Epson V700 scanner

[StoneNYC]

Nathan thanks for trying to educate me, I think it's like trying to explain to a Neanderthal how to fly a jet airplane... when he hasn't even seen a wheel yet... ok here's my examples of not data just image stuff... lol
OK, best I could do, not a good image either just about the time I got frustrated with fuzzyness and wanted to try some experimentation.

The image, I haven't even cropped out the edges of the can yet......



The cropped area...


The scan at 3200 with Epson holder cropped 1:1 ...


The scan at 3200 with betterscanning holder and ANR glass cropped 1:1 ...


It's certainly not super great, this was Provia 100F, I seem to do a lot better with B&W film than color, but this is SUCH a tiny part of the frame, you could blow this up really big and not see any blur. I don't have technical understanding of film and scanning and all the tech side, but this looks really sharp even larger than 20x24. It still has fuzzy edges, and I recognize that, I think I could probably hone it even better I just don't have the patience honestly.

Hope this is in some way helpful.

[StoneNYC]

Oh, and this is from a 6x7 Medium format image NOT a LF image... just clarifying...

[oysteroid]

Thanks for the examples. Here is a sample of my own, scanned on a V750 at 4800ppi, resampled to 3200ppi, and sharpened liberally. This is from a 4x5 sheet of Portra 160, shot with a Schneider Apo-Symmar 210mm. I scanned it in the plastic holder.



I don't consider this sharp. And even to get that level of sharpness, I had to sharpen a lot, which accentuates the grain quite a bit. If I visually compare this to a 2000ppi version, I really don't see that it contains any additional useful information. Even the 2000ppi version isn't "sharp" and doesn't really have pixel level image information, not like the output of a Foveon sensor. Here it is at 2000ppi, sharpened as much as I think it can tolerate without making the grain so strong that it ruins the image:

[oysteroid]

StoneNYC, I suspect that your scan with the regular holder could be improved some by adjusting its height a bit. It looks rather out of focus to me. It has a lot more CAs than I normally see as well. Are you scanning as close to the center of the glass as possible? Performance is a little better in the center. Theoretically, a dry scan with the Betterscanning holder shouldn't be any sharper if the film is at the same height in both cases. I am talking locally of course. The problem with the regular holder is lack of film flatness, so the sharpness might not be consistent across the image.

[Linhof]

In addition to the issue of sharpness, contrast is another big issue, especially Velvia 50 film that I had a lot. How do you deal with this problem with V700?

[Nathan Potter]

StoneNYC, your Provia image scanned on the Epson with the betterscanning holder seems somewhat less than what I would expect in clarity. I assume this is 4X5 film and if so your small flower section is about 10mm (10,000 µm) wide referenced to the film. Your magnified view of the 10mm section shows detail (a reasonable line detail of about 1/200 of the 10 mm) which would be in the vicinity of a 50 µm line width. This is 20 lines/mm or 10 lp/mm. The limit may be on the film but should not be in the Epson. Scaling off a jpeg image on a computer screen is a poor way to assess image quality but one can get a rough estimate.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[StoneNYC]

Thanks for the examples. Here is a sample of my own, scanned on a V750 at 4800ppi, resampled to 3200ppi, and sharpened liberally. This is from a 4x5 sheet of Portra 160, shot with a Schneider Apo-Symmar 210mm. I scanned it in the plastic holder.



I don't consider this sharp. And even to get that level of sharpness, I had to sharpen a lot, which accentuates the grain quite a bit. If I visually compare this to a 2000ppi version, I really don't see that it contains any additional useful information. Even the 2000ppi version isn't "sharp" and doesn't really have pixel level image information, not like the output of a Foveon sensor. Here it is at 2000ppi, sharpened as much as I think it can tolerate without making the grain so strong that it ruins the image:

I wanted to show a straight scan, I could have easily re sampled it smaller and sharpened it further, I wanted the pure scan...

[StoneNYC]

StoneNYC, I suspect that your scan with the regular holder could be improved some by adjusting its height a bit. It looks rather out of focus to me. It has a lot more CAs than I normally see as well. Are you scanning as close to the center of the glass as possible? Performance is a little better in the center. Theoretically, a dry scan with the Betterscanning holder shouldn't be any sharper if the film is at the same height in both cases. I am talking locally of course. The problem with the regular holder is lack of film flatness, so the sharpness might not be consistent across the image.

Well the betterscanning does two things, one it keeps the plane of film almost entirely flat, were the Epson holders do not, so there's always a bend at the edges.

Secondly the Epson holders aren't adjustable and I can't get them any closer to the glass, so they are impossible to get any clearer, it's a really big fail. I suspect they planned for pros to get better holders and made these cheap holders for the masses.

[StoneNYC]

StoneNYC, your Provia image scanned on the Epson with the betterscanning holder seems somewhat less than what I would expect in clarity. I assume this is 4X5 film and if so your small flower section is about 10mm (10,000 µm) wide referenced to the film. Your magnified view of the 10mm section shows detail (a reasonable line detail of about 1/200 of the 10 mm) which would be in the vicinity of a 50 µm line width. This is 20 lines/mm or 10 lp/mm. The limit may be on the film but should not be in the Epson. Scaling off a jpeg image on a computer screen is a poor way to assess image quality but one can get a rough estimate.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

I you read the second post, I did say this is from a 6x7 piece of film NOT a 4x5.

Do your calculations based on that surface area if it helps you.

[oysteroid]

Well the betterscanning does two things, one it keeps the plane of film almost entirely flat, were the Epson holders do not, so there's always a bend at the edges.

Secondly the Epson holders aren't adjustable and I can't get them any closer to the glass, so they are impossible to get any clearer, it's a really big fail. I suspect they planned for pros to get better holders and made these cheap holders for the masses.

Yes, that holder with anti-newton-ring-glass would certainly be better for holding the film flat. I am surprised that you feel that you need to get the included plastic holder closer to the glass than it can possibly go in order to get optimal focus. Mine is optimally focused with the little adjustment things pointed toward the "O", which is basically the middle setting. Taking them off entirely is the lowest setting. Pointing them toward the "+" is the highest setting. But you can get levels in between with little paper shims if you like. Anyway, if yours truly has a focal point below the lowest setting, this points to rather poor consistency between different samples of these scanners.

But as far as flatness goes, I don't really have any problem. I just stick the negatives between some pages of a heavy textbook and stick it on a warm radiator if they are curved and they flatten right out and remain quite flat in my holder. I get consistent focus across the frame. This is for 4x5 sheet film though. I haven't tried that with roll film. For my purposes, it doesn't seem worth messing with fluid mounts or anything, especially since solvents are involved, and it is cold here in Colorado, and so good ventilation is out of the question. And while I don't really know how much of a problem it is, it seems to me that introducing more refractive surfaces, such as another sheet of glass, could reduce quality in some way or another. For one thing, light bounces back and forth between the two surfaces of a sheet of glass, just like you see in a silver-backed mirror. Ideally, there would be no glass at all. But dust getting inside would be a nightmare.