I'm working with a friend to have one made just now. He's in Chicago and I'm in NYC though so it's a little slow going. If he's interested in taking orders I'll report back with a forum post and a price.
Printable View
I'm working with a friend to have one made just now. He's in Chicago and I'm in NYC though so it's a little slow going. If he's interested in taking orders I'll report back with a forum post and a price.
Is anyone selling one of these yet? I'd like to buy one.
Jordan, There was a good bit discussion but I don't believe anyone really produced these in any quantities since most found the Ben Horne version to be more ideal and easy to do themselves. You should be able to make one out of rubber mats yourself easily.
Pali
I've just spotted this thread. Therefore, please may I ask what might be considered stupid questions?
1] why does a (positive/negative) film need to be raised above the scanner glass?
2] why and/or how was the 1.5mm determined?
3] does the same philosphy apply to 4x5 and if so what is the the raised dimension?
4] are the arguments within this thread peculiar to Epson scanners or do they apply to 'any' scanner?
regards
Tony
1. To eliminate newton rings.
2. It could be less! but then the material could get fragile, but the reasoning is the DOF of the scanner lens can accommodate that height. 1mm would probably work fine.
3. No, because there are already great holders for 4x5 that allow you to use the better higher resolution lens (that doesn't cover 8x10). Betterscanning makes the one I use.
4. Any scanner but the Epsons are the most common, and still made so that's the one I'm talking about.
Attachment 142088
Laser cut 3mm aluminum plate with frosted treatment for my EPSON~
4x5
5x7
8x10
A quick acknowledgement and thanks to Chuck for suggesting his machinist, John Zug, in Colorado. Just received the holder John made for me...it's perfect, and the scans are producing discernibly better sharpness on my 8x10's. Cost $90, and works better than the piece of anti-Newton ring glass I've been using.
Another recommendation for John Zug, excellent work on holders I had him make me for 8x10 and 5x7
I had him make mine to slightly larger opening dimensions so I could get some rebate
So far the 5x7 version is working perfectly
Going to ask him to make me another 8x10 holder as the one I had him make crops a little too much for my uses (my fault in measuring)
Deleted
Dear forum friends,
Anybody has the perfect inner dimensions for 8x10 and 5x7 holders?
As I have the Epson plastic version which is generally useless regarding the newton ring issue, I also like to try the pet mat version using the Epson for the outside dimensions.
Thanks and best regards, Miguel
https://www.jbhphoto.com/blog/2011/01/29/film-diagonal/
Attachment 182926
If you place the emulsion side facing to the glass then you'll mostly avoid the rings.
You can also wet mount the sheet directly on the bed glass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg6uO2ODvbY
Also get a cheap HEPA air purifier (I use a Honeywell 16000), with it you will get rid of dust by starting it 5 minutes before (if room is small).
Does anyone have experience scanning 8x10 film on a 10000XL? I have a 12000XL (same specs as the 10k I believe) and am trying to find a source for a custom holder that will keep the film flush with the bed. Ideally there would be ANR glass involved.
Didn’t want to start a new thread. Was looking into getting an 8x10 back for my Sinar and was looking for an analysis / opinion on what the scan quality leap was moving from 4x5 to 8x10 while using an Epson v750-850.
I’m finding 4x5 to give very good prints up to around 16x20. It always pained me to know I could get to more detail / sharpness / tonality if I had access to a drum scanner. I’ve read 8x10 scans off an Epson can be excellent due to the size of
the negative. There is certainly a giant leap moving from 35mm to 120mm and then again to 4x5. The results do get better and better. Is this also true moving to 8x10?
Thanks
Expect to have the same quality with a 75% larger print
For 8x10 the epson uses the lower res lens, so you cannot increase 100% the print size while conserving the same scan quality
So even after downsampling there wouldn’t be enhancement to tonality or sharpness?
If true , this is still good to know.
There are other factors to consider when evaluating a larger film format like 8x10.
For equivalent angle of view from the same distance we need longer lenses which are generally lower in resolution. Longer lenses require smaller apertures to give equivalent depth of field. For example, given the identical subject-to-camera distance, a 150mm lens at f/22 has the same depth of field as a 300mm lens at f/45 or a 600mm lens at f/90.
At smaller apertures we need either brighter light or longer exposures which may not be suitable for all subjects.
For these and other reasons, when we go from 4x5 to 8x10 we don't simply double the resolution as we double the width of the film (or quadruple it as we quadruple the area).
Even so, we get a lot of resolution.
35mm film has the same tonality than 8x10 if same development
4x5 image quality is insane, 8x10 is an overkill for most applications
But some 8x10 shots have a particular look from the defocus roll off, I'm addicted to that, IMHO the way depth is worked in 8x10 is so amazing,
don't make the mistake to look throught a 8x10 ground glass (Jim). It's addictive...
Yeah. I can see that. That photo is telling. I couldn’t crop in like that with my 4x5 scans.
How does this compare to wet scanning? I would place optical mylar over the 8x10 directly wet mounted to scan glass. Or you could use anr glass on top of negative as part of the wet scan mounting.
I didn't look bit how far above the glass is the negative placed with the holder? Do you use the bar comes with scanner to invoke the lens for the 8x10 negative? My understandingbos that lens will cover full 8x10 and is focused at the scanner glass so mounting above could be an issue. Just inquiring.
I tried the link but wasn't granted access.
Steven, you can wet mount the 8x10 negative on the bed glass. This would be useful for an scratched negative. Other benefits are scarce, but this is 'à chacun son goût.
A common issue when dry scanning on bed can be newton rings, but if the emulsion is facing to the glass we may not have to wet mount it. Another reason to wet mount on bed, in some cases, is ensuring perfect flatness (a rare curled sheet?)
Wet mounting the negative won't damage the bed glass if taking some care, but in any case a replacement for the bed glass is quite cheap.
Rany, no softening... because mounting fluid has similar refraction index than film it avoids the effect of the scratch without adding blur.
Wet scans are equal or better than the dry ones, equal at least. If the film was curled then it can be clear benefit as flatness is ensured.
Attachment 183958
I find that when I wet mount my 4x5, I get much better scans, more even tones and colors and believe it or not they are crisper. I did quite a bit of dry scanning being somewhat apprehensive about wet scanning before trying wet scanning. Once I did, it was a no brainer to continue and forget dry scanning all together. For the Epson, you have to use the tape you get from distributor for Kami scan fluid and tape the scan glass edges to prevent the fluid from getting into the scanner. From there once wet mounted to the scan glass, I would lay the slightly oversized 8x10 ANR glass from better scanning on top of this. Seems to be good.
I short, I doubt I will ever dry scan a negative again, even medium or 35mm format.
It's four times as much dots as 4x5. Not more, not less. If you can go up to 16x20 to your satisfaction with 4x5, you can expect to pull off 32x40 or a little less with 8x10. Of course costs of film increase quite rapidly as well but so does bulk. If you shoot 8x10, you come to view 4x5 as nimble and portable...
I dry scan everything even sections of 11X14, if it's curled I lay AN 8X10 on top.
But that's just for yucks.
I don't use the now digital file for printing. I contact print or enlarge. Far more fun and still magic when something develops.
I use a DSLR when I want digital printing and I have a pro print that.
All roads lead to the 'Icon'!
I need a home scanner in pretty good quality, for 4x5 and 8x10 negatives, and I'm asking for some advice from your experiences.
V800 or v850 seem universally known as pretty good.
But I did not find specifications on tech differences between the two, even in this specific thread...
I would like to "reach the grain", avoiding "interpretations" by scanner softwares or by any other trick.
Actually, a good example I've seen here is this one, coming from a 4990 one:
http://www.kennethleegallery.com/htm...8x10Detail.php ;)
Do you have any clue?
Thank everybody
Sadly there are no many alternatives, tell me another 8x10 able scanner you can buy new with warranty, etc
Alternatives are old Pro gear with potential troubles with service and drivers for new computers.
The single physical difference is that V850 internal lenses are coated, but this is hard to be noticed in most situations.
The difference is in the bundled Silverfast software version, "SE PLus" vs "SE". The V800 version does not include Multi-Exposure feature that enhances performance for high velvia densities from 3.11D to 3.38D, Silverfast says. If you have a V800 you can purchase that ME feature separately later, https://www.silverfast.com/highlight...posure/en.html
To really "reach well" the grain with sheets you need a drum scanner, some flatbeds like Cezanne are able to scan strips of the sheet at high res that you have to join in Photoshop to get the full image, if not stitching in Ps then the EPSON is a very good choice sporting some 2400dpi effective (from 6400 hardware) when scanning width is under 5.9" (4x5 and 5x7 sheets),
For 8x10 the EPSON uses another lens that covers 8" width (rather than 5.9") delivering around 2000 dpi effective. For 8x10 the sheet is placed on the bed with emulsion down to avoid newton rings, you may even wet mount the sheet on the scanner glass bed.
____
With 4x5 a V800 perfroms better than a 4990, for 8x10" both perform similar, main difference is that the 4990 has a single lens covering 8", while the V800/850 has one lens covering 8" and another one covering only until 5.9". The 5.9" coverage lens is used with film holders, if instead using a holder you use the 8x10 "area guide" then the scanner detects it and uses the lower res lens covering more.
Another thing is that the epsons deliver a less digitally optimized image, Pro scanners usually have inside dedicated smart processing to optimize the images, with an epson you always have an additional job in Ps to refine the image result.
Thank you Pere Casals!
You are right: there are no alternatives on new machines, but now I know differences...
Yes: in case of exhibitions and collection prints series I would go to a lab for a drum scanning at highest level: here in Italy there are some well known internationally.
But to have a good scan for "close" purposes and to analyze images and possibilities the 850 could be good enough... at least I hope.
Thank you again
None of the Epson have 5X7 dedicated film holders. I use the OE 8X10 matte outline for 5X7.
The 800 series is vastly improved over 700 with LED illumination which need no warmup.
I use a 700 and do not see a need to upgrade yet. I will wait for the 900/1000 series as mine works great.
I use an V850 with excellent results. Will do anything up to 8x10.
I'm in Italy too, but I don't know any lab that does drum scans on request. Well actually I just found one in Firenze but it's way too far from where I'm located (Milan hinterland).
May I know which ones you refer about?
On a side note for everyone: I'm looking for a new scanner too, with a 4x5 sheet and a V800, what final image resolution I can expect with the best/highest settings? Thanks.
Just joined the LFP Forum. Can you point me to a thread that helps me understand how to get full-frame 8x10 scans from my (ca. 1975) 8x10 b/w film negatives on an Epson v850?
You should place the Area Guide accessory in the right position on the glass bed:
Attachment 195735
In this way the scanner knows that it has to use the low resolution lens inside, as the hi res lens ony covers 5.9".
Then place the negative directly on the glass with the emulsion side down, touching the glass, as the low lens is focused just in the outer glass surface.
For the rest it's like scanning any other film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z8drKsf-ic
You can adjust how the image looks in the Epson Scan scanning software, but I prefer to take all dynamic range and later editing in Ps.
If you take all the histogram then the image may look dull, so you may need to compress shadows and highlights in Ps to allow range enough for the mids.
Scan BW negative mode, 16 bits per channel and save in TIFF format because if not your image can be converted automatically to 8 bits per channel. After edition you may convert it to 8bits and jpeg, but better don't degradate quality until the last moment.
Probably 2800dpi will be enough, but you may scan several crops at different dpi to see when a higher dpi is not interesting for you. At 2800dpi-16bits you get a 1.25Gb file...
Feel free to ask anything (by PM, if you want) if you have any problem or question.
The link in the previous post is well worth.
[QUOTE=Pere Casals;1518112]You should place the Area Guide accessory in the right position on the glass bed:
Attachment 195735
FYI, the 800/850 probably has the newer design which is just a top piece that fits at the top of the bed (for calibration) as opposed to the v700/v750-style piece above that is the rectangle the size of the scanner bed.
Doug
Yes... this one:
Attachment 195736
Epson manual (https://files.support.epson.com/docid/cpd4/cpd41530.pdf) pages 33-34 tells how to place it.
Pere, reading the 850 manual from your link led me to the idea that the 850 wet mount kit is usable on a V700.
And available for under $60. https://www.amazon.com/Epson-Fluid-M.../dp/B00OKB52JE
I have never read anywhere BEFORE that we can do that!
Looks very good for 5X7 and smaller.
Randy, for 8x10" we also can wet mount directly on the scanner glass bed. If at some point the glass becomes scratched then a replacement is cheap.
The V700 is virtually identical to the V850, main difference is the more convenient LED illumination, and the fact that the V750 and V850 have a better coating in the lenses that probably are very difficult to notice.