What's the best deal in scanner-land with no compromises in quality?

[dh003i]

The scanner is fixed focus and the plane of focus is not at the glass but above it, theoretically at the level of the film holders. Because of slight imprecision in the manufacturing of the scanner, the aftermarket holders with adjustable film plane height allows one to optimize each scanner.

For $500 all in, how good can the lens be?? as well as the stepper motor??

The advantage to a big negative/transparency, is the scanning standard can be lower and still get acceptable results

brute force at work.

bob

Well, I'm not going to answer your theoretical questions about how good can something be for $500. (I would note that, after accounting for inflation, the free market is generally making things of higher quality and cheaper....consider computers, and photography equipment too).

But my question was just about why you can get more enlargement from a 4x5 than 8x10. Is it because you are just laying the 8x10 flat on the bed, hence not properly focused on?

Btw, I have used both "heights" that come with the adjustable Epson holder. It seems to be about a 1-2 millimeter difference in height, and I notice no difference.

[sanking]

But my question was just about why you can get more enlargement from a 4x5 than 8x10. Is it because you are just laying the 8x10 flat on the bed, hence not properly focused on?

Btw, I have used both "heights" that come with the adjustable Epson holder. It seems to be about a 1-2 millimeter difference in height, and I notice no difference.

My answer to your question is this.

When you scan an 8X10" negative you must select Film Area Guide, and when you do the lower resolution lens is automatically selected by the software.

When you scan a 4X5 or 5X7 negative you can select Film Holder, which automatically engages the higher resolution lens. It covers a smaller area and has a wider aperture.

Assuming you have adjusted both lenses for optimum plane of focus you will get higher effective resolution with the higher resolution lens. I believe Epson calls it the Super High Resolution lens, a somewhat hyperbolic description, but the SHR lens does in fact give higher resolution than your regular "High Resolution Lens."

Sandy King

[dh003i]

My answer to your question is this.

When you scan an 8X10" negative you must select Film Area Guide, and when you do the lower resolution lens is automatically selected by the software.

When you scan a 4X5 or 5X7 negative you can select Film Holder, which automatically engages the higher resolution lens. It covers a smaller area and has a wider aperture.

Assuming you have adjusted both lenses for optimum plane of focus you will get higher effective resolution with the higher resolution lens. I believe Epson calls it the Super High Resolution lens, a somewhat hyperbolic description, but the SHR lens does in fact give higher resolution than your regular "High Resolution Lens."

Sandy King

Ahhh, I see. Could you just not select film holder and scan your 8x10 in two pieces? (adjusting the height to be optimal for film holder)?

[sanking]

Ahhh, I see. Could you just not select film holder and scan your 8x10 in two pieces? (adjusting the height to be optimal for film holder)?

Very good idea. If the scanning area is a full eight inches wide with film holder selected your suggestion should work fine.

However, with film holder selected the plane of best focus is well above 2mm above the surface of the glass so you would have to improvise some type of holder for the film. I would use a separate piece of glass and determine plane of best focus with small washers or coins, then fluid mount the negative to the bottom (facing the CCD) of the scanner.

Sandy

[Tyler Boley]

the problem with a reply is really the question. As clearly demonstrated here defining "quality" is problematic at best. As with many things in life, "no compromises" and "best deal" are generally mutually exclusive.
I'm going to suggest a Howtek 4500, they have been showing up quite a bit lately, and probably go for under $2k. But the purchase is always a risk, shipping could be expensive and damaging, the footprint possibly too much for many, the mounting learning curve not fun, and the whole thing conditional on addition potential costs like drum condition, included or excluded mounting station, included software and platform, etc..
So much depends on the worker, I have old flatbed scans here of 120 and 5x7 B&W film that hold up well next to my drum scans on paper. Needless to say those files were very carefully massaged up. In fact I often wonder at the enlargement ratio limits mentioned by list users for the newer Epson scanners, I have prints up to 19x25 or so, from 6x7cm XP2, from my old Agfa T2500 massaged scans, that hang acceptably next to my drum scan neg prints. I can't imagine a modern scanner can not do as well as the old Agfa?
Anyway, all I'm saying is that so much has to do with the demands set by original film type, the eventual use of the files, what constitutes acceptable quality, politics, and user expertise, that given the problems with the initial question, reliable answers are going to be hard to come by...
Tyler

[rdenney]

the problem with a reply is really the question. As clearly demonstrated here defining "quality" is problematic at best. As with many things in life, "no compromises" and "best deal" are generally mutually exclusive.

My problem is with the "no compromises". Compromise is unavoidable, because objectives and constraints compete.

I did not respond to this thread because I was not looking for a no-compromise solution when I built my fleet of scanners. My whole strategy was to manage compromise, by understanding my objectives, my budget, my space, and my available time, and then looking for the approach that provided the most reasonable balance of all those competing constraints. It was no different back in my darkroom days, and it's no different now in terms of the cameras and lenses, all of which present compromise. Without defining those limitations and objectives, this runs the risk of being just an exercise in "I can spend more than you".

Rick "reminding all that we still have the negative, if our objectives change in the future" Denney