Scan quality from Epsons?

[Jack Flesher]

No it is not common -- at least when I scan smaller negs, but I am relatively new to scanning 8x10. It shows up more significantly in this jpeg of the crop, not really notable in the tiff, so I assume it may be partially due to a jpeg artifact. Also, I was shooting this as a lens test and used a fairly wide aperture for 8x10 -- f16 on a 311mm lens. The focus point was the center of metal relief (actually used the edge of the closed door) and the lamp on the right is nearer the camera and thus outside the PoF -- and visibly softer in the scan. I think what we are seeing is a combination of the two factors. You can see it in the rub marks on the closer edge of the open door too...

[Doug Fisher]

>>Jack, in the 100% crop sample, the iron lamp and some of the detailing on the white wall look like they've gone through Photoshop's fresco filter. Is that a normal artifact?<<

Did you have ICE on? If so, it often produces this effect when anti-Newton glass/glass with a stippled surface is used. The "rough" surface looks like a defect to ICE, so ICE tries to "correct" it.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[Ed Richards]

Did any of you with the 700/750 try scanning a 4x5 at 6400, which triggers the better optical system? For black and white shooters, you could use Vuescan to do it because Vuescan can be set to downsample a file internally. This lets you write out a file that is small enough to handle on mere mortal computers. Color would blow through the Windows memory limits.

[Jack Flesher]

Did you have ICE on? If so, it often produces this effect when anti-Newton glass/glass with a stippled surface is used. The "rough" surface looks like a defect to ICE, so ICE tries to "correct" it.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

Hi Doug: No ICE or other filters, just light USM.

[Frank R]

Jack:

I like your idea of using a piece of coated glass. But I have a few questions:

• If you lay the glass on top of the scanning guide doesn't that raise the focal plane above what it would normally at?
  
• You use this set up for all your scanning, LF as well as MF?

It is an intrigueing idea; doubling or tripling the quality of your scans by using an inexpensive piece of readily-available glass. Almost seems too good to be true.

[Jack Flesher]

Jack:

I like your idea of using a piece of coated glass. But I have a few questions:

• If you lay the glass on top of the scanning guide doesn't that raise the focal plane above what it would normally at?
  
• You use this set up for all your scanning, LF as well as MF?

It is an intrigueing idea; doubling or tripling the quality of your scans by using an inexpensive piece of readily-available glass. Almost seems too good to be true.

Yes and yes, even for 35mm since I do not scan very much of it and don't have a dedicated 35 scanner. But it may be the "raising" helps some too -- see the Plane of Focus scanner thread.

You can see the results I'm getting -- not too shabby for an inexpensive flatbed if you ask me

[Ted Harris]

To further clarify .... the slightly poorer job on the 4x5 and larger film was with the scanner set at 3200 dpi. Problem being that setting it at 6400 dpi for film that large yields an unmanagably large file and takes way too long to complete the scan. Thus, the comparison between the 4870/4990 is with the V700/750 set to 3200 and, unfortunately, the higher resolution optics are software linked and only kick in at the highest setting (6400).

[Ed Richards]

Ted,

Did you do any scans at 6400? Assuming you can control the file size - which I think you can do with Vuescan - would it make a useful improvement over the 4990 if you could scan at 6400?

[Stan. L-B]

I have been using the Epson V750 for scanning all film types and sizes to 10X8 and reflective scans.
After reading various articles about the performance of the V750 with Silverfast Ai and the results on scanning 10X8 negatives, I was dubious as to whether I had made the right choice. I was therefore, pleasently surprised with the results from all scans of film and reflective. I am unable to fault the performance for a flat bed scanner.
I go with Jack Flesher on his remarks and findings. The large format prints from my10X8are a joy to behold - quite serendipitous, but, perhaps I am easy to please.

[Kirk Gittings]

Problem being that setting it at 6400 dpi for film that large yields an unmanagably large file and takes way too long to complete the scan.

A 4x5 at 6400 dpi takes 14 minutes on my setup with the V750 and there is some slight gain then by downsampling to 2400.