Thanks Sandy. I'm not questioning the use of AN glass for dry scans - that is quite normal - I was only curious about wet mounting when the AN side is not in contact with anything. If it was only there for diffusion I would have thought that there would be a better solution.Originally Posted by sanking
Best,
Helen
Helen,
OK, I see your point. For fluid mounting only I believe that Doug Fisher offers the Betterscanning station without the AN glass at lower price. I guess he must agree that the AN glass not necessary for optimum results with fluid mounting.
My analogy with the EverSmart mechanics was not relevant because with this system the AN glass on top is in contact with the transparency material being scanned.
Sandy King
I'm struck by the following statement from the original poster:
"It took me a while to calibrate the best height adjustment, and in the end, it was really close to the epson height, but the fact that it is adjustable gave me peace of mind."
That is tantamount to saying that this product is a waste of money.
As an owner of an Epson V750, I would love to hear the views of people who have used the Betterscanner film holders and/or fluid mount, especially the views of people who have not had beta tester relationships with Mr. Fisher.
There seems to be an absence of fully independent evaluations of these products. If they exist, I'd love to know where they are.
On the fluid mount side, the only independent test that I am aware of, and it did not include the Betterscan fluid mount because it did not exist at the time, is Ellis Vener's piece in which he endorsed the ScanScience mount.
Cheers.
I know this isn't your requested profile but I have used Doug's mounting system on my 4990 with only a drymount, and I found my scanner was off by only very little, but I'm glad I got it anyway because that little difference is perceptible. So I don't think it's a waste of money, although it may seem that the gain is merely incremental.
This product in it's most expensive iteration costs less than $100. That may or may not be a lot of money to you - personally, it adds several hundreds of dollars in value to my el cheapo Epson 4990 scanner.
I've used the betterscanning mounting station with an Epson 4990 for about 3 months - my observations:
1. The plane of focus for my particular scanner was way different from the Epson 4x5 holder. I achieve far better scans with the mounting station as a direct result of the easy calibration process for focus distance and being able to make my scans at the appropriate height which best suits my scanner.
2. I scan mostly B&W negs - I personally don't see a huge difference in quality between wet and dry mounting with the betterscanning staion on the 4990 - however - I achieve far better results with using it in preference to the Epson film holders because (A) I can position the film at exactly the optimum distance from the scanner and (B) Doug's method of holding the neg results in better scans due to much more consistent film flatness than the Epson holders allow - and you never get Newton rings from film sag down onto the scanner glass. If I shot chromes, I would expect that wet scans would result in a bigger differential between wet and dry scanning. On negs with greater Dmax and critical shadow detail, the wet scans do offer noticeable advantages in the shadow areas.
3. I can use the station to scan 4x5, 5x7 and whole plate negs. The set up process is well thought out and works accurately.
The Betterscanning station together with the $300 refurbed 4990 I purchased from Epson are by far the best value I have ever spent on digital imaging. However scanning is a process with many, many variables and requires an investment of time and knowledge to achieve the best possible results with given equipment.
Thanks, that's very helpful.
Right now, I just use my Epson V750 to do draft scans for editing purposes. I send out anything serious. I've experimented with the fluid mount, which seems to work pretty well. Apart from the dry mounts, where there is clearly an issue about film flatness with the Epson mounts, I'm very interested in hearing comments from people who have tried both the Epson fluid mount and the new Betterscan mount.
Cheers.
There were a few questions posed here, so I thought I might offer some comments…
Helen - if I understand your question correctly, when you dry mount, you mount to the etched ANR side of the glass. Fluid mounting is done to the glossy side of the glass. When mounting to the glossy side of the glass, the ANR side of the glass is then a few mm behind the film and far enough “back” that the pattern does not have a noticeable effect on the image. There is a slight diffusion effect on the light that passes through the ANR surface but it really is hard to detect an effect since the glass I use is finely etched (although it isn't close to being "frosted”). The ANR glass is basically just a dual-use piece of glass where the glass in the fluid only version should really only be used for fluid mounting.
I went with ANR glass over museum/conservation glass due to the fact that often the museum/conservation surface is achieved via a coating process. Kami and other mounting fluids are powerful stuff and I was not confident the coating could hold up to it over time. Unfortunately this acid etched glass from Europe is rather expensive, so it does add to the cost.
You can experiment using fluid mounting with the emulsion side against the glossy side of the glass and then again with it against the mylar overlay. With fluid mounting, I believe the reason people don’t see a difference when flipping the film is because when there is fluid on both sides of the film, the layers of fluid seem to equal things out since it "fills in" the emulsion side of the film.
r.e. - as I state up front on my website's "comparison" page, the benefit of variable height will vary from scanner to scanner. If your scanner's optics' optimum film height happens to match your Epson holder or mounting tray’s height, then the variable height aspect will of course not show an added benefit in terms of sharpness (ignoring the differences offered in workflow).
If you want to see some independent verification that these scanners do have varying optics, please take a look at the following websites. The fact that Epson has also adapted variable height to its own holders also reinforces the concept of varying optics.
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials...#Focus_spacing
http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/4870-shims.htm
Some scanners are helped a lot. There are some that are not helped. Keeping in mind the Epson scanner’s relatively “budget” optics, every little bit of extra resolution can be beneficial. With that said, and as I believe Ellis quoted me, my medium format film holders won't turn your Epson into a Nikon 9000 (and my mounting station won't turn your Epson into a Howtek!). I just offer an additional tool for the scanning toolbox that can be beneficial in many circumstances.
In regard to Kirk and Sandy's beta testing for me, I want to be clear they did it as a favor to me. I asked for their opinions without offering them compensation. They were very generous with their time and expertise and didn’t ask for anything in return. In the interest of full disclosure, I did let them keep their prototype pieces but these were *purposely* only offered to them *after* they had completed evaluations for me and there were no strings attached. While that could be construed as a form of compensation, their time was much more valuable than what they received (remember, these were just prototypes), so no doubt I am actually the one that is still “in debt” to themThey always were, and always will be, free to voice their opinions about my products.
I don’t always get by the forum, so please feel free to email me if you have any more questions and I will do my best to answer them.
Doug
I wet both sides. Wet the glass first, put the film - emulsion facing the glass - then I wet the film top surface and then lay down the mylar. I didn't need rollers, I removed the bubbles (which go away very easily) with a piece of lint free soft paper (especially designed for film), just as I saw in one tutorial video by Aztec (the guys that distribute kami fluid).
The reasons why I bought it
1-wet mount
2-It seems sturdier than the fragile stock pastic holders
3-The capacity to adjust the height. Even though in my case the heights matched, I still want to have the ability to control it.
You know what a "beta tester relationship" amounts to? Someone lends you a product that is almost ready for market. You try it out and give them your two cents. That's it. Big deal. It is usually a big waste of my time unless I have some actual need of the final product and want it designed right. That is why I rarely do it. This one was worth it, because I thought the one that came with the 750 was crap.As an owner of an Epson V750, I would love to hear the views of people who have used the Betterscanner film holders and/or fluid mount, especially the views of people who have not had beta tester relationships with Mr. Fisher.
At least we don't post our snide innuendo's anonymously.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks