If I was a Pro I also would prefer the 70 lbs IQsmart 2, a tank, and for certain LF conditions it delivers an slightly better image than the cheap V850. But I don't think I would be able at all to know if a 1m BW print form 4x5 negative is from a V850 or IQ2. Probably I would instantly recognize if that print was processed by the skilled man or not.Originally Posted by Jim Andrada
You'll see the difference very clearly at a 3x (or less) enlargement in my experience - a 1m across print would be like night and day. Especially in the highlights that will not be horribly aliased/ burnt out & the non-mushy critical details. Inkjet or chromogenic output reveal these differences in a way that even quite high resolving monitors don't. There's some noticeable spherical aberration in that 35mm scan you posted earlier which I am fairly sure is not coming from the camera lens. Sharpening will not really solve those problems - it will however increase the obviousness of the aliased grain.
Realistically, Epsons struggle to reach a useful transmissive dmax & you can see the ugly effects in the highlights. In fact, the Epsons are bad enough that pretty much any 24x36 sensor DSLR from the last 5-10 years with a macro lens & a suitable light table will be a vastly better scanner - & with a bit of care/ stitching will get you comfortably into drum scan territory.
Also, I think you'd be surprised how cheap older high end pre-press flatbeds can go for today - sometimes barely even V850 money.
Not at all, if one makes an automatic exposure with V850 it will clip the extremes to have good midtones, but you can take all histogram and then you can compress the range like you want.
Here you can see real densities (very dificult to print in a darkroom), and how well it worked the V750 I used then.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/
Densities from BW or color negatives are not a challenge for the Epsons, at all !!! Do you make BW negatives beyond 3.0D ?
Even in that case you can use Multiexposure feature, in some bundled software you have to purchase the S.F. SE Plus Upgrade ($50) for it.
This was in the past, today's monitors (and tablets, etc) have better dynamic range than paper, and with monitor you can enlarge a crop.
It can come from the lens because it was shot wide open f/1.8 (nikon 50mm AFD). Poor f/1.8 Lp/mm performance (vs f/6.5 aprox peak performance) is due espherical aberration.
Here you have another 35mm from CMS 20 film. https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/
Just enlarge and see the zipper of the coat, where it has glare from sun...
Yes, it can be a very good option, but you have obsolete drivers and software, and no warranty. A V850 is new, Windows 10, and 2 years warranty, and it is not a 70lbs tank. So no trouble.
Not true at all, this is 8x10 scanned over the glass, so with the LowRes lens of the V750 (now I use 850...)
The bell has the size like if it was in a 6m high ultra monster print. So at the end you'll have to bin pixels to send it to a lambda to get prints of common sizes.
The detail you see in the crop (see the bolts over the bell, the grains in the stones) tells about the exceding amount of resolving power.
Some people belive than a a 20mpix image downsized from 800mpix is better than one donwsized from 400mpix, but this is not true. What it is true is that the sharp look depends on the downsizing algorithm you use, in PS one has to use "bicubic, ideal for reductions".
So see what obscene amount of information is in excess from a V750 scan !!!
Yes, I agree 100%. The IQsmart does a vastly better job retaining smooth tones in the highlights compared to the Epson. So far I haven't felt the need to wet mount with the IQsmart but even if I did, wet mounting on a flatbed is quick and easy compared to a drum scanner - it's the part of the workflow that tipped me the most toward the big flatbed.
Negative - well, it's an old machine and it has a slow processor by modern standards so 4k dpi scans take some time. But being able to simply mount a lot of film on the scanner at once and set up scan windows means that I can mount a bunch of negatives and fire it up and let it run all night on its own. Also need an old Mac to run it but I had an old Macbook that's perfectly adequate. (There IS a Win version of the software but I was advised to avoid it.) It's built like a tank and I have no doubt it will outlast me, and maybe the next couple of owners as well.
It's bereft of what matters - real sharpness. Fine detail is resolved to one extent or another, but it is not really sharp - ie there's some resolution but it's aberrated to the point of being unrecoverable in a convincing way. Fundamentally, it'll make a print look 'soft' & no amount of sharpening will help that - especially if it was sat alongside a print originated from a better scanner. It will show up in print, even at very small enlargements. BTDT. That image should be razor sharp at the size you've posted it at. Furthermore, those broken up, aliased highlights are highly characteristic of Epson scans & are symptomatic of wildly insufficient dmax that begins to fail in the very low 2.0's - if that. The wall below the clockface sticks out like a sore thumb because of this problem with the highlights.
More to the point, those high pixel density screens you vaunt so much barely reach 2/3 of the resolution of an average inkjet print & a little over 50% of the resolution of a Lambda or similar. Just to make it clear, a 4K television is not a substitute for a decent graphics monitor & that's even more the case if we're comparing with a 4K+ graphics monitor. Again, BTDT.
Finally, I've scanned plenty of stuff shot with a Nikkor 50/1.8 - the level of aberration in your images seems atypical (when it appears in a known good example, it's mostly out towards the edges) & I've scanned CMS20 - yes it will show up some spherical aberration in optics, but at a much lesser scale (& I mean much less). The fact that it's all over the image in that way is not characteristic of a 50/1.8 in good working order. Most of that aberration is more likely scanner lens artefacts, or dirty flatbed glass covered in out-gassing from the plastic shell of the scanner. Note that it 'blooms' around the highlights - which is usually indicative of a cheap (or dirty) scanner optic.
I don't agree.
What it is true is that you may need mutiexposure for extreme highlights, and V700/750 could not have the silverfast SE PLUS version boundled, if coming with bare SE version not suporting multiexposure, could need the PLUS upgrade, some $50
Extreme higlights can have high densities, as shadows in slides, beyond 3.0D you clearly need multiexposure.
IMHO Epsons can do a perfect job with highlights of negative film, both color and BW. For extreme velvia shadows one may need a drum, as no flatbed is perfect for that.
interneg.... i've posted an lowress image with a crop to show the amazing detail level...
if you don't understand that the detail level you see in the bell crop is much more than enough to get a razor sharp, sharp, sharp big print in a lambda... well, not worth to continue the discussion.
It's going to look rubbish alongside a print from the same negative scanned on a better scanner. Multiple people have gone over this multiple times with you. Either get a drum scan & see for yourself or stop trying to pretend the Epson is something it isn't. It's OK for basic proof scans, but for top quality negative scans that do justice to the negatives, you need something much better. The quality of the resolution is what matters, not the supposed quantity.
This speaks to me about the value of shooting 8x10 in the first place. Although such detail might never be revealed in a print, someone tasked with restoring the bell tower one day... could use the information in your negative to cut a new headstock.
Yes... but 4x5 is not very far from 8x10 in terms of technical IQ, in practice. In theory a 8x10 should give "4x more pixels" total, but with common situations you obtain 1.5x to 2x more.
Also as a 4x5 can have much more resolution than what a human eye can see, any practical improvement can only be seen with monster prints seen ar reading distance.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks