Drum or flat scan?

[carlosmh1910]

Hello everyone,

I'm looking to convert 4x5 to digital so I can use the large inkjet printers at school (and use photoshop as well) but my question is: Can a flatbed scanner give me high enough quality to print at 40x50? Drum scans are expensive, so I was hoping to cut down on cost, but my work is VERY texture and detailed orientated, so I don't want to lose that when I enlarge. The reason I made the digital-to-film switch was for enlargement purposes, but not sure the best way to go about it. Any advice would be great! Thanks.

[mrkauffman]

what flat bed would you be using?

id say a high resolution scan of a 4x5 negative on a v700/750 should give you a good 40x50 but ill let those who have actually done it chime in.

[carlosmh1910]

I'm not sure what scanner (flatbed) because I have not bought it yet.

[Leigh]

The Epson V750 enables you to scan 4x5 @ 6500 ppi, which equates to 650 ppi at 10x enlargement.

That's twice the nominal 300 ppi that you print, so it should work OK.

I've found the scans to be excellent when viewed on-screen. I don't print in that size range.

- Leigh

[Bruce Watson]

Can a flatbed scanner give me high enough quality to print at 40x50?

It all comes down to how you define "high enough quality". If you are asking if a consumer flatbed can give the same image quality as a drum scanner at 10-12x enlargement, the answer is no. Not even close. But do you need that quality level?

A better question is, do you need to print at 50 x 40 inches? I've found that the vast majority of images don't need and don't want to be printed that large. IOW, just because you *can* do it, doesn't mean you *should* do it. Just sayin'. And if you limit your enlargement to the 4-5x range, consumer flatbed scans should be more or less sufficient.

If you are worried about costs, the wise thing to do is print smaller. Printing smaller lowers the cost of everything in the post processing chain, from scan to Photoshop time, to printing, to framing.

[Noah A]

If you have free access to large printers at your university it's a great time to experiment with large prints. If you want to print large you should try it.

I've used lots of scanners, from the old Leafscans to Nikon film scanners, Epson flatbeds and drum scanners.

Perhaps my idea of quality is different than others, or perhaps I'm really bad at flatbed scanning, but I don't think the quality of an Epson flatbed is even remotely close to being able to give a good 40x50.

I have an Epson 4990 that I bought when I started shooting 8x10. I have access to a V750, and I recently bought a Howtek drum scanner.

With the flatbed scanners, I experimented with custom neg holders to find the ideal focus, and I also tried wet mounting.

Ultimately, I think the Epsons are usable for about a 16x20 print from 4x5, though there is a real advantage with drum scans even for smaller prints.

I would never, ever try a 50-inch print from an Epson scan. I guess if it's your only option and the printing is free, then there's no harm in trying.

Does your school have any scanners? Or are you in a city where you may be able to rent time on a scanner? For example here in philly there is a photo arts center where you can rent time on an imacon scanner. The imacon, while not a true drum scanner, would probably give you good quality for that size print. And the imacons are fast, so you can get a bunch of scans done during a 1 hour rental.

If I were you, I'd try to find an epson to try out. Scan your neg and then you can make small section prints at the enlargement factor of your final prints. Perhaps you can get the same neg scanned on an imacon and a drum scanner for comparison.

[carlosmh1910]

Noah,
The school has scanners called Epson V500. I've been printing at 13x19.5 and the prints are just too small. I know bigger is not always better, but for this specific project, big is ideal. I'll try to see if I can't rent a drum scan in the city (The school is in Chicago). Thanks!

[Brian Ellis]

Different people have different standard for what's acceptable quality and what isn't. But for me, a 4x enlargement is about the best I'm happy with from my Epson 4990 (which is essentially the same scanner as the current 700/750 series). The resolution that Leigh mentions doesn't reflect the actual ppi that the 700/750 series is capable of resolving. That's more like 2200 ppi. So I wouldn't be happy at all with a 40x50 enlargement from a 4x5 negative made with that scanner. There are of course other "flat" scanners that cost a lot more than the 700/750 series but I've never used them.

[Peter J. De Smidt]

If you can, have someone make a good scan with a V750, and then have someone make a good scan of the same film with one of the better drum scanners. Make prints. Compare. They don't have to be huge prints, as they could be crops from the scan, perhaps 16 x 20s.

Another option would be pro flatbeds such as a Kodak/Creo, Screen Cezanne.

Do you want to scan color or bw? If you shoot lots of Velvia, especially in contrasty situations, a drum scanner would be the way to go, as they do the best job with high density film.

[Noah A]

Usually you can't rent drum scanners since they're a tiny bit more complicated to use. But in a big city like Chicago I'd think you could rent time on an Imacon by the hour.

[Lenny Eiger]

Hello everyone,

I'm looking to convert 4x5 to digital so I can use the large inkjet printers at school (and use photoshop as well) but my question is: Can a flatbed scanner give me high enough quality to print at 40x50? Drum scans are expensive, so I was hoping to cut down on cost, but my work is VERY texture and detailed orientated, so I don't want to lose that when I enlarge. The reason I made the digital-to-film switch was for enlargement purposes, but not sure the best way to go about it. Any advice would be great! Thanks.

Drum scans can be expensive, but if you want the detail and texture at a large size, there is no comparison.

Make friends with someone who has a drum scanner. Learn how to mount and mount for them one day a week or something for a couple of hours in exchange for free scans. That's how my intern does it. He gets free scans... buys a box of acetate every once in a while, just to be nice....

That would be my suggestion... you might even learn a lot...

Lenny

[Professional]

Send your 4x5 sheet to me and i will scan it with my digital MF, i don't know but that MF file maybe better than my V750 scanning, and it may be enough to print up to 40x50 you want, just i can't be sure DSLR or digital scanning can be better than a real scanner even flatbed, but i will not talk about a drum scanners, but in the future i will try to do a test if my digital MF can beat Nikon coolscan 9000, but i don't have that Nikon 9000 and can't find it anywhere here.

[Professional]

Usually you can't rent drum scanners since they're a tiny bit more complicated to use. But in a big city like Chicago I'd think you could rent time on an Imacon by the hour.

Is Imacon a drum scanner? I thought it is a virtual drum and not a true drum scanner

[Noah A]

Is Imacon a drum scanner? I thought it is a virtual drum and not a true drum scanner

No, the imacon is not a drum. I meant that while you usually can't rent a drum scanner, you can rent an imacon. Sorry if I ran the thoughts together.

The imacon is not a drum but it's better than a consumer flatbed so it might be a good option for scans on a budget.

[vinny]

hasn't this subject been discussed to death dozens of times in old threads since scanners were invented? he said, she said.

[Professional]

Too bad that i would like to find a drum scanner[not Imacon] that can scan up to 8x10, and they can ship it to UAE, where i can buy a drum scanner for 8x10?

[Karl Hudson]

The Heidelberg Nexscan is my favorite flatbed. It has a 5080 dpi optical res and there's no mirror in the light path. It's a larger free-standing machine which allows the lens and the 8000 pixel trilinear CCD to get pretty far away from the original and from each other, unlike a desktop flatbed. A friend of mine has a refurbished one available in Chicago. Feel free to contact me for more info...

[sanking]

Too bad that i would like to find a drum scanner[not Imacon] that can scan up to 8x10, and they can ship it to UAE, where i can buy a drum scanner for 8x10?


Here in the US it is not that hard to find high end drum scanners and professional quality flatbed scanners on the used market for far less than one would pay for a new Hasselblad/Imacon scanner. However, drum scanners and professional flatbed equipment are very large and heavy and one would have to pay a lot to ship out of the US, to say nothing of the issue of damage in transit. Even movement here in the US can run several hundred dollars to crate and ship this thpe of equipment, which typically weighs from 130 - 200 lbs at minimum.

You might contact http://www.genesis-equipment.com/whyGenesis.aspx to get a quote on purchase and shipment to your country of a drum scanner or high end flatbed. The purchase prices I have seen for good equipment are fairly reasonable, IMO, not sure what shipping costs would be.

Sandy King

[Professional]

Here in the US it is not that hard to find high end drum scanners and professional quality flatbed scanners on the used market for far less than one would pay for a new Hasselblad/Imacon scanner. However, drum scanners and professional flatbed equipment are very large and heavy and one would have to pay a lot to ship out of the US, to say nothing of the issue of damage in transit. Even movement here in the US can run several hundred dollars to crate and ship this thpe of equipment, which typically weighs from 130 - 200 lbs at minimum.

You might contact http://www.genesis-equipment.com/whyGenesis.aspx to get a quote on purchase and shipment to your country of a drum scanner or high end flatbed. The purchase prices I have seen for good equipment are fairly reasonable, IMO, not sure what shipping costs would be.

Sandy King

Thank you very much!

Yes, i am worry that i amy pay half the price of the item for the shipping, and the tax also will be added [we call it a custom duty, but it is same as tax even less in all cases].

I will give them a call or message them and see, but which scanner i should go with if i will scan up to 8x10 film?

[sanking]

Thank you very much!

Yes, i am worry that i amy pay half the price of the item for the shipping, and the tax also will be added [we call it a custom duty, but it is same as tax even less in all cases].

I will give them a call or message them and see, but which scanner i should go with if i will scan up to 8x10 film?


Three good choices would be Howtek 4500 (drum scanner), Fuji Cezanne (professional flatbed) and Creo/Kodak Eversmart Supreme (professional flatbed).

Also, contact Karl Hudson (see previous messages this thread). He may know of a Lino / Heidelberg scanner in Germany (or somewhere else in the world) that would cost less, considering shipping.

For my personal use with B&W and color negative film I would prefer the Howtek 4500 for 35mm and medium format, and the Eversmart Supreme for 8X10. For color transparency film you need a drum scanner for optimum results, regardless of format.

Sandy King

[Professional]

Three good choices would be Howtek 4500 (drum scanner), Fuji Cezanne (professional flatbed) and Creo/Kodak Eversmart Supreme (professional flatbed).

Also, contact Karl Hudson (see other threads this forum). He may know of a Lino / Heidelberg scanner in Germany that would cost less, considering shipping.

For my personal use with B&W and color negative film I would prefer the Howtek 4500 for 35mm and medium format, and the Eversmart Supreme for 8X10. For color transparency film you need a drum scanner for optimum results, regardless of format.

Sandy King

I shoot B&W, color Negative and Transparencies[slides], and i shoot medium fromat and not only LF, i don't shoot 35mm, so i will be using MF to LF[up to 8x10] with all kind of films

[zhengjdc]

I have owned both, and currently still owning a v700 and another Howtek D4000 drum scanner.

For 4x5, the resolution is more than enough over v700, and with doug's wet mounting kit, the result is very crispy, a drum scanner doesn't bring any advantages over resolution for 4x5..

However, the drum scanner still deliver low light performance that nothing can surpass it, if your slides having tons of shadows, v700 sees nothing there, nada, but the drum scanner can see something even your eyes won't witness over a projector.

However, there's a work around for v700 to compensate its very weak CCD sensor is by using Vuescan.

Vuescan is a must have type of software that every owner should grab one. It allows actual exposure control over v700/750 wayyyyyy before the A/D conversion taking place, which means it allows v700 has more dynamic range and allows it to see dark much easier.... a must be kind of software.

For 4x5 with Vuescan, v700 is more than enough if you know how to twitch the exposure control under Vuescan and no need go for drum.

my 2 cent.

[Laron]

zhengjdc: thanks for this post, i feel now much much better as i have already ordered a v700 for 4x5 scanning! Thanks for the tip for going vuescan. I would really need those dark tones...

[Richard Mahoney]

Hello everyone,

I'm looking to convert 4x5 to digital so I can use the large inkjet printers at school (and use photoshop as well) but my question is: Can a flatbed scanner give me high enough quality to print at 40x50? Drum scans are expensive, so I was hoping to cut down on cost, but my work is VERY texture and detailed orientated, so I don't want to lose that when I enlarge. The reason I made the digital-to-film switch was for enlargement purposes, but not sure the best way to go about it. Any advice would be great! Thanks.

Its is often said that flatbed scans are relatively inexpensive compared to drum scans. What is often forgotten is the amount of additional time required to make many flatbed scans half-way tolerable. Every drum scan I have ever received has been prepared ready for printing. Every flatbed scan I have ever made for myself has required an inordinate amount of post-processing.

There is also a critical difference between the `look' of a good drum scan and a flatbed scan. We often hear people on this forum saying that this only becomes noticeable at larger print sizes. In truth, the difference is noticeable in plates on a printed page, and even on relatively poor quality computer monitors.

Simply put -- you get what you pay for. If you are happy with a marked drop off in quality between your transparency and your print then make flatbed scans. If, on the other hand, you want to maintain the highest level of quality at each stage from the your film to your print, and if you have sufficient funds, then hire someone to drum scan your material.


Kind regards,

Richard

[Professional]

I think i will go with the drum scanner sooner or later if i can budget, this way i will never look back, i am sure i will always keep looking for highest level of quality and pixel peeping and printing larger prints of my film shots then i will curse my Epson scanner more and more day by day, so better get one drum scanner and enjoy the quality and no complains.

[zhengjdc]

zhengjdc: thanks for this post, i feel now much much better as i have already ordered a v700 for 4x5 scanning! Thanks for the tip for going vuescan. I would really need those dark tones...

the premise is that you MUST get doug's wet mounting kit for v700, as these flatbed scanner has absolutely NO focusing ability what not. Without wet mounting kit &Vuescan, v700 simply sucks.

Another thing you might need keep in mind is that, the time spent on wetmounting over v700 is more than drum scanner, overally I feel scanning a good scan on v700 is more time consuming than a drum scanner, maybe I am a perfectionist, who compulsively adjust the wetmounting height over v700, just to make myself *feel* right about it.

1st of all, you need spent 1 whole day for precise measuring the wet mounting kit height, it took me 20 trials.

Then you need to keep the film flat to the glass and this isn't easy. Drum scanner comes with special mounting station that easily can remove air bubbles but not with a piece of bare glass.

Without vuescan, v700 has NO ability to see the darks of your film, not with silverfast, nor epson scanning software... I found that Vuescan is the most amazing piece of software that directly controls the scanner hardware and it even allows you to save it into a camera RAW format.

Another thing you might keep in mind that a used drum scanner can be sell for just a little over $1000, if you found a working horse, it's worthing its money.

If you have really good 135 films, v700's resolution power isn't strong enough to catch some details made on my canon L lens, only drum scanners can see details at 4096dpi, where v700 seems to be struggling at 3500dpi and it's 6400dpi seems to be just market hyping.

[zhengjdc]

There is also a critical difference between the `look' of a good drum scan and a flatbed scan. We often hear people on this forum saying that this only becomes noticeable at larger print sizes. In truth, the difference is noticeable in plates on a printed page, and even on relatively poor quality computer monitors.


Richard

The "looking" difference is merely the diffraction limit of most flatbed scanners, that's why you should keep scanning lower than 3500dpi on v700 since over that limit, the lens begin to flare abit and the lens can't conform the 3 different light too well thus causing slight chromatic abbreviation around contrasty objects.

Drum scanner doesn't suffer such a problem simply due to the fact that it's a microscope lens with mechanical focusing gizmo+ a simple hole structured aperture with high sensitivity PMT tubes.

We expose longer on v700 for compensating the high S/N ratio of the CCD sensor, and lower the resolution for CA, and using wet mounting kits for its lacking of focusing ability.

[Karl Hudson]

Well I carry both if you are interested in a fully refurbished Heidelberg. It's not of much use for me to post anything on here because it always disappears right after I post it with no private message from the moderator as to why...same thing happened when I was offering cheap service on my U.S. Tour which worked out great for everyone involved, but those of you on here who might have needed my services in conjunction with an amazingly cheap offer wouldn't have known about it, since it too, was instantly deleted (twice)....you can find me on the Yahoo Scan Hi-End and the Yahoo Primescan Tango groups...I'm ducking out of here. Good luck with all your Howteks, Colorgetters, and other desktop scanners.
Karl Hudson

[Findingmyway4ever]

Everyone will have a different viewpoint, but this post by Don Hutton was enough for me to "know" that it is not worth using the cheap flatbeds for anything more than proofing:

"I have done a B&W comparison with 4x5 and 8x10 - drum scan of the 4x5 at 4000DPI on a Howtek 4500 and the 8x10 scanned on an Epson 4990 at 2400DPI (I believe that the V750 is maybe just slightly better). Actual resolution was not that different - however, the drum scan delivers far more microcontrast and overall a much better file - and that's on a 4x5 to 8x10 comparison. I've made 16x20 prints from scans of 8x10 negs on the Epson and then made the same 16x20 prints from a drum scan and there are very visible differences in the final prints - mostly related to microcontrast. In color, I would expect these differences to be even greater, especially from chromes.

Most people I have spoken to about the relative merits of consumer flatbed vs drum scans of large format film presume that the differences will be all about resolution - that's only a small part of it - microcontrast, dynamic range and lack of any noise are probably bigger factors to consider. If you have any doubts, I'd highly recommend that you spring for a drum scan from a reputable operator (like Lenny Eiger) and make up your own mind. I'd suggest it won't take long."

[Asher Kelman]

I have owned both, and currently still owning a v700 and another Howtek D4000 drum scanner.

For 4x5, the resolution is more than enough over v700, and with doug's wet mounting kit, the result is very crispy, a drum scanner doesn't bring any advantages over resolution for 4x5..

However, the drum scanner still deliver low light performance that nothing can surpass it, if your slides having tons of shadows, v700 sees nothing there, nada, but the drum scanner can see something even your eyes won't witness over a projector.

However, there's a work around for v700 to compensate its very weak CCD sensor is by using Vuescan.

Vuescan is a must have type of software that every owner should grab one. It allows actual exposure control over v700/750 wayyyyyy before the A/D conversion taking place, which means it allows v700 has more dynamic range and allows it to see dark much easier.... a must be kind of software.

For 4x5 with Vuescan, v700 is more than enough if you know how to twitch the exposure control under Vuescan and no need go for drum.

my 2 cent.

Does one get any advantage with the Epson 750 f one is going to use vuescan software anyway. Also, do you see any advantage in the Epson 10,000 XL Photo for 4x5 and 8x10

Thanks so much,

Asher

[engl]

Everyone will have a different viewpoint, but this post by Don Hutton was enough for me to "know" that it is not worth using the cheap flatbeds for anything more than proofing:


So how would you explain this "knowledge" to the many on this forum making beautiful prints from V700 scanners, including respected and very knowledgeable professionals? "Nice shot, but the quality is really just good enough for proofing?".

There are quality differences, but being worse than the best does not make something poor. Drum scanners are better, still properly sharpened Epson scans are very good for 4x5.

[Jake Purches]

I often have to drum scan photographs that have been poorly scanned on other machines, like Imacons. The problem is this: Drum scanners can see colour that would not register on a conventional scanner. If you want the same colour fidelity from your original then a good RGB 48 bit drum scan is the only way. Why? Because a) They are wet scanned with oil which means there is an optical connection of the transpareny to the drum. Hence only the grain is 'seen' and not the material the film is made of. b) Drum scanners use Photo multiplier tubes as sensors not CCDs. PMT tubes are billions of times more sensitive and are used for photon counting. c) The scanner only scans 1 pixel at a time thereby devoting all its resources to making on perfect pixel rather than an array of CCDs which are optically an appalling compromise. d) Drum scanners can easily scan up to and more than 8000 dpi, and this is real dpi not imagined or pretend. OK they are more expensive to do because the time and effort in mounting, scanning then cleaning up your original is labour intensive, but you get what you pay for. A drum scan even looks the business when reduced down to internet size, so its not just massive image files or sharpness, its COLOUR DYNAMIC RANGE that you get with a drum scan, that is so obviously missing in a CCD scanner no matter what type it is. And Flat bed scanners are always the worst of the worst. They are a false economy. Do fewer photos and get them drum scanned - PLEASE.

[pdmoylan]

In real terms, when I printed 20x24s and even a 24x30 from downsampled dpi 4800 scans using the V750 and compared them to drum scans of the same image, the loss of microdetails in the former is obvious even from a reasonable distance (8 feet). Up close, you still have very good resolution but the detail is shall we say "dirty". Subtlety of color is clearly improved with the drum. Many complimented the 750 prints but what they were seeing was the image. The impact is clearly improved with the drum scan. If you want something with maximum punch, the "wow" effect, go with drum scans. Not all drums scanners are created equal though. There is a comparative test connected with this forum. Check it out.

[SeanEsopenko]

I'm starting to feel as though I'm "outgrowing" my own V700. I wanted to confirm my thoughts that I wasn't getting as sharp of scans as I should so I bought an old LS-2000 dedicated film scanner for 35mm. I was right, the V700 was scanning without much detail. Plus I love the RGB led's in the LS-2000 for removing the orange mask. I noticed a large difference in the dynamic range when scanning colour negatives once that was tweaked :). I'd rather have 12-16 bits of pure image information, and not have to lose many of those bits to removing the orange mask via software.

http://www.seanesopenko.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/scancomparison1.jpg

On the top is a 2700 dpi scan with the LS-2000 and the bottom is a scan with the V700. The epson looks like mud compared to the 13 year old LS-2000. I get 9 "megapixel" scans from 35mm film with the LS-2000 while with the V700 I have to frequently scale it down to about 1.5 "megapixels" and even then it looked like crap when posting an image to the web.

I started to notice something was up when scanning medium format film. I have some betterscanning.com holders on the way (because I can't justify the expense of an upgraded scanner ATM) but even wet mounted using Jim Kitchen's technique and suspended at the optimal focusing point (with pennies, tape & paper for spacers lol) my RB67 scans are hard pressed to beat my 12MP Canon 5D.

While my V700 scans look great on the monitor for 4x5 work I totally don't trust it for 20x24" prints (or larger) with the same sharpness I get when enlarged in the darkroom. No way. I think the 4x5 negatives are too small to get good, detailed prints from the V700.

Also I tried Vuescan's multi-exposure with my V700 but the stepper motor wasn't accurate enough to get sharp scans when mixing the two passes. It increased the dynamic range a bit but blurred the images. I'm putting together a colour darkroom because my 4x5 work is all fine-art oriented and I can't afford a digital workflow at the moment with a large inkjet printer and a good scanner. Maybe in a year or two but not now.

[Brian Ellis]

It's hardly a surprise that a comparison of a dedicated 35mm film scanner with an Epson flatbed scanning 35mm film shows that the 35mm film scanner does a much better job. Nobody that I know of ever thought the Epson flatbeds were any good with 35mm except maybe for web postings. They're strictly for 4x5 and 8x10 film or maybe medium format if the prints are kept real small (I actually didn't like the prints from scans of my 6x7 negatives at any size but some people do). And 4x enlargements are the maximum for me with the 4990.

As long as you don't expect the Epson scanner to do something it was never intended to do (i.e. work well with 35mm), and as long as you recognize its limits (4x enlargements) it does an excellent job.

[Asher Kelman]

It's hardly a surprise that a comparison of a dedicated 35mm film scanner with an Epson flatbed scanning 35mm film shows that the 35mm film scanner does a much better job. Nobody that I know of ever thought the Epson flatbeds were any good with 35mm except maybe for web postings. They're strictly for 4x5 and 8x10 film or maybe medium format if the prints are kept real small (I actually didn't like the prints from scans of my 6x7 negatives at any size but some people do). And 4x enlargements are the maximum for me with the 4990.

As long as you don't expect the Epson scanner to do something it was never intended to do (i.e. work well with 35mm), and as long as you recognize its limits (4x enlargements) it does an excellent job.
Brian,

What's you experience with just printing an 8x10 V700 scan at 16x20 v. a drum scan?

Asher

[Leigh]

As long as you don't expect ... to do something it was never intended to do, and as long as you recognize its limits, it does an excellent job.
That's kinda true of any product, yes/no???

- Leigh

[edtog]

Here's a quick comparison I made on another forum

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=3553459&postcount=13

[Brian Ellis]

That's kinda true of any product, yes/no???

- Leigh

No. Some products don't do a very good job even when used within their limits.

[Brian Ellis]

Brian,

What's you experience with just printing an 8x10 V700 scan at 16x20 v. a drum scan?

Asher

I've never had a drum scan made from an 8x10 negative.

[SeanEsopenko]

Here's a quick comparison I made on another forum

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=3553459&postcount=13

That's about the same difference in sharpness I see when comparing a darkroom, silver print enlargement to a V700 scan of 4x5, even when wet mounted. I just wish there was somebody locally who offered $20 drum scanning :).

I believe Kandinsky is the Ansel Adams of my generation. I've so far, in person, heard two people describe their awe and wonder when first seeing an Ansel Adams print, wondering "how the hell did he do that?" I experienced that when I saw a Kandinsky print for the first time, around the same age when they saw their first Ansel Adams. I looked at my little Digital Rebel and thought "what the hell am I doing?" If somebody has the ambition to reach that level of work they can't do it with a flatbed scanner. They're going to need much more than that.


As long as you don't expect the Epson scanner to do something it was never intended to do (i.e. work well with 35mm), and as long as you recognize its limits (4x enlargements) it does an excellent job.

Going back to the original poster's question, he was asking if a V700 would suffice for 40x50" prints and I think the general consensus is that the OP may be disappointed seeing V700 scans enlarged to that size.

[Ed Kelsey]

The Epson V750 enables you to scan 4x5 @ 6500 ppi, which equates to 650 ppi at 10x enlargement.

That's twice the nominal 300 ppi that you print, so it should work OK.

I've found the scans to be excellent when viewed on-screen. I don't print in that size range.

- Leigh

Oh come on what's the use of scanning at 6500 dpi ? Even if you can do it and I don't think you can, all you're going to get is more grain past somewhere between 3200 and 4000 dpi

[SeanEsopenko]

Oh come on what's the use of scanning at 6500 dpi ? Even if you can do it and I don't think you can, all you're going to get is more grain past somewhere between 3200 and 4000 dpi

I agree, the V700 can't really resolve any more detail at 6500 dpi than it can at 2400 dpi. I'm even suspicious it's not properly resolving 2400 dpi scans because I should be seeing the grain aliasing I get at 2700 dpi from my LS-2000. There are some serious focus problems with the V700, even when I tweak the height with paper thin adjustment and wet mount the negatives.

It seems like one plausible use for a super high resolution scan is to help with grain aliasing. I see grain aliasing all the time from my LS-2000 but the V700 can't resolve the grain fine enough for aliasing to start showing up. So why bother scanning at 6500 dpi when there's no benefit to it?

[Asher Kelman]

Here's a quick comparison I made on another forum

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=3553459&postcount=13

Great comparison. Now have you compared that with an 8x10 enlarger making the enlargement? Or maybe someone has a link to such tests? I'm wondering about the relative cost of setting up for such great 16x20 or even 32x40 prints from 8x10 film

Asher

[engl]

Here's a quick comparison I made on another forum

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=3553459&postcount=13

Interesting, my V700 is not nearly as mushy at 1200DPI (which seems to be what the crop is).

[sanking]

Interesting, my V700 is not nearly as mushy at 1200DPI (which seems to be what the crop is).

I am also surprised that the crop from the Epson V700 scan looked so mushy. It should compare quite favorably with a dedicated film scanner up to 2000 dpi, or even an Imacon for that matter since resolution with the Imacon for 4X5 is limited to 2040 dpi.

In the past I tested the Epson V700 with a high resolution target. What I found was that when scanning at 2400 dpi the actual effective resolution of the V700 was about 2000 dpi, increasing to about 2300 dpi if the scan was made at 6400 dpi.

In my opinion16X20 prints of excellent quality are possible from a 4X5 scan of B&W film with the V700 if one takes care to get the most out of the machine (fluid mounting and determining the plane of best focus) and carries out good post-scan processing. Fluid mounting with the V700 does not give more resolution but it gives a lot more micro-contrast. Good post scan processing is, IMHO, even more important then the quality of the scan, within limits of course.

Returning to the original question of the OP, for a print 40X50" in size (assuming optimum image quality is desired) one needs a higher quality scan than the V700 can provide.. You can get it with a professional flatbed like the Cezanne or Eversmart, or a drum scanner like the Howtek.

Sandy King

[Asher Kelman]

In the past I tested the Epson V700 with a high resolution target. What I found was that when scanning at 2400 dpi the actual effective resolution of the V700 was about 2000 dpi, increasing to about 2300 dpi if the scan was made at 6400 dpi.


What about the 10000XL scanner. That adds focus to 2400 optical scanning!

Asher

[Peter J. De Smidt]

The 10000XL can do larger originals, right? Other than that, if you place the negative at the correct height with a V700 or V750, would auto focus really be an advantage?

[Asher Kelman]

The 10000XL can do larger originals, right? Other than that, if you place the negative at the correct height with a V700 or V750, would auto focus really be an advantage?
I wonder whether Epson has a better stepper motor in their professional big scanner. but I don't know. From what I've read, getting exact focus with a V700 series is a pain. However, once it was done, repeating would be easy. My needs are for 4x5 and 8x10. It's also much less expensive than the 10000XL.

Maybe someone has actual experience.

Asher

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Here's a quick comparison I made on another forum

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=3553459&postcount=13

That's odd- the scans I get from my 4990 look a lot better than that. I've compared prints made from them to those of the same image drum scanned from 4X5 at a 16X20 print and can barely see a difference. There's probably a big difference between different Epson flatbeds, with some of the same model being a lot better than others.