Scanner comparison: Epson V750 Pro added

[Paul Kierstead]

Some of have Ebony's and some Tachikara's but we all seem to get absolutely the best one we can afford.

Of course we don't. I've seen many a photographer driving a nice car who could have easily driven a functional cheaper one and then owned a "better" camera. Or could have eaten out less.

Look, I'm not trying to beat some stupid semantic drum here, or make some insane universal value judgment. I'm trying to have a discussion about scanners with some boundaries. Surely you can see some kind of point in selecting equipment/process for a purpose and not just buying "the best" in all things, all the time? Where would the time be for shooting?

I understand we all have our requirements, and they all differ. However if we all have a discussion and don't express those requirements (in real terms, not "my requirement is the best possible", which would just result in not getting anything done) then the discussion is futile. If we only focus on the extreme cases, then the discussion completely ignores our own general requirements.

So, you're saying the 750 resolution is not good enough for an 8x10?

[Lenny Eiger]

Look, I'm not trying to beat some stupid semantic drum here, or make some insane universal value judgment. I'm trying to have a discussion about scanners with some boundaries. Surely you can see some kind of point in selecting equipment/process for a purpose and not just buying "the best" in all things, all the time? Where would the time be for shooting?

I don't disagree with you. I have often stated that one should use/purchase things based on purpose. However, I will add that talking about it, as we have done here back and forth for so long, hasn't yielded any clarity. Especially when we come to the "meaningful pixels" question. We just get more frustrated with other.

That's why I suggest everyone give both ways a try.

So, you're saying the 750 resolution is not good enough for an 8x10?

It's not good enough for me. I have tested it. The image that draws most people in, that is my biggest seller, works because the detail in the background keeps going and going, and creates a sense of a third dimension. I even had a guy who has a slight form of wandering eye - that does not see depth normally come in and when he saw my image, he apparently saw three-dimensionally for the first time in a very long while. He bought the print.

I always strive to create a print that evokes a three dimensional experience, so for me, there isn't much of a choice. I do realize that everyone wants to do something different...

Lenny

[Paul Kierstead]

To clarify, I meant an 8x10 print, from a 4x5 negative. You are saying it can't manage a 2x enlargement with resolution beyond what the eye can see?

[Lenny Eiger]

To clarify, I meant an 8x10 print, from a 4x5 negative. You are saying it can't manage a 2x enlargement with resolution beyond what the eye can see?

Oh, I think an 8x10 print would be fine from just about anything, 750 included. A 5 megapixel camera would also do just fine. My minimum target is a 16x20, and I want to have enough to do a 32x40 print.

Lenny

[Paul Kierstead]

Ah, see, there is my point. You said previously "... the 750 is way below my idea what what minimal sharpness is.". Just add on for 16x20 @ 720 dpi, or 32x40 @ 720 dpi, then someone reading has *some* kind of frame of reference. They may not know what you consider good, but at least they know (ballpark wise) what kind of output you are judging "good" on. Otherwise, it is just a condemnation of the scanner without parameters.

[Lenny Eiger]

Ah, see, there is my point. You said previously "... the 750 is way below my idea what what minimal sharpness is.". Just add on for 16x20 @ 720 dpi, or 32x40 @ 720 dpi, then someone reading has *some* kind of frame of reference. They may not know what you consider good, but at least they know (ballpark wise) what kind of output you are judging "good" on. Otherwise, it is just a condemnation of the scanner without parameters.

Point taken.

When it comes to Epson I am more likely to be "condemnational" without parameters. I'm very unhappy with them as a company. They have figured out a way to disallow any third party ink for the later models and that is going to put a lot of folks out of work. (And maybe mess up the really good b&w ink availability going forward.) Then I have about 10 other issues with them..... Good printers, awful company.

Lenny

[jvuokko]

I've had large portions of several 4x5's scanned at 8000 SPI on the Aztek drum scanner. The files were on the order of 2+ gig. The resultant images were enlarged 75x to 100x and the darn things looked great. I was originally planning to shoot the subjects with an 8x10 (which would have produced a MUCH better end result), but access to shoot the subjects became an issue, so I was 'stuck' with the 4x5 images I had originally shot.

Regardless, the scans were fantastic, and they completely held all of the information in the film, as they were resolving the grain. You really can't get much better than that.

Here is the biggest difference with flatbeds and film scanners (and high end drums): They will see the grain.

Flatbets does not see any real grain. Only noise caused by grain aliasing.

In LF work that does not matter much, except often you can get grainy scans from negative where scanner should not resolve any grain. In small format, especially 35mm this means a lot, because the grain pattern is usually essential for the final print. If it cannot be reproduced by scanning, then scanned and printed picture is nonsense compared to real darkroom print.

Another often forgot advantage of drum scanners is the flatness of the film. There is no curvature, so everything is on the focus. Again, usually not a big deal with LF but smaller formats... From 6x6cm it's hard to get scan with flatbed where everything is on the focus. With 35mm it goes even harder.

[Svitantti]

As I quickly read about what was going on here, a couple notes came in my mind...

- Generally about this comparison I would say that the images, scanning and post processing methods should be equal (as much as possible) in other terms than the variable that is measured/compared. When I'm looking at the images I see that the color balances and contrasts are quite random and I think this disracts the comparison quite much.

About the latter discussion concerning V700 etc:

- The comparison for a drum scanner with full resolution and a V750 with 1200 dpi is not fair in any way. A 3200 dpi scan or 6400 with formats up to medium would much better represent the capabilities of such flatbed scanners. The difference between 3200 and 6400 is not too big anyway as far as I've seen with V700.

- Scanning LF films usually doesn't need the full resolution you can get from a scanner, because the original is so big and the files will grow, BUT if you are scanning for large prints, you will naturally use whatever you get out of it and buy a better computer if memory is a problem.
Even though the lenses might not reach as big resolution as the scanner can achieve this way, people might still want to scan the film as film is (meaning getting the grain and other textures to look as natural as possible). This is where the difference often appears when comparing a real film scanner to a flatbed etc...

About the V700 and V750:
The HR-lense is indeed used whenever you scan film with a holder (up to 5x7). There is a slight confusion even on the Epson homepage in one point, but if you read a bit further you see this is the only way it is meant. When film is in a holder, a bit higher than the glass surface, the HR-lense is used because it focuses to about correct height.
The height of the holder is quite important if you are scanning for prints and trying to get out everything you can. The improvement was clear when I tested my V700. Here are samples:
http://www.students.tut.fi/~hannine7/alin.jpg (holder at the bottom position)
http://www.students.tut.fi/~hannine7/teipil.jpg (holder at the highest positin)
NOTE: the correct height might differ between actual machines!

One possible difference between V700 and V750 is the flare problem for V700. I think the V750 has some kind of a flare-resistant coating that is missing from V700. I've noticed the flare sometimes is a real problem if you are critical and at least when trying to get some more stuff out of the shadow areas. I dont know how much difference would the V750 actually make though.

[sanking]

You are absolutely correct about the color balance and contrast in the comparisons. It is not consistent and this to some extent detracts from the value of the comparison. I accept that the color problem is one that would be difficult to resolve. Contrast, however, is another matter. We all know from practical experience that high contrast images look sharper than low contrast images and that to compare lenses and camea systems we need to normalize to the extent possible contrast. Yet, on the comparison site one sees some rather significant difference in contrast between various scanners. It seems to me that with a step wedge included in the scans one could have then adjusted all of the comparisons quite easily to the same contrast.


Sandy King

As I quickly read about what was going on here, a couple notes came in my mind...

- Generally about this comparison I would say that the images, scanning and post processing methods should be equal (as much as possible) in other terms than the variable that is measured/compared. When I'm looking at the images I see that the color balances and contrasts are quite random and I think this disracts the comparison quite much.

[John Whitley]

Another often forgot advantage of drum scanners is the flatness of the film.

It seems that this is really an advantage of any scanner for which wet-mounting to a glass or acrylic surface is used, whether drum or flatbed. Naturally, to take full advantage of that the plane/line of focus must be correctly positioned via some means (scanner lens focus, etc.) Speaking just to control of focus, are there other advantages of the drum scanner design?