Epson 4990 vs v850

[Pali K]

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, can you post this negative scanned on a drum scanner? If not, this is just another apples and oranges argument.

Pali

[faberryman]

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.

Numerical resolution isn't the whole ball of wax. filmscanner.nfo did a review of the X5 and compared it to the Epson 10000XL, the next step up up from the V850, which has the same nominal resolution. Here was their conclusion:

"The Epson offers an optical resolution of 2400ppi, thus therewith, it has a higher value than the 2040i of maximal resolution value that is possible with the Hasselblad in case of such large formats. But the result of the effectively achievable resolution is visible in our image example: ...Thereby, we have projected the 2400ppi scan of the Epson to 2040ppi, so that also here, a straight comparison was possible. What is clearly recognizable is that the scan made with Flextight is significantly sharper than the scan made with the Epson-device. But not only concerning the image sharpness but also concerning the range of density, the Hasselblad Flextight X5 outstands the Epson flat bed scanner by far. Herein, the huge class difference between the two devices gets very clear."

Keep in mind the Flextight X5 is not a drum scanner. A drum scan would achieve higher resolution. But even so, the Epson can't keep up with the X5, as is clearly visible in these images. Again Pere, you are just rationalizing what's good enough. If the V850 is good enough for you, use it. But don't go crowing on about how it is better than the X5, and certainly not a drum scanner. It is so disingenuous and makes a mockery of what's left of your credibility.

[Pere Casals]

Pere, can you post this negative scanned on a drum scanner? If not, this is just another apples and oranges argument.

Pali

No, I've not spend $200 is a drum scan for this negative, but if you see the detail quality that would result in a 6m high print then it is evident that the scan has exceding information to make a prefect 1,5m print, to say a size.

I've inspected detail in the negative with a microscope, and the reality is that the negative has not much more than the EPSON retrieves, so I'm really skeptical regarding that investing $200 in a drum service would be worth, and sure it's not worth if not printing it beyond 2m.

What I'm going to do with that negative is printing it on glass, I'm preparing for coating a big glass with my DIY emulsion to obtain a moster slide, but I'm finding challenge to control the result with my DIY emulsion, hybrid is very nice...

Printing on DIY emulsion and wanting to obtain a sound result is not that straight.

[Pere Casals]

"The Epson offers an optical resolution of 2400ppi, thus therewith, it has a higher value than the 2040i of maximal resolution value that is possible with the Hasselblad in case of such large formats. But the result of the effectively achievable resolution is visible in our image example: By clicking on the right thumbnail, an image window opens with the marked outcut whereby the image changes any two seconds between the scan done with the Epson Perfection 10000 XL and the one made with the Flextight X5. Thereby, we have projected the 2400ppi scan of the Epson to 2040ppi, so that also here, a straight comparison was possible. What is clearly recognizable is that the scan made with Flextight is significantly sharper than the scan made with the Epson-device. But not only concerning the image sharpness but also concerning the range of density, the Hasselblad Flextight X5 outstands the Epson flat bed scanner by far. Herein, the huge class difference between the two devices gets very clear."

Keep in mind the Flextight X5 is not a drum scanner. A drum scan would achieve higher resolution. But even so, the Epson can't keep up with the X5, as is clearly visible in thee accompanying image. Again Pere, you are just rationalizing what's good enough.

faberryman,

You are quoting a very interesting information, and worth to analyze what it says, but IMHO 2400 is more than 2040, so something has to be explained better by them.

I've a guess about what it happened to them, the 2400 to 2040 downsampling is flawed, it may happen the same than when the monitor resolution is different than the one graphic card of the PC. They could oversample the 2040 X5 image to 2400, but they did the counter. So I'm really skeptical that an scanner showing effective 2170 dpi from a USAF 1951 target shows that worse than another with 2040 in hardware. This is very contradictory to me. The the V850 has substantially better resolving power than the 10000.

I think that something is flawed in that test, I work dayly with lp/mm measurements for machine vision and that contradictory situation is not consistent at all with what I find every day.

Keep in mind the Flextight X5 is not a drum scanner. A drum scan would achieve higher resolution.

Well, a drum often has a worse effective resolution than the x5 for 35mm film, because in that situation the X5 sports 6900 effective dpi, but for sheets the x5 is way inferior than a drum, or course, as the drum mantains its nominal perfomance in a larger format while the x5 not, having always 8k pix wide.

Again Pere, you are just rationalizing what's good enough.

Of course. We target 6 Lp/mm in the print, a higher amount of information won't improve the print. I you read my previous posts I've always said that a drum is a way better machine, but I insist that this may be irrelevant in a lot of situations.

In particular what I state is that a V850 has a not worse result than a drum for prints under 2m from LF negatives, if densities are under 3.0D.

And also I state that the proficiency of the man that edits and process the digital image it's the really critical thing. In particular I consider that proficiency in 3D LUTs (for color) is a nice advantage.

[faberryman]

You are quoting a very interesting information, and worth to analyze what it says, but IMHO 2400 is more than 2040, so something has to be explained better by them.

I don't think raw numbers tell the whole story. Do you have any experience with an X5? Or is all of this just theoretical? Let me ask a practical question? How many LF photographers shoot 4x5 and 8x10, digitize the negatives, and make small inkjet prints?

[Pere Casals]

I don't think raw numbers tell the whole story. Do you have any experience with an X5? Or is all of this just theoretical? Let me ask a practical question? How many LF photographers shoot 4x5 and 8x10, digitize the negatives, and make small inkjet prints?

I've a wide experience with X5 vs V750 images.

While I've no shot that's worth the investment in a drum job, I've processed the work of a certain artist for international exhibitions and for a book, having ordered (mainly) Imacon and X5 scans that previously I had scanned with a V750. Most of the times it was Velvia 35mm shot in challenging light conditions, really I found no need to go to drum service for TMX because roll film scanners performed good enough.

My main activity is related to machine vision, in that realm I use a lot resolution targets and the spectrometer to ensure success in industrial conditions, and in my experience always there is a performance link to lp/mm and MTF.

When the raw numbers don't tell the whole story is because the numbers are arithmetically or conceptually wrong.

How many LF photographers shoot 4x5 and 8x10, digitize the negatives, and make small inkjet prints?

What I learned is that shooting 8x10 isn't related to print size, 8x10 has an aesthetical footprint related to the focal length used: The DOF-OOF transition is different, and also the effect of the movements.

4x5 has exceding resolving power for any application, and 8x10 is an overkill, even if scanned with an EPSON.

I my case I shot 8x10 and I don't make inkjets of any size: I contact print or use Ilford lab direct, and I'm in course to fully move to wet for 810. With all the respect I consider amazing inkjets are not for me.

Regarding Image Quality I feel able to make 2m sound prints from TMX 120, you would not see a flaw if looking a 2m print from two feet, I shot 810 but I find the 600 Eq Mpix in the negative are only a bonus I welcome. We should realize that those "600 MPix" can fill 300 Full HD monitors or 75 4k TVs, so making a 2m print is a like a joke.

[faberryman]

Regarding Image Quality I feel able to make 2m sound prints from TMX 120, you would not see a flaw if looking the 2m print from two feet.

You would be happy with a 80"x80" (30x) enlargement from a TMX 120 negative scanned with a V850?

[Pere Casals]

You would be happy with a 80"x80" (30x) enlargement from a 120 negative scanned with a V850?

In those MF conditions I would use a Plustek 120 to scan, not a V850. If it was a 4x5" negative then the V850 would perform well.

To me it has little sense to make a 2m print and viewing the image with the nose on it. A 2m print has to be viewed at least from 1m, and at that distance 2lp/mm in the print are seen as perfectly sharp.

[faberryman]

In those MF conditions I would use a Plustek 120 to scan, not a V850. If it was a 4x5" negative then the V850 would perform well.

So the V850 at 2300 would be inadequate for the 120 negative; you would want the Plustek with 3450 (1.5x the resolution)? I would agree with you there. I wasn't happy with a 6x enlargement from the V850. I can't imagine you being happy with 30x enlargement from the V850. But I understand standards vary among individuals.

[interneg]

I've processed the work of a certain artist for international exhibitions and for a book, having ordered (mainly) Imacon and X5 scans that previously I had scanned with a V750. Most of the times it was Velvia 35mm shot in challenging light conditions, really I found no need to go to drum service for TMX because roll film scanners performed good enough.

Did you operate the scanner yourself or have any input into the actual scanning process itself with the X5? I've seen many, many, many incompetently made scans off the Hasselblad/ Imacon (and for that matter, drum) scanners & spent enough time scanning for people to know that the operator matters enormously. Post processing 3F files is not the same.