Epson 4990 vs v850

[Pere Casals]

Hello Pali,

No doubt that a drum is a way better device than a V850, the question is when this that makes a difference or not . It's easy that it makes a difference with a 35mm dense Velvia, and it's really difficult it makes a difference in a 8x10" BW with common (say) 1.8D densities. (is a Ferrari faster in a traffic jam?)

Let me ask what do you think about this test: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/160...s-500-scanner/

Do you think is it fair ? is this consistent with your experience ? This is not a lab test but it's consistent with what I found in practice:







... and speaking about unicorn magic power, consider that it's really difficult that an LF shot has 40Lp/mm detail in the negative (this is 80 lines in a mm !!), no unicorned drum will get more than what's in the negative, so the Ferrari is jammed in the traffic.


PD 1: I've pending showing you the ME effect in with the V850 - Velvia as you asked me time ago. Sorry, then I hadn't V850 with me for some weeks and I forgot that.

PD 2: Since last time we discussed about that I advanced a lot in 3D LUT edition, if you don't use that kind of resources I'd recommend you take a look to 3D LUT Creator, I feel this allows full color control beyond any scanner footprint.

So I admit that a drum works much better than the V with extreme densities, but I don't credit any "better color" because with 3D LUTS we can convert one thing to the other.

Let me insist in the 3D LUT, having seen your dedication to good color, and only for the case you are not using that, just take a look to the 3D L C.

Regards,
Pere

[Pali K]

Pere,

Yes a Ferrari is better than a Camry in a traffic jam because ability to go fast is not the only measure of performance. One area that a pro scanner and drum scanners will blow away Epson and make it look like a toy is an image where you have a tree or sharp lines in front of a white sky or light background. You will get a glow like effect from Epson and no unicorns will eliminate it. It's caused by the optical performance (or lack of it) of the Epson scanner. You will always be able to find an image where the benefits of the pro scanner are minimal against the Epson but pro scanners will ALWAYS be the clear better performer. In some images, Epson will look extremely poor. I have seen this enough times that my Epson just sits in the box even though it is significantly faster at scanning and I shoot 8x10 regularly.

I don't know what else to add to what you and I have already debated several times but I will say that you yourself have admitted that you haven't worked with drum scanners yourself. I promise you that once you do, you will not have the same opinion about Epson. Please keep an open mind as you are asking everyone else to do with your claims about Epson.

Regards,

Pali

[Ted Baker]

I have a 10 year old 4990 scanner that I use for b&w 6x6 and 8x10 film. Would I see any improvement by upgrading to a v850?

My understanding is the sensor in the 4990 and v7xx and v8xx is essentially the same, i.e. two rows offset half a pixel wide, with the same pixel density. May be even the same part number... The increase in resolution from 4800dpi to 6400dpi is accomplished by a using a longer lens when using the film holders which of course has a narrower depth of field...

So if you using 8x10 I doubt you will see any improvement, with the 6x6 (and using the smaller image area of the film holders) I think you may see a small improvement if you ensure your film is correctly focused...

[interneg]

Pere: while we're at it, that article you lovingly spew forth every time someone challenges the Epson is at best wrong, and at worst intentionally misleading. His claims are, unfortunately for you, easy to test. You admit that the Epson does a bad job with 135, but make claims for its 120 performance. It is possible to scan 135 on the Imacon/ Hasselblad using the 120 setup if you turn off auto frame recognition & the resulting scans at 3200 are vastly better than anything the Epson could dream of. Following your logic, this should be impossible. Same with using the 4x5 mode to scan 120. Within the last week I've made scans alongside each other of the same 4x5 negatives on an Epson 10000xl (much the same resolution as the V7xx/8xx/9xx scanners but with autofocus) and an X5 & the difference was blatant. The X5 blew the doors off the Epson with ease. Compared to the X5, drum scans are generally cleaner in the shadows & offer the benefits of wet mounting. Increasingly I suspect that author of having fiddled with the unsharp mask & AF settings in Flexcolor for the claimed 'Epson' scan.

[Bernice Loui]

Current owner of a Epson 4990 and have used it every so often over the years. Yes, it can scan film and other transmitted light media, it can also scan reflected light media. Regardless, it is a Consumer Grade image scanner and will never be anything more than that. The results from these flat bed scanners are OK for some image making needs, they are FAR from what a GOOD drum or similar high quality scanner can do.

The scan results are FAR more complex than LPM or similar simplified marketing metric, there are a long list of technical parameters never mentioned in marketing media as they work against their ability to foist this techno stuff. These consumer items are cheapened with the passage of product life, but hyped up with features that do not improve the actual results of the scan.

Difficulty and serious problem with stuff posted on the web, it can easily deceive and lure those who want to believe into a falsely secure state of mind due to the viewer wanting to believe what they see. Discovering and finding this on the web works as a tool of self deception for individuals who have chosen to validate their beliefs disconnected from hard facts of what reality is.


The other and far more serious issue here is the belief poor quality data can be "improved" using software. This is very wrong thinking in every way as there is NO WAY to increase the amount of acquired information with any accuracy and precision to the acquisition source material. Nyquist Theorem, Information theory which so much of the data centric universe of today would be violated. This is the core reality of why software can never increase information acquired with any accuracy-precision to the original media. Software can only modify what has been acquired and at it's very best with small losses in data acquired.


And yes, those software altered images posted in this thread look horrible.... even as they are viewed data transmitted-processed to this Mac display.



Bernice

[faberryman]

The fact that a V850 gives a lousy scan of 35mm means it gives the same lousy scan of 120, 4x5 and 8x10, you just don't see how lousy it is because you don't blow it up as much. And the scans don't get better by simply sharpening the blur. I wasn't happy with the 35mm scans I enlarged to 6x9 (6x)* so got a dedicated 35mm film scanner, and I am not kidding myself that it is as good as a drum scanner, but it is certainly miles better than a V850. The question is how good is good enough for you. Some have lower standards, some have higher standards, and some have higher standards they can't afford and so have to make do. It is better to recognize that than to rationalize. Unless you are into kidding yourself as an intellectual pursuit. On the other hand, low magnification (small enlargements) covers a multitude of sins.

Pere has already admitted that a drum scanner is "way better" than a V850. The rest is just rationalization that the V850 is good enough .

Query: are many LF photographers printing digitally? I expect most are wet printing. I am trying to see how scanning is even an issue for LF photographers. If you are just scanning to post on the web, almost anything will do.

*which also means I wouldn't be happy with 13.5x13.5 from 120, 24x30 from 4x5, or 48x60 from 8x10.

[fotopfw]

left: Epson V750
right: drumscan
The detail (or lack of it in the Epson scan) shows clearly in a 64x80" print.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139951...posted-public/

[faberryman]

left: Epson V750
right: drumscan
The detail (or lack of it in the Epson scan) shows clearly in a 64x80" print

Film format?

[Pere Casals]

left: Epson V750
right: drumscan
The detail (or lack of it in the Epson scan) shows clearly in a 64x80" print.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139951...posted-public/

Hmmm, I think you are not using the V750 to its best.

I got sharper results with a V750, here the bell shows like in a 6m high print, also from 8x10" negative:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/




To compare with your sample my sample should be reduced to 1/3 H

[Pere Casals]

Pere: while we're at it, that article you lovingly spew forth every time someone challenges the Epson is at best wrong, and at worst intentionally misleading. His claims are, unfortunately for you, easy to test.

I spew that test because it's consistent with what I found, IMHO it shows the reality.

If you don't credit that test (https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/160...s-500-scanner/)... no problem, but what about this test ? http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

Unfortunately for you anyone can download the crops from the V750 and from the Howtek 4500 and make both match with a couple of clicks with Photoshop, like me. Why don't you try it ?

The X5 blew the doors off the Epson with ease.

It depends...

if densities are beyond 3.0D and you want to recover that, yes, the X5 shines.

If you scan 35mm film, then yes, the X5 sports 8000dpi high quality hardware resulting in 6900 effective dpi.

But (this is a LF forum...) if you scan 4x5" then the V850 outresolves the X5. The 8000 pix X5 sensor sees 4" through the good Linos lens so you end in 2000 hardware dpi and some 1800 effective dpi, while the V850 sports 6400 hardware dpi through a lower quality lens but ending in 2800 or 2300 effective dpi, depending on the axis you consider, this is a better resolving power than the X5.

Realize that: for 4x5 the x5 only has 2000 hardware dpi, and the V850 is better than that.

Here you have an interesting and fair document about how a V850 performs, by Mark D Segal, comparing with roll film scanners.

https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-co...nner-Final.pdf


My opinion is that having a roll film scanner and a V850 for sheets it's a good combination, and this also leaves a budget for those very dense negatives deserving a drum scan.

The other thing that's clear to me is that today color management is about proficiency in 3D LUTs.