Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tashley

And that's exactly why I asked the question. With respect to all who have tried to help, it was a pretty specific question and no amount of information about other scanners answers it...

---

Perhaps you might be more specific as to how your question has not been answered? Some people in this thread have expressed the opinion that Epson V750 will give you good enough results for exhibition purposes at the size you mentioned, others believe that it will not. There is no right or wrong answer because the question of quality is subjective. I think you just need to move on and have some prints made from scans of the Epson V750 and see if they meet your standard.


Sandy King

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ditkoofseppala

And yet, the main problem with the V750M Pro appeared to be (judging from the reviews) not so much the potential variability stemming from manufacturing tolerances, but the fact that there was no way to alter the focus of the scanning lenses, .

.

---

Probably a dumb question, but can you not lay down a 4x5 flat on the glass and improve focusing?

Regarding resolution (sharpness) of a scan, there are more factors involved than just placing the image in the exact focus point. These are very complicated devices, many moving parts and the precision in which all these part interact, while moving, plays a big role. Even after you find the sweet spot for the film you have to be concerned about the scanner's maintenance of plano parallelness ( the ccd may move out of the sweet spot as it moves across the bed), vibrations caused by the motion of and within the scanner, the quality of the lens being used, the consistency of the motors moving the ccd array, any noise that the electronics may add to the scan, any noise that heat from the scanner may add to the scan, any flicker in the light source, any susceptibility to line voltage irregularities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

Perhaps you might be more specific as to how your question has not been answered? Some people in this thread have expressed the opinion that Epson V750 will give you good enough results for exhibition purposes at the size you mentioned, others believe that it will not. There is no right or wrong answer because the question of quality is subjective. I think you just need to move on and have some prints made from scans of the Epson V750 and see if they meet your standard.


Sandy King

---

Of course Sandy.

But to be clear, I did not state that it hadn't been answered, I stated that no amount of reference to other scanners answered it.

My question noted that I intended to purchase the Epson V750 or Microtek M1/F1 and enquired as to whether results from either of those two specific models would give exhibition quality prints, and I defined that nebulous judgement as

'...quality that YOU would happily exhibit in a professional context'.

A large number of the answers referred to the Epson 4990 and other models. Others referred me to the excellent but not comprehensive list and comparison of scanners on this site, which does not contain, as it happens, examples from the V750. In fact, very little specific information about either of the scanners I asked about has been forthcoming. I am sure that this is simply because people don't have the information but it is nonetheless true.

Now you'll forgive me for observing that today's consumer model of most things, whether it be digital cameras or dishwashers, often outperforms yesterday's pro model and certainly yesterday's consumer model - so all of the highly informative experience with the Epson 4990 that people have shared did not address my particular question, though I am of course grateful for it.

It may well be the case that a 20,000 dollar drum scanner gives results that all agree to be exhibition quality and that NO consumer flatbed gives results that most discerning observers would use for that purpose. But it is also possible, at least, that the very latest generation of consumer flatbeds gives, for the first time in history, good enough results. Heck, for all I know, they might even be better: there might have been a quantum leap in the technology. And that's what I was trying to find out.

As for moving on... I have done so already. Trust me. I didn't want to start a row and I have no intention of getting involved in one: but I do thank all those who have helped.

With Best Regards

Tim
http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/

This is a pretty hot topic. It seems scanner theory has attained a level of Holy War previously only relegated to the "Nikon vs. Canon" or "Film vs. Digital" folks.

Whomever said that the best scanner is the one that is "good enough" for you was right on the money. Just like with any other aesthetic choice, you have to do your homework and look at a lot of real-world results to make your decision. Figuring heavily in that decision is your intent: what size prints are you going to make? How large are your originals? Do you need to resolve the film grain to make an acceptable print? Do you shoot dark and need a scanner that can really dig into the shadows? How much time do you want to spend post-processing the image? Most importantly, how much do you want to pay?

The oft-cited 16x20 "maximum" print size of consumer flatbed scanners is merely a general guideline, and not etched in stone. I just sold a 30x40 print that was scanned on my 4990 and output on an Epson. Looks great, and the client was thrilled. I'm sure one of the more-experienced scanning gurus like Ted, Sandy, Kirk, or others might find fault with the print, especially if there was a second, drum-scanned print with which to compare...but for my intent, it was "good enough".

I'm flurting with disaster here, but here's a screenshot showing two 100% crops of a 6x7 transparency from my Mamiya RZ67, one scanned on an IQSmart3 at 4000dpi, the other on my Epson 4990 at 2400dpi using the BetterScanning variable height glass holder, dry. The Epson was upsampled and sharpened to more closely match the IQSmart3 scan. The IQSmart clearly produces a better file, but by how much of a margin? I've printed both to 16x20 and both look great.

Honestly, I sort of like the Epson-scanned print better because it doesn't have the prominent pepper-grain revealed by the IQSmart3. :)

http://www.brettsimison.com/iotw/ima...21_6x7_001.jpg
Full Image

http://clients.brettsimison.com/down...rop_Bsmall.jpg
Click to view larger image

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

Bsimison, try the same test with something with fine detail (forest scene), your sample image (appreciated) is of large undetailed areas, just soft clouds and outline of a person.

---

Actually, there is detail throughout the lower portion of the image, in the water ripples, the boardwalk, etc. The outline of the person is simply the most illustrative. Posting 100% crops of all of the salient areas of the image is beyond the scope of this discussion, as well as my time and upload bandwidth allotment.

Granted, if it were an image of piles of pine needles and leaves in the distance, undoubtedly the high end scanners would trounce the Epson, but that's not the point of my post. I was merely trying to emphasize an earlier point about getting results that are good enough for you. We don't all have the time or money to demand the highest-possible scan quality, nor does most output require it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bsimison

Actually, there is detail throughout the lower portion of the image, in the water ripples, the boardwalk, etc. The outline of the person is simply the most illustrative. Posting 100% crops of all of the salient areas of the image is beyond the scope of this discussion, as well as my time and upload bandwidth allotment.

Granted, if it were an image of piles of pine needles and leaves in the distance, undoubtedly the high end scanners would trounce the Epson, but that's not the point of my post. I was merely trying to emphasize an earlier point about getting results that are good enough for you. We don't all have the time or money to demand the highest-possible scan quality, nor does most output require it.

---

Wise words - thanks! This discussion has reminded me of the classic "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" If any tool does the job at hand, it's a good tool, though finer may be found. Sometimes, the best is really overkill. Perhaps there should be a forum where the elite pros wouldn't have to contend with ordinary mortals simply trying to improve their skills within the constraints of a household budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Hilker

Perhaps there should be a forum where the elite pros wouldn't have to contend with ordinary mortals simply trying to improve their skills within the constraints of a household budget.

---

Well, I wouldn't want to go that far...I value the information provided by Kirk, Sandy, Ted, and others. They know what is possible from the medium. But all too often, many people are discouraged with their photographs because they don't have the sharpest glass, the optimal film and developer combination, or the best scanner. They end up not shooting, because why bother if the results are going to be inferior?

Just like the article posted on the home page of this website, scanner quality can be another magic bullet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bsimison

I'm flurting with disaster here, but here's a screenshot showing two 100% crops of a 6x7 transparency from my Mamiya RZ67, one scanned on an IQSmart3 at 4000dpi, the other on my Epson 4990 at 2400dpi using the BetterScanning variable height glass holder, dry. The Epson was upsampled and sharpened to more closely match the IQSmart3 scan. The IQSmart clearly produces a better file, but by how much of a margin? I've printed both to 16x20 and both look great.

Honestly, I sort of like the Epson-scanned print better because it doesn't have the prominent pepper-grain revealed by the IQSmart3. :)

http://www.brettsimison.com/iotw/ima...21_6x7_001.jpg
Full Image

http://clients.brettsimison.com/down...rop_Bsmall.jpg
Click to view larger image

---

The pepper grain is partly due to the IQSmart3 using 4000ppi resolution and the Epson only using 2400ppi. if you want to compare apples to apples you need to use the same criteria. Do them both at 2400. Whenever you go more than 3200ppi you get a resulting increase in the appearance of grain. I assume you did not wet mount the film for the IQ3 scan, which would have further reduced grain yet also increased detail and tonal smoothness. You also need to test them with sharpening turned off.

When i get back from my current trip I am going to do extensive testing using the 3000, 3200 and 3600 ppi resolutions and then interpolating them up about to about 4400 PPI and then compare that to a straight 4400ppi scan. I am betting that the appearance of grain will be quite a bit less and the difference in detail will be almost non existent. These will of course be done wet mounted.

Did you notice the difference in noise in the shadows? The IQ3 has none, the Epson has a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bsimison

Well, I wouldn't want to go that far...I value the information provided by Kirk, Sandy, Ted, and others. They know what is possible from the medium. But all too often, many people are discouraged with their photographs because they don't have the sharpest glass, the optimal film and developer combination, or the best scanner. They end up not shooting, because why bother if the results are going to be inferior?
.

---

That's a BS excuse. How did any of us get the optimal film and developer combination? We took the time to test various films and developers. I have had years when I have shot more test film than actual photographs. As for the sharpest glass, there's a ton of great glass on e-ay that is priced very reasonably. You buy a used lens, shoot some test film, examine the film and if like the lens you keep it, otherwise you send it back. As for not having the best scanner, i didn't get an Imacon or Creo until a year and a half ago, for the 16 prior years i sent my important work out for a drum scan. Bottom line is that if you do care about the quality of your work it's not as much a money issue as a time and effort issue.