Scanner comparison: Epson V750 Pro added

[jim kitchen]

True, the Epson 750 scan is not at the focus plane, where I describe that comment near the end of the PDF...

The Epson 750 example scan is approximately one, to one point five millimetres below the optimum plane for my Epson 750, but properly applied sharpening brings the image back into reasonable focus for the result comparison. If I scan the 8X10 negative at the proper focus plane within the Epson 750 and, or the Epson 4990, I would apply less sharpening to the image. My Epson 4990 had this issue too, but its focus plane was nearly three millimetres above the scanner glass.

Again, the discovery height above the scanner glass for each Epson instrument, was discovered while experimenting with frosted white optical plastic as a diffused source, in a completely different post about scanners within this group. The negative was wet mounted to the optical plastic in that discussion thread, and the negative was correctly positioned and supported with shims above the scanner glass, prior to a scanning event.

jim k

[jb7]

I can't wait to try out my new V750-
particularly since the drum scanners require constant defending.

The 'lowly' Epson must be doing something right-

My last instrument was an old Umax Powerlook 1100,
so things can only get better-
in my little scanning world anyway-

I reckon I'll be attempting to find the best plane of focus for my scanner too-
even if I'm told it's just not worth it-

j

[sanking]

People using Epson flatbeds need to know that the point of best focus varies a lot. The plane of best focus of my 4990 is about 1mm above the glass. I used to own a 4879 and its plane of best focus was 2.5mm above the glass. The actual gain in resolution is quite small, on the order of 5-10% at most.

Because the lenses used have great depth of field it is not always easy to determine the plane of best focus. For this you need a negative with a lot of very fine detail and high contrast. Resolution targets work well if you have one, but a very sharp negative with tree branches against a plain sky also work well. In practice most people find that it is relatively difficult to consistently discern the plan of best focus with accuracy of greater than 1mm.

In my opinion the gain in scan quality from fluid mounting is greater than the gain from finding the point of best focus. Fluid mounting does not result in more detail, but it adds micro-contrast/acutance to the detail that is there.

Sandy King

If I scan the 8X10 negative at the proper focus plane within the Epson 750 and, or the Epson 4990, I would apply less sharpening to the image. My Epson 4990 had this issue too, but its focus plane was nearly three millimetres above the scanner glass.


jim k

[Paul Kierstead]

In my opinion the gain in scan quality from fluid mounting is greater than the gain from finding the point of best focus. Fluid mounting does not result in more detail, but it adds micro-contrast/acutance to the detail that is there.

Not to mention less spotting and much better flatness (quite noticeable improvment in results on some curly trannies I have).

My v700 arrived and quite noticeably better then the 3200, especially in shadow detail (e-6). The sharpness also seems noticeably better then the 3200 as well; more then I expected from the comparisons. I also tried using VueScan to scan at 6400 and output at 1600; this did seem to improve things over a straight 1600 scan (and the same for 3200), although I need to be more methodical to say for sure. Not a drum scanner for sure, but pretty usable.

[jim kitchen]

The "lowly" Epson 750 performs admirably and so does the Epson 4990, with a well planned scanning process...

I mentioned in my very unscientific summary, I am not a fan of blocked shadows nor blocked highlights because of several physical factors, which seem to be prominent within low to mid range flatbed scanners, but there are many methodical ways to overcome that issue with a different, yet effective approach to your scanning process. For example, I did not change my negative development procedure to accommodate the blocked density issues within a flatbed scan, so I move to a drum scanned negative to acquire the shadow detail and the highlight detail, after I select the negative for that costly event. As a side note, I did not change my negative development process, for several reasons, but the most prominent reason is that I did not wish to modify my development process, to accommodate a scanner that may physically change its temperament like the weather. Chasing my development procedure after an elusive electron is not my idea of practical magic.

If you review the mediocre images within the PDF, you should be able to see the blocked highlights and the blocked shadows within the Epson raw scan, compared to the controlled highlights, and the captured shadow detail present within the raw drum scan.

Fluid mounting, although a messy tedious incremental step, is worth the extra effort as Sandy states, because the increased micro contrast adds immediate continuous value to the digital capture. My 4990 focal plane height was definitely different from Sandy's, and because of that fact, I truly believe a variable height mounting station for the Epson scanner will allow you the ability to position and focus your negative properly, allowing you the opportunity to extract as much information as your negative may present, while processing a fluid mounted negative. Again, there are many factors that contribute to a well scanned image, ranging from operator error, your inherent quality control while processing a negative, and allowing the instrument to perform within the instrument's natural limitations.

That said, many users should be pleasantly surprised by the Epson 700 series or the 4990, combined with their good scanning work flow, and possibly a refined negative development process.

jim k

[mandoman7]

The idea of comparing a $500 scanner to a $5-10K scanner says a lot to me about today's technology. The recent selling price of a jobo cpp2 for $2500 on ebay is a related issue in my estimation (double or twice what you'd find them for 3 or 4 years ago). Its getting to where average workers again have access to reasonably good quality without laying out thousands of dollars. The bottom line is that for 2 grand or so you can get a camera and scanner and have an outfit that will beat the pants off the digital cameras, and you won't have to lay out huge monthly sums just to look at your work. This represents a sea change from where I sit.

I'll repeat myself from a few posts ago; if you're in the upper 10% of those enjoying sales then naturally you will go with the top of the line equipment. Everyone below that point must find a way to produce work that makes sense and supports a continuous workflow. I will happily pay for the drum scan when justified, but am thrilled to be have regained my ability to scan and produce in-house.

John Y.

[Findingmyway4ever]

I know the scanner stuff has been mentioned loads of times, but I have seen comments across the board from users that have extensively used different tools and while many feel 3X is the absolute maximum, some say even 2X they can see the difference and it isn't subtle.

Thing I have to question is that drum scanners are getting in the $500-$1000 pricerange. To be able to "squeeze" out every little possible bit of information from the Epson at basically $600 once you have added the glass kit, why not just have a drum scanner so you can learn how to use it, but don't have to go through so much of a learning process to get quality scans? I know size is one thing, but surely, I know I would never have a wife that made me sell off my speakers for cheesy Bose cube type speakers just like I would never have a wife that told me to get an Epson to reserve space.

I guess everyone has a reason for why they go with whatever device they choose, but the best value out there right now is a drum scanner IMHO. Pick up a couple of them at the prices they are selling at and have a spare one in case one breaks down...

Nothing against the Epson at all. Just saying if space isn't an issue, I find no reason why one doesn't go with a Howtek for the absolute bang-buck right now.

[jb7]

If you could get me a drum scanner for $500-1000, warrantied for a few months, with clean drums, software included, and the necessary workstation and mounting station,
I'd take it.

Does that include postage?

j