epson 750/cezanne 5/etc

[don mills]

a friend of a friend made a 35x45 inch print from 8x10 film using the 750...he also paid $125 for a 1gb drum scan from the lab and we couldn't tell the difference.

anyone else noticing how good this scanner is??? i don't know how it compares technically with a scan from something like the cezanne 5000 but the files/prints look great.

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/c...s&oid=63056500

[Joanna Carter]

35" x 45" is hardly stretching a scan of an 8x10. I would not expect to see that much difference until I got to around the 80" x 100" mark.

[Bob McCarthy]

I agree, 4X is not a challenge for most scanners. About the limit for the Epson line.

While not saying much about the Epson scanner, it does illustrate the advantage of a big negative. Almost any scanner will produce a decent file from a "big" negative, takes a killer scanner to work with 35mm and medium format.

Bob

[Mike1234]

Heck, if one can achieve an 8 foot long print, with a teensy bit of cropping even, and tell no difference then why pay $125/scan? Thanks, Joanna!!

Thanks for sharing your comparison, Don!!

[sgelb]

try getting a decent medium format scan. you need wet mounting at least. Ive used it a lot and it does an acceptable job with 6x9 and above... 4x5 is good.. if u get the wet mount its much much better.

[Mike1234]

try getting a decent medium format scan. you need wet mounting at least. Ive used it a lot and it does an acceptable job with 6x9 and above... 4x5 is good.. if u get the wet mount its much much better.

Thanks but I'm going to rig a system that will keep the film flat, is adjustable on all four corners, and removes the glass surface through which the sensor reads.

[sanking]

Thanks but I'm going to rig a system that will keep the film flat, is adjustable on all four corners, and removes the glass surface through which the sensor reads.

You can do that but it might just amount to a waste of time. Having the sensor read directly with no glass between sounds like a good idea but in practice I doubt very much that you will get better results than with fluid mounting. In fact, I recall that someone tested the Microtek M1 and reported that results on the glass were actually better than when no glass was between the sensor and negative.

Just for the record, all of the professional flatbed scanners scan through a glass bed.

Sandy King

[Mike1234]

You can do that but it might just amount to a waste of time. Having the sensor read directly with no glass between sounds like a good idea but in practice I doubt very much that you will get better results than with fluid mounting. In fact, I recall that someone tested the Microtek M1 and reported that results on the glass were actually better than when no glass was between the sensor and negative.

Just for the record, all of the professional flatbed scanners scan through a glass bed.

Hmm... maybe the manufactures correct the sensors accounting for the refraction? Even so, it seems that avoiding the fluid and cleanup are worth it??

[don mills]

i'm used, extensively i might add, the howtek 4500 and 7500 models (though never cezanne) and think these epson scanners are finally coming around (when adequate sharpening is applied of course). i'm buying the v750 this weekend and will post samples (or request to have added) to the scanner comparison page.

happy holidays!

[sanking]

Hmm... maybe the manufactures correct the sensors accounting for the refraction? Even so, it seems that avoiding the fluid and cleanup are worth it??

I like to get the best scan possible, and in most cases (especially with magnification over about 5X) fluid mounting does it so I don't mind the cleanup. In fact, there is very little cleanup involved as most of the mounting fluid evaporates quickly from the film.

Most people who have not actually used fluid mounting before tend to exaggerate the trouble. Fluid mounting once learned is quite easy and takes barely more time than dry scanning.


Sandy King