Scanning 8x10 Negatives

[Alan Klein]

Hm, before showing critical comparison between V850 and Howtek or else you must adjust Epson focus, or what else do you want to prove? Did you scan on groundglass or filmholder (wet-mounting FH)? How did you get the film flat? What is the view-ratio of your comparison pics, 100%?
My own comparisons between V850 with (adjusted) filmholder 3200dpi and Nikon LS9000 4000dpi shows only marginal sharpness differences I can show if you want ...
regards Rainer

Here's a comparison I did with V850 and Howtek 8000 using 4x5 film in its holder on the V850 at 2400 with sharpening with Howtek afterward. The results compare favorably to the Howtek.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ghlight=howtek

[bmikiten]

The V850 with a film holder that is adjusted or/and a fluid mount system will still suffer from less than optimum optics and mechanical systems over something like a Howtek or Scitex scanner. The Nikon has similar issues with film flatness and optics depth of field. I have and 850 and it wasn't until I paid for a professional scan that I realized the enormous difference. I still have my V850 and use it to make quick contact prints for the digital files I used to track negatives.

[rawitz]

Here's a comparison I did with V850 and Howtek 8000 using 4x5 film in its holder on the V850 at 2400 with sharpening with Howtek afterward. The results compare favorably to the Howtek.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ghlight=howtek

Hi Alan, comparing your pics after sharpening the Epson scan I see not much difference. Its clear that the flatbed technic with diffuse lighting always produce some blurring that can be nearly elimated by USM in postprocessing. So I agree with your results.

But I dont scan 8x10 film any more on the groundglass as standard, but with the (focus calibrated) FM-Holder in high-resolution mode 3200dpi and AN-Glas for flatness.

The V850 with a film holder that is adjusted or/and a fluid mount system will still suffer from less than optimum optics and mechanical systems over something like a Howtek or Scitex scanner. The Nikon has similar issues with film flatness and optics depth of field.

The limiting factor is the whole system especially the (vertical) stepping resolution, so a better optics alone would not help so much.
The glassholder for me was a must for the Nikon LS9000 for flatness the same day I got it 20 years ago.

I never will go back to 8x10 high-resolution scans without ICE-dust-reduction.

regards
Rainer

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Hm, before showing critical comparison between V850 and Howtek or else you must adjust Epson focus, or what else do you want to prove? Did you scan on groundglass or filmholder (wet-mounting FH)? How did you get the film flat? What is the view-ratio of your comparison pics, 100%?
My own comparisons between V850 with (adjusted) filmholder 3200dpi and Nikon LS9000 4000dpi shows only marginal sharpness differences I can show if you want ...
regards Rainer

First, not really sure why you have to be rude, second, as I have stated on many posts I wet mount my film either on the better scanning mount with anti newton glass and optical Mylar or directly to the Epson for 8x10. I also wet mount to 8x10 anti newton glass and I adjust for focus by using precision shims under the glass.

If you look you will notice they are both same scale.

And they are at 100%.

To throw out a number, I have close to 1000 scans on my V850. I know how it performs and have done studies of it.

My point in posting these was just a comparison not a critical scientific work complete with statistical numbers, etc. can I do that sure. But what is the point? I like my Epson and I like my drum scanner. Both will produce the results I desire depending on my needs for an image.

Not too mention the LS9000 only scans up to medium format. I am talking 8x10. I would expect the 9000 to be similar to a salt. They are both digital sensors.

My drum scanner is an analog process all the way except for recording the image to disc. The Epson is als a digital sensor with leds whereas the drum scanner uses tungsten bulbs and optical fiber and PMTs.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here's a comparison I did with V850 and Howtek 8000 using 4x5 film in its holder on the V850 at 2400 with sharpening with Howtek afterward. The results compare favorably to the Howtek.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ghlight=howtek

I saw that post a while ago. Who was the scan operator and how did he scan the film? What was the set up. Again my post is not to debate the pros and cons of one scanner over the other. It was simply here is a result I have and it is noticeably different between the two n

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The V850 with a film holder that is adjusted or/and a fluid mount system will still suffer from less than optimum optics and mechanical systems over something like a Howtek or Scitex scanner. The Nikon has similar issues with film flatness and optics depth of field. I have and 850 and it wasn't until I paid for a professional scan that I realized the enormous difference. I still have my V850 and use it to make quick contact prints for the digital files I used to track negatives.

I would agree. 850 will do well, but can't touch the drum scanner.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I contact print the 8x10 negative onto RC VC paper using a contact print frame and a light in my bathroom. Develop the print in the bathtub and then scan the print. Once you get started it is actually pretty easy. I don't mess with fiber prints, just use inexpensive Arista EDU RC VC glossy paper. It is not that hard. Attached is a small example from my Conley #1 camera.

Attachment 245517

Nice

[Alan Klein]

I saw that post a while ago. Who was the scan operator and how did he scan the film? What was the set up. Again my post is not to debate the pros and cons of one scanner over the other. It was simply here is a result I have and it is noticeably different between the two n

Hi Steve. I wasn't commenting on your scans. I was only giving my experience with one comparison. I don't have a drum scanner so it was done by someone else. All that info on who and what his settings were on his Howtek as well as my settings on the V850 is in my first post of that thread.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ghlight=howtek

[rawitz]

Steven, sorry for the critical words but I was irritated by your statement still having to "adjust the distance of the 8x10 on the v850 to improve focus".
Thank you for your explanantions, now I see your comparison about on par with Alan (without final USM step). Alan compares a non-sharpened Howtek 4000dpi scan with a sharpened Epson 2400dpi scan - so not bad for the Epson! And in my scans there is a markable step-up from 2400 dpi to 3200 dpi for the Epson (not much more up to 6400).

As professional photographer in the 90th I had the first drumscanner in town (Frankfurt/Main) and made 10 years scanservice for my other colleges before they switched to digital cameras. I had a Scanmate5000 and 11000 (tried Howtek and Screen too). Today I´m out of bussiness and do analog only 8x10 and larger in Color-Neg. I found for some reasons drumscanning not optimal for 8x10.

regards
Rainer

[Steven Ruttenberg]

No problem. I get a little touchy right now after going thru house build from hell. Builder stole from us, then ditched us and I had to finish home on my own and still have a lot to do.

I found the Epson using Vuescan, 6400dpi binning by 2 to 3200 dpi to be quite good. Vuescan also lets me scan a true raw image (no film curve) which I prefer for post-processing. What I like about the Howtek and DPL is the ability to create a cms file that then scans the film at the hardware level. Not at software therefore, I get a scan with no film curve, ie, linear. And I am starting to like converting my bw with DPL.

What I typically do is bring in an unconverted image into colorperfect and invert it there. But the Howtek is giving some good linear conversions by creating a cms file. Eventually my Epson will be used to scan glass plates both landscapes and astrophotography.

I will do a better comparison once I get settled in the new home.

My two images above were not sharpened. I use high pass filter to do most of my sharpening.