No, I've never operated an X5 on my own, but I've been at the side of the operator, that is a really good professional, a first class one with a solid reputation build on excellent works. But look, it is impossible that an X5 goes beyond 2048 optical dpi in 4x5.Originally Posted by interneg
The X5 rocks in 35mm film and in MF, but it is not an specialized LF scanner, Hasselblad always has been linked to top notch MF, and the X5 is a sound MF scanner that also makes some LF, but no 8x10".
Yikes Pere. You should really resist posting such strong opinions about something you have near zero experience with first hand. You have a tremendous bias towards Epson which is not based on anything but your interpretation of randomly collected information from sources that are not your own. I will agree with you on one thing, Epson v series are a great, headache free, and easy to use scanners for anyone that doesn't need anything more than what they can do.
I have said my last words on the topic and I am now out of the conversation.
Enjoy making photos everyone
Pali
The V850 is not inadecuate for MF film, but if wanting a monster print a Plustek or an X5 would perform slightly better, as this test shows: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/160...s-500-scanner/
IMHO this also depends on 2 factors:
1) Shot quality: Has the negative 40 lp/mm detail ? Shutter speed ? Handheld ? Trepidation/Shake? Sweet aperture? Moving subject? Perfect Focus? Good DOF? Sharp Film? Perfect camera alignment ? Perfect film flatness ?
2) Grain depiction: Large washed areas showing grain ? T or Cubic ? Film Speed ? Want the artist show grain structure or he wants to hide it ?
One thing is a lab test saying the performance a lens has with a flat target, and another thing is real photography with 3D scenes where nothing is in the perfect plane of focus. Negatives have optical flaws from a number of factors, a higher resolving power may not deliver a better result, sometimes what we find in a better scanner is more noise from aliasing with grain or color clouds, as it was the LS case.
Pretty sure.Yikes Pere. You should really resist posting such strong opinions about something you have near zero experience with first hand. You have a tremendous bias towards Epson which is not based on anything but your interpretation of randomly collected information from sources that are not your own. I will agree with you on one thing, Epson v series are a great, headache free, and easy to use scanners for anyone that doesn't need anything more than what they can do.
I have said my last words on the topic and I am now out of the conversation.
Enjoy making photos everyone
Pali
But I challenge you to download the crops in this comparative: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/
... and then explaining why with a few Photoshop clicks you can make match the V750 sample to the Howtek 4500 sample:
OK, so you were a client, not the person who made the scan(s). That's what you should have told us long before you started to tell us about the supposed shortcomings of the machine.
So, in the real world, any scanner isblimjted by image quality to be scanned and no amount of capability, Ferrari included will make the image better. I have used my V850 and obtained great results. I have also used it and got lousy results and when I go back and review the film, I find the image is also bad. If I were working for a xompany andbhad access to a 25.000 dollar drum scanner or Flextite, of course I wod use themose over a 1000 dollar flatbed simply because the technology is better. But does that mean I get a superb, taxk sharp image? Nit if I feednit a pile dog crap. But, If I am making wall murals 10 feet across and 8 feet high, then I would expect, no demand that a 25,000 dollar scanner be better. Can I buy last century's drum scanner, scsi card and all and get better than a flatbed? Maybe, maybe not.
All the number quoting. Nyquist frequency bs means crap if you cannot take an image to take advantage of what the hardware can do. Will I someday acquire a drum scanner? Maybe. In the meantime, I am satisfied wirg my V850 and the people who have reviewd my images after scanning would know the difference between drum, digital or flatbed. What they and what I care about is how the image looks when printed. Does that mean I do not have high enough standards? No, it just means when the image looks right to what I envision then it is good. I am also looking at building my own dslr film scanner. Preliminary results are promising. Best part is I can precisely set focus and exposure before scanning in real time.
The real question is, who can afford a 200.00 drum scan or buy a 25,000 dollar drum scanner or Flextite?
Anyway, these are my opinions and I found this thread an interesting read on the two positions. Seems the different sides each have a dog in this discussion and an investment to one position or another. I think both sides have valid arguments and it should be whatever tool privides you with the reaults you are looking for.
interneg, I told you that before and a number of times, and every time we debated that.
you can tell me why 2048 hardware dpi are so good (1800 effective) in an x5 scan of a 4x5 sheet, and why 2400 effective optical dpi of the V850 scan are that bad.
And then I challenge you explain me what I ask in post #44, as you are a pro scanner user you may have an explanation.
PD: If I was running a pro scanner service probably my choice would be an x1/x5, as an amateur I obtain (most of the times) perfect results from a V850 with LF BW sheets.
Last edited by Pere Casals; 4-Jun-2018 at 00:42. Reason: PD:
In two words: optical aberrations. It's perfectly possible to design a very cheap optical system with surprisingly good high contrast resolution and much worse performance elsewhere, loaded with spherical aberration that kills fine, more normal contrast details. That's what the Epson does, much like the lenses in disposable cameras. It's like the difference between a pre-aspherical 35mm Summilux at f1.4 & an Apo-Sironar (choose your flavour) at f22. One could be theoretically higher resolving (diffraction etc) but one will be clearly far, far more perceptibly 'sharp' owing to lack of spherical aberration. The sheer number of glass surfaces in the Epson between film & lens will also drastically increase the amount of halation present, over and above any potential performance of the lens/ optical system. The high price of high-end CCD scanners had and has a great deal to do with a flatbed optical system that's free to a great extent of halation & chromatic aberration, using highly corrected optical systems to do so.
No amount of fiddling in Photoshop will change that - unlike distortion or chromatic aberration correction. Do you now understand why an aberration free 2048ppi is vastly better than a grossly aberrated 2300ppi?
How? What hardware controls does the Imacons offer? My understanding is they only offer exposure control, just like the epson.
My own experience is that making an adjusted .tiff from the scanner (especially in terms of setting curves before the scan) seems to offer more flexibility than working with a 3F (which by all accounts is simply a notionally straight out of scanner unadjusted, uninverted .tiff openable only in Flexcolor). I find this particularly noticeable in highlights where there can be a sort of tonal break-up following dividing out the base & the inversion if a curve isn't applied at the scanning stage. If I have the time tomorrow I'll perhaps see if the 3F file offers the same adjustability - currently I'm not convinced.
Again, I'd suggest getting some hands-on time with one before going further. If you have some top quality enlarger RA4 prints (not minilab), they're surprisingly to get a pretty close tonal match on with negs scanned on an X5 - if you use the correct techniques. From there, if your sense of colour is halfway decent, it's pretty easy to work out how chromogenic paper responds tonally & the inherent colour balances of the various film emulsions on the market today.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks