epson 750/cezanne 5/etc

[don mills]

a friend of a friend made a 35x45 inch print from 8x10 film using the 750...he also paid $125 for a 1gb drum scan from the lab and we couldn't tell the difference.

anyone else noticing how good this scanner is??? i don't know how it compares technically with a scan from something like the cezanne 5000 but the files/prints look great.

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63056500

[Joanna Carter]

35" x 45" is hardly stretching a scan of an 8x10. I would not expect to see that much difference until I got to around the 80" x 100" mark.

[Bob McCarthy]

I agree, 4X is not a challenge for most scanners. About the limit for the Epson line.

While not saying much about the Epson scanner, it does illustrate the advantage of a big negative. Almost any scanner will produce a decent file from a "big" negative, takes a killer scanner to work with 35mm and medium format.

Bob

[Mike1234]

Heck, if one can achieve an 8 foot long print, with a teensy bit of cropping even, and tell no difference then why pay $125/scan? Thanks, Joanna!!

Thanks for sharing your comparison, Don!!

[sgelb]

try getting a decent medium format scan. you need wet mounting at least. Ive used it a lot and it does an acceptable job with 6x9 and above... 4x5 is good.. if u get the wet mount its much much better.

[Mike1234]

try getting a decent medium format scan. you need wet mounting at least. Ive used it a lot and it does an acceptable job with 6x9 and above... 4x5 is good.. if u get the wet mount its much much better.

Thanks but I'm going to rig a system that will keep the film flat, is adjustable on all four corners, and removes the glass surface through which the sensor reads.

[sanking]

Thanks but I'm going to rig a system that will keep the film flat, is adjustable on all four corners, and removes the glass surface through which the sensor reads.

You can do that but it might just amount to a waste of time. Having the sensor read directly with no glass between sounds like a good idea but in practice I doubt very much that you will get better results than with fluid mounting. In fact, I recall that someone tested the Microtek M1 and reported that results on the glass were actually better than when no glass was between the sensor and negative.

Just for the record, all of the professional flatbed scanners scan through a glass bed.

Sandy King

[Mike1234]

You can do that but it might just amount to a waste of time. Having the sensor read directly with no glass between sounds like a good idea but in practice I doubt very much that you will get better results than with fluid mounting. In fact, I recall that someone tested the Microtek M1 and reported that results on the glass were actually better than when no glass was between the sensor and negative.

Just for the record, all of the professional flatbed scanners scan through a glass bed.

Hmm... maybe the manufactures correct the sensors accounting for the refraction? Even so, it seems that avoiding the fluid and cleanup are worth it??

[don mills]

i'm used, extensively i might add, the howtek 4500 and 7500 models (though never cezanne) and think these epson scanners are finally coming around (when adequate sharpening is applied of course). i'm buying the v750 this weekend and will post samples (or request to have added) to the scanner comparison page.

happy holidays!

[sanking]

Hmm... maybe the manufactures correct the sensors accounting for the refraction? Even so, it seems that avoiding the fluid and cleanup are worth it??

I like to get the best scan possible, and in most cases (especially with magnification over about 5X) fluid mounting does it so I don't mind the cleanup. In fact, there is very little cleanup involved as most of the mounting fluid evaporates quickly from the film.

Most people who have not actually used fluid mounting before tend to exaggerate the trouble. Fluid mounting once learned is quite easy and takes barely more time than dry scanning.


Sandy King

[Pfeiffer Duckett]

Don, what paper was it printed on? I've noticed some papers level the playing field a little bit. Also, how did your friend scan the 8x10 negative? I have such a beast of a time with neuton rings on the v750s.

[Mike1234]

I like to get the best scan possible, and in most cases (especially with magnification over about 5X) fluid mounting does it so I don't mind the cleanup. In fact, there is very little cleanup involved as most of the mounting fluid evaporates quickly from the film.

Most people who have not actually used fluid mounting before tend to exaggerate the trouble. Fluid mounting once learned is quite easy and takes barely more time than dry scanning.

Thanks, Sandy. I'll try it both ways then.

[Mike1234]

i'm used, extensively i might add, the howtek 4500 and 7500 models (though never cezanne) and think these epson scanners are finally coming around (when adequate sharpening is applied of course). i'm buying the v750 this weekend and will post samples (or request to have added) to the scanner comparison page.

Many of us will be watching for that test, Don!!

[Brian Ellis]

35" x 45" is hardly stretching a scan of an 8x10. I would not expect to see that much difference until I got to around the 80" x 100" mark.

Actually it's about a 4x enlargement of 8x10 film, which is the upper end of what's very generally considered the limit of acceptable quality prints from the 700/750 (16x20 from 4x5). I don't mean that it's unanimous, just that if you had the time and interest, not to mention patience, to read the numerous messages here about the 700/750, I think it's fair to say that 4x is about the maximum most people have suggested. My own limit is a little less than 16x20 and nowhere near 8x (32x40 from 4x5 or 80x100 from 8x10).

[Lenny Eiger]

All one has to do is to go into the scanner comparison right here on this site and see the difference between a good drum scanner and an Epson 750. I categorically disagree that the difference in the print is only up at an 8 foot range. I hate to be a spoiler here, but there is physics at work.

As to paying $125 for a drum can and not getting a great result, it happens every day. I can use the most expensive view camera with the best lens and if I don't focus it properly, it's gonna be out of focus. A lot of labs - not all - use inexperienced people to run the scanner. It often takes someone understanding what your image is intending to make a great scan. There are also some images that don't need a great scan.

You can't tell me a Ford Pinto is as good as a Maserati - even tho' one's Pinto may get them to the store. There is a reason why a Premier costs 40K, a Tango was originally even more than that, etc.

Lenny

[sanking]

All one has to do is to go into the scanner comparison right here on this site and see the difference between a good drum scanner and an Epson 750. I categorically disagree that the difference in the print is only up at an 8 foot range. I hate to be a spoiler here, but there is physics at work.

Lenny

I certainly agree with Lenny that there is a difference between a good drum scanner and an Epson 750. There is also a lot of difference between professional flatbed scanners like the Cezanne and Eversmart and the Epson V700/V750. But I suspect that most people already known there is a difference without me and Lenny insisting on the fact.

On the other hand, the V700/V750 are not dog scanners, IMO. In careful tests of the V700, testing to make sure the negative was at the plane of best focus, I was able to get real resolution of about 2300 ppi, with good sharpness. To put things in perspective, that kind of quality would have cost you $10-15K a decade ago.

How large one can print from a V700/V750 depends primarily on one's personal standard. Having compared my own work from 5X7 B&W negatives with scans from the V700, Eversmart Pro, and several different drum scanners I am confident that one can print up to 3X-4X (perhaps a tad larger) and not see much difference in final image quality between a drum scan of a B&W or color negative and a scan made with a V700/V750. This would not hold for color transparencies as the scanner requirements are much greater. Keep in mind that no matter how much quality you get in the initial scan final image quality is determined with inkjet printing that limits resolution to 7-10 lp/mm at best.

So to owners of Epson V700/V750 scanners I say trust your own visual judgement. If your prints look good at the maximum size you want to print there is no reason to worry about what others may think.

Sandy King

[Mike1234]

You're a good/honest and brave man, Sandy. :)

[Eirik Berger]

Just for the record, all of the professional flatbed scanners scan through a glass bed.

Sandy King

Except for Scanmate flatbed scanners with the DustFree templates for example. But I have achieved better results with wetmounting on the glass bed.

[sanking]

Except for Scanmate flatbed scanners with the DustFree templates for example. But I have achieved better results with wetmounting on the glass bed.

Thanks for the information. I was not aware of that fact.

In general fluid mounting does appear to give slightly better results than dry mounting, even with professional flatbed scanners. I tested this a year or so ago with my Eversmart Pro and found that there was not a lot of difference between fluid mounting and dry mounting, but in every case fluid mounting did give more micro-contrast and cleaner files that needed less correction and clean-up. So given the fact that for me fluid mounting is about as easy as dry mounting I am now fluid mounting all of my scans with the Eversmart.

Sandy King

[Peter York]

Has anyone out there been able to compare samples of the Epson scanners? I'm wondering how much sample variation there is within a particular model.

[jb7]

Lenny, do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a Pinto in Ireland?
more than 4x from 8x10 is so vulgar anyway...