Now - I have tested my scanner and it seems to focus at the factory setting. My question is now I want to use the EPSOn FMA systems, is there any advatnges to using the Better scanning holder other the Quality and variable height adjustments.
Will it produce better quality images - due to the ANR glass and undermounting.
I would test the FMA frame that comes with the scanner first to learn if you like its quality. If not, then test the Better Scanning holder. The Better Scanning holders are made far better, and have the hight adjustment, but if you get perfect results with the Epson holder, why spend the money?
I was looking at the Betterscanning mount as well. With some research I found a way to simulate it using the epson fluid mount system. It may not be as good, but it gives me pretty good results and I would be surprised if the Betterscan system made a noticeable improvement at printing sizes less than 16x20. When I have the money to buy it, maybe I'll test the theory.
I mount the film emulsion side down (toward the scanner base) onto the *bottom* of the fluid mount tray using Prazio anti-newton spray and blue 3M painter's tape (no residue left behind). I have fluid as well, but haven't tried it yet (more messy) because I'm happy with my results and I try to Keep It Simple. I found the sweet focus spot by doing coarse tests changing focus height by 0.5mm using pennies, dimes, nickles and quarters. I then found fine focus with different combinations giving closer to 0.2mm height changes. I didn't see the need to go finer because I was not seeing a noticeable enough difference to get into days of scanning using pieces of paper as my steps. My sweet spot with the film mounted on the bottom of the tray was 1 Canadian quarter and nickle high. I determined this by looking at 100% crops onscreen. I printed them off as well, and found them prints to coincide with my impression of onscreen sharpness (saving more time, paper and ink for future testing if necessary).
A couple of things I've found:
1) don't use multipass for large pieces of film if you are scanning to high resolution. The film moves slightly over time and when the averaging is done, it actually blurs your lines (really noticeable in brick walls)
2) Silverfast is a bloated program but gives better scans than the epson software every time
3) The bloat of Silverfast is still no match for post processing in Photoshop in my hands. Probably because I'm not very good with either one of them. For a beginner I can't see the benefit of learning Silverfast over PS. What I did was use some of the Silverfast tools to get the best result I could. I then used the PS equivalent (levels, curves, lightness/darkness, color balance, etc). PS was better for me.
4) regardless of what technique you use to scan, you need to get a good handle on sharpening in PS. I'm learning that it's not as simple as just applying USM.
I've read that multiexposure gives a much better dynamic range, but it requires a Silverfast upgrade.
Tim
This would be a deal killer for me. While the Epson does a credible job, to achieve the highest quality, I find the SF multipass essential for minimizing noise in the shadows.1) don't use multipass for large pieces of film if you are scanning to high resolution. The film moves slightly over time and when the averaging is done, it actually blurs your lines (really noticeable in brick walls)
The rest of your approach under-mounted method is similar to one of the list I looked into with my V-750, except I used the KAMI fluid.
I am not certain if the blurring I experienced with that test was sagging, shifting, expansion, or Kami fumes ;-) or what, but it was not an issue with the approach that achieved my best results, top mounted with a full fluid envelope. With that approach, multipass worked well up until 16x, at which point there was a blurring and chromatic fringing. I have more tests to complete to see if that was a one time event or a consistent issue.
I thought that's what multi-exposure was for...? I don't know why SF split up these 2 functions for any reason other than to make more money on an upgrade.Originally Posted by Keith S. Walklet
So I take it you are using the SE version?
The AI version ships with the V-750. I have to say that in this case, the software bundle, Monaco, SF AI with it IT-8 targets and multipass feature really add value to the upgraded purchase price of the scanner alone.
They are split up because they are different:
Multi-sample) scans x times with the same exposure and averages them to increase the s/n ratio as a whole. This is simple, so I cannot believe SE is without it. SE Plus has it.
Multi-exposure scans x (4?) times and varies the CCD exposure on each pass. Each of these scans is then normalized and combined to produce a cleaner scan, especially where color resolution becomes limited (shadow/dark areas). This is more complex and exists as a newer feature in SE Plus, and Ai, etc.
The version of SilverFast Ai that came with my 750 is pre- multi-exposure, but it looks likes some people are getting upgrades simply by calling...
It seems like people are having variable luck with multi-pass scanning (either type) on the Epson V scanners. I am thinking that Keith's plexi laminate mount is probably highly stable in that regard. Another issue is the accuracy of the individual scanner's hardware, I suppose.
Tim, at what resolution do you begin to see misalignmet from multi-sampling?
Why would the plexi laminate mount have anything to do with the stability of multi-pass scanning? The problem with multi-pass scanning with Epson flatbeds, as I understand it, is that the stepper motors lacks the precision necessary. I don't understand how a system of mounting is going to change that.
Sandy
There you go- makes sense. I thought it was the film popping from the heat from the light.
I have the Ai version, but it's 6.5. I think you need 6.6 to get multi exposure.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks