Epson v750 and v700 and Silverfast

[r.e.]

I am about to buy one of these models. The v750 costs about $300 more, but some of the additional features don't interest me. I intend to fluid mount, but will do so with either the ScanScience holder or without a holder. Since I'll be scanning negatives, I don't need a calibration target. Given that Silverfast AI, which comes with the v750, costs $230, and AI Studio costs $330, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to buy it packaged with the scanner. The v700 comes with Epson's own software and Silverfast SE.

Consequently, for me there is one question. Is Epson's claim that the v750 has better optics born out in the real world? Given that these models have been on the market for some time, one would think that there would be a fair amount of information, or at least opinion, on the internet about this question, but there doesn't seem to be. The only thing that I could find was a single review, by a gentleman in the UK, suggesting that optically there is little to choose between the two models.

Is anyone able to comment on this question?

Not having purchased a scanner before, I also have a question about Silverfast. All I want from the scanner is a fairly flat scan with as much information as possible that I will then manipulate in Photoshop. At least, that's been my approach to doing wet mount scans on a Creo that I've had access to. If this is what I want to do, is there any reason to prefer Silverfast over Epson's own software or over Vuescan? If so, will AI do anything for me that SE won't, and is there a reason to upgrade from AI to AI Studio?

Thanks.

[David Rees]

Take a look at the reviews of the V700 and V750 at www.photo-i.co.uk. Should give you some data to help you make your decision.

For myself, after reading both reviews, I went for the V700 -- I simply couldn't see any significant gain to be had with the V750, at least as far as 5x4 is concerned. I get fairly good results by scanning at 3200dpi with the 5x4 holder with Epson Scan software. I already have Monaco calibrating/profiling software, and plenty of IT8 transparencies, and didn't really want to bother with learning SilverFast. Hence my decision to save some money. YMMV.

[r.e.]

David,

Thanks. The reference in my post to the review in the UK was to the photo-i review, which suggests that the v750 does not offer significant optical improvement. The only other review that I have found that addresses this question is from PC Magazine, which asserts the opposite.

I should add that in the last few minutes I came across a discussion on this forum that bears on the Silverfast part of my post: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...hlight=vuescan

[Kirk Gittings]

I find Silverfast Ai Studio to be the best scanning software out there, but it is probably more than you need to just scan b&W negs.

The plane of focus on these scanners is above the glass so you do not get optimum results by laying it on the glass.

Doug Fishers fluid mount tray is in development. I have been beta testing one and it is superior to either Epson's or Scan Science's. It will be available soon for sale:
http://www.betterscanning.com/

[r.e.]

"The plane of focus on these scanners is above the glass so you do not get optimum results by laying it on the glass."

That's my understanding too, but what do you make of this: http://www.aztek.com/Products/EPSON%...V750%20PRO.pdf

I'll be scanning both B&W and colour. Does that change your view on the utility of Ai Studio?

Thanks for the reference to Mr. Fisher's product. I don't suppose that you know what "soon" means

[Kirk Gittings]

If I was scanning color negatives I would not use anything but Silverfast AI Studio because you can tweak and save the profiles in that version, but nothing else (I'm pretty sure).

I've tried it straight to bed as has Sandy King (do a search here) and optimum focus is well above the glass bed. Doug Fishers fluid scan deal allows for precise screw adjustments for optimum height and uses the highest quality anti=newton glass. Which the Epson tray does not do very well, which may explain their results. Doug's tray is the best of all worlds. I wish it were already available. It works fine as is now but he is making some final decisions. It will be very soon. Email him to see when.

[Bryan Lemasters]

I purchased a 750 last fall. As for the comment in one reply that the focus point is above the glass surface, my tests show this not to be the case. After scanning dry in film holders and wet-mounting on the Epson mounting tray, my best results have been by fluid-mounting with Aztek products straight onto the scanner glass (*not* recommended by Epson by the way). My only complaint is that after the mounting fluid drys it leaves a film on the glass that has to be *carefully* cleaned off). I find the multi-pass feature of the Silverfast software invaluable for noise reduction in the shadow areas.

[PViapiano]

Well, the bed sits above the scanner glass, most likely at or near the same distance that the Epson film holders do...

However, that being said, I find very little difference in focus between usig the film holders at various heights, and just laying the film on the glass emulsion down. This is for scans at 1200-2400 dpi.

I have the V700, and it is an incredible scanner for the money. I'm very satisfied with it...I doubt you can find a better multi-format scanner for under $3000-5000.

[Kirk Gittings]

bryan,

That is not consistent with my, Sandy King's or Max Holbert's (Nash Editions) amongst others. Nor is it consistent with the design of the scanners which use a lens with very very limited depth of field. So limited in fact that when I was using masking tape as shims (because the Epson shims a re so lame) that I could tell the difference of one single layer.

Sandy from another thread.

Based on some recent testings with the Epson 4870 I am going to have to back off a bit on my earlier finding that there is no difference at all in spacing of the negative with respect to the scanner glass. Based on careful tests with fluid mounting with the negative, base side down, 1) on the scanner glass, 2) 0.5mm above the glass, 3) 1.0mm above the glass, and 4) 2.0mm above the glass I can say that the sharpest result resulted with the negative at 2.0mm above the glass and the least sharp with the negative on the glass. The difference was noted in looking at small (sections of the scans at very high magnification, at a size that would correspond to something on the order of a 50" X 70" print. At this size the scan at 2.0mm is definitely the sharpest of the four scans.

BTW, I am using a prototype of a mounting station, provided by Doug, which can be adjusted for varying heights above the scanner glass. With this station changing the height is very simple and allows one to quickly and eaisily test for best height.

Sandy

And....the 700/750 plane of focus is higher than the 4990,4870 or 3200 were. You have to judge this at about 200-300% with no sharpening and at a fairly high resolution like the true optical resolution. I am out of town on shoots for the rest of the week and cannot contribute more to this, sorry.

[walter23]

I just got my V750 last week, so take this with a grain of salt. I find epson scan does a pretty good job, but silverfast has already helped me scan a number of difficult negatives which I wouldn't have been able to get with epson. I used multiscanning to reduce shadow noise in a 6x6 Ektachrome E100VS shot, and it worked phenomenally well - I wasn't expecting much from it (expecting some film movement during scanning, etc, which would reduce sharpness). (That's not the most fantastic shot, but the scan is almost exactly like the transparency which is pretty cool for such a difficult to scan, dark exposure). I've also used the HDR scanning function to deal with some difficult high contrast negatives. Maybe you could do the same thing with epson scan by scanning multiple times at different brightnesses and merging in photoshop though.

Nevertheless, I've been using Silverfast almost exclusively because of the additional functionality. One other nice quirk is that you can do pretty sophisticated curves & colour adjustments on your preview scan and get something out that is almost perfect (minus a bit of dust spotting and small curves / colour adjustments in photoshop) - it's fairly quick and intuitive, and I really like the little colour wheel that lets you just move your mouse around and fix global colour cast very fluidly and intuitively.

It did a great job with the colour negatives I've scanned (so far, just some Fuji NPS 160, and a crappy old sentimental roll of consumer film from a disposable camera) - it's got a whole ton of film profiles included, and from what I saw with the NPS they're pretty good.