Scanner comparison: Epson V750 Pro added

[aphexafx]

I wrote that and it is correct.

Sandy, Epson's document only confirms exactly what PenGun has stated. What Epson calls the "Super Resolution Lens" (sic) has a smaller coverage area than the other lens which covers the entire platen. The Super Resolution Lens, covering an area of 5.9", then, does indeed cover 4x5 and even 5x7 film (with a third party film holder or mount). Now, as to the effective resolution of this lens beyond the center portion of this coverage area where larger film formats tread, which I perceive as your argument, I cannot comment, except to say that I get equal sharpness and detail edge to edge on my 4x5 transparencies, as far as I can tell - yes I know that this is not very scientific lol.

But the point is, however effective across it's coverage area, the 6400spi, or let's just say, Higher Resolution Lens, is employed for 4x5 and even 5x7 film when scanned in a holder or other elevator.

When you wrote: "In other words, with a small format negative one might be able to take some advantage of the second lens son the V750, but with LF film that will not happen."

I perceive that you mean, even though the higher resolution lens system is used, the fact that the film is large enough to extend well into the edges of the len's coverage area renders any gains obsolete? This should be evaluated.

[sanking]

This being a LF forum I use the term smaller format in a relative sense. The scanning area using the high resolution lens does cover 4X5 and 5X7 film, but not 8X10. I may have misunderstood PG because I thought he wrote somewhere that the area scanned was the same with both lenses. Another issue is that these scanners with fixed focus lenses usually have a sweet spot smaller than the actual area scanned. This may or may not be the case with the V750 but it has been true of all the Epson flatbeds I have owned, which include the 2540, 4870 and the 4990. I don't in fact understand the exact mechanism used by Epson with the high resolution lens, but I assume, in fact am fairly certain, that this is achieved because the lens is designed to cover a smaller area, which is one of the points I was trying to make when PG accused me of not understanding the high res system.


But, the resolution of 6300 is basically useless for anything but 35mm and MF film because the resulting file sizes will be too large for most people to manage, even if some extra real resolution is obtained. 4X5 B&W negative scanned at 6300 dpi in 16 bit gives a file size of 1.5 gig. An RGB scan at 6300 gives 4.4 gig. Go up to 5X7 and those figures become 2.6 gig and 7.7 gig.

However, use whichever lens you want and I don't believe you will find the real resolution of the V750 to be over about 2200 spi. So for all practical purposes there is no reason to scan LF film at a higher resolution than 2400 spi as all you are doing is making a large file size. If the high resolution lens can pull an additional 200-400 spi of detail it might be worth using with a small format negative.

Which brings me back to the only points I have tried to make here.

1. The 4990 and V750 are comparable in the results they will give, the V750 being marginally better.

2. There is no comparison between the quality of an Epson V750 and a good drum scanner.

I won't debate how large a print is acceptable, though the figure of 3X-4X that many people suggest seems about right to me. But there is no question but that one can make good prints from scans of LF negatives with the Epson flatbeds so long final size is limited. In fact, I am working on a small exhibition right now of some early 5X7 work that I did that was previously scanned with the 4870. Even though I now have a much better scanner I have decided that at final print size of 2X-3X it is not worth my trouble re-scan the film with the better scanner.



Sandy King

I wrote that and it is correct.

Sandy, Epson's document only confirms exactly what PenGun has stated. What Epson calls the "Super Resolution Lens" (sic) has a smaller coverage area than the other lens which covers the entire platen. The Super Resolution Lens, covering an area of 5.9", then, does indeed cover 4x5 and even 5x7 film (with a third party film holder or mount). Now, as to the effective resolution of this lens beyond the center portion of this coverage area where larger film formats tread, which I perceive as your argument, I cannot comment, except to say that I get equal sharpness and detail edge to edge on my 4x5 transparencies, as far as I can tell - yes I know that this is not very scientific lol.

But the point is, however effective across it's coverage area, the 6400spi, or let's just say, Higher Resolution Lens, is employed for 4x5 and even 5x7 film when scanned in a holder or other elevator.

When you wrote: "In other words, with a small format negative one might be able to take some advantage of the second lens son the V750, but with LF film that will not happen."

I perceive that you mean, even though the higher resolution lens system is used, the fact that the film is large enough to extend well into the edges of the len's coverage area renders any gains obsolete? This should be evaluated.

[PenGun]

Just like herding cats.

As I said .... many times .... I have not seen a scan done on an Epson V750/v700 that wet mounts to the 'hi res' system.

I'm done here, the superiority is suffocating.

[mandoman7]

This thread is good for the lurkers as it kind of covers the areas of thought on this topic, and its entertaining.

I got out of LF a while ago for a variety of reasons, mostly non-voluntary. I did have gallery representation and a nice darkroom with printing up to 8x10. Like many others things changed for me in the photo bus. I continued shooting, but rarely LF.

I did have some negatives that pulled in orders every now and then and I would get expensive scans and so forth. I NEVER was satisfied with what I got from those guys. I would do it to fill the order, but it was always awkward, and sometimes a big waste of money.

I got the v700 about a year ago to fill a request for a series of 10x13's from 8x10 negatives. I didn't really work with it too much, though, having read a lot of the posts about drum scans and how compromised and unusable the epson's scans were. It basically sat there for months doing scans of documents mostly.

Then I had another nibble from a rep in Chicago that needed a set of samples from a series shot in 4x5. I had gotten a box of the museo silver rag, did some scanning and got into it; finding the best holder height, along with testing the software's preferences. I had no expectations and was really apprehensive, but really couldn't believe how good they came out, based on what I had been led to believe from reading other's opinions.

The bottom line: when I did the visual comparison with 10x13 fiber based prints I had done 20 years ago, the new ones compared favorably in both sharpness and tone. Again, I was sure that they wouldn't beforehand. It got me to thinking, big time, because apparently I had regained the ability to print my work without having to give it over to the technogeeks-with-no-artistic-sensibility types, no offense intended.

I had a print handy from a drum scan. I had produced a 3'x4' for a client (drum scanned-howtek) and had a 8x10 work print at my desk. Looking again with my new revelation, however, I realized that one of the things that was strange was that the negative would never have printed that sharply in my darkroom. So, while the print was technically faultless, it was sharper than what was needed to replicate the look of my enlarged prints. And those prints, when they were made, were fully satisfying in the sharpness department.

Its a very good general rule to make sure and not let the technology of your craft get in the way of your creative work flow, IMO. I was never able to get comfortable with turning over the execution of my vision over to someone who has no idea what the emotions or history behind the shot might be, nor cares really as long as the d-max is statistically better than the other guy's.

The idea that I can do this stuff in-house has re-awakened a whole new spirit in my work, fostered, in part, by the capabilities of this inexpensive and disparaged machine. When I look at the prices for stuff on ebay lately as compared with a couple of years ago, I get the feeling that I'm not alone...

JY

[Lenny Eiger]

It got me to thinking, big time, because apparently I had regained the ability to print my work without having to give it over to the technogeeks-with-no-artistic-sensibility types, no offense intended.

I had a print handy from a drum scan. I had produced a 3'x4' for a client (drum scanned-howtek) and had a 8x10 work print at my desk. Looking again with my new revelation, however, I realized that one of the things that was strange was that the negative would never have printed that sharply in my darkroom. So, while the print was technically faultless, it was sharper than what was needed to replicate the look of my enlarged prints. And those prints, when they were made, were fully satisfying in the sharpness department.

Its a very good general rule to make sure and not let the technology of your craft get in the way of your creative work flow, IMO. I was never able to get comfortable with turning over the execution of my vision over to someone who has no idea what the emotions or history behind the shot might be, nor cares really as long as the d-max is statistically better than the other guy's.

The idea that I can do this stuff in-house has re-awakened a whole new spirit in my work, fostered, in part, by the capabilities of this inexpensive and disparaged machine. When I look at the prices for stuff on ebay lately as compared with a couple of years ago, I get the feeling that I'm not alone...

JY

I'm glad you have found a way of working that works for you. I have always maintained that not everyone needs the sharpness or the depth, the shadow and highlight detail, that a great scan can provide.

I have also maintained that "technogeeks-with-no-artistic-sensibility types" have no business doing drum scans. There are many labs and other service companies that offer cheap scans that give less than acceptable service. I won't mention names, but if you pay $15-20 for a drum scan, I believe you are wasting your money, for the very reasons that Jay identifies. And yes, I feel the same way about using Costco or Walmart for exhibition prints.

I would also suggest that there are some drum scanner operators, some right on this list (of which I include myself), that work closely with their clients, listen carefully to their needs, take the historical and other contexts into consideration when scanning, will scan over and over again until they get it right, and deliver a great scan. There are times, even for those who don't need it for every image, when this is appropriate. I think its great that when you need, or just want, a superb scan there are those that do have an arts background, are photographers themselves and care about the results working perfectly for the people who choose to take advantage of their services.

Lenny

[mandoman7]

I hear what you're saying Lenny, and coincidentally, you're only 40 min. away. I may have some biz for you down the road.

JY

[Keith S. Walklet]

I have to jump in, since some of Sandy's irritation seems to be directed at the idea that I found that my flatbed scans compared favorably to drum scans of the same image.

I don't intend to get into a heated debate about the merits of a drum scan. I've said before, that so far, I am most impressed with the drum scans that I've done myself and had done for me by people that are very highly regarded by members of this forum. The quality is exceptional.

But, my positive attitude about the flatbed scans originated from my own experiments that were intended to illustrate the vast difference in quality between the various technologies. Instead, what I discovered was that the difference was not as great as I expected.

The response to my posts then is similar to what has transpired this time. Some find it hard to believe.

Last time, I had an opportunity to quiet these concerns. Rather than argue about it when I posted the positive results I obtained with the 4870, I took my sample prints with me to the View Camera conference held in Illinois a few years back. Since my own time was mostly spent manning an exhibit booth, I didn't get to participate in any of the scanning sessions. Instead, at the conclusion of the conference, I shared my results with a handful of people, including Ted and Mike (very quickly), and Kirk (who had more time to consider the samples) and a few others. Again, my intention was never to discredit anyone, but to simply show the results that I obtained. Some time has passed since I shared those prints. Perhaps they recall what they saw.

This was a side-by-side comparison of the Epson 4870, Nikon 8000, and TANGO drum scan done on a 35mm transparency printed to a width of 24 inches with an Epson 9600. I surprised me. If my memory is correct, I think it surprised some other people as well.

I won't have a chance to post my latest tests for a couple of weeks. But, I will share them. You can draw your own conclusions. This is not intended to discredit anyone. It is simply to share my results.

[Kirk Gittings]

Keith, sorry I have only a vague memory of that interchange. That was a few years ago. For myself over the years using the Epsons, 3200, 4990 and 750 extensively (I currently own and use the 750 primarily for color magazine work-mostly scanning for stock sales these days, originally though for my art work too), I have the opposite opinion frankly. The longer I utilize scans for my artwork the more impressed I am by a good drum scan vs. even the 750 wet on the Betterscanning film bed. I have put enormous time into tinkering with the Epsons to maximize their potential. I am simply no longer willing to put the extensive work into a negative file for a fine print unless I have the best scan available and that is never for me a scan from an Epson. And I don't even print large. I rarely ever print over 16x20.

[sanking]

Keith,

Many things limit final image quality more than the scanner itself, including how much information is in the negative and the type of output. I would wager that very few 4X5 negatives have the equivalent of more than 1400-1600 spi of real detail, so if 360 dpi is the resolution of the output device we can get by with a fairly mediocre scan because of the limitation of the combined limits to quality imposed by the negative and output device.

However, if we happen to have a very high quality negative that has the equivalent of 80 l/mm of resolution there will be absolutely no comparison in terms of detail between a scan made with a drum scanner like the Howtek 4500 and an Epson flatbed. If you scan a good high resolution target this will become immediately obvious to anyone. And of course resolution is just one of factors that contribute to good scan quality with drum scanners.

I am not at all bothered by the notion that good prints can be made with scans from Epson flatbeds. In fact, I have said this myself many times. However, it is just unreasonable IMO to claim that a scan from an Epson V750 can have anywhere near the quality of a scan from a good drum scanner like the Howtek 4500.

On the other hand there is a great convenience for creative artists to tightly control the scanning operation and anyone who is satisfied with the quality they are getting on print from a scan has no beef with me regarding the work flow regardless of what scanner is used.

Sandy King

I have to jump in, since some of Sandy's irritation seems to be directed at the idea that I found that my flatbed scans compared favorably to drum scans of the same image.

[aphexafx]

Sandy,

When you say, "Many things limit final image quality more than the scanner itself, including how much information is in the negative and the type of output. I would wager that very few 4X5 negatives have the equivalent of more than 1400-1600 spi of real detail..."

Do you mean lack of detail specific to the characteristics of film being scanned, or are you referring to lack of detail specific to photographic technique or hardware limitations, such as lack of scene detail, lack of focusing skill, or lack of film plane/focus screen alignment?

Not challenging at all, just curious.