4x5: LF Print quality from epson V750 scans

[Darin Boville]

I didn't do these, but they are credible examples, IMO, of the difference.

750 is on the left, 4500 on the right.

Lenny

And yet when you sharpen the left one (the 750) it looks awfully close to the 4500...

--Darin

[rdenney]

And yet when you sharpen the left one (the 750) it looks awfully close to the 4500...

--Darin

And printed at an 8x enlargement would still look darn good.

Rick "who can definitely see the difference at 24x!" Denney

[PenGun]

I didn't do these, but they are credible examples, IMO, of the difference.

750 is on the left, 4500 on the right.

Lenny

I don't know what the particulars are for those shots. I do know the 700/750 is hard to focus.

[mrpengun]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

that site has lots of good comparisons of various scanners.

I never made a print from it, but i did scan a 35mm slide with the maximum resolution, and it was precise enough to see drops of water from the slide.

<edit> just noticed our names... weird.
I should confess though, mine was a mistyped "penguin"...
</edit>

[Lenny Eiger]

And yet when you sharpen the left one (the 750) it looks awfully close to the 4500...

--Darin

No it doesn't. It's a tiny little file. You can't really see anything. It is true that one can sharpen and get a lot from a consumer flatbed. One starts very blurry and adds the sharpening effect and if you're careful you can eke out some quality.

With a drum scan you start out with a very sharp file, and usually plenty of pixels. There is no comparison, especially when you want to make a print larger than 13 x 19. There is also more dynamic range, more sensitivity, etc. Not everyone can properly take advantage of it all, but it makes a huge difference.

Lenny

[percepts]

Fuji Provia gives resolution figures of:

Chart Contrast 1.6 : 1 .......................... 80 lines/mm
Chart Contrast 1000 : 1 ........................ 160 lines/mm

What that means is that at a contrast ratio of 1000:1 it is possible to get 160 lines per millimeter. But what most people blindly ignore is that means alternating black and white lines with an 11 stop contrast ratio between them which in the real world will very very rarely exist over such minute distances on film. But fuji also give the real world contrast ratio of 1.6 : 1 where you only get 80 lines per millimeter. 80 times the number of millimeters in an inch is 80 x 25.4 = 2032. The really funny thing is that people persist in blaming the cheap scanners for not being able to get more resolution out of film when most images never had it in them to start with. Thats what happens when amateurs start trying to make a name for themselves on the web. People start believing them. Drum scans will give better quality scans with less noise and better colour but even a drum scan can't get resolution out that isn't in the film.

So assuming you are only going to get 80 lines per millimeter, then you are only going to get 2032 lines per inch and that means a max print width of 26.6 inches or so (360 ppi) before you start stretching out the gaps beween samples on an epson printer.

I am no expert of this stuff and Fuji say lines per mm. They don't say lines pairs per millimeter. If they had said line pairs per mm then a flatbed scanner might be able to get them or it might not. If it could then you can double that print size to 53 inches. But the last time I tried to get any sense out of anyone on that question, I was given spurious answers because nobody actually seemed to know if fuji means lines per mm or line pairs per mm. I don't know but is it pure coincidence that what most people seem to be able to get out of the film is the same as fuji say you are likely to get in the film.

p.s. :

Fuji numbers for acros which only give 60 lines per mm for 1.6:1 contrast:

Chart Contrast 1.6 : 1 ....................... 60 lines/mm
Chart Contrast 1000 : 1 ..................... 200 lines/mm

[Jim Michael]

Another consideration is that it is very unlikely that your LF film will have more than 2400 dpi of real information. So if you assume the very best resolution of 2400 dpi from the Epson V750 that will only get you a print of 32X40" at 300 dpi.

Anything beyond that and you are in the realm of genuine fractals.

Sandy, could you elaborate on the realm of genuine fractals? There was a fellow here in Atlanta who was doing some interesting stuff with fractal algorithms and image processing, are you referring to that?

[Darin Boville]

It may be a tiny little file, as you say--but it was your sample image, not mine!

I'd be happy to look at any giant, un-little files you'd care to share...

--Darin

No it doesn't. It's a tiny little file. You can't really see anything. It is true that one can sharpen and get a lot from a consumer flatbed. One starts very blurry and adds the sharpening effect and if you're careful you can eke out some quality.

With a drum scan you start out with a very sharp file, and usually plenty of pixels. There is no comparison, especially when you want to make a print larger than 13 x 19. There is also more dynamic range, more sensitivity, etc. Not everyone can properly take advantage of it all, but it makes a huge difference.

Lenny

[Lenny Eiger]

I'd be happy to look at any giant, un-little files you'd care to share...
--Darin

We are very close geographically - why not come by and look at some prints? I'll show you the difference in real terms.... where it matters.

Pt Reyes National Seashore is always worth a visit....

Lenny

[Bruce Watson]

I've been kicking around the idea of picking up an Epson V750 scanner and I was wondering how good the scans are off of this scanner? I print using an Epson 7800 with normal print sizes of 16x20 and 24x30 but I plan on picking up the Epson 9900 and would be making prints up to 40x50.

First, you realize I hope that you aren't the first person to ask this question, yes? If you use the search feature you'll pull lots of threads on this. Vast quantities of opinions. Lots of smoke. Little fire.

The bottom line is, you can do what you want. If you want to make 40x50 inch prints from 35mm scanned on an Epson, go for it. The only valid judge of whether it meets your standards or not, is you. Yours is the only opinion that counts when it's your money you are spending.

For my money (literally), I tried quite a while to coax quality out of an Epson consumer flatbed scanner. I found for my needs I couldn't go more that 4x enlargement with it.

I fought this for a year or so. I didn't want to buy a drum scanner. I didn't. I didn't want to have to climb all the learning curves, time, mess, expense, etc. But I finally had to have the scan quality. And holy cats, the difference is huge. I could see it at 2x enlargements in my first scans. And I've gotten a lot better at scanning since then. A lot better. I finally quit playing with the consumer flatbeds altogether because no matter how much I learned about scanning I just couldn't make them do what I needed them to do.

I should point out here, because these threads always latch hold of resolution and debate it endlessly, that there's a lot more to a high quality scan than just resolution. I'm just sayin'.

The quality of the final print depends on everything that happens before the printer. You have to ask yourself why you want scanning to be your weakest link.