Drum or flat scan?

[SeanEsopenko]

Here's a quick comparison I made on another forum

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/for...9&postcount=13

That's about the same difference in sharpness I see when comparing a darkroom, silver print enlargement to a V700 scan of 4x5, even when wet mounted. I just wish there was somebody locally who offered $20 drum scanning .

I believe Kandinsky is the Ansel Adams of my generation. I've so far, in person, heard two people describe their awe and wonder when first seeing an Ansel Adams print, wondering "how the hell did he do that?" I experienced that when I saw a Kandinsky print for the first time, around the same age when they saw their first Ansel Adams. I looked at my little Digital Rebel and thought "what the hell am I doing?" If somebody has the ambition to reach that level of work they can't do it with a flatbed scanner. They're going to need much more than that.

As long as you don't expect the Epson scanner to do something it was never intended to do (i.e. work well with 35mm), and as long as you recognize its limits (4x enlargements) it does an excellent job.

Going back to the original poster's question, he was asking if a V700 would suffice for 40x50" prints and I think the general consensus is that the OP may be disappointed seeing V700 scans enlarged to that size.

[Ed Kelsey]

The Epson V750 enables you to scan 4x5 @ 6500 ppi, which equates to 650 ppi at 10x enlargement.

That's twice the nominal 300 ppi that you print, so it should work OK.

I've found the scans to be excellent when viewed on-screen. I don't print in that size range.

- Leigh

Oh come on what's the use of scanning at 6500 dpi ? Even if you can do it and I don't think you can, all you're going to get is more grain past somewhere between 3200 and 4000 dpi

[SeanEsopenko]

Oh come on what's the use of scanning at 6500 dpi ? Even if you can do it and I don't think you can, all you're going to get is more grain past somewhere between 3200 and 4000 dpi

I agree, the V700 can't really resolve any more detail at 6500 dpi than it can at 2400 dpi. I'm even suspicious it's not properly resolving 2400 dpi scans because I should be seeing the grain aliasing I get at 2700 dpi from my LS-2000. There are some serious focus problems with the V700, even when I tweak the height with paper thin adjustment and wet mount the negatives.

It seems like one plausible use for a super high resolution scan is to help with grain aliasing. I see grain aliasing all the time from my LS-2000 but the V700 can't resolve the grain fine enough for aliasing to start showing up. So why bother scanning at 6500 dpi when there's no benefit to it?

[Asher Kelman]

Here's a quick comparison I made on another forum

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/for...9&postcount=13

Great comparison. Now have you compared that with an 8x10 enlarger making the enlargement? Or maybe someone has a link to such tests? I'm wondering about the relative cost of setting up for such great 16x20 or even 32x40 prints from 8x10 film

Asher

[engl]

Here's a quick comparison I made on another forum

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/for...9&postcount=13

Interesting, my V700 is not nearly as mushy at 1200DPI (which seems to be what the crop is).

[sanking]

Interesting, my V700 is not nearly as mushy at 1200DPI (which seems to be what the crop is).

I am also surprised that the crop from the Epson V700 scan looked so mushy. It should compare quite favorably with a dedicated film scanner up to 2000 dpi, or even an Imacon for that matter since resolution with the Imacon for 4X5 is limited to 2040 dpi.

In the past I tested the Epson V700 with a high resolution target. What I found was that when scanning at 2400 dpi the actual effective resolution of the V700 was about 2000 dpi, increasing to about 2300 dpi if the scan was made at 6400 dpi.

In my opinion16X20 prints of excellent quality are possible from a 4X5 scan of B&W film with the V700 if one takes care to get the most out of the machine (fluid mounting and determining the plane of best focus) and carries out good post-scan processing. Fluid mounting with the V700 does not give more resolution but it gives a lot more micro-contrast. Good post scan processing is, IMHO, even more important then the quality of the scan, within limits of course.

Returning to the original question of the OP, for a print 40X50" in size (assuming optimum image quality is desired) one needs a higher quality scan than the V700 can provide.. You can get it with a professional flatbed like the Cezanne or Eversmart, or a drum scanner like the Howtek.

Sandy King

[Asher Kelman]

In the past I tested the Epson V700 with a high resolution target. What I found was that when scanning at 2400 dpi the actual effective resolution of the V700 was about 2000 dpi, increasing to about 2300 dpi if the scan was made at 6400 dpi.

What about the 10000XL scanner. That adds focus to 2400 optical scanning!

Asher

[Peter De Smidt]

The 10000XL can do larger originals, right? Other than that, if you place the negative at the correct height with a V700 or V750, would auto focus really be an advantage?

[Asher Kelman]

The 10000XL can do larger originals, right? Other than that, if you place the negative at the correct height with a V700 or V750, would auto focus really be an advantage?

I wonder whether Epson has a better stepper motor in their professional big scanner. but I don't know. From what I've read, getting exact focus with a V700 series is a pain. However, once it was done, repeating would be easy. My needs are for 4x5 and 8x10. It's also much less expensive than the 10000XL.

Maybe someone has actual experience.

Asher

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Here's a quick comparison I made on another forum

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/for...9&postcount=13

That's odd- the scans I get from my 4990 look a lot better than that. I've compared prints made from them to those of the same image drum scanned from 4X5 at a 16X20 print and can barely see a difference. There's probably a big difference between different Epson flatbeds, with some of the same model being a lot better than others.