I currently have a 9000 and it is a great scanner but I've gotten terrific MF scans from my Epson 4990 in the past and that scanner is a few generations back. None of the flatbeds are good for 35mm though IMO. That said for 35mm you can get a Nikon 4000 or even a IV for under $400....
I would bet that there is at least one 35x24mm area in each of your MF flatbed scans. Would you say that that area is not good?Originally Posted by rich815
If you print at the same enlargement ratio, sure. That's like cutting out a piece of a print with a pair of scissors. But not if you enlarge it further to achieve the same size print.
Many report here a maximum enlargement from an Epson of about 4x, while maintaining the highest quality available from that scanner. That's a snapshot-size print from 35mm. With only slightly lower expectations, a little larger is probably possible, perhaps 6x. But an 8x10 from 35mm will exceed an 8x enlargement, and that will impose a visibly lower standard, though it still may be good enough for a given need.
A 4x enlargement from medium format allows a 9xwhatever print, and a 13" print requires only 6x. That's as big a printer as most people have, and the Epson-scanned medium format keeps up pretty well. For 17" prints from the next size class of printers, medium format requires an 8x enlargement--beyond the Epson sweet spot. 4x5 printed that size is right in that sweet spot, however.
(I'm talking the perception of endless detail, not the best possible representation of subtle tonalities, which most here would agree is beyond all consumer scanners).
But any film scanner can support 8x enlargements in their sweet spot.
Rick "who thinks anything is adequate for web display" Denney
I should add that I'm not sure what Epson would do to improve the 750 that would not require a systemic increase in costs. Better holders are already available.
Rick "thinking the sensor, mechanics, and overall quality are pretty well matched" Denney
LOL. That's why I bought a Nikon CS 9000 ED. My Epson 4990 now serves as a paper weight.wasn't that what happened with the 4990 --> V700 model
rdenny,
He makes the unqualified statement, "None of the flatbeds are good for 35mm though IMO."
There is no mention of printing or enlargement being done. If you blow up 35mm to 16x20 under an enlarger it's going to be pretty paltry, And the MF will do just fine.
Would one make the equivalent statement that "no enlarger is good for 35mm" then?
For web stuff, 35mm, on even the baby V500, is going to be fine. And I may be doing something wrong, but 8x10 is my max for 35mm under an enlarger; they crap out visibly after that.
This is the problem with film the size of a postage stamp. Not a problem with the scanner(or enlarger).
Can you surpass this limitation with super duper expensive drum scans of 35mm? Intuition tells me no.
Every dedicated 35mm scanner I've used, all of which were 1/3 the price of the V700 or less, have completely blown away the flatbed scanners I've used for 35mm. I'm thinking of the Minolta and Plustek models.
I've made prints of 11x14 and 12x18 from 35mm scans that look great, from those scanners. Scans from a V700 have not given me anything close to that quality level. Of course, higher-end dedicated scanners are even better.
I think Rick's statements are completely correct, in my opinion.
No offense, but I'll take my actual experience over your intuition. I doubt any scan can surpass a good enlarger, but a good scan can certainly match it, while a consumer flatbed won't even come close.
Film scanners of even moderate quality will surpass good consumer flatbeds by at least a factor of two, in terms of enlargement ratios.
Don't you suppose that someone who spent a thousand bucks on an Epson V750 on the basis that someone on this forum said it would be fine for 35mm would be a little upset when their 8x10's could not match the quality they once got from a bottom-of-the-line plastic Vivitar enlarger with a no-name tessar lens? It seems to me wrong to assume that "web stuff" was a more likely target than "8x10 prints", without it being specified.
I paid a couple of hundred bucks for a cheapie Acer Scanwit film scanner about a dozen years ago. It could give me 2700 pixels/inch with decent quality. That's still at least 75% better than a current V750, of which I have one sitting right here next to me. An 8x10 from 35mm was no problem with that Acer.
I've already demonstrated I can get better results on 35mm than the Epson using my 13-MP Canon 5D and a macro lens over a light table.
Rick "who provided detail so that people could make their own judgments" Denney
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks