How to test scanner performance

[Doug Fisher]

Here is a good chart which shows you what features are available in each of the different Silverfast versions. I found it very helpful:

http://www.silverfast.com/product_comparison/en.html

Doug

[Doug Fisher]

Here is a good chart which shows what features are available in each of the different Silverfast versions:

http://www.silverfast.com/product_comparison/en.html

Doug

[Tim Lookingbill]

Thanks for mentioning "multisampling". Googling this term lead me to this scanner testing nirvana page:

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeo...t_results.html

Scanner software makes a big difference especially with flatbeds.

[Bob McCarthy]

I'm not understanding the resolution tests for scanners.

I read where the Epson measures less than their claims. If the Epson is a true 2400dpi machine, does this mean

1) I reach 2400 dpi and any setting above 2400 dpi does not deliver any more resolution, but my file size is based upon the chosen dpi setting.

or

2) the machine always undelivers the spec whereas 2400 dpi setting produces maybe 1200dpi and a 4000 dpi setting delivers a real 2400dpi. File size is the equivalent of a 4000 dpi scan.

I hope this is reasonable clear?

bob

[David Luttmann]

Thanks Ted,

I might look into this myself as well. Right now, I mainly shoot MF 6x7 with only about 20% being LF 4x5. I scan the 4x5 myself on an Imacon 343....but I need to scan the 4x5 in 2 passes as the 343 can't do a full 4x5 sheet in one pass. If the V700 or V750 turns up to be half decent, then I may go that way for my 4x5 scanning and leave the Imacon for 35mm and MF.

I'll be looking forward to your review & comments. Any final ETA when we can expect that?

Regards,

[Ted Harris]

Tom- Yes, scanner software makes a big difference but all of the consumer software has improved tremendously in the past two years. The site that you mention has, unfortunately, been largely discredited over the past years because they didn't use much rigor in the way they ran their tests. Not to mentiont that they did NOT use a real USAF test taret, just an image of an image that severely degrades performance.You will find a lot of discussion of that site elsewhere on the net.

The Large Format Home Page of this Forum has a scan around that is more useful.

Bob - see inserted comments below:

I read where the Epson measures less than their claims. If the Epson is a true 2400dpi machine, does this mean - none of the consumer scnners deliver true optical resloution close to that claimed by the manufacturers. For the Epson 4990 it is ~ 2200 - 2400.

1) I reach 2400 dpi and any setting above 2400 dpi does not deliver any more resolution, but my file size is based upon the chosen dpi setting. Absolutely correct.

or

2) the machine always undelivers the spec whereas 2400 dpi setting produces maybe 1200dpi and a 4000 dpi setting delivers a real 2400dpi. File size is the equivalent of a 4000 dpi scan. No, just that o matter what you choose ABOVE the real optical resolution you just gain nothing, if you choose to scan below the true optical resolution you will be getting what you set.

[Ted Harris]

The article on the V700, with commenets on the V750 as well will be in the next issue of View Camera. It is a follow-up to the article in the current issue as the V700 got to me too late to test for that article.

We have now completed our main tests and it appears as though the V700 offers some slight improvements over the 4990 in some ways and none in others. The major resolution gains are only available when you are scanning at 6400 spi which gives you a very large file when scanning 4x5 or larger film so it is of little value to many LF photographers. When scanning at 3200 or lower the resolution is actually not quite as good as that of the 4990. The Dmax is the same as that of the 4990.

The coated optics of the V750 may improve performance very slightly but I can't imagine it will be enough to makemajor changes to the results we got with the V700.

More details, of course, in the article.

[Bob McCarthy]

[QUOTE=Ted Harris]Bob - see inserted comments below:

I read where the Epson measures less than their claims. If the Epson is a true 2400dpi machine, does this mean - none of the consumer scnners deliver true optical resloution close to that claimed by the manufacturers. For the Epson 4990 it is ~ 2200 - 2400.

1) I reach 2400 dpi and any setting above 2400 dpi does not deliver any more resolution, but my file size is based upon the chosen dpi setting. Absolutely correct.

Thank you. I'm really in a quandry. It appears to me the scanner is the bottleneck. Either less capable and cheap, or very capable and outrageously expensive.

I like to print fairly large (up to 24 inches wide- Epson 7600). I was hoping 4x5 would get me there. I love buying the highest HQ cameras and lenses that have a multi decade life span. I "hate" buying consumer electronics that have a multi "month" lifespan. I hate to spend $$$$ on a scanner that will be obsolete and valueless quickly.

I thought about the Microtek 1800 but understand its on the way out. I currently have a 4990 in my shop and will start there but will it fit the bill??

I'm new to LF, but have experience with 35mm scanning (Nikon 5000) which I find very capable.


Bob

[David Luttmann]

How would you folks rate the 4990 for scanning 6x7 MF film? Any feelings on maximum print sizes from a multisampled scan?

Thanks,

[Ted Harris]

Bob - The Microtek 1800f is being discontinued because the supplier of the CCD Array the machine using has discontinued it manufacture thsu Microtek has had to discontinue the machine. They have an adequate supply of parts to keep servicing the machine for a number of years into the future. Thus, you might wnt to consider buyingone while you still can. However, while a cut above the scanners we have been discussing in this thread I generally consider its limit about 16x20 from a 4x5 negative or transparency. You might go larger once in a while with some imges but if you are very picky, as I am, it won't be often.

David - I haven't tried 6x7 on a 4990. I can tell you that the 1800f does an adequate job on 6x9's up to 11x14. If I had a lot of MF to scan I would lookto the Nikon 9000.