47

This being a LF forum I use the term smaller format in a relative sense. The scanning area using the high resolution lens does cover 4X5 and 5X7 film, but not 8X10. I may have misunderstood PG because I thought he wrote somewhere that the area scanned was the same with both lenses. Another issue is that these scanners with fixed focus lenses usually have a sweet spot smaller than the actual area scanned. This may or may not be the case with the V750 but it has been true of all the Epson flatbeds I have owned, which include the 2540, 4870 and the 4990. I don't in fact understand the exact mechanism used by Epson with the high resolution lens, but I assume, in fact am fairly certain, that this is achieved because the lens is designed to cover a smaller area, which is one of the points I was trying to make when PG accused me of not understanding the high res system.

But, the resolution of 6300 is basically useless for anything but 35mm and MF film because the resulting file sizes will be too large for most people to manage, even if some extra real resolution is obtained. 4X5 B&W negative scanned at 6300 dpi in 16 bit gives a file size of 1.5 gig. An RGB scan at 6300 gives 4.4 gig. Go up to 5X7 and those figures become 2.6 gig and 7.7 gig.

However, use whichever lens you want and I don't believe you will find the real resolution of the V750 to be over about 2200 spi. So for all practical purposes there is no reason to scan LF film at a higher resolution than 2400 spi as all you are doing is making a large file size. If the high resolution lens can pull an additional 200-400 spi of detail it might be worth using with a small format negative.

Which brings me back to the only points I have tried to make here.

1. The 4990 and V750 are comparable in the results they will give, the V750 being marginally better.

2. There is no comparison between the quality of an Epson V750 and a good drum scanner.

I won't debate how large a print is acceptable, though the figure of 3X-4X that many people suggest seems about right to me. But there is no question but that one can make good prints from scans of LF negatives with the Epson flatbeds so long final size is limited. In fact, I am working on a small exhibition right now of some early 5X7 work that I did that was previously scanned with the 4870. Even though I now have a much better scanner I have decided that at final print size of 2X-3X it is not worth my trouble re-scan the film with the better scanner.

Sandy King

I wrote that and it is correct.

Sandy, Epson's document only confirms exactly what PenGun has stated. What Epson calls the "Super Resolution Lens" (sic) has a smaller coverage area than the other lens which covers the entire platen. The Super Resolution Lens, covering an area of 5.9", then, does indeed cover 4x5 and even 5x7 film (with a third party film holder or mount). Now, as to the effective resolution of this lens beyond the center portion of this coverage area where larger film formats tread, which I perceive as your argument, I cannot comment, except to say that I get equal sharpness and detail edge to edge on my 4x5 transparencies, as far as I can tell - yes I know that this is not very scientific lol.

But the point is, however effective across it's coverage area, the 6400spi, or let's just say, Higher Resolution Lens, is employed for 4x5 and even 5x7 film when scanned in a holder or other elevator.

When you wrote: "In other words, with a small format negative one might be able to take some advantage of the second lens son the V750, but with LF film that will not happen."

I perceive that you mean, even though the higher resolution lens system is used, the fact that the film is large enough to extend well into the edges of the len's coverage area renders any gains obsolete? This should be evaluated.

PenGun

8-Feb-2009, 13:25

Just like herding cats.

As I said .... many times .... I have not seen a scan done on an Epson V750/v700 that wet mounts to the 'hi res' system.

I'm done here, the superiority is suffocating.

mandoman7

8-Feb-2009, 15:13

This thread is good for the lurkers as it kind of covers the areas of thought on this topic, and its entertaining.

I got out of LF a while ago for a variety of reasons, mostly non-voluntary. I did have gallery representation and a nice darkroom with printing up to 8x10. Like many others things changed for me in the photo bus. I continued shooting, but rarely LF.

I did have some negatives that pulled in orders every now and then and I would get expensive scans and so forth. I NEVER was satisfied with what I got from those guys. I would do it to fill the order, but it was always awkward, and sometimes a big waste of money.

I got the v700 about a year ago to fill a request for a series of 10x13's from 8x10 negatives. I didn't really work with it too much, though, having read a lot of the posts about drum scans and how compromised and unusable the epson's scans were. It basically sat there for months doing scans of documents mostly.

Then I had another nibble from a rep in Chicago that needed a set of samples from a series shot in 4x5. I had gotten a box of the museo silver rag, did some scanning and got into it; finding the best holder height, along with testing the software's preferences. I had no expectations and was really apprehensive, but really couldn't believe how good they came out, based on what I had been led to believe from reading other's opinions.

The bottom line: when I did the visual comparison with 10x13 fiber based prints I had done 20 years ago, the new ones compared favorably in both sharpness and tone. Again, I was sure that they wouldn't beforehand. It got me to thinking, big time, because apparently I had regained the ability to print my work without having to give it over to the technogeeks-with-no-artistic-sensibility types, no offense intended.

I had a print handy from a drum scan. I had produced a 3'x4' for a client (drum scanned-howtek) and had a 8x10 work print at my desk. Looking again with my new revelation, however, I realized that one of the things that was strange was that the negative would never have printed that sharply in my darkroom. So, while the print was technically faultless, it was sharper than what was needed to replicate the look of my enlarged prints. And those prints, when they were made, were fully satisfying in the sharpness department.

Its a very good general rule to make sure and not let the technology of your craft get in the way of your creative work flow, IMO. I was never able to get comfortable with turning over the execution of my vision over to someone who has no idea what the emotions or history behind the shot might be, nor cares really as long as the d-max is statistically better than the other guy's.

The idea that I can do this stuff in-house has re-awakened a whole new spirit in my work, fostered, in part, by the capabilities of this inexpensive and disparaged machine. When I look at the prices for stuff on ebay lately as compared with a couple of years ago, I get the feeling that I'm not alone...

JY

Lenny Eiger

8-Feb-2009, 17:07

It got me to thinking, big time, because apparently I had regained the ability to print my work without having to give it over to the technogeeks-with-no-artistic-sensibility types, no offense intended.

I had a print handy from a drum scan. I had produced a 3'x4' for a client (drum scanned-howtek) and had a 8x10 work print at my desk. Looking again with my new revelation, however, I realized that one of the things that was strange was that the negative would never have printed that sharply in my darkroom. So, while the print was technically faultless, it was sharper than what was needed to replicate the look of my enlarged prints. And those prints, when they were made, were fully satisfying in the sharpness department.

Its a very good general rule to make sure and not let the technology of your craft get in the way of your creative work flow, IMO. I was never able to get comfortable with turning over the execution of my vision over to someone who has no idea what the emotions or history behind the shot might be, nor cares really as long as the d-max is statistically better than the other guy's.

The idea that I can do this stuff in-house has re-awakened a whole new spirit in my work, fostered, in part, by the capabilities of this inexpensive and disparaged machine. When I look at the prices for stuff on ebay lately as compared with a couple of years ago, I get the feeling that I'm not alone...

JY

I'm glad you have found a way of working that works for you. I have always maintained that not everyone needs the sharpness or the depth, the shadow and highlight detail, that a great scan can provide.

I have also maintained that "technogeeks-with-no-artistic-sensibility types" have no business doing drum scans. There are many labs and other service companies that offer cheap scans that give less than acceptable service. I won't mention names, but if you pay $15-20 for a drum scan, I believe you are wasting your money, for the very reasons that Jay identifies. And yes, I feel the same way about using Costco or Walmart for exhibition prints.

I would also suggest that there are some drum scanner operators, some right on this list (of which I include myself), that work closely with their clients, listen carefully to their needs, take the historical and other contexts into consideration when scanning, will scan over and over again until they get it right, and deliver a great scan. There are times, even for those who don't need it for every image, when this is appropriate. I think its great that when you need, or just want, a superb scan there are those that do have an arts background, are photographers themselves and care about the results working perfectly for the people who choose to take advantage of their services.

Lenny

mandoman7

8-Feb-2009, 17:49

I hear what you're saying Lenny, and coincidentally, you're only 40 min. away. I may have some biz for you down the road.

JY

Keith S. Walklet

8-Feb-2009, 20:34

I have to jump in, since some of Sandy's irritation seems to be directed at the idea that I found that my flatbed scans compared favorably to drum scans of the same image.

I don't intend to get into a heated debate about the merits of a drum scan. I've said before, that so far, I am most impressed with the drum scans that I've done myself and had done for me by people that are very highly regarded by members of this forum. The quality is exceptional.

But, my positive attitude about the flatbed scans originated from my own experiments that were intended to illustrate the vast difference in quality between the various technologies. Instead, what I discovered was that the difference was not as great as I expected.

The response to my posts then is similar to what has transpired this time. Some find it hard to believe.

Last time, I had an opportunity to quiet these concerns. Rather than argue about it when I posted the positive results I obtained with the 4870, I took my sample prints with me to the View Camera conference held in Illinois a few years back. Since my own time was mostly spent manning an exhibit booth, I didn't get to participate in any of the scanning sessions. Instead, at the conclusion of the conference, I shared my results with a handful of people, including Ted and Mike (very quickly), and Kirk (who had more time to consider the samples) and a few others. Again, my intention was never to discredit anyone, but to simply show the results that I obtained. Some time has passed since I shared those prints. Perhaps they recall what they saw.

This was a side-by-side comparison of the Epson 4870, Nikon 8000, and TANGO drum scan done on a 35mm transparency printed to a width of 24 inches with an Epson 9600. I surprised me. If my memory is correct, I think it surprised some other people as well.

I won't have a chance to post my latest tests for a couple of weeks. But, I will share them. You can draw your own conclusions. This is not intended to discredit anyone. It is simply to share my results.

Kirk Gittings

8-Feb-2009, 21:32

Keith, sorry I have only a vague memory of that interchange. That was a few years ago. For myself over the years using the Epsons, 3200, 4990 and 750 extensively (I currently own and use the 750 primarily for color magazine work-mostly scanning for stock sales these days, originally though for my art work too), I have the opposite opinion frankly. The longer I utilize scans for my artwork the more impressed I am by a good drum scan vs. even the 750 wet on the Betterscanning film bed. I have put enormous time into tinkering with the Epsons to maximize their potential. I am simply no longer willing to put the extensive work into a negative file for a fine print unless I have the best scan available and that is never for me a scan from an Epson. And I don't even print large. I rarely ever print over 16x20.

sanking

8-Feb-2009, 22:03

Keith,

Many things limit final image quality more than the scanner itself, including how much information is in the negative and the type of output. I would wager that very few 4X5 negatives have the equivalent of more than 1400-1600 spi of real detail, so if 360 dpi is the resolution of the output device we can get by with a fairly mediocre scan because of the limitation of the combined limits to quality imposed by the negative and output device.

However, if we happen to have a very high quality negative that has the equivalent of 80 l/mm of resolution there will be absolutely no comparison in terms of detail between a scan made with a drum scanner like the Howtek 4500 and an Epson flatbed. If you scan a good high resolution target this will become immediately obvious to anyone. And of course resolution is just one of factors that contribute to good scan quality with drum scanners.

I am not at all bothered by the notion that good prints can be made with scans from Epson flatbeds. In fact, I have said this myself many times. However, it is just unreasonable IMO to claim that a scan from an Epson V750 can have anywhere near the quality of a scan from a good drum scanner like the Howtek 4500.

On the other hand there is a great convenience for creative artists to tightly control the scanning operation and anyone who is satisfied with the quality they are getting on print from a scan has no beef with me regarding the work flow regardless of what scanner is used.

Sandy King

I have to jump in, since some of Sandy's irritation seems to be directed at the idea that I found that my flatbed scans compared favorably to drum scans of the same image.

aphexafx

9-Feb-2009, 02:40

Sandy,

When you say, "Many things limit final image quality more than the scanner itself, including how much information is in the negative and the type of output. I would wager that very few 4X5 negatives have the equivalent of more than 1400-1600 spi of real detail..."

Do you mean lack of detail specific to the characteristics of film being scanned, or are you referring to lack of detail specific to photographic technique or hardware limitations, such as lack of scene detail, lack of focusing skill, or lack of film plane/focus screen alignment?

Not challenging at all, just curious.

sanking

9-Feb-2009, 07:00

It could be both, and/or something else. Lack of detail in an image might result from photographing a scene where atmospheric conditions limit detail, say in mist or fog, or the lack of detail could result from problems with technique such as the ones you mention. Lack of detail in the negative could also result from conscious choice, say in use of film type, f/stop to control DOF, or in diffusion of the image or in choice of camera type, for example a pinhole or zoneplate camera.

Most people would agree that scanning a pinhole negative with a drum scanner would be kind of pointless because no matter how good the scanner may be it can not pull detail from where there is no detail. You could scan the negative with an Epson 2540 or a Tango and it won't make much difference in terms of detail because there is only so much detail in the negative.

So my point was that in comparing prints from scans of a flatbed like the V750 with prints made from drum scanner scans we should remember that the negative may have been the limit to final image quality, even though the final image quality in the print appears to be similar. Or of course many other factors may also limit final image quality, including the resolution of the output device.

Sandy King

Sandy,

When you say, "Many things limit final image quality more than the scanner itself, including how much information is in the negative and the type of output. I would wager that very few 4X5 negatives have the equivalent of more than 1400-1600 spi of real detail..."

Do you mean lack of detail specific to the characteristics of film being scanned, or are you referring to lack of detail specific to photographic technique or hardware limitations, such as lack of scene detail, lack of focusing skill, or lack of film plane/focus screen alignment?

Not challenging at all, just curious.

Keith S. Walklet

9-Feb-2009, 09:38

Thanks for chiming in Kirk. A lot of water has gone under the bridge.

Some more observations. I selected the 35mm film to scan because I figured the smaller piece of film would exacerbate any limitations that the flatbed had, plus I could do side-by-side comparisons with each of the other scanners. My newer tests which will compare the 4870, V750, Nikon w/anti Newton holder, as well as the stock holder, and TANGO will be done with medium format film.

My previous tests with the 4870 showed, (regardless of the claims of the manufacturer of what that actual resolution is), that there were steady improvements in the quality of the image with each bump in scanning resolution 2400spi, 3200spi, 4800spi, until 9600spi, at which point the scanner was running interpolation of the data and the image quality suffered. This observation supported the common wisdom to scan at the maximum optical resolution the scanner could capture.

I made samples to illustrate the progressive improvements in scanner resolution by printing 6" x 24" strips of the image one above the other. The steady improvement was easy to see even for individuals that had not previously been exposed to the concepts. I routinely share these prints with my students to let them draw their own conclusions.

I then ran tests to see the effect of sharpening on each of the files and concluded, in short, (similar to what was posted by another user earlier in this thread) that one needs to approach sharpening differently with a flatbed than with a drum scan. The data has a different look and feel.

Thanks all. I've got to run. I'll try and write more when I have time.

mandoman7

9-Feb-2009, 11:23

Personally, I'm not all the motivated about scanning 35mm or 120 negs. This is, after all, a large format forum. I have tons of old slides and negs, but the calls are not frequent enough to warrant big expenditures. Film flatness and other factors make it something of a different animal for me. Commercially, the digital alternative has been established over those two formats in my workflow.

I'm interested in a reasonable cost way of getting LF negs into the computer. I don't want to drive for an hour, ship back and forth, call 5 times, or alternatively, spend thousands on something that may be beyond what I need.

Here's a question: How many LF shooters who have a drum scanner can say that they've gotten their return on the investment with print sales? If you're a name guy who's writing articles for publications then, of course, the rationale is clearly in place. If you're an MD who's dabbling in LF, then going top notch with your equipment also fits the paradigm. When you read some publications, by the way, there doesn't seem to be a reality beyond those two perspectives. That's their income base, I guess.

Passing acknowledgement has been given for people doing what works for them, but I would give it a bigger priority. For my money, its about getting work done and getting it out there. Its not about having sharper technology than your buddy who's also not selling or showing work.

I would really like to see a display of enlargements by different people working with different scanners to really see how people are using their tools. Back in the darkroom days it wasn't the guys with the fanciest darkrooms that were putting out the best work. It was the dedicated guys who were making their stuff work for them.

JY

Keith S. Walklet

9-Feb-2009, 20:25

Agreed JY.

I used the 35mm chip for my tests so that I could add the Nikon 8000 to the mix of scanners tested since it was considered an excellent dedicated film scanner, and consistently rated higher than the flatbeds. I'm doing the next round with the medium format for the same reason, so that I can include the Anti Newton holder to ascertain what trade-offs exist for that option.

My first round of tests were done using the standard Epson film holder. This round of tests will include wet-mounted scans.

With regard to the spi, the drums have the capacity to achieve higher resolution (reputed to be as much as 10,000spi) but the recommended scans typically seem to be done at 5000spi for 35mm and 67cm, and 2000spi for 4x5, with the reasoning being that anything beyond that was not contributing to improvement of the final output.

So, I am comparing a 5000spi scan with the highest optical sample (regardless of what that resolution actually is) I can obtain from the other three devices (4800spi with 4870, 6400spi w/V750, 4000spi with the Nikon).

On a final note, since this thread began with Leigh's announcement that the V750 had been added to what is a really interesting comparative tool, my own tests show the V750 does a much better job with the darker tones than the 4870. That observation is borne out in the shadow portion of Leigh's comparison, which illustrates the much more detail and smoother data in the lower tonal range.

aphexafx

10-Feb-2009, 02:59

Keith, I have to congratulate you on your dedication to all of this. I, for one, am extremely interested in your wet mount test results, especially if you will prepare comparison images to view.

Of course a drum scanner will be able to pull more (substantially more) available information out of a piece of film. But I am mostly interested in what you will be able to pull with these lesser scanners - more so since you are going to wet mount the source. It will be interesting to finally compare sharpness and tonality from these scanners using a wet-mounted source, with the focus optimized.

Please proceed!

kurthbousman

10-Feb-2009, 09:28

Well , now that I've read thru all of the pontificating and since my pg 1 comment drew so much of said type of commentaries , there are a few points . Make an analogy with printing . I always print at 720 ppi . Why ? Because if I'm not looking at the print with a loupe I can't see a difference , and because I use half as much ink or a quarter as much ink depending . So then it becomes an "economic" decision. I sell prints . This isn't a hobby. I sell my prints for $250 each which means I'm not getting rich and it also means I have to watch my capital investments esp. in equipment. The v700 allowed me to access my archived images in all formats for a minimum investment and the results have been acceptable enough where , w/o looking at the prints with a loupe , I don't see a difference at a normal viewing distance. I'd love to own a Creo but at 3-5 grand used and outdated software ,it made the decision to go for the v700 simple. Also I don't like working with chemicals so that even made the choice between the v750 and v700 simple much less a drum scanner where the time , expense , difficulty and mess are simply not worth the difference in quality. And that's what I see on the scanner comparison chart too. By the way , I think that the v700 files can be sharpened better with a stepped sharpening routine , at least that's my experience. I guess it comes down to if you want to be an artist or a technician . I've been both , spending the first half of my life as a research engineer for univ. of texas . Now I'm an artist and I've learned it's all about what works and the ease of arriving at that point.
-you can see my art and photos at galeria san miguel on the jardin and ..
www.kurthbousman.com
www.hcggallery.com

Lenny Eiger

10-Feb-2009, 10:13

Now I'm an artist and I've learned it's all about what works and the ease of arriving at that point.

I went and looked at your sites. I don't think it matters what scanner you use. I think you ought to be working with a digital camera, as it would be even less expensive and less hassle to get what you want... I would say that your work isn't traditional photographic work. It doesn't look like Paul Caponigro's work, for example. You don't depend on subtle tonalities, it isn't crucial that you have everything sharp, lots of depth of field, or that you can hold everything together to go larger.

There is work that is appropriate for higher end equipment and work that isn't. It isn't a value judgement. It's just different. There is a purpose for every tool, and you clearly don't need a drum scanner. Other folks work in a different style, especially a lot of people who take the trouble to lug around a view camera, and their work does. You can't dismiss either piece of equipment outright (except for yourself).

It depends on what you want to accomplish.

Lenny

mandoman7

10-Feb-2009, 11:02

On a final note, since this thread began with Leigh's announcement that the V750 had been added to what is a really interesting comparative tool, my own tests show the V750 does a much better job with the darker tones than the 4870. That observation is borne out in the shadow portion of Leigh's comparison, which illustrates the much more detail and smoother data in the lower tonal range.

This may be late in the discussion, but do we know what efforts were made to adjust the film to the proper height in those tests? If he was using the standard holders without testing for right height then his results are not that reliable. My first sense in looking at the images was that that was possibly an issue.

JY

sanking

10-Feb-2009, 11:43

I don't recall that information being given for the V750 or any of the flatbeds that use non-focusing lenses. Certainly if it were done for one of the scanners and not the others the comparison would be unfair.

My own take is that the results of the V750 compared to the those of the other scanners tested in the comparison are pretty consistent with what I would have expected from my own testing.

Sandy King

This may be late in the discussion, but do we know what efforts were made to adjust the film to the proper height in those tests? If he was using the standard holders without testing for right height then his results are not that reliable. My first sense in looking at the images was that that was possibly an issue.

JY

harrykauf

10-Feb-2009, 14:26

I would like to add that with a flatbed like the V750 you have the option of doing
multipass scans to increase detail in dense areas. Maybe it would be interesting
to add a multipass scan to those comparisons.

I had some good results and I also use a technique in Lab to reduce the luma noise
that you get when you scan dense areas. (I am not talking about blurring ab to
remove chroma noise)
The V750 generates a per pixel noise in dark areas (or bright in negatives)
that is independent of the actual film grain. Getting rid of it helps a lot.

All this with careful post can increase the quality a lot in terms of shadow detail.

Here is an example:
top row multipass from left to right. raw scan, process steps, final
bottom row the same processing on a single pass scan.

http://www.sooshee.com/tmp/eyes02.jpg

here the same image but with worst and best next to each other for better comparison.
the left is what you get by default the right is what you can actually achive.

http://www.sooshee.com/tmp/eyes03.jpg

another:
A raw
B chroma blur
C classic destructive method for luma noise
D my non destructive method
http://www.sooshee.com/tmp/abney/noiseABCD2.jpg

I am in the UK so its not really practical for me to scan the slide from the comparison
chart but if somebody could send me a single and multipass raw I could
do the processing.

mandoman7

10-Feb-2009, 16:22

... Certainly if it were done for one of the scanners and not the others the comparison would be unfair...

Sandy King

You mean the tests should stay with the approach of not using the machine to its full potential?

JY

jb7

10-Feb-2009, 16:40

D my non destructive method
http://www.sooshee.com/tmp/abney/noiseABCD2.jpg

They look like good results you're getting there-
Have you described your method somewhere?

I don't know much about lab, but it might be time to start learning-

This thread couldn't have come at a better time,
I've just got a V750, but haven't used it yet-
I'm learning a lot-

I'm particularly interested in hearing about how to best optimize both the hardware and the software,
so testing done for that purpose will be far more useful than an assessment of out of the box performance.

thanks for all the insights-

j

Michael Mutmansky

10-Feb-2009, 16:42

You mean the tests should stay with the approach of not using the machine to its full potential?

JY

Exactly. The higher end scanners can greatly surpass the 2400 SPI limit for the comparison. When the comparison was begun, I suggested that the scans should be made at 4800 because at 2400, the scan is just about exactly playing into the real performance of the typical flatbed scanners out there at the time (Epson 4970, etc.) and is not really allowing the better scanners to show why/how they are better.

In the end, the comparison is rife with operator error, variable scanning conditions, etc. that makes it much less than a scientific comparison. It it very useful, nonetheless.

Also, there was originally a b&w scan going around as well. This would be easier to see actual sharpness differences than a chrome (due to silver grain rather than dye clouds, for one), but unfortunately, that film was lost in the Post from m to Leigh back near the beginning of the process, so we were forced to stick to the chrome after that.

If you are suggesting that the V750 will show an improvement, I seriously doubt that, as the settings for the comparison limit the resolution anyway. It won't improve shadow density for sure, and whatever resolution it may gain through the coated/high-rez optics will be lost to the sampling limit of the comparison.

---Michael

sanking

10-Feb-2009, 16:43

mandoman7

10-Feb-2009, 16:59

I guess you don't understand the difference between using fair and objective standards for comparison and using the machines to their full potential.

I will try to explain it to you. Let' s assume that the tests for the other non-focusing standards did not include, 1) adjusting for best point of focus, and 2) fluid mounting, and then the test for the V750 was posted and it included both. Would that be a fair comparison?

The site is a comparison of scanners, not a treatise on how to use any of the scanners to their full potential.

Sandy King

Yes I would admit that my understanding is limited. I can't understand the benefit of a test on a machine that wouldn't incorporate the techniques that the diligent worker would naturally employ. I can certainly understand, however, that each machine should be tested in the same way, Sandy, even if there are compromises. I am stupid but I thought I was hiding it pretty well...

My original question was really about whether or not the 2 concerns were addressed in the comparison tests. I guess the answer is no.

JY

Paul Kierstead

10-Feb-2009, 17:59

When the comparison was begun, I suggested that the scans should be made at 4800 because at 2400, the scan is just about exactly playing into the real performance of the typical flatbed scanners out there at the time (Epson 4970, etc.) and is not really allowing the better scanners to show why/how they are better.

In defense of 2400 spi, if that is the typical required resolution then the ability to do higher resolution is not better (in the larger sense of the scanner as a whole), just higher; it could only be better if it served some purpose. The rare outlier where much higher resolution is required should not be the determining criteria. In any case it is extremely clear from the scans that those who perform better at 4800 also perform better -- and significantly so -- at 2400. If this were not the case then their "better" resolution at 4800 would be rather suspect, since things such as resolution should taper off by a curve, not a wall.

sanking

10-Feb-2009, 18:16

JY,

First, I thought my original response addressed both of your points.

Second, given your last response we don't appear in disagreement about anything.

Third, any person who tells me that he is stupid but thought he was hiding it pretty well is probably a really cunning and smart person. Stupid peole don't know how to communicate in that way, IMHO.

Fourth, I hope you find a way to maximize the potential of your V750 and sell a lot of prints.

Sandy King

I am stupid but I thought I was hiding it pretty well...

My original question was really about whether or not the 2 concerns were addressed in the comparison tests. I guess the answer is no.

JY

sanking

10-Feb-2009, 18:28

You make a good point about 2400 spi, but only as it pertains to LF. I guess the premise was reasonable since this is a LF forum and in point of fact one finds very little reason to scan LF beyond 2400 spi.

However, for a real comparison I would say, just let the big dogs do their thing. I really would just like to look at the maximum potential of a scanner, without regard to spi limitation or output type. Because then we can interpret the results for all formats. Fact is, many of use here are not only LF photographers, but photgraphers who use a variety of other formats.

Sandy King

In defense of 2400 spi, if that is the typical required resolution then the ability to do higher resolution is not better (in the larger sense of the scanner as a whole), just higher; it could only be better if it served some purpose. The rare outlier where much higher resolution is required should not be the determining criteria. In any case it is extremely clear from the scans that those who perform better at 4800 also perform better -- and significantly so -- at 2400. If this were not the case then their "better" resolution at 4800 would be rather suspect, since things such as resolution should taper off by a curve, not a wall.

harrykauf

10-Feb-2009, 19:40

I guess Sandy is right. I dont have any experience with drum scanners but I read
about the different options you have with aperture settings on a drum scanner and
how that can change the appearance of the grain etc. So in a sense even the drum
scans could be tweaked with different settings depending on the preference of the
operator.
For example the ICG 350i scans are extremely sharp to the point that they
almost start looking like a dithered 8bit GIF.
I was also surprised by the big differences in the shadow areas. From the many
discussions about drum vs. flatbed I took it as a fact that drum scanners are
vastly superior and worlds apart from flatbeds.
But to me only the Optronics Colorgetter Falcon looks impressive. The Tango
and Howtek 7500 on the other hand look rubbish. The Tango does get
*something* from the dark areas but I am not sure I would want that clipped
mess in my scan.
From the cheap Flatbeds the Artixscan M1 looks very nice to me. Smooth tonality
down to the deepest shadows and very consistent (obviously not as sharp).

Can anyone with drum scan experience explain how to interpret these examples?
The Howtek 7500 even has artifacts that look like stuck hotpixels on a CCD.

Joseph (jb7): I will write an explanation and post it tomorrow. Its very easy.

aphexafx

10-Feb-2009, 19:59

Another thought is that this pretty much IS a flatbed vs. drum scanner comparison going on and so each flatbed should be used to its full potential. I really want to see the best that each flatbed can do and I am not personally interested in fair practices used between them. Mutli-pass and super sampling included.

Don Hutton

10-Feb-2009, 20:16

Matt

I've seen plenty of very sub-par drum scans...

sanking

10-Feb-2009, 20:18

Point that Michael Mutmansky made earlier.

Let's strip away the restraints and let the big boys do what they can do. And let's have a look at the raw scan , before someone presents it through the prism of a print on paper.

We could do that within the parameters of the scanner comparison on LF Forum, if we don't limit sample resolution.

Sandy King

Another thought is that this pretty much IS a flatbed vs. drum scanner comparison going on and so each flatbed should be used to its full potential. I really want to see the best that each flatbed can do and I am not personally interested in fair practices used between them. Mutli-pass and super sampling included.

Paul Kierstead

10-Feb-2009, 20:22

Yeah, but you just know it would turn into the kind of pixel peeping that digital is plagued by, where the end goal gets totally lost. Mind you, it would still be interesting.

Michael Mutmansky

10-Feb-2009, 21:00

The Falcon scans are mine, and from a time when I had just gotten the scanner. Since then, I've learned to get sharper scans out it it through a little defocusing (I presume the drum is a little out of spec, or the focus assembly needs a little adjustment). I won't comment on the other scans specifically, since they aren't mine.

As I recall, since this wasn't scanned at the maximum setting, I had to decide whether to scan at a larger aperture and/or defocus a little. I's been too long to recell exactly what I did, but I think I defocused a little to provide a smoother scan with less grain in the final scan. That compromises the sharpness a little in favor of a smoothness in the image. For B&W scans, I prefer to see the grain mostly, so I favor sharpness (grain imaging) over smoothness. Otherwise, I wouldn't be shooting TXT all the time...

However, the other points (about clipping and other serious artifacts in the shadow zones) that seem to show up on some of the scans are mostly a case of taking care when setting the B&W points on the scan to ensure that absolutely no clipping is occurring. I suppose on some of the drums it may be an issue of a lower DMAX capability, but if the scan were set correctly, the black areas should still ultimately be black, and they don't appear to be that way on many of the scans.

The M1 IS a very nice scanner. I have one, and have printed images from 4x5 film up to about 80" long with it. They hold up pretty darn well considering the reproduction ratio. I think it will beat the V750 in most respects, especially considering it is much easier to wet mount on it (and wet mounting produces MUCH better scans).

But to me only the Optronics Colorgetter Falcon looks impressive. The Tango
and Howtek 7500 on the other hand look rubbish. The Tango does get
*something* from the dark areas but I am not sure I would want that clipped
mess in my scan.
From the cheap Flatbeds the Artixscan M1 looks very nice to me. Smooth tonality
down to the deepest shadows and very consistent (obviously not as sharp).

Can anyone with drum scan experience explain how to interpret these examples?
The Howtek 7500 even has artifacts that look like stuck hotpixels on a CCD.

Joseph (jb7): I will write an explanation and post it tomorrow. Its very easy.

Michael Mutmansky

10-Feb-2009, 21:13

I've had large portions of several 4x5's scanned at 8000 SPI on the Aztek drum scanner. The files were on the order of 2+ gig. The resultant images were enlarged 75x to 100x and the darn things looked great. I was originally planning to shoot the subjects with an 8x10 (which would have produced a MUCH better end result), but access to shoot the subjects became an issue, so I was 'stuck' with the 4x5 images I had originally shot.

Regardless, the scans were fantastic, and they completely held all of the information in the film, as they were resolving the grain. You really can't get much better than that.

The files ended up being in the 8+ gig range once I had layers going. Thank goodness for the 16 gig capability of the Mac Pros.

My point is that as soon as you start to crop, 2400 is a bit meager for scans that need a decent size final result (say, 16x20 or so). As it is, we know that the difference between the consumer flatbeds and a drum scan or high end flatbed is really visible at 4x, and is visible but not meaningful at 3x. Whether it's meaningful at 4x is up to debate.

In defense of 2400 spi, if that is the typical required resolution then the ability to do higher resolution is not better (in the larger sense of the scanner as a whole), just higher; it could only be better if it served some purpose. The rare outlier where much higher resolution is required should not be the determining criteria. In any case it is extremely clear from the scans that those who perform better at 4800 also perform better -- and significantly so -- at 2400. If this were not the case then their "better" resolution at 4800 would be rather suspect, since things such as resolution should taper off by a curve, not a wall.

harrykauf

11-Feb-2009, 03:55

Thanks for the explanation, Michael.

Paul Kierstead

11-Feb-2009, 07:20

I've had large portions of several 4x5's scanned at 8000 SPI on the Aztek drum scanner. The files were on the order of 2+ gig. The resultant images were enlarged 75x to 100x and the darn things looked great.

I think you'll agree: that is not representative of normal use. Or even a deviation or two from it; that is an outlier. It is an interesting one (and I've love to see the monster print), but is rare.

My point is that as soon as you start to crop, 2400 is a bit meager for scans that need a decent size final result (say, 16x20 or so).

Assuming 300 dpi output, 2400 spi will let a 2"x2.5" neg print at 16"x20". That is a 1/4 (using 1/4 of the original neg) in 4x5. If your cropping much more then that, you probably should have used a different lens or MF, because you're likely to get some issues outside of scanning ones.

As it is, we know that the difference between the consumer flatbeds and a drum scan or high end flatbed is really visible at 4x, and is visible but not meaningful at 3x. Whether it's meaningful at 4x is up to debate.

I object to tossing "high end flat bed" and "drum scan" into the same bin. The samples would tend to strongly differentiate them. And if we all agreed that it was really visible at 4x, there would be about 1/10 the messages on the topic :)

The problem with "let the dogs loose" is that it will, indeed, answer "the question" of which scanner can scan with the absolute most resolution and DMAX. The problem is that "the question" isn't terribly relevant or useful in most cases. What I like about the current comparison is that it answers a much more relevant question w.r.t. to common maximum print sizes (basically what you could have printed on something like a Epson 9800). Actually, I also like that they didn't wet mount etc. the flatbeds to get "the best" out of them; I'd like to see what they can do under workaday conditions. We all know (or should know) that most of those samples could be improved if need be.

One of the things I like about LF shooters is that they tend to be pragmatic in their approach to achieving output (well, outside of the whole huge camera thing).

I am staying entirely in the realm of LF here. I use a Nikon 5000 for 35mm and wouldn't dream of using my epson scanner for that. I previously used a Nikon 8000 for MF before I gave it up.

Michael Mutmansky

11-Feb-2009, 08:57

Paul,

I was trying to represent that there are other purposes to scanning other than the traditional full-frame 4x enlargement that most people are thinking of when this debate comes up. I know that my examples are not typical, but they are very representative of things that are being done wither smaller portions of film on the scanners.

I print at 360 PPI so I think in those terms. Regardless, it's painfully obvious at 6.6X (for 360 PPI) or even more so at 8X (for 300 PPI) that the performance of the consumer scanners has been left in the dust by the better scanners. Anyone who does not see the differences at that point are not looking with a genuinely critical eye.

Whether the difference in performance is meaningful or of value is wholly the decision of the photographer and what then demand in their imagery.

So while 2400 is just above the performance of all the consumer flatbeds, it is well below the performance of the 'professional' products. In my mind, this stacks the deck in favor of the consumer products when the differences are really considerably greater that is percieved in these comparisons.

There really won't be much of a debate if the comparison were at a higher resolution. There also wouldn't be much of a debate if resolution targets and step tablets were employes as well, because that kind of scientific approach eliminates most of the variability. ;-)

---Michael

Paul Kierstead

11-Feb-2009, 09:26

There really won't be much of a debate if the comparison were at a higher resolution.

Actually, my whole point was that there is a debate; that debate about whether higher resolution is all that meaningful. Clearly it sometimes is, but sending out a neg for a drum scan once a year is vastly different then buying a scanner for everyday use. I don't see how a "which scanner is best regardless of whether you need its capabilities or not" debate is useful. The other part of the debate is about how those capabilities translate into prints. As to a debate as to which is sharper at a very very fine level, anyone with eyes can tell that the drum scan is sharper. The question is where does that start to matter.

As I illustrated, 2400 spi will let you crop to 1/4 of a 4x5 neg and still achieve your 16x20 output at 300 dpi. 360 dpi would not be much different. I think the crop thing is a distraction; unless you severely crop, it doesn't make much difference, and if you are severely cropping then we aren't really talking LF anymore.

Lenny Eiger

11-Feb-2009, 10:25

Actually, my whole point was that there is a debate; that debate about whether higher resolution is all that meaningful. Clearly it sometimes is, but sending out a neg for a drum scan once a year is vastly different then buying a scanner for everyday use.

The "meaningful" semantic just means that it is a personal value. We all have our own ideas of what we want a print to look like. I think everyone who wants to understand where the lines are ought to send a piece of film to a serious scanner operator, not a lab or NancyScans, or scans from India. Pay the $100-$200 to get a great scan, then they can see for themselves.

There are endless conversations about resolution. Resolution is only part of the picture. We aren't shooting test targets for our images. One is not going to get the answer without trying it, or at least looking at someone's work, in person, who has (and it would help if this person was an excellent printer in the same style).

I don't see how a "which scanner is best regardless of whether you need its capabilities or not" debate is useful. The other part of the debate is about how those capabilities translate into prints.

Ok, so you want to know where the base line is. Sounds reasonable. But can you tell me when a Sironar S lens is worth it? How many of us have a lens like this, regardless of whether we need it every time for "everyday use"? How many of us want a Leica lens for smaller formats, or a lens like a Planar 80, or some of the Mamiya 7 lenses? For that matter, can you tell me when a view camera is "necessary". For some reason, we will all go out and get a beautifully made, exquisite, inspirational and expensive piece of equipment for a camera and lenses, and yet want to buy a, at best, mediocre scanner and "get it work". I do appreciate that finances comes into it... especially after getting that fancy camera. Some of have Ebony's and some Tachikara's but we all seem to get absolutely the best one we can afford.

The game has changed. If one wants to print digitally, which IMO has great benefits, then there is that one more piece of equipment required to make it all work. It is, by nature, part of the capture step. It's as important as film choice, developer choice, and the camera and lenses that one chooses. Any weak link in any part of this chain will have an effect.

Personally, I am far more concerned with the sensitivity of the scanning mechanism than I am with absolute sharpness. (Altho' the 750 is way below my idea what what minimal sharpness is.) I am currently running tests to see how much midtone separation I can get from different films and developers. I usually print over 720 for my own work as I can see the difference in black and white...with b&w inks. And it "means" something to me.

Lenny

Paul Kierstead

11-Feb-2009, 10:47

Some of have Ebony's and some Tachikara's but we all seem to get absolutely the best one we can afford.

Of course we don't. I've seen many a photographer driving a nice car who could have easily driven a functional cheaper one and then owned a "better" camera. Or could have eaten out less.

Look, I'm not trying to beat some stupid semantic drum here, or make some insane universal value judgment. I'm trying to have a discussion about scanners with some boundaries. Surely you can see some kind of point in selecting equipment/process for a purpose and not just buying "the best" in all things, all the time? Where would the time be for shooting?

I understand we all have our requirements, and they all differ. However if we all have a discussion and don't express those requirements (in real terms, not "my requirement is the best possible", which would just result in not getting anything done) then the discussion is futile. If we only focus on the extreme cases, then the discussion completely ignores our own general requirements.

So, you're saying the 750 resolution is not good enough for an 8x10?

Lenny Eiger

11-Feb-2009, 11:44

Look, I'm not trying to beat some stupid semantic drum here, or make some insane universal value judgment. I'm trying to have a discussion about scanners with some boundaries. Surely you can see some kind of point in selecting equipment/process for a purpose and not just buying "the best" in all things, all the time? Where would the time be for shooting?

I don't disagree with you. I have often stated that one should use/purchase things based on purpose. However, I will add that talking about it, as we have done here back and forth for so long, hasn't yielded any clarity. Especially when we come to the "meaningful pixels" question. We just get more frustrated with other.

That's why I suggest everyone give both ways a try.

So, you're saying the 750 resolution is not good enough for an 8x10?

It's not good enough for me. I have tested it. The image that draws most people in, that is my biggest seller, works because the detail in the background keeps going and going, and creates a sense of a third dimension. I even had a guy who has a slight form of wandering eye - that does not see depth normally come in and when he saw my image, he apparently saw three-dimensionally for the first time in a very long while. He bought the print.

I always strive to create a print that evokes a three dimensional experience, so for me, there isn't much of a choice. I do realize that everyone wants to do something different...

Lenny

Paul Kierstead

11-Feb-2009, 12:08

To clarify, I meant an 8x10 print, from a 4x5 negative. You are saying it can't manage a 2x enlargement with resolution beyond what the eye can see?

Lenny Eiger

11-Feb-2009, 12:25

To clarify, I meant an 8x10 print, from a 4x5 negative. You are saying it can't manage a 2x enlargement with resolution beyond what the eye can see?

Oh, I think an 8x10 print would be fine from just about anything, 750 included. A 5 megapixel camera would also do just fine. My minimum target is a 16x20, and I want to have enough to do a 32x40 print.

Lenny

Paul Kierstead

11-Feb-2009, 13:17

Lenny Eiger

11-Feb-2009, 13:42

Ah, see, there is my point. You said previously "... the 750 is way below my idea what what minimal sharpness is.". Just add on for 16x20 @ 720 dpi, or 32x40 @ 720 dpi, then someone reading has *some* kind of frame of reference. They may not know what you consider good, but at least they know (ballpark wise) what kind of output you are judging "good" on. Otherwise, it is just a condemnation of the scanner without parameters.

Point taken.

When it comes to Epson I am more likely to be "condemnational" without parameters. I'm very unhappy with them as a company. They have figured out a way to disallow any third party ink for the later models and that is going to put a lot of folks out of work. (And maybe mess up the really good b&w ink availability going forward.) Then I have about 10 other issues with them..... Good printers, awful company.

Lenny

jvuokko

11-Feb-2009, 14:37

I've had large portions of several 4x5's scanned at 8000 SPI on the Aztek drum scanner. The files were on the order of 2+ gig. The resultant images were enlarged 75x to 100x and the darn things looked great. I was originally planning to shoot the subjects with an 8x10 (which would have produced a MUCH better end result), but access to shoot the subjects became an issue, so I was 'stuck' with the 4x5 images I had originally shot.

Regardless, the scans were fantastic, and they completely held all of the information in the film, as they were resolving the grain. You really can't get much better than that.

Here is the biggest difference with flatbeds and film scanners (and high end drums): They will see the grain.

Flatbets does not see any real grain. Only noise caused by grain aliasing.

In LF work that does not matter much, except often you can get grainy scans from negative where scanner should not resolve any grain. In small format, especially 35mm this means a lot, because the grain pattern is usually essential for the final print. If it cannot be reproduced by scanning, then scanned and printed picture is nonsense compared to real darkroom print.

Another often forgot advantage of drum scanners is the flatness of the film. There is no curvature, so everything is on the focus. Again, usually not a big deal with LF but smaller formats... From 6x6cm it's hard to get scan with flatbed where everything is on the focus. With 35mm it goes even harder.

Svitantti

11-Feb-2009, 14:55

As I quickly read about what was going on here, a couple notes came in my mind...

- Generally about this comparison I would say that the images, scanning and post processing methods should be equal (as much as possible) in other terms than the variable that is measured/compared. When I'm looking at the images I see that the color balances and contrasts are quite random and I think this disracts the comparison quite much.

About the latter discussion concerning V700 etc:

- The comparison for a drum scanner with full resolution and a V750 with 1200 dpi is not fair in any way. A 3200 dpi scan or 6400 with formats up to medium would much better represent the capabilities of such flatbed scanners. The difference between 3200 and 6400 is not too big anyway as far as I've seen with V700.

- Scanning LF films usually doesn't need the full resolution you can get from a scanner, because the original is so big and the files will grow, BUT if you are scanning for large prints, you will naturally use whatever you get out of it and buy a better computer if memory is a problem.
Even though the lenses might not reach as big resolution as the scanner can achieve this way, people might still want to scan the film as film is (meaning getting the grain and other textures to look as natural as possible). This is where the difference often appears when comparing a real film scanner to a flatbed etc...

About the V700 and V750:
The HR-lense is indeed used whenever you scan film with a holder (up to 5x7). There is a slight confusion even on the Epson homepage in one point, but if you read a bit further you see this is the only way it is meant. When film is in a holder, a bit higher than the glass surface, the HR-lense is used because it focuses to about correct height.
The height of the holder is quite important if you are scanning for prints and trying to get out everything you can. The improvement was clear when I tested my V700. Here are samples:
http://www.students.tut.fi/~hannine7/alin.jpg (holder at the bottom position)
http://www.students.tut.fi/~hannine7/teipil.jpg (holder at the highest positin)
NOTE: the correct height might differ between actual machines!

One possible difference between V700 and V750 is the flare problem for V700. I think the V750 has some kind of a flare-resistant coating that is missing from V700. I've noticed the flare sometimes is a real problem if you are critical and at least when trying to get some more stuff out of the shadow areas. I dont know how much difference would the V750 actually make though.

sanking

11-Feb-2009, 15:07

You are absolutely correct about the color balance and contrast in the comparisons. It is not consistent and this to some extent detracts from the value of the comparison. I accept that the color problem is one that would be difficult to resolve. Contrast, however, is another matter. We all know from practical experience that high contrast images look sharper than low contrast images and that to compare lenses and camea systems we need to normalize to the extent possible contrast. Yet, on the comparison site one sees some rather significant difference in contrast between various scanners. It seems to me that with a step wedge included in the scans one could have then adjusted all of the comparisons quite easily to the same contrast.

Sandy King

As I quickly read about what was going on here, a couple notes came in my mind...

- Generally about this comparison I would say that the images, scanning and post processing methods should be equal (as much as possible) in other terms than the variable that is measured/compared. When I'm looking at the images I see that the color balances and contrasts are quite random and I think this disracts the comparison quite much.

John Whitley

11-Feb-2009, 15:20

Another often forgot advantage of drum scanners is the flatness of the film.

It seems that this is really an advantage of any scanner for which wet-mounting to a glass or acrylic surface is used, whether drum or flatbed. Naturally, to take full advantage of that the plane/line of focus must be correctly positioned via some means (scanner lens focus, etc.) Speaking just to control of focus, are there other advantages of the drum scanner design?

Svitantti

11-Feb-2009, 15:44

I think the color balance and contrast could be just visually matched to achieve somewhat comparable results for the noise levels etc. Of course to do a really scientific test, some other method would be better.

I've never noticed problems coming from curved film, but I dont print from scans, I do that it in the darkroom. I scan only for web photos, but I observe the scans quite critically to see what can I get in the darkroom and I think a good resolution helps making good-looking web photos too, even though much of the resolution is wasted.

I think the results are easily acceptable even with the Epson holders without special care of film flatness. Even V700 (which I guess is one of the best regular film scanning flatbeds) is soft whatever you do. Film flatness would be more critical when there actually was sharp areas and others that were blurred (clearly misfocused).

I am no expert on drum scanners, but I think the advantages appear much also when comparing noise to more basic scanners. Less noise means better shadow detail. The (real) resolution also is better, but this is probably because the drum scanners are expensive and well made, with good optics etc. (and not just because they are drum scanners).

sanking

11-Feb-2009, 16:30

Compared to any consumer flatbed drum scanners are incredibly well made and precise, as are the high end flatbeds like Cezanne, Fuji and EverSmart. If you have ever worked with either a drum or high end flatbed you immediately appreciate the precision.

BTW, drum scanners do not use lenses. Rather, they make a direct sample of the area being scanner (or perhaps thousands of samples). This bypasses problems introduced by lenses.

However, the high end flatbeds are very good scanners. I have had the opportunity to compare scans done on a number of drums scanners and my EverSmart Pro flatbed, and the EverSmart compares very favorably to drum scans done at 4000spi to 5000 spi, even though its optical resolution is only 3175 spi. One would have to make a huge print to see any difference.

Sandy King

I am no expert on drum scanners, but I think the advantages appear much also when comparing noise to more basic scanners. Less noise means better shadow detail. The (real) resolution also is better, but this is probably because the drum scanners are expensive and well made, with good optics etc. (and not just because they are drum scanners).

harrykauf

11-Feb-2009, 16:34

Just a quick explanation of the noise removal for the V750 scans.
Since the noise has mainly green and magenta components I use the
a channel in Lab on top of the L channel in hard light mode.
Here you can see the reason why it works:

http://www.sooshee.com/tmp/abney/noise_big.jpg

the a channel stores the green/magenta values of an image (green in dark,
magenta in bright, neutral is in the middle)
Since the noise is per pixel you get an isolated version of the noise without
the luma component, the actual detail of the image.
So you use the reversed version of the chroma noise to fill the "gaps" in the
Lightness channel without affecting the image detail much.

The easiest way to do that is just to copy the L channel and the a into a
new grayscale file, combine them in hard light mode and copy the result
back into the L channel.

Keefe Borden

11-Feb-2009, 21:48

This has been an excellent discussion about scanning even if I don't understand everything here and even if not everyone agrees on the results as presented. There are a couple of questions that (as far as I can tell) have never been addressed. First, is there a point at which you get diminishing returns from a given film? In other words, is there a point at which film simply cannot provide additional detail regardless of the quality of the scanner? If so, does anyone have an opinion about where that point starts?

Here's a related question that drives at the same point: if I start with a 6 X 7 negative and scan at 4,620 spi, I will get a digital file of approximately 10,000 X 12,550 pixels. If I take a 4 X 5 negative and scan at 2,515 spi, I will get a digital file of approximately the same dimensions. (These are approximations, by the way). Assuming the lenses used are of equal quality and all else is held equal, will the print from the 6 X 7 yield the same detail as a print from the 4 X 5 negative?

I can accept that film scanned at 20 spi probably gives twice the detail scanned at 10spi and that 40 spi probably provides twice the detail of film scanned at 20 spi. But does 4,000 spi give twice the detail of 2,000 spi? Does 6,000 spi yield twice the detail of 3,000 spi?

Thanks in advance for all insight.
Best, Keefe.

sanking

11-Feb-2009, 22:24

Good questions.

With regard to the first question, “is there a point at which you get diminishing returns from a given film? In other words, is there a point at which film simply cannot provide additional detail regardless of the quality of the scanner?”

My opinion on this is that the camera/lens systes normally provides the limit to detail. Very simple concept in my opinion, -- if the detail is not on the negative it does not matter what kind of scanner you use, you can not pull detail out if there is none there. If in doubt, look at the detail on the negative with a microscope at 30X-40X.

Work backward to determine the limits of the scan. If you determine that your camera system can only provide a maximum of 60 l/mm (which is extremely high for 4X5), then there would never be a need to scan at more than 3000 spi. In fact, most 4X5 negatives don’t have even half that amount of equivalent detail.

Basically, if you scan at a resolution beyond the limit of the detail in the film you get nothing in return but larger file size. But you can brag about the really huge file size.

Sandy King

Here's a related question that drives at the same point: if I start with a 6 X 7 negative and scan at 4,620 spi, I will get a digital file of approximately 10,000 X 12,550 pixels. If I take a 4 X 5 negative and scan at 2,515 spi, I will get a digital file of approximately the same dimensions. (These are approximations, by the way). Assuming the lenses used are of equal quality and all else is held equal, will the print from the 6 X 7 yield the same detail as a print from the 4 X 5 negative?

I can accept that film scanned at 20 spi probably gives twice the detail scanned at 10spi and that 40 spi probably provides twice the detail of film scanned at 20 spi. But does 4,000 spi give twice the detail of 2,000 spi? Does 6,000 spi yield twice the detail of 3,000 spi?

Thanks in advance for all insight.
Best, Keefe.

This has been an excellent discussion about scanning even if I don't understand everything here and even if not everyone agrees on the results as presented. There are a couple of questions that (as far as I can tell) have never been addressed. First, is there a point at which you get diminishing returns from a given film? In other words, is there a point at which film simply cannot provide additional detail regardless of the quality of the scanner? If so, does anyone have an opinion about where that point starts?

Here's a related question that drives at the same point: if I start with a 6 X 7 negative and scan at 4,620 spi, I will get a digital file of approximately 10,000 X 12,550 pixels. If I take a 4 X 5 negative and scan at 2,515 spi, I will get a digital file of approximately the same dimensions. (These are approximations, by the way). Assuming the lenses used are of equal quality and all else is held equal, will the print from the 6 X 7 yield the same detail as a print from the 4 X 5 negative?

I can accept that film scanned at 20 spi probably gives twice the detail scanned at 10spi and that 40 spi probably provides twice the detail of film scanned at 20 spi. But does 4,000 spi give twice the detail of 2,000 spi? Does 6,000 spi yield twice the detail of 3,000 spi?

Thanks in advance for all insight.
Best, Keefe.

jb7

12-Feb-2009, 05:06

Thanks Harry-
must give this one a go-

j

Just a quick explanation of the noise removal for the V750 scans.
Since the noise has mainly green and magenta components I use the
a channel in Lab on top of the L channel in hard light mode.
Here you can see the reason why it works:

http://www.sooshee.com/tmp/abney/noise_big.jpg

the a channel stores the green/magenta values of an image (green in dark,
magenta in bright, neutral is in the middle)
Since the noise is per pixel you get an isolated version of the noise without
the luma component, the actual detail of the image.
So you use the reversed version of the chroma noise to fill the "gaps" in the
Lightness channel without affecting the image detail much.

The easiest way to do that is just to copy the L channel and the a into a
new grayscale file, combine them in hard light mode and copy the result
back into the L channel.

Svitantti

12-Feb-2009, 08:24

“is there a point at which you get diminishing returns from a given film? In other words, is there a point at which film simply cannot provide additional detail regardless of the quality of the scanner?”

Depends a lot, do you mean only the lenses resolution by this "detail". I guess this is what Sandy already answered.
However, we often want the scans not only to record the properties of the camera system (the lens), but also something that is considered properties of the film itself.

... and this is what people often forget or ignore when talking about scanning resolution.

The film consists of grain and even the faster films have also smaller grains among the larger ones. It is probably not critical to have the smallest grains of a pushed 400 ASA film scanned, but when making a large print out of a film image, it could be also important to reproduce the real grain as well as possible.
At least I would want to do that rather than alter the image during scanning process because I would just want to get the details recorded by the lens.

sanking

12-Feb-2009, 09:07

There is an excellent article on this subject available as a .pdf document from http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/
"Film Grain, Resolution and Fundamental Film Particles "(PDF)
Tim Vitale, April 2007

What most people call film grain is is actually accumulation of grain particles and these accumulations vary a great deal in size, from what we can see with a good scanner or microscope to smaller particles that no scanner could capture. So no matter how much resolution is applied it is impossible to capture the smallest grain particles. Vitale points out in the article that the size of film gain is much larger than the ability of film to resolve detail of a specific size, and from this suggests that film grain and the ability to resolve detail are different properties.

Sandy King

[I]
... and this is what people often forget or ignore when talking about scanning resolution.

The film consists of grain and even the faster films have also smaller grains among the larger ones. It is probably not critical to have the smallest grains of a pushed 400 ASA film scanned, but when making a large print out of a film image, it could be also important to reproduce the real grain as well as possible.
At least I would want to do that rather than alter the image during scanning process because I would just want to get the details recorded by the lens.

Svitantti

12-Feb-2009, 09:48

Oh this is interesting... I agree, you can almost endlessly increase the resolution and still get something new.

Still to some extend I say you also want to scan some of the grain and not only what optics draw on the film. I know the "grain" is actually accumulation of grains, but thats just what people call grain. So we want to scan the largest grain groups to some level to make the texture of the photo look somewhat the same that a wet print would. At least many would.

I dont know how much you would need to make it look good. I guess that depends a lot about film speed and of course print size.

neil poulsen

12-Feb-2009, 11:14

Regardless of which is better, consumer flatbed scanners like the Epson 750 or higher end drum scans, the very large majority of scans will be from consumer models and the very large majority of prints from scans will be 16'x20" or smaller, if not 13"x19" or smaller.

Many of the more experienced people with using consumer scanners, like Kirk, Sandy, and others in this thread, refer to the challenges of getting the best scans from consumer grade scanners.

It would be a large benefit, if one or more of these experienced people could collaborate and produce some sort of tutorial on how this can be accomplished for those who are less experienced at using consumer scanners.

Perhaps a tutorial like this could be posted on this and on other sites.

Lenny Eiger

12-Feb-2009, 12:21

In other words, is there a point at which film simply cannot provide additional detail regardless of the quality of the scanner? If so, does anyone have an opinion about where that point starts?

Here's a related question that drives at the same point: if I start with a 6 X 7 negative and scan at 4,620 spi, I will get a digital file of approximately 10,000 X 12,550 pixels. If I take a 4 X 5 negative and scan at 2,515 spi, I will get a digital file of approximately the same dimensions. (These are approximations, by the way). Assuming the lenses used are of equal quality and all else is held equal, will the print from the 6 X 7 yield the same detail as a print from the 4 X 5 negative?
Keefe.

I wondered this for years and after much testing, I can say without much hesitation; No.

The difference is film real estate. It's huge. Consider this. You are taking a picture of a tree with a 4x5. Let's say it is only a part of the image, and that the tree will be about 1/4 inch wide on the resulting piece of film. If you take the same exact image with an 8x10, the tree will be an inch wide. There is a lot more information, texture and everything else by virtue of the fact you have 4 times the amount of film being used to describe it.

Some people don't care about texture, maybe their aesthetic doesn't require it. It's essential to me. I am running more tests this month with a colleague and I expect they will confirm what I have found previously. I don't want to carry around the 8x10, but I feel I have to - to get the kind of textural prints that I want.

Lenny

sanking

12-Feb-2009, 12:27

Neil,

I think that Keith Walklet could do an excellent tutorial and he is already actively involved in making best use of his V750. It strikes me that this is a subject that some photography magazines might have interest in publishing.

Sandy King

Svitantti

12-Feb-2009, 13:39

There are some tutorials, but people prefer different work flows. Many will still choose some "fast and easy" method instead of the best possible quality and control with much more work.

Personally I've been using Vuescan and its "raw" scanning ability, which helps you get everything possible out of the scanner. The job is not too easy though, because you have to adjust the colors and contrast completely yourself (or use autolevels from your photo processing software, which doesnt always work the way you want). I think most of the same could be reached just by scanning "mild" low-contrast versions directly from the scanning software and then by editing them later in your image editing program.

So now I've been settling to just scanning files that are enhanced as little as possible. The rest I do in photo editing software. Often it is much easier this way even for me (I think im quite good with "photoshop" and "scanning") because it is hard to get the colors and contrast adjusted well from this kind of "raw". You could of course scan DNG files if you shoot digital and use Lightroom, then edit scans there which should be quite fast...

I think a tutorial would anyway just give one way to reach the optimum result, not the only way.

sanking

12-Feb-2009, 13:58

Yes, there are many general tutorials out there. Go to http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141 and you will find some links to a few of them.

Clearly one needs to understand the basics, but my thoughts on getting the most out of a consumer flatbed scanner would focus primarily on two things, 1) making sure that you place the material to be scanned at the point of best focus, and 2) fluid mounting. You can find good information on this by visiting the web sites of Better Scanning and Scan Science. Also, Tim Vitale has good instructions in another thread on this forum for fluid mounting on an Epson flatbed and I mentioned earlier a simple method to do this on the cheap where are you need is piece of AN glass and a few washers or coins to serve as shims to test the scanner at various heights. We could argue about a lot of things but I don't believe that many will argue with the proposition that with most flatbeds you can get a better scan by fluid mounting. You might have to enlarge 4X or more to see the advantage, but in absolute terms fluid mounting nearly always gives a better scan.

Sandy King

There are some tutorials, but people prefer different work flows. Many will still choose some "fast and easy" method instead of the best possible quality and control with much more work.

Peter De Smidt

12-Feb-2009, 15:32

I agree with Sandy's recommendations for getting the best out of consumer flatbeds, and I'll add one more. Check to see if minimizing stray light by using a mask helps with your scan. It did with my Canon scanner. Make sure not to cover the calibration area on the bed.

Larry Menzin

13-Feb-2009, 05:51

I agree with Lenny. There is no substitute for film real estate. For that reason I lug around an 8x10 camera. A consumer flatbed is just fine for a 1200 spi scan. If better is required, then it's always possible to shell out the big bucks for a drum scan. I don't have the space for a drum in my home office, even if I really wanted one.

Svitantti

13-Feb-2009, 12:37

I'd say in practice the most important thing is actually the "post processing", meaning the correct choices in the scanning software and not ruining the scans by consumer-level easy-actions like grain removal (even digital ICE can change the "grain" a lot in some cases).

Of course this really doesn't have anything to do with the hardware and a photographer should anyway have good skills to edit their photos digitally if that is the workflow they use.

I dont know about this forum but it seems many people have problems with this even though they might be skilled in the darkroom (or at least use fine cameras, big film and get good photos).

jim kitchen

14-Feb-2009, 13:56

I would like to make a small contribution to this discussion by submitting a document that contains a few comparative images...

I scanned a black, and white negative with a Howtek 6500 drum scanner and the Epson 750, where the negative was wet mounted, cropped, and sized for the document. The document is not a definitive statement nor is the document complete, but the document supplies you with a few of my own observations, and a few of my own comments, and a set of comparative moderately, yet assessable images, obtained from both instruments.

I could supply you with a link to the converted JPEG samples too, if you so desire, allowing you the opportunity to drag the images to your desktop for review, but the JPEG images could occupy too much real estate within this thread. The JPEG images originate from the original scanned TIFF files, so image quality might be an issue with the dragged copy, but the images do show a decent comparative difference, without being exceptional or too technically correct in the process. The images represent a visual difference I happen to see between the two instruments when scanning, and the images should show you how a drum scanned image can capture shadow detail and highlight detail, compared to the non existent effect within an Epson 750 scan. I will post the JPEG images in subsequent post, if you wish me to do so...

Questions are welcome... :)

The document can be retrieved here, until I remove the document from my server at a later date next month: http://largeformatgroupimages.jimkitchen.ca/images/DrumVersusEpson750/DrumVersusEpson750NotesAndImages.pdf

jim k

PenGun

15-Feb-2009, 01:56

D. Bryant

15-Feb-2009, 08:36

Looks like the Epson is not at the focus plane. Hi ho.
The focus plane has nothing to do with the loss of detail shown in the shadow areas of the 750 scans vs. the drum scans.

Don Bryant

jim kitchen

15-Feb-2009, 08:43

True, the Epson 750 scan is not at the focus plane, where I describe that comment near the end of the PDF... :)

The Epson 750 example scan is approximately one, to one point five millimetres below the optimum plane for my Epson 750, but properly applied sharpening brings the image back into reasonable focus for the result comparison. If I scan the 8X10 negative at the proper focus plane within the Epson 750 and, or the Epson 4990, I would apply less sharpening to the image. My Epson 4990 had this issue too, but its focus plane was nearly three millimetres above the scanner glass.

Again, the discovery height above the scanner glass for each Epson instrument, was discovered while experimenting with frosted white optical plastic as a diffused source, in a completely different post about scanners within this group. The negative was wet mounted to the optical plastic in that discussion thread, and the negative was correctly positioned and supported with shims above the scanner glass, prior to a scanning event.

jim k

jb7

15-Feb-2009, 08:55

I can't wait to try out my new V750-
particularly since the drum scanners require constant defending.

The 'lowly' Epson must be doing something right-

My last instrument was an old Umax Powerlook 1100,
so things can only get better-
in my little scanning world anyway-

I reckon I'll be attempting to find the best plane of focus for my scanner too-
even if I'm told it's just not worth it-

j

sanking

15-Feb-2009, 09:02

People using Epson flatbeds need to know that the point of best focus varies a lot. The plane of best focus of my 4990 is about 1mm above the glass. I used to own a 4879 and its plane of best focus was 2.5mm above the glass. The actual gain in resolution is quite small, on the order of 5-10% at most.

Because the lenses used have great depth of field it is not always easy to determine the plane of best focus. For this you need a negative with a lot of very fine detail and high contrast. Resolution targets work well if you have one, but a very sharp negative with tree branches against a plain sky also work well. In practice most people find that it is relatively difficult to consistently discern the plan of best focus with accuracy of greater than 1mm.

In my opinion the gain in scan quality from fluid mounting is greater than the gain from finding the point of best focus. Fluid mounting does not result in more detail, but it adds micro-contrast/acutance to the detail that is there.

Sandy King

If I scan the 8X10 negative at the proper focus plane within the Epson 750 and, or the Epson 4990, I would apply less sharpening to the image. My Epson 4990 had this issue too, but its focus plane was nearly three millimetres above the scanner glass.

jim k

Paul Kierstead

15-Feb-2009, 09:28

In my opinion the gain in scan quality from fluid mounting is greater than the gain from finding the point of best focus. Fluid mounting does not result in more detail, but it adds micro-contrast/acutance to the detail that is there.

Not to mention less spotting and much better flatness (quite noticeable improvment in results on some curly trannies I have).

My v700 arrived and quite noticeably better then the 3200, especially in shadow detail (e-6). The sharpness also seems noticeably better then the 3200 as well; more then I expected from the comparisons. I also tried using VueScan to scan at 6400 and output at 1600; this did seem to improve things over a straight 1600 scan (and the same for 3200), although I need to be more methodical to say for sure. Not a drum scanner for sure, but pretty usable.

jim kitchen

15-Feb-2009, 11:40

The "lowly" Epson 750 performs admirably and so does the Epson 4990, with a well planned scanning process... :)

I mentioned in my very unscientific summary, I am not a fan of blocked shadows nor blocked highlights because of several physical factors, which seem to be prominent within low to mid range flatbed scanners, but there are many methodical ways to overcome that issue with a different, yet effective approach to your scanning process. For example, I did not change my negative development procedure to accommodate the blocked density issues within a flatbed scan, so I move to a drum scanned negative to acquire the shadow detail and the highlight detail, after I select the negative for that costly event. As a side note, I did not change my negative development process, for several reasons, but the most prominent reason is that I did not wish to modify my development process, to accommodate a scanner that may physically change its temperament like the weather. Chasing my development procedure after an elusive electron is not my idea of practical magic.

If you review the mediocre images within the PDF, you should be able to see the blocked highlights and the blocked shadows within the Epson raw scan, compared to the controlled highlights, and the captured shadow detail present within the raw drum scan.

Fluid mounting, although a messy tedious incremental step, is worth the extra effort as Sandy states, because the increased micro contrast adds immediate continuous value to the digital capture. My 4990 focal plane height was definitely different from Sandy's, and because of that fact, I truly believe a variable height mounting station for the Epson scanner will allow you the ability to position and focus your negative properly, allowing you the opportunity to extract as much information as your negative may present, while processing a fluid mounted negative. Again, there are many factors that contribute to a well scanned image, ranging from operator error, your inherent quality control while processing a negative, and allowing the instrument to perform within the instrument's natural limitations.

That said, many users should be pleasantly surprised by the Epson 700 series or the 4990, combined with their good scanning work flow, and possibly a refined negative development process.

jim k

mandoman7

15-Feb-2009, 11:57

The idea of comparing a $500 scanner to a $5-10K scanner says a lot to me about today's technology. The recent selling price of a jobo cpp2 for $2500 on ebay is a related issue in my estimation (double or twice what you'd find them for 3 or 4 years ago). Its getting to where average workers again have access to reasonably good quality without laying out thousands of dollars. The bottom line is that for 2 grand or so you can get a camera and scanner and have an outfit that will beat the pants off the digital cameras, and you won't have to lay out huge monthly sums just to look at your work. This represents a sea change from where I sit.

I'll repeat myself from a few posts ago; if you're in the upper 10% of those enjoying sales then naturally you will go with the top of the line equipment. Everyone below that point must find a way to produce work that makes sense and supports a continuous workflow. I will happily pay for the drum scan when justified, but am thrilled to be have regained my ability to scan and produce in-house.

John Y.

Findingmyway4ever

16-Feb-2009, 02:38

I know the scanner stuff has been mentioned loads of times, but I have seen comments across the board from users that have extensively used different tools and while many feel 3X is the absolute maximum, some say even 2X they can see the difference and it isn't subtle.

Thing I have to question is that drum scanners are getting in the $500-$1000 pricerange. To be able to "squeeze" out every little possible bit of information from the Epson at basically $600 once you have added the glass kit, why not just have a drum scanner so you can learn how to use it, but don't have to go through so much of a learning process to get quality scans? I know size is one thing, but surely, I know I would never have a wife that made me sell off my speakers for cheesy Bose cube type speakers just like I would never have a wife that told me to get an Epson to reserve space.

I guess everyone has a reason for why they go with whatever device they choose, but the best value out there right now is a drum scanner IMHO. Pick up a couple of them at the prices they are selling at and have a spare one in case one breaks down...

Nothing against the Epson at all. Just saying if space isn't an issue, I find no reason why one doesn't go with a Howtek for the absolute bang-buck right now.