Epson scanner 4990 vs the V700 and V750

[David Low]

Apologies if this is an old topic, but I am thinking about getting myself a scanner to cover 35mm, medium and large format negatives (up to 5x7 size). Here in the UK the 4990 seems to go (second hand) for around £200 or a bit more depending on condition, while the V700 and V750 are around £450 and £650 new, and of course probably a bit less than that second hand.

Is is worth paying out the extra for the current models, or do people think that for normal amateur usage and black and white negs that the 4990 is sufficient? I don't think that I am being mean, but I would rather not pay out more if I am not going to be able to tell the difference.

[Ken Lee]

Some opine that the 4990 delivers around 1500-1600 spi, while the 700/750 delivers around 2300-2400 spi.

If you specify a large resolution, you only get a larger file with redundant pixels. You get no more actual data from the negative.

If all you plan to make are 5x7 images, then a 5x enlargement of 35mm film is required. That's around the limit for the 4990, and the V700 might allow some cropping.

For the larger film sizes, a 5x7 print is well within their capacity.

A rule of thumb is that a good print requires 300 dpi. If your scanner gives you 1500, you can enlarge 1500/300 or 5X. If your scanner gives you 4500, you can enlarge by a factor of 4500/300 or 9X... and so on.

See filmscanner.info (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html) for their review of the V700.

If you look at their review of the Epson V600 (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html) model, you'll see something like the 4990: 1560 samples per inch.

[Bob McCarthy]

Ken,

I don't think thats correct. Ted told me there was no measurable difference in the epson scanners we are talking about and that any difference would be laid at the feet of the film holders, adjustable feet, that is!!

The sensor chip and likely the lens are the same for both the 4990 and 700/750 scanners.

I had a PERFECTLY adjusted 4990 and it really acquited itself quite well in a scan around with myself, Scott Rosenberg, Ted and a few others done a few years back. It was the budget machine in a flock of Cezannes, Creo's, Leaf's, and Polaroid's.

We were all amazed.

I'd say save the money and get a 4990 with the aftermarket film holder.

bob

[Heroique]

I have a 4990, but I’ve rented a v750 for a very limited, side-by-side comparison.

I used a sheet of 4x5 Velvia-50 film (nicely exposed w/ minute details in the subject) and snugly dry-mounted w/ a film holder, similar to Doug Fisher’s design.

I used Epson Scan for the comparison, selecting the “film w/ film holder” option in each case (i.e., not the "film w/ area guide" option). So I was comparing the 4990’s single fixed lens w/ the v750's “SHR” fixed lens.

My tests weren’t rigorously scientific, but I found my 4990’s best plane of focus, which is unique from model to model, to be about 2mm above the glass. However, there seemed to be enough DOF for me to say: 2mm ... plus/minus .25mm. (I'd like to hear more about this DOF “tolerance” from others.)

At this optimal plane of focus, my 4990’s maximum resolution is about 2000 dpi, perhaps a touch less.


Some opine that the 4990 delivers around 1500-1600 spi.

Just as Ken indicates, I really have to squint to see improvement above 1500 dpi, but it’s there if I look carefully enough, even if it’s not a practical matter.

When I rented the v750, I likewise determined its best plane of focus; it occurred at a slightly higher elevation than my 4990.

I then compared the two scanners at 2000 dpi.

My personal result: I couldn’t tell the difference between these scans w/ several carefully inspected crops. However, there was a different “look” to the images that would be difficult for me to describe.

When I went to higher dpi, up to 2400, I still couldn’t tell the difference, but I was making comparisons w/ E-6 4x5 film, not a fancy line resolution chart. If I had used a chart, I suspect the v750 may have appeared a tiny bit better; and, it might have appeared better at 1800-2000, too. However, since I rarely print larger than 11x14, the slightly better performance, if I had seen that it existed, would probably be negligible to me.

[David Low]

Just to clarify that the 5x7 (inches) size that I quoted was the maximum negative size that I will be scanning, and not the max print size that I intend to make. Apologies for any confusion!

[Bob McCarthy]

Just to clarify, you did say you would be scanning small film - 35mm.

5X is roughly 5x7 prints

But I would also say the Epson (either one) is not very good at small negatives so while really very good with sheet film it is very limited with smaller film sizes.

bob

[David Low]

Just to clarify, you did say you would be scanning small film - 35mm.

5X is roughly 5x7 prints

But I would also say the Epson (either one) is not very good at small negatives so while really very good with sheet film it is very limited with smaller film sizes.

bob

Yes, I still have a 35mm SLR which I like to use occasionally, but I am using 6x6cm and larger format films now, which is really what I want a scanner for.

[Ken Lee]

On the v700, don't you have to select 3200 or higher, in order to activate the higher-resolution lens ?

I wouldn't use an Epson flatbed for 35mm - and wonder about 6x6 and 6x7 for that matter. When you see what a dedicated film scanner can get from small and Medium format film (or a drum scanner or a high-end flatbed), the Epson scan looks useless in comparison - once you get past 3-5X magnification.

That's why I haven't gone back to Medium Format. Lately I have found that the MF negatives I made with TMX (not TMY) do much better under the Epson scan - because they are smoother, and sharpening is not interfered with by grain.

[David Low]

On the v700, don't you have to select 3200 or higher, in order to activate the higher-resolution lens ?

I wouldn't use an Epson flatbed for 35mm - and wonder about 6x6 and 6x7 for that matter. When you see what a dedicated film scanner can get from small and Medium format film (or a drum scanner or a high-end flatbed), the Epson scan looks useless in comparison - once you get past 3-5X magnification.

That's why I haven't gone back to Medium Format. Lately I have found that the MF negatives I made with TMX (not TMY) do much better under the Epson scan - because they are smoother, and sharpening is not interfered with by grain.

Do you think that the Epsons are reasonably ok for the smaller films up to around x5 magnification? Say 5x7in for 35mm and 10x10in for 6x6cm. That would do for me most of the time.

I suppose that it follows that a 4x5 at x5 would give similar quality prints of 20x25in?

I guess that one inexpensive scanner handling all sizes of film really well is maybe too good to be true!

[Heroique]

On the v700, don't you have to select 3200 or higher, in order to activate the higher-resolution lens?

Good question, I thought you only had to select “film w/film holder” to activate the 750’s SHR lens, but my test may have used the 750’s other lens. Either way, I suspect the 750 works like the 700.

[Heroique]

Do you think that the Epsons are reasonably ok for the smaller films up to around x5 magnification

“Reasonably okay?” – the short answer is “yes.” However, the more important your tiny details, even on a 5x7 print from 35mm film, the more you’re going to be wishing for a Leica Focomat or a Nikon Coolscan. (For example, finer textures, like on a close-up flower petal…)

[Ken Lee]

I guess that one inexpensive scanner handling all sizes of film really well is maybe too good to be true!

This reminds me of a saying from the software business: You can have high quality. You can have it fast. You can have it cheap. But you can only pick two.

Ever since Nikon stopped making their MF scanner, people like us have had to face a similar conundrum. If you already have lots of 35mm and MF work, and you want to scan it at high quality, it's going to cost you some money. Either to get a good scanner, or to pay someone to scan your work.

Someone may fill the gap in the market, but it's hard to know that with any certainty.

[brianam]

to contribute a much less scientific response than our professionals above :) , here's my take on the 4990:

- I have been very impressed with its abilities scanning 5x7" and larger sheets. (have also done WP & 8x10.) I use a "betterscanning" ANR glass and tape the negs to it. I found that the right height for mine was a couple dimes. i.e. ~2mm above the platen.
- for 4x5" I use the supplied epson holder (for convenience) and performance is OK. Much less "wow" for sure.
- I've made 11x14" enlargements from medium format film on the 4990 in the past; they needed careful sharpening. now use a Nikon.
- I would scan 35mm on the epson only for web display. I don't think I'd try to print from that. Ya really want a film scanner for those little ones..

[Ken Lee]

"... they needed careful sharpening"

That says it all !

I noticed sometimes that when scanning 5x7, it is better not to sharpen, because sharpening introduces artifacts which spoil the analog quality of the image.

[rguinter]

Apologies if this is an old topic, but I am thinking about getting myself a scanner to cover 35mm, medium and large format negatives (up to 5x7 size). Here in the UK the 4990 seems to go (second hand) for around £200 or a bit more depending on condition, while the V700 and V750 are around £450 and £650 new, and of course probably a bit less than that second hand.

Is is worth paying out the extra for the current models, or do people think that for normal amateur usage and black and white negs that the 4990 is sufficient? I don't think that I am being mean, but I would rather not pay out more if I am not going to be able to tell the difference.

David:

I'm an amateur photographer like you and I bought a used Epson 4990 scanner 2+ years ago.

With it I've made several thousand scans of my films from 35-mm up to 8x10-inch which is the largest film I've ever used.

Some here in this thread have suggested the newer versions of the Epson machines are a bit better than the 4990 but for my purposes the 4990 will suffice until it eventually quits... at which time I will upgrade to a newer version.

Some here have also suggested buying aftermarket film holders and that may be a good idea. Although I've never found the need because the original plastic ones have been suitable for my purpose. They are a bit flimsy and one has to be careful with them but overall they've served my purpose. Except for my 6x17-cm frames for which I use a homemade film holder that I cut from an old heavyweight hanging-file folder. Works like a charm and the scans are sharp enough to make 30-inch wide prints.

I would say if you can find a low mileage 4990 it would be a good choice for a first scanner. Then upgrade a year or two down the road when you need additional features. The problem will be to find one that has not been worked to death like mine has. I wouldn't sell mine because it has too many hours on it. It's virtually never powered-down.

Here are some examples of scans I've made with it in 35-mm, 120 medium format, 4x5-inch LF, and 8x10-inch LF respectively for a visual comparison.

Hope you find what you need

Cheers. Bob G.

[routlaw]

I think the two reviews linked below are probably the most extensive for the V700 and V750 with comparisons with the older Epson 4990 as well as the Nikon 9000. The reviewer was fairly thorough and comes to some interesting conclusions and shows examples as well of the comparison scans. For the OP I think both reviews would be well worth your reading and studying.

One thing I have not seen mentioned in the comments of this thread are the dynamic range or dmax of the respective scanners. I own the 4990 and have for many years and can tell you with no hesitation this has been its achilles heel of the 4990 more than pixel peeping detail. In this regard I imagine the newer scanners would perform noticeably better. If you are using films like Velvia regardless of its size this will be a significant issue.

I don't agree with one comment about not utilizing USM on scans however, but how you go about it is crux of the matter.

First the link for the V700

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_1.htm

and now the V750

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_1.htm

[Ken Lee]

Thanks - Those are wonderful articles.

I will now fiddle with the height settings, and see if I can mimic in Medium Format, what can be done with the betterscanning holder. The MF holders do a nice job of keeping roll film flat. I'm not crazy about taping my film to the glass all the time.

[Gem Singer]

Ken,

This is anecdotal.:)

Utilizing the wet mount tray that came with my Epson V750 scanner:

HP-5+ negatives are placed directly on the the tray glass. Emulsion side contacting the glass. The negative is held flat with a piece of anti-Newton Ring glass, textured surface contacting the shiny base side of the film.

Eliminates Newton Rings, and has the same result as wet mounting, without the hassle or the mess to clean up.

Tell the scanner it is scanning a B&W negative in a film holder (above the scanner's glass).

I have used this method to scan HP-5+ film in medium format (120), 4x5, and 5x7.

After comparing the sharpness utilizing the Epson plastic film holders and also mounting the negative directly on the scanner glass. This method proved to be the sharpest.

Note: If you are using film that has a shiny surface on both the emulsion and the base side, this method does not eliminate Newton Rings.

[Jerzy Pawlowski]

Someone may fill the gap in the market, but it's hard to know that with any certainty.

You are right - someone will fill the gap: https://reflecta.de/en/products/detail/~id.425/reflecta-MidformatScan-MF5000--from-june-2011-available.html . Reflecta site shows availability June 2011.

[Ken Lee]

Excellent news !

If it's reasonably priced, has genuine resolution of 3200 spi, and a good DMAX, they should sell a lot of them !!

If they want someone to write a review, I'll be happy to volunteer :)

I won't throw away my MF negatives yet !

[Jerzy Pawlowski]

I just found about Reflecta by accident on the Polish language analog photo forum Korex. Someone there gives price around 1,500 Euros - no idea what is the base for this info.
Also there is a link to Plustek but I can read only 120 what may indicate medium format. May be someone is able to read this site: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20110211_426498.html .

[dave_whatever]

I own a 4990 and have used a borrowed V700 on several occasions. If I look at the scans I have from both of them there's not a lot of obvious difference. Both have a useable resolution that'll give you very good scans from 4x5, good scans from 6x7 and 645, and scans of 35mm that are fine for web use or small prints. Both will struggle with dark or underexposed slides or very dense negatives. Both come with film holders that aren't great so be prepared to buy na aftermarkign holder or knock up something yourself out of a glass sheet. You can't work miracles with these things but given the cost and the flexibility they are great machines.

What I've found is that getting issues sorted like holding the film flat, colour calibration,, and getting yoru workflow nailed will give you far more tangible gains in quality than the differences between models. Infact the borrowed V700 i used has banding in the shadows that my 4990 doesn't have. Bearing in mind you can get some pretty good deals on 4990s second hand from dealers with a warranty (I think I paid about 150 quid for mine a year ago) I would be tempted to go down that route and put the cash you'll save towards a few commercial imacon or drum scans of your smaller formats or dark slides that need special treatment.

[Heroique]

On the v700, don't you have to select 3200 or higher, in order to activate the higher-resolution lens?


Good question, I thought you only had to select “film w/film holder” to activate the 750’s SHR lens, but my test may have used the 750’s other lens. Either way, I suspect the 750 works like the 700.

I feel like I’m writing a play & stitching together dialogue ;) :


My answer to your question is this.

When you scan an 8x10 negative you must select Film Area Guide, and when you do the lower resolution lens is automatically selected by the software.

When you scan a 4x5 or 5x7 negative, you can select Film Holder, which automatically engages the higher resolution [SHR] lens. It covers a smaller area and has a wider aperture.

Assuming you have adjusted both lenses for optimum plane of focus you will get higher effective resolution with the higher resolution lens. I believe Epson calls it the Super High Resolution lens, a somewhat hyperbolic description, but the SHR lens does in fact give higher resolution than your regular “High Resolution Lens.”

Sandy King

[Kimberly Anderson]

I have been scanning negatives on a V750 for 3 years doing this EXACT same set-up. It is perfect, fast, but does introduce some dust so you'll want to be careful.

I went ahead and masked off the edges of my glass and added some little tabs so I could lift it up off of the scanning glass w/out smudging or scratching it.

It's the simplest, cheapest, easiest and best solution. Rarely do all of those things align.


Ken,

This is anecdotal.:)

Utilizing the wet mount tray that came with my Epson V750 scanner:

HP-5+ negatives are placed directly on the the tray glass. Emulsion side contacting the glass. The negative is held flat with a piece of anti-Newton Ring glass, textured surface contacting the shiny base side of the film.

Eliminates Newton Rings, and has the same result as wet mounting, without the hassle or the mess to clean up.

Tell the scanner it is scanning a B&W negative in a film holder (above the scanner's glass).

I have used this method to scan HP-5+ film in medium format (120), 4x5, and 5x7.

After comparing the sharpness utilizing the Epson plastic film holders and also mounting the negative directly on the scanner glass. This method proved to be the sharpest.

Note: If you are using film that has a shiny surface on both the emulsion and the base side, this method does not eliminate Newton Rings.

[routlaw]

Excellent news !

If it's reasonably priced, has genuine resolution of 3200 spi, and a good DMAX, they should sell a lot of them !!

If they want someone to write a review, I'll be happy to volunteer :)

I won't throw away my MF negatives yet !

The specs say a 3.6 dmax, nothing outstanding but on the other hand this is a spec often advertised as a bit ambitious by many vendors/manufacturer's. Never heard of the company but if its coming from Germany I can only imagine what the cost will be by the time its across the pond here.

Rob

[David Luttmann]

No Ken, if you select film in 4x5 and smaller, it automatically engages the high rez lens. I think it's the $0.99 glass lens as opposed to the $0.49 plastic lens. :D

[bitu]

With 200, I personally will go for a brand new hp G4050 with several rolls of films.

[renes]

My tests weren’t rigorously scientific, but I found my 4990’s best plane of focus, which is unique from model to model, to be about 2mm above the glass. However, there seemed to be enough DOF for me to say: 2mm ... plus/minus .25mm. (I'd like to hear more about this DOF “tolerance” from others.)

Most 4990 and BetterScanning film holder users claim they get sharpest images when film holder is risen about 2mm above the glass. I have made test with my GT-X800 (japanese 4990 version) and got the sharpest images at 1 full turn = .8mm, so at less than 1mm high. Why I get so different results? Futher more, I compared scans to these made with original Epson film scanner and they are equally sharp, no differents.

[Tony Evans]

Michael,
Thank you for the Gem Singer post. I would like to try and effect this on my V700. Do you know the height of the top surface of the wet mount tray glass? Does the tray glass sit flush on the scanner glass or is it raised?
Many thanks.
Tony

[Gem Singer]

Tony,

It is raised slightly above the surface of the scanner glass.

Placing a negative on the top surface of the wet mount tray brings it to the same height above the glass as if it was in a plastic film holder.

This seems to be the proper height above the glass to obtain ideal focus for my V750, when I tell the scanner that the negative is mounted in a film holder.

From what I understand, this ideal focal plane varies among individual scanners.

[Tony Evans]

Gem,
Thanks million. Will buy some glass today and try it.
Tony

[Gem Singer]

Tony,

I purchased my Anti-Newton Ring glass from focal point in Florida.

www.fpointinc.com

They did a nice job of polishing the edges and rounding the corners.

Spendy, but well worth the price.

[Tony Evans]

Gem,
For the ANR glass requirementI have on hand some very high quality Museum Glass which does not reflect but also does not reduce image brightness. Took it in to get cut today and will let you know how the experiment goes.
Tony

[gnuyork]

Recently I sent out some large print orders (larger than I can make at home on my Epson) from scanned 4x5 Velvia on my v750. I got several 16x20s and 1 image at 24x30. These were really tests. I wanted to see how far I could push the size. Even the 24x30 image showed no signs of degradation as far as I could tell.

Now I also had 16x24 prints made from scans of 35mm kodachrome - that was a totally different outcome, as I expected, but I had to try it anyway.

[Bob McCarthy]

Gem,
For the ANR glass requirementI have on hand some very high quality Museum Glass which does not reflect but also does not reduce image brightness. Took it in to get cut today and will let you know how the experiment goes.
Tony

If the glass you're trying is "coated" non-reflecting, it is not necessarily ANR. ANR glass has a micro roughening of the glass to scatter reflections, coating would not scatter the reflkections, but I'm guessing may minimize the amount of light being reflected back and forth.

I would suggest Gem's source before you commit too many $$.

bob

[Gem Singer]

I was going to wait until Tony discovered that for himself.

Non-reflecting glass is coated, but it is still smooth surfaced on both sides.

Anti-Newton Ring glass is lightly textured on one side. When that side is placed against the smooth surface of the film, it acts to prevent Newton Rings

[Brian Ellis]

Ken,

I don't think thats correct. Ted told me there was no measurable difference in the epson scanners we are talking about and that any difference would be laid at the feet of the film holders, adjustable feet, that is!!

The sensor chip and likely the lens are the same for both the 4990 and 700/750 scanners.

I had a PERFECTLY adjusted 4990 and it really acquited itself quite well in a scan around with myself, Scott Rosenberg, Ted and a few others done a few years back. It was the budget machine in a flock of Cezannes, Creo's, Leaf's, and Polaroid's.

We were all amazed.

I'd say save the money and get a 4990 with the aftermarket film holder.

bob

This is an old dispute between Ken and several others including me. I don't know why he persists in claiming a "consensus" on something about which there quite plainly is no consensus at all.

[Ken Lee]

Point taken. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I have reworded my postings in this thread to say "some opine".

Those that opine, are some fastidious and reliable testers - like Sandy King and filmscanner.info (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html)

They back up their opinions and have shared their scans of USAF resolution targets.

[sanking]

A few comments.

The best plane of focus for the Epson 4990 is about 1mm above the glass. It may vary a bit due to manufacturing tolerances but 1mm seems to be about right.

The V700/V750 has two lenses. One is very similar to the one on the Epson 4990 in terms of quality and it focuses at about the same spot, about 1mm above the glass. This lens is engaged when you choose film area guide. The other lens focuses at about 2.5mm to 3mm above the glass, and is engaged when you choose film holder.

If you use the lens on the V700/V750 that focuses at 1mm above the glass you will get resolution very similar to what you get with the 4990. However, if you use the lens that is engaged when you select film holder resolution with the V700/V750 is quite a bit higher than with the 4990.

I owned a 4990 for several years, and tested it several times with resolution targets. I also tested two other 4990 scanners that belonged to friends. Maximum effective resolution was always less than 1800 dpi. I have now owned a V700 and have also tested it several times, and have also tested one other V700. Both gave effective resolution of over 2300 dpi when film holder was selected, but less than 1800 dpi when film area guide was selected. Also, several other tests, some of which are currently on line, also show that the V700 gives 2300+ dpi with film holder selected. I have never seen a test that found that the 4990 gives resolution over 1800 dpi.

My guess is that Ted Harris compared the 4990 and V700 using the lens of the V700 that is engaged when you choose film area guide. That would explain why he found no difference in resolution, when in fact there really is, if you make the comparison with the lens of the V700 that is engaged when you choose film holder.

Sandy King

[Tony Evans]

Gentlemen,
The Museum Glass I refer to is indeed not textured. However, for some time I have used this Museum Glass (cut to fit the inserts in both the 35 and 120 Epson film holders) to maintain flatness of film in the holders. No Newton Rings.
Whether the same holds in trying Gem's procedure will be reported on soon. I pick the cut glass up today.

[Tony Evans]

Can report Gem's procedure on the V700 works well, including no Newton Rings. Now to fine tune;
Optimum height of clear glass above Epson glass base and height of top surface?
Will shimmie around with .5mm shimmies and run the tests. Hope to report in a new thread.
Thanks to all.

[Nathan Potter]

If you have a particularly dry environment you may not get Newton ring phenomena when non anti newton glass is placed against the smooth side of the film. But both film and glass must be free of surface moisture - extremely dry. I'd be willing to bet Tonys work area in Edmonton is fantastically dry right now.

I'll confirm Sandy comments. For my V750 the two points of best focus are about 1 mm and 2.5 mm above the platen.

One thing I've noticed though. Some anti newton glass I've used is apparently rough enough that the texture has imaged in the scan. I've noted this also using the Nikon Coolscan 5000 with 35 mm positives. The effect is slight but present. Anyone else had this experience?

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Bob McCarthy]

That is correct, anr glass can be resolved by high end scanners is the lenses are good enough and the scan resolution is high enough. Wet mounting is the best solution for very high resolution scanning with top scanners.

Bob

. Not all anr glass is the same, btw.


If you have a particularly dry environment you may not get Newton ring phenomena when non anti newton glass is placed against the smooth side of the film. But both film and glass must be free of surface moisture - extremely dry. I'd be willing to bet Tonys work area in Edmonton is fantastically dry right now.

I'll confirm Sandy comments. For my V750 the two points of best focus are about 1 mm and 2.5 mm above the platen.

One thing I've noticed though. Some anti newton glass I've used is apparently rough enough that the texture has imaged in the scan. I've noted this also using the Nikon Coolscan 5000 with 35 mm positives. The effect is slight but present. Anyone else had this experience?

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Bob McCarthy]

I will concede the scan tests were done at 2000 dpi on 4x5 provia. Within this standard there was no/little difference. But we were working with sheet film and not trying to squeeze the maximum out of minature film.

I can see there would be a minimal/negligible difference between the Epson scanners at that standard.

And the uber scanners were not being used at there maximum capability. I don't imagine there is a distinct difference between 1900 ppi and 2300 ppi.

I bought a Cezanne, so I saw more that raw resolution being the desired standard. My Cezanne files like far less sharpening that did the Epson, fwiw.

Bob


A few comments.

The best plane of focus for the Epson 4990 is about 1mm above the glass. It may vary a bit due to manufacturing tolerances but 1mm seems to be about right.

The V700/V750 has two lenses. One is very similar to the one on the Epson 4990 in terms of quality and it focuses at about the same spot, about 1mm above the glass. This lens is engaged when you choose film area guide. The other lens focuses at about 2.5mm to 3mm above the glass, and is engaged when you choose film holder.

If you use the lens on the V700/V750 that focuses at 1mm above the glass you will get resolution very similar to what you get with the 4990. However, if you use the lens that is engaged when you select film holder resolution with the V700/V750 is quite a bit higher than with the 4990.

I owned a 4990 for several years, and tested it several times with resolution targets. I also tested two other 4990 scanners that belonged to friends. Maximum effective resolution was always less than 1800 dpi. I have now owned a V700 and have also tested it several times, and have also tested one other V700. Both gave effective resolution of over 2300 dpi when film holder was selected, but less than 1800 dpi when film area guide was selected. Also, several other tests, some of which are currently on line, also show that the V700 gives 2300+ dpi with film holder selected. I have never seen a test that found that the 4990 gives resolution over 1800 dpi.

My guess is that Ted Harris compared the 4990 and V700 using the lens of the V700 that is engaged when you choose film area guide. That would explain why he found no difference in resolution, when in fact there really is, if you make the comparison with the lens of the V700 that is engaged when you choose film holder.

Sandy King

[David Higgs]

I find the resolution of the V750 adequate, the problem I find is the shadows, especially with E6 chromes.

Flat negatives scan well and print size is purely resolution limited, I have made 48 inch panoramas that are good enough to view at very close viewing distance - but, this only works for certain types of images.

Chromes are another ball park, again some images are easy to scan, but as soon as you get a lot of blacks you have to decide whether just to go for black - or accept muddiness.

I have an exhibition of large prints this Summer, of 20 images - 3 I'm going to send off for drum scanning - the others on B+W or C41 will be fine off the V750.

I hadn't thought of using the epson for 35mm - but just ran through my holiday snaps ( I still use film for everything - glutton for punishment) and they are fine for web use and the ones in the sweet spot good for 10x8s. Epson of course claim you can scan at 6400 dpi, print at 200 dpi and get a good 48 inch print....

[David Higgs]

forgot to say, Silverfast emailed me about spending $79 to upgrade to the multi-exposure version that is supposed to help with the problem of poor dynamic range

anyone use this? opinions?

[Doug Fisher]

In the past, there has often been a problem with "registration" where the scanner head did not move back to the exact same starting position to start the second scan so this introduced some image degradation. I don't have the latest version of Silverfast to test it, but I believe I read that Silverfast recently introduced an auto alignment function (similar to what Photoshop provides) to help with this issue. If you can download a demo version to try it out, I would give it a test run to confirm things before buying.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[sanking]

I can understand that there would not be much difference in resolution if you compared the 4990 and the V700/750 scanning with both at 2000 dpi. To get the very most from both scanners requires that you scan at the very highest resolution available. Then you can downsize to about 2400 dpi to save space without losing much sharpness.

My own comparison tests of the 4990 versus the V700, with resolution targets, show that the 4990 is only capable of about 1600 dpi, when scanning at 4800 dpi, and the V700 is capable of abourt 2300 dpi, when scanning at 6200 dpi. For this V700 this assumes engaging the best lens by choosing film holder. If you choose film area guide there will be little or no difference in scan quality between the 4990 and V700/V750.

Having owned and tested both the 4990 and the V700 my bottom line is that the V700 gives significantly better results for negatives of 6X8 or smaller that can be scanned with the best lens using film holder. If you are scanning anything larger than 8X10 the results from the two scanners ia about equal.

Sandy King







I will concede the scan tests were done at 2000 dpi on 4x5 provia. Within this standard there was no/little difference. But we were working with sheet film and not trying to squeeze the maximum out of minature film

Bob

[renes]

I can understand that there would not be much difference in resolution if you compared the 4990 and the V700/750 scanning with both at 2000 dpi. To get the very most from both scanners requires that you scan at the very highest resolution available. Then you can downsize to about 2400 dpi to save space without losing much sharpness.

My own comparison tests of the 4990 versus the V700, with resolution targets, show that the 4990 is only capable of about 1600 dpi, when scanning at 4800 dpi, and the V700 is capable of abourt 2300 dpi, when scanning at 6200 dpi. Sandy King

Will I not get 1600dpi with 4990 when scanning at 2000dpi? Must we really scan at the very highest resolution available to get vey most from the scanner? Everybody says scanning at the very highest resolution available gives soft scans...

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Will either of these scanners manage a 16X20 from a 6X7 slide/negative? Currently I am scanning 6X6 negatives/slides from a Yashicamat, on an Epson 2450. I can get adequate 11X11 prints but they completely fall apart at 16X16. When I scan 4X5 transparencies I can get good 16X20 prints.

I am retiring my Yashicamat now that I have a roll film holder for my 4X5. Using better glass and a tripod should greatly improve the quality of the original negatives/slides. My goal in a scanner is to get good 16X20 prints from roll film and excellent prints from 4X5.

Edward

[Ken Lee]

To make a 16x20 from a 6x7 negative, you need to enlarge from 2.5 to 20: a factor of roughly 8. That assumes no cropping.

To get an 8X enlargement and print at 300 dpi, you need at least 2400 spi. While some have gotten close to that figure, I can't help noticing that the contrast at the high end of the resolution scale, is quite low. Some might be able to distinguish bars on a USAF target, but I'm more comfortable with my 700, when considering an upper limit of 1600 spi. I don't want to spend the time scanning at 6400 spi to squeeze the extra data out, if there is any.

1600 spi allows a 5x enlargement: enough for an 11x14, but not beyond.

If you shoot clouds or other soft subjects, then you might be able to get better results, but if you're shooting brick walls or other demanding subjects, you'll be WAY happier with a dedicated film scanner. They are scarce, but that's another matter.

I got a 700 after using a 4990, and have not seen a dramatic improvement.

[Matus Kalisky]

My personal experience with Microtek F1 (in the same class as V750) is pretty much the same - enlargements up to 4 - 5x look very good (when my scanner gets the focus right :rolleyes: ), but beyond things get mushy.

With large format there is an advantage - once you make a 5x (20 x 24") print it gets so large that mostly one would not look at it at arm's length and even you will go for even larger print the viewing distance will usually increase so the final photograph may look nice (or, should I say .. OK).

The next step in scanning quality for 4x5 are Imacon scans (max. resolution 2040 spi) and if you need more than that you will spend serious money for scanning (drum or pro-flatbeds)

Ken, didn't you (at lest partially) move to 5x7 to get prints you wanted while using the V700?

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Hi Ken, thanks for the quick response. I will probably wait until I have accumulated a few 6X7 transparencies that I want printed large to make a decision.

[Brian Ellis]

Ken,

I don't think thats correct. Ted told me there was no measurable difference in the epson scanners we are talking about and that any difference would be laid at the feet of the film holders, adjustable feet, that is!!

The sensor chip and likely the lens are the same for both the 4990 and 700/750 scanners.

I had a PERFECTLY adjusted 4990 and it really acquited itself quite well in a scan around with myself, Scott Rosenberg, Ted and a few others done a few years back. It was the budget machine in a flock of Cezannes, Creo's, Leaf's, and Polaroid's.

We were all amazed.

I'd say save the money and get a 4990 with the aftermarket film holder.

bob

Ted's published review of the 700/750 said the same thing about the lack of significant resolution difference between it and the 4990.

I've used the 4990 for years and I think it does very well with 4x5 film. I've never tried it with 35mm but I'd guess it might do o.k. for web posting with that small a negative but probably not for prints, at least not anything 8x10 or larger. But that's just a guess based on the scans I got with 6x7 film which I didn't think were good enough to make acceptable (to me) prints larger than about 8x10.

I also can't compare it to the 700/750 since I've never used those scanners. All I can say is I've never considered replacing the 4990 with a 700/750 because I've been very happy with the 4990 for 4x5 film.

I've never

[Frank Petronio]

You can scan anything and print any size, there is no rule and sometimes the roughness of something "over the edge" is a beautiful quality.

But for myself, having scanned some 120 with a 4990, it will work fine. I have a 20x20 print from an Epson scan hanging in the house.

The problem occurs when you go an get that same film scanned from a better scanner - an Imacon or Nikon Coolscan 9000 or real drum scanner. Once you compare all your Epson scans will suck. If you get a good drum scan, then the Imacon scans will suck too.

From a practical POV, I don't like 35mm scanned on the Epson, I prefer a cheap dedicated film scanner like the old Minolta DualScan IV. Medium format film is iffy, 4x5 is pretty OK. Certainly for small prints and online, it is the way to go, especially at first before you make millions from your photography ;-p

For best results, these scanners need to be cleaned from their off-gassing and you need to experiment with finding the optimal height for the film holder (or third party holder).

[Ben Syverson]

Frank is right... the Epson will scan 120 well enough for pretty good sized prints, and the only downside is the nagging feeling that you're not getting the most out of your negatives.

It's mostly mental, because if you ever do need to go large with 120, the cost of a drum scan is not much compared to the cost of the print. But that feeling of "eh, this is good enough for now" is depressing when you're spending a lot of time scanning. With 35mm on a film scanner, at least I can close the book on those negatives and know I'll never need to scan them again.

[Ken Lee]

Ken, didn't you (at lest partially) move to 5x7 to get prints you wanted while using the V700?

Yes. Depending on the aspect ratio of the final image, 5x7 can give us a substantial boost: we can use X% crummier lenses, or make images X% larger, smoother, or what-have-you.

That being said I shoot 4x5 too - for variety as much as anything else.

[Frank Petronio]

I think as long as you're using an Epson, you resign yourself to the fact that for your best images, if you ever were going to print big or have them in a show, anything more critical than a ~11x14, you need to get a better scan, preferably a drum or at least a higher-end CCD (like a Creo or at least an Imacon).

It's not just the cost but the time in Photoshop re-editing. So you pick carefully and only do your finest images. That kind of editing is the most pure and effective anyway so I think it's a net gain actually... We have fine resources, I'd gladly send my stuff to someone like Lenny Eiger http://www.eigerphoto.com/pricing_policy_ep.php for professional drum scans.

I considering getting my own drum scanner for 48 hours a while back, I figured I'd have to open a service to justify it. I simple don't have enough of my own work to scan (unless I got really bored and scanned the gazillion mediocre shots I've done).

Personally I rather be out shooting than driving myself crazy over the last iota of resolution or sharpness or tonal range. So I'll accept the compromises of using an Epson... but at least I know what they are. I like the 11x14 images fine, they look good on Baryta paper in a portfolio or in the prevailing overmat/rectangular frame tradition.

And when I get something good, I'll have Bob Carnie http://www.elevatordigital.ca/ make me some Lambda prints from film processed at Edgar's http://www.4photolab.com/ shot using lenses from Eddie http://eddiegunks.com/

No they do not pay me hahaha

[Ben Syverson]

I considering getting my own drum scanner for 48 hours a while back, I figured I'd have to open a service to justify it. I simple don't have enough of my own work to scan (unless I got really bored and scanned the gazillion mediocre shots I've done).
I think I've posted this before, but I know two or three photographers who bought drum scanners, and they pretty much shoot digital now. The scanning process just got to be too much of a PITA... Sometimes the "best" way to do something is totally unsustainable.

[drittner]

Hello, I understand that the 4990 is good for making scans of glass plate negs of 8x10. Does anyone know if this is true and I would assume the V750 might do the same?
Thanks.
don





Apologies if this is an old topic, but I am thinking about getting myself a scanner to cover 35mm, medium and large format negatives (up to 5x7 size). Here in the UK the 4990 seems to go (second hand) for around £200 or a bit more depending on condition, while the V700 and V750 are around £450 and £650 new, and of course probably a bit less than that second hand.

Is is worth paying out the extra for the current models, or do people think that for normal amateur usage and black and white negs that the 4990 is sufficient? I don't think that I am being mean, but I would rather not pay out more if I am not going to be able to tell the difference.