New Epson V800, V850 flatbed scanners

[Oren Grad]

Looks as though the only substantive change is in the holders:

http://www.blur-magazine.com/journal/epson-launches-benchmark-flatbed-film-photo-scanners

[Deane Johnson]

I've been going to buy a 750 for some time now, but kept putting it off. For once, procrastination paid off.

[mdarnton]

No 5x7 and no 8x10, or just no holders for those films, I wonder. Can't tell from the announcements.

[Andrew O'Neill]

...and faster warm up time of less than one second using LED's.

[richardman]

The height adjustment may be worth it. That might eliminate the need for something like the betterscanning solution.

[richardman]

I still think using the Betterscanning holders with the AN glass is worth it by itself.

Possibly. I bought and still use the BS 617 holder, but sold the 45x BS holder because my V700 holder happens to be just as good.

[hoffy]

Sorry! I deleted my post!

In the article it does suggest better holders with AN glass. I'd be curious to see what they are like.

[neil poulsen]

I've been going to buy a 750 for some time now, but kept putting it off. For once, procrastination paid off.

It'll be interesting to see the reviews. Could be a good time to buy a 750 or 700. I'm wondering about just how much better the scans will be from the updated machines?

[HoodedOne]

I really hope the new holders can be used on the old scanners.

[analoguey]

Nice! So film/photo scanning is becoming or having enough interest for Epson to launch new scanners! :-)

I find the dual lens bit interesting but is it different from the previous Epsons?

[richardman]

Since I am doing a fine art project with 4x5, if the new scanners are better, I just may sell the V700 if I can recoup some of the cost and upgrade.

[richardman]

I find the dual lens bit interesting but is it different from the previous Epsons?

The V700/V750 already have the dual lens.

[wilderness]

It's not my intention to hi-jack this thread, however could somebody provide a comparison between the 700-750 and the older Microtek i900?

I scanned just over 3000 negs (black & white) with an i900 and was very pleased with the quality.
In addition about 1/3 of the 3k were 3 X 4's which I had a special adapter made to fit the 4 x 5 holder, which worked out great (although not perfect; leaving a transparent border on one edge.

[neil poulsen]

I've been going to buy a 750 for some time now, but kept putting it off. For once, procrastination paid off.

For either of two reasons: To get a better scanner, or to get the one you intended at a much reduced price.

[miesnert]

Looks to me like this might be a v700/v750 with different holders and lightsource?

[djdister]

I really hope the new holders can be used on the old scanners.

Good idea, I'd like to do that too...

[Matsushime]

Looks to me like this might be a v700/v750 with different holders and lightsource?

That's what it looks like to me as well. Welp, I'll be looking out for when the 700/750's get cheaper!

[Bill_1856]

I'm still not clear if the new scanners will do my 5x7s? Or are they size limited to 4x5?

[karl french]

I suspect they'll have the same max 8x10 size transparency adapter but it only comes with a 4x5 holder. Probably the same film area guide as previous scanners will be included.

[Matsushime]

I'm still not clear if the new scanners will do my 5x7s? Or are they size limited to 4x5?

Bill,

I assume you are asking about the 5x7 holder? Otherwise there's always the option on the 850 that will presumably have the wet/dry mount holders.

[Peter Gomena]

Does "faster scanning" include USB 3 or Thunderbolt connection? That would make a huge difference in scanning speed. The rewritten press release gives no clues. Maybe the Epson website will tell all.

[BarryS]

It's good to see some continued development on film scanners--even if the improvements are modest. I have to keep a laptop with Windows 7 32-bit, just so I can use my Microtek M1 and Silverfast. I'm sure as hell not buying an M2 based on Microtek's spotty support.

[SergeiR]

Does "faster scanning" include USB 3 or Thunderbolt connection? That would make a huge difference in scanning speed. The rewritten press release gives no clues. Maybe the Epson website will tell all.

you can use V700 with USB3 port with OSX and Vuescan at least, if you like. Feels a tad faster.

[Bill_1856]

Bill,

I assume you are asking about the 5x7 holder? Otherwise there's always the option on the 850 that will presumably have the wet/dry mount holders.

Well, I've never seen (or used) a flat-bed scanner for LF negatives, so I don't really know anything about holders. I just wonder if i can use it to digitize my 5x7 negatives.

[Ken Lee]

Well, I've never seen (or used) a flat-bed scanner for LF negatives, so I don't really know anything about holders. I just wonder if i can use it to digitize my 5x7 negatives.

You certainly can, but laying the film directly on the scanner glass (instead of using a holder to slightly raise the film off the glass) may result in Newton's Rings and will place the film slightly out of focus.

[djdister]

Well, I've never seen (or used) a flat-bed scanner for LF negatives, so I don't really know anything about holders. I just wonder if i can use it to digitize my 5x7 negatives.

You've been missing out then. I use my Epson V750 to scan 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 negatives. The 4x5 in Epson's holder (not the best), the 5x7 in a home made neg holder, and the 8x10 directly on the glass (emulsion down, flip the image in PS).

[tnabbott]

I hope they improve the implementation of ICE. I have the 750 and did not like how the ICE worked. The files have blotchy areas where the ICE was applied. The Nikon 8000 and 9000 scanners have terrific ICE implementations.

[Doug Fisher]

>> I just wonder if i can use it to digitize my 5x7 negatives. <<

Yes, I have had customers doing 5x7 for quite some time and the 5x7 will fit within the narrower field of view for the second lens.

Other than the LED light source, when it comes to the scanning hardware itself I would not be surprised if that was about the only change. We have seen for years that Epson does inexpensive cosmetic refreshes but the true optical performance doesn't change (e.g. 4490/v500/v600/v550). The outside appears the same except for a new smoke silver cover.

Doug

[Jim Andrada]

I do 5 x 7 all the time - I usually wet mount them using the wet mount holder and they do indeed fit within the higher resolution area. 8 x 10's go on the regular glass. MF stuff goes into the Nikon 8000 which totally blows away the Epson.

[Dirk Rösler]

You certainly can, but laying the film directly on the scanner glass (instead of using a holder to slightly raise the film off the glass) may result in Newton's Rings and will place the film slightly out of focus.

Hi Ken, are you about that? I thought that in 8x10 mode, the focus was directly on the glass. Also with emulsion side on the glass, I never had trouble with Mr. Newton's rings.

[Ken Lee]

Hi Ken, are you about that? I thought that in 8x10 mode, the focus was directly on the glass. Also with emulsion side on the glass, I never had trouble with Mr. Newton's rings.

I'm fairly sure, but it may depend on choice of film, humidity, etc. My 8x10 experience was with Ilford HP5+, emulsion side down.

I only place images on the glass when scanning for a proof. When scanning in earnest, I always use my BetterScanning holder.

[Trevor Whitaker]

I really hope the new holders can be used on the old scanners.

Yeah, me too. I just bought a V750 in May, it'd be nice to be able to just get the improved holders if possible.

[StoneNYC]

I thought the V750 only did about 2400 DPI and that 3200+ was interpolation? Wouldn't that make this lens/scanner higher?

Why the heck didn't they implement some kind of double scan system for 8x10!!! Ugh....

I didn't expect that they would make a lens big enough for 8x10, but they could've at least enabled us to scan with two separate scans and have the system merge them or something using the "good" lens, and at least provide a holder etc.

[Peter De Smidt]

Scitex/Creo/Kodak had a patent on scanning via multiple passes and stitching. It might still be in effect.

Changing topics, is the measured 2400 dpi that an Epson can achieve apply to sizes larger than 35mm? I bet it doesn't.

[koraks]

I thought the V750 only did about 2400 DPI and that 3200+ was interpolation? Wouldn't that make this lens/scanner higher?

I doubt it. The optical resolution (that is, as limited by the CCD; the lens and mirrors will likely reduce this, so the effective optical resolution will be lower) of the v700/750 is the same as that of the newly announced v800/850, which is 33% more than the older 4990, which was 4800dpi. The basic architecture of the device hasn't changed between the 4990 and the 700 series, and it likely will remain the same in the v800. I expect only upgrades of perhaps the optics themselves and most likely of the CCD. Looking at the CCD resolution, some educated guesswork puts this in the range of ca. 25,000dpi, corresponding with a pixel size of roughly 1um. This corresponds to what we see in consumer-level tiny CCD'sin digital compact cameras - with of course the notable difference that for a scanner, the CCD will be a strip and for a camera, it's obviously a rectangular arrangement.

On the topic of real-world resolution, keep in mind that the specified CCD resolution is most likely (certainly) the combined resolution of all three arrays (red - green - blue). If you divide the v700's 6400dpi resolution by 3, you end up somewhere in the low 2000s. Coincidentally, this is in the same ballpark where informal testers put this scanner. Obviously, this will be similar for the new v800/850 and it will be limited to the same ca. 2100dpi resolution as its predecessor. Further increasing that would certainly be possible from a perspective of CCD manufacturing, but the demands on the optics (and most importantly, their alignment and tolerances in a real-world manufacturing setting) would be higher as well. Even in current scanners, the optical system needs to resolve roughly 500 line pairs per mm. This is already 10 times as much as the resolving power most high-quality medium format lenses.

[koraks]

Changing topics, is the measured 2400 dpi that an Epson can achieve apply to sizes larger than 35mm? I bet it doesn't.
That really depends on the construction. E.g. the older 4990 used only one lens that is in a fixed position. In other words, for a smaller format, the scanner simply reads out only a part of the CCD array and the optical resolution will be the same regardless of the width that is being scanned. I understand that the v7x0 (and I assume the 8x0 as well) use two lenses. I expect they use one lens to cover the full width of the scan bed and the other lens, with a higher magnification, to project a narrower strip onto the same CCD, effectively increasing the optical resolution for that area.

What I definitely don't know, is if this second lens is moved and re-focused depending on the actual width that is being scanned. I expect not; otherwise they could have resorted to using a single, movable/refocusable lens (sort of a zoom lens, essentially). That means that the same optical resolution will be available regardless of the actual width of the 'high-resolution' zone that is being scanned. I.e., the actual optical resolution will be the same, whether you scan 35mm or 4x5". If the lens is moved (and the projection circle made smaller or larger depending on the area to be covered), the optical resolution will likely be higher for smaller formats. But like I said, this is quite unlikely given the relatively low complexity of the optics usually found in contemporary flat bed scanners.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of specifically these scanners (or someone with a screw driver and a v700 at hand) can chime in on this and point out where I missed the bat.

[richardman]

The second lens does NOT move, hence the need for something like the BetterScanning holders for the V7x0 to position the holders just right for the 2nd lens.

[Peter De Smidt]

It's only of academic interest. I have a resolution target, but I no longer have a consumer scanner.

[neil poulsen]

Whether or not the resolution improves with the 800/850, seems like there are other avenues of improvement that could occur. Since the introduction of the 700/750, there've been advances in noise reduction, the ability to render shadows, electronic filtering, etc., in cameras. It would be neat if some of these advances could find their way to scanning.

[Matsushime]

You've been missing out then. I use my Epson V750 to scan 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 negatives. The 4x5 in Epson's holder (not the best), the 5x7 in a home made neg holder, and the 8x10 directly on the glass (emulsion down, flip the image in PS).

Why use any kind of negative holders at all? Since you have the 750 I assume you have the wet mount system. Throw away the neg holders (just kidding) and dry mount them directly on the wet mount holder.

I don't mean to be so off topic here, sorry.

[Paul Cunningham]

One important difference in the film holders, as far as I can see, is that the 4x5 holder holds ONE sheet of film rather than two. Given that the adjustability of the holders also seems changed this should result in potentially more accurate scans at the expense of speed and efficiency.

[StoneNYC]

Why use any kind of negative holders at all? Since you have the 750 I assume you have the wet mount system. Throw away the neg holders (just kidding) and dry mount them directly on the wet mount holder.

I don't mean to be so off topic here, sorry.

With 8x10 you can't use the wet mount...

Also the wet mount is a LOT more time consuming.

By the by, I think of all the Epson holders the 4x5 is the best. May be partly the flat film base of sheet film.

The 35mm's are OK, and the 120 are terrible.

Wish they made odd sizes available even if not included, in particular 110, 127, and 116/616/70mm ...

[towolf]

One important difference in the film holders, as far as I can see, is that the 4x5 holder holds ONE sheet of film rather than two. Given that the adjustability of the holders also seems changed this should result in potentially more accurate scans at the expense of speed and efficiency.

I’d rather have two single sheet holders than one holder for two sheets. That way you can maximize time efficiency. Loading and dusting take about the same amount of time as scan pass itself.

[StoneNYC]

I’d rather have two single sheet holders than one holder for two sheets. That way you can maximize time efficiency. Loading and dusting take about the same amount of time as scan pass itself.

I find that pre-loading holders means MORE dust problems as the neg is sitting there longer collecting dust waiting to be put in the scanner... So I see your point but from my experience 2 holders and pre-loading one while the other is scanning ends up with more dust :(

[richardman]

To state the obvious, you can use just one of the holder in a dual holder setup, so it's always more flexible to let the users decide whether they want to use just one or both at the same time.

[Corran]

A whole new model and they still can't put a simple AF system into it so people don't have to finagle with holder height? Hmm. I wonder how much that extra mechanic would cost per unit.

I've never liked the Epson scanners. I didn't like the mechanics, I didn't like the results, and I didn't like the price, for what it delivered. Just my opinion. I think there are better options out there - they just either cost a bit more or require more work or specialized computer equipment (SCSI) to use. But of course plenty of folks get scans that are more than good enough, as demonstrated here many times. At least for web viewing.

[StoneNYC]

A whole new model and they still can't put a simple AF system into it so people don't have to finagle with holder height? Hmm. I wonder how much that extra mechanic would cost per unit.

I've never liked the Epson scanners. I didn't like the mechanics, I didn't like the results, and I didn't like the price, for what it delivered. Just my opinion. I think there are better options out there - they just either cost a bit more or require more work or specialized computer equipment (SCSI) to use. But of course plenty of folks get scans that are more than good enough, as demonstrated here many times. At least for web viewing.

Show me a scanner that's "just a little bit more" that does 4x5 and 8x10's better, please...

[richardman]

The Old Drum scanners probably fit that bill if you stretch "little bit more" definition "a little bit," but of course drum scanners are PITA to use for most people.

I have consistently print out 17x22 from the V700 scanned 4x5 with no effort. If I require higher quality, then I can send them off to drum scan.

[Corran]

Polaroid SprintScan 45 is one I've heard good things about. My old Agfa T2500 cost me $75 and it was fantastic other than occasionally banding problems when underexposed (my fault though!). I've seen some Cezanne scanners like I have sell on eBay for under $1000. Pick up only! Oh, any Microtek M1 or M2 will be better and can be found for less than an Epson (though the software can be buggy, so get Silverfast). So I take it back, better options can be found for less than the Epson!

Lots of options. Pick one.

*All of these do 8x10 except not sure about the Polaroid. I've owned all of them other than that, and used an Epson V700 extensively at the university here.

[Peter De Smidt]

My Cezanne cost $900. That was years ago. I've seen them cheaper. It is much better than an Epson flatbed. If you have a dslr, you can make a dslr scanner for about the cost of the Epson. It too can be a significantly better scanner in terms of both detail and dynamic range. Both of these routes are less convenient than buying an Epson.

[StoneNYC]

Polaroid SprintScan 45 is one I've heard good things about. My old Agfa T2500 cost me $75 and it was fantastic other than occasionally banding problems when underexposed (my fault though!). I've seen some Cezanne scanners like I have sell on eBay for under $1000. Pick up only! Oh, any Microtek M1 or M2 will be better and can be found for less than an Epson (though the software can be buggy, so get Silverfast). So I take it back, better options can be found for less than the Epson!

Lots of options. Pick one.

*All of these do 8x10 except not sure about the Polaroid. I've owned all of them other than that, and used an Epson V700 extensively at the university here.

Ugh, I'll never use anything that requires SilverFast what a sh!t program... Will ViewScan run any?

I use the EpsonScan software and it's great, I bought my V-750 new and came with the upgraded SilverfFast Ai 8 and it was so glitchy and dysfunctional I couldn't even scan with it half the time the buttons just wouldn't even click. So no thanks...

[Corran]

Yeah I don't (didn't) like SF either. But it was never glitchy, just thought it was a crappy program. I have no idea about VueScan. Google...

The M1 ran fine really, with SF, on Windows 7. Though my friend with a Mac has issues with it (he got an M1 as well). Usually restarting fixes whatever issues he has. (It just works!)

[StoneNYC]

Yeah I don't (didn't) like SF either. But it was never glitchy, just thought it was a crappy program. I have no idea about VueScan. Google...

The M1 ran fine really, with SF, on Windows 7. Though my friend with a Mac has issues with it (he got an M1 as well). Usually restarting fixes whatever issues he has. (It just works!)

Good to note, yea I only use a Mac

[Corran]

My condolences.

[StoneNYC]

My condolences.

I'm very happy with the Mac system, I find it much less troublesome than the windows equivalent (if there were such a thing). Let's get back to the V-800

[Jim Andrada]

stoneNYC

A few post back you made the comment

Also the wet mount is a LOT more time consuming."

Not really. Just for the heck of it I wet mounted a 4 x 5 on the Epson carrier with a stopwatch running (I'm a Klutz by the way!)

Took a grand total of 28.3 seconds start to finish - including coaxing the neg out of the sleeve.

First step - use the little Aztek or similar squeeze bottle to lay down a bead of Kami about 5 - 6 inches wide

2nd Step - put the neg (emulsion side down with the top edge in the Kami fluid - it took me a few seconds to feel for the notch and flip the film over because I had the emulsion up) being sure to alight the edge with the guide lines on the Epson mounting base.

3rd step - lay a second bead of Kami on the top edge of the neg

4th step - put plastic overlay sheet down on top of the fluid and negative

5th step - Run an artists "brayer" down the upper surface of the plastic once or twice - gently - to spread the fluid. I've used the roller versions and the little plastic spreader versions - the spreader works better. I suspect the kind of squeegee they use for silk screen might work just fine as well.

Done

[StoneNYC]

stoneNYC

A few post back you made the comment

Also the wet mount is a LOT more time consuming."

Not really. Just for the heck of it I wet mounted a 4 x 5 on the Epson carrier with a stopwatch running (I'm a Klutz by the way!)

Took a grand total of 28.3 seconds start to finish - including coaxing the neg out of the sleeve.

First step - use the little Aztek or similar squeeze bottle to lay down a bead of Kami about 5 - 6 inches wide

2nd Step - put the neg (emulsion side down with the top edge in the Kami fluid - it took me a few seconds to feel for the notch and flip the film over because I had the emulsion up) being sure to alight the edge with the guide lines on the Epson mounting base.

3rd step - lay a second bead of Kami on the top edge of the neg

4th step - put plastic overlay sheet down on top of the fluid and negative

5th step - Run an artists "brayer" down the upper surface of the plastic once or twice - gently - to spread the fluid. I've used the roller versions and the little plastic spreader versions - the spreader works better. I suspect the kind of squeegee they use for silk screen might work just fine as well.

Done

You miss understand a few things.

1) I shoot 8x10 so I have to use the plate glass, that would mean having to get some kind of sealing agent for the edges of the glass so the liquid didn't break the Epson since the plate glass isn't sealed.

2) you then have to wash and hang the film to dry again, I don't have a darkroom so this means staying up an additional 1-2 hours while the film dries so I can put it away, if I leave it hanging till morning either it gets ruined by the people who need the bathroom or by dust since its a dusty house.

So for me it's a lot more time.

[Peter De Smidt]

Wouldn't something like Kami tape help with 1)? Regarding two, why are you rewashing the film? The residue from Kami or Lumina is very minor. If you'll optically enlarge the negative in the future, then the scanning fluid should probably be cleaned off right away with scanner wipes and Kami film cleaner, or similar. That takes less than a minute.

[sanking]

You miss understand a few things.

1) I shoot 8x10 so I have to use the plate glass, that would mean having to get some kind of sealing agent for the edges of the glass so the liquid didn't break the Epson since the plate glass isn't sealed.

2) you then have to wash and hang the film to dry again, I don't have a darkroom so this means staying up an additional 1-2 hours while the film dries so I can put it away, if I leave it hanging till morning either it gets ruined by the people who need the bathroom or by dust since its a dusty house.

So for me it's a lot more time.

OK, but some of your work is not necessary. What I would do is this.

1. Have a piece of thin (1/8") framing glass cut same size as your scanner glass, or just smaller so that it fits over the glass between the frame. You could use regular window glass, but the kind of glass sold in frame shops that has an anti-glare size would be better.

2. Glue very thin, and small, metal washers to the four corners of the glass to keep it just out of contact with the scanner glass.

3. Fluid mount your negative, with Kami or solvent Naptha, to the bottom size of the glass, base side to the glass, emulsion side facing down. You do this of course after you figure out the exact scanning size, and mark the glass to that frame. Tape down the four sides of the negative with blue masking tape.

4. Scan, remove the tape and hang your negative to dry. There should be no need to wash the negative. Kami (or solvent Naptha) will dry quickly and should not leave any residue on your film.

Very simple way to get the best possible scan from your negative with the V700/750. The negative is kept flat, just above the scanner glass, fluid mount to the base which will minimize scratches. The tape will assure that the fluid mount remains in place, even with fairly long scan time.

Once your learn how to fluid mount you will find that this technique takes very little time.

Sandy

[StoneNYC]

Sandy, far be it for me to disagree with you, BUT

How can adding washers and another piece of glass still keep the negative in focus? That would bring the sheet of film high enough to be in the secondary "better lens" height and not the first lens height.

Secondly if I were going through all this trouble with washers and another pice of glass, I would just seal the regular scanner glass edges in the first place.

Third, I don't know how to tape my negatives and not have the tape leave residue on the film as well as get in the way of showing the holder frame lines / rebate in the image which is part of the point of not using a carrier.

Fourth, I still can't believe that using a chemical on film doesn't leave chemical residue, maybe not something that shows up now but might deteriorate the image prematurely over a long time?

Thanks for helping me understand better.

[Jim Andrada]

Sorry - I missed the 8 x 10 part of the story so you're right about that.

However, there is no wash and dry for the film after the scan when you use the Kami fluid - so no 1 - 2 hours. It's dry within a few seconds of taking it off the glass.

So I'll stand by the 28.3 second number for 4 x 5 and 5 x 7 and apologize for missing the 8 x 10 part.

Since I can scan 5 x 7 at around 2k dpi and 8 x 10 at 1200 dpi on the scanner glass, I don't do much 8 x 10 these days - I'll wait until I find the space for a nice Howtek or similar.

[Jim Andrada]

I'm guessing that when Sandy said "very small and THIN" washers he was thinking of something close to shim stock such that the film would be left hanging just far enough above the scanner glass to be out of contact so within the DOF of the scanner lens. In fact it might well be in better focus than just lying on the glass.

[mdarnton]

3. Fluid mount your negative, with Kami or solvent Naptha, to the bottom size of the glass, base side to the glass, emulsion side facing down.


?? I thought the whole point of wet scanning was some sort of magical optical interaction between the fluid and emulsion. If you mount emulsion out, why bother fluid mounting?

[djdister]

?? I thought the whole point of wet scanning was some sort of magical optical interaction between the fluid and emulsion. If you mount emulsion out, why bother fluid mounting?

The Epson directions for the fluid mount accessory say to use fluid on both sides of the negative, between the glass and the negative, and between the negative and the clear mounting film on top. Of course, you don't have to do it that way either...

[sanking]

"How can adding washers and another piece of glass still keep the negative in focus? That would bring the sheet of film high enough to be in the secondary "better lens" height and not the first lens height."

The lens that is used for the film area scanning is very wide angle and works at a large aperture, so has a tremendous amount of depth of field. I have tested this scanner numerous times with high resolution targets and it is virtually impossible to determine the best place of focus, comparing on the bed, 1mm above the bed and 4mm above the bed. So don't obsess over optical precision that is not there to begin with.

"Secondly if I were going through all this trouble with washers and another pice of glass, I would just seal the regular scanner glass edges in the first place."

OK, if you want to do that fine, but buying a second piece of glass and gluing very thin and small washer to the edge, is not exactly a lot of trouble. And being able to remove the glass and mount the negative somewhere else over a light table makes this a lot less work than doing it right on the scanner.

"Third, I don't know how to tape my negatives and not have the tape leave residue on the film as well as get in the way of showing the holder frame lines / rebate in the image which is part of the point of not using a carrier."

In your case you would simply do a complete fluid mount. Mount the negative to the bottom of the glass with Kami, emulsion side toward the glass, then place a sheet of thin polyester (with Kami) over the negative, roll out the bubbles, and secure the edges of the mylar, which should be slightly larger than the negative, with blue line masking tape.

"Fourth, I still can't believe that using a chemical on film doesn't leave chemical residue, maybe not something that shows up now but might deteriorate the image prematurely over a long time?"

In drum scanning fluid mounting was the accepted norm, used by high end operators, so they must have known something about not damaging media. As far as I can tell Kami leaves no residue.

OK, it is a bit more trouble and time to fluid mount, but if done right you will get a better scan. But if you are happy with the results you get there is no reason to change.

Sandy

[StoneNYC]

Thanks sandy

[Jim Andrada]

I have to admit I don't tape the edges of the polyester I usually cut the sheet oversize and I've never had a dry out problem in the time it takes to scan the film. The problem has been prying the polyester and film off the glass after scanning

[Ari]

I find taping the 8x10 negative directly to the platen works well for me. It's still a toss-up whether emulsion up or down is any better--too close to call.

I wet-mounted for a time, but the bubbles drove me crazy; always the bubbles, the bubbles.
Dry-scanning gave me more dust, but that was comparatively easy to remove in PS; the bubbles from wet-mounting were very difficult to deal with.
The heavy plastic roller I used just pushed the bubbles from one side to the other, it didn't get rid of the bubbles.

Otherwise, I'd have stayed with wet-mounting.

I like Sandy's idea of an extra glass plate suspended just above the scanner, sounds like a good way to pull everything you can out of these scanners.

[Daniel Stone]

Using (enough) fluid is important too. Due to the relatively "high" price of Kami fluids, most people tend to skimp in that department. I found that using "just enough" to cover the film, but NOT spread out to the edges of the mylar is very important.

Using a high quality rubber brayer/roller is a good technique for helping remove/reduce bubbles in the image area. Having a brayer that is approx the width of one of the lengths of the size film you're scanning(say a 6" brayer for 5x7" film) is best, not a smaller than smallest dimension sized roller.

Art stores are good for these, or they can be sourced online.

I also found that for most flatbed scanning, taping the edges of the mylar isn't completely necessary, but in warmer temperatures the fluid CAN evaporate faster, especially on higher dpi scans that take longer to perform.

-Dan

[Peter De Smidt]

Note that Lumina (http://www.wetmounting.com/Pages/lumina.html) is an option in addition to Kami. For wet-mounting on a flatbed, I really liked Prazio mounting oil, but I don't think it's available anymore.

[Jim Andrada]

Exactly - I was frustrated by the bubbles until I started using the little plastic squeegeebrayer - after that no more bubbles. The trick as Daniel said seems to be using an ample bead on the glass a bit wider than the negative and then again on top of the negative and then lay the Mylar sheet on top and stroke towards the lower edge GENTLY. Do not skimp on the fluid, particularly for 8 x 10.

Clear as mud? I worked from 7 AM yesterday until 5 AM today and was up at 8AM so I'm falling asleep - I'll see if I can post a video tomorrow

I saw a good video of someone using a mounting station for a drum scanner and started imitating the way it worked and things got better.

[Ari]

I saw a good video of someone using a mounting station for a drum scanner and started imitating the way it worked and things got better.

Jim, can you link to this video, please?

I may give wet-mounting another try, I still have a full bottle of Kami fluid here.
At the time, I didn't see so great a difference in results (wet vs dry) that made wet-mounting worth the extra trouble.
But perhaps I should see what's available online for instruction, and re-learn the technique; it may yield better results this time around.

[Lenny Eiger]

Jim, can you link to this video, please?

Since Jim hasn't had time to post - try this one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APSzB0nX5Vo

[sanking]

For fluid mounting with flatbeds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svdsXGqjWEg


Sandy

[Ari]

Thank you very much, Lenny and Sandy.

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Ari

Sorry to be late. My paying job went crazy over the weekend - working until 5 AM and starting the next day at 8!

I'll try to put a vid on Vimeo today but the flatbed mounting video showed the main steps and Lanny is THE MAN on all things scanning IMHO.

I think the key is to not skimp on the fluid and to be sure you have enough both under and over the film. Trying to push around an insufficient amount of fluid will lead to bubble problems for sure.

[Ari]

Thanks, Jim; Lenny's video was indeed very good and well-explained.
I'd have no trouble sending him my film for scanning.

[Jim Andrada]

OK here it is. Not the greatest video I've ever done but not bad for a gopro.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17745879/Fluid%20Mount%204%20x%205.MP4

I think the little squeegee has been a great help - key is to be gentle. I think the bubbles showed up well.

And did I mention not to skimp on the fluid?

I could have done a little better job of aligning the neg but I think you get the idea. It's quick and easy for 4 x 5 and 5 x 7. 8 x 10 might be a little more work and you might have to spritz a bit more fluid on the glass and on the film because of the size - might need a bigger squeegee as well. I get mine at an art supply store.

[Peter De Smidt]

Nice video. I do things slightly differently. I place an edge of the film right behind the line of fluid. I bend the film slightly and "roll" the film down onto the bed. Repeat with the cover sheet. Doing this leaves very few bubbles. I get rid of them, if needed, by using a scanner wipe and gently pushing the bubble out the edge. I mount to a removable glass tray. This makes it easier to spot any bubble than when mounting directly to the bed of the scanner.

[Jim Andrada]

Good idea Peter. I'll give that a try. I was using the wipes until I hit on the little squeegee and I like it better.

[europanorama]

I suspect they'll have the same max 8x10 size transparency adapter but it only comes with a 4x5 holder. Probably the same film area guide as previous scanners will be included.
maybe it s working like the umax 3000 which had highresolution only at the smaller film-window, if i remember right. had also double-lens for that purpose. Someone in a report said its also 8x10 but no holder shown. i suspect its for 8x10 prints. and 4x5 max.

[Peter Lewin]

I know I'm resurrecting an older thread, but having just seen the new scanners at Photo Expro, thought I would simply add what the Epson rep told me.

The biggest change was to the holders. They are significantly thicker (hence more rigid) than the ones we have for our 4990 and 7xx series scanners. They have a sheet of AN glass, and sliders for raising or lowering the holder on the flat plate. When I asked if the new holders could be used on the older scanners, the rep said that at the moment the answer was "no" because of the programming used to recognize the positioning of the holders before the scan begins wouldn't work correctly. He said that Epson might change their driver programs to allow use of the new holders on older scanners at some time in the future. (I confess that I didn't really see why the old scanners shouldn't just work right off with the new holders, I am merely repeating his answer to my question.) Also, the new 4x5 holder takes only one negative, the 35mm holder takes 3 strips rather than 4. I didn't see the 120 holder.

When I asked if there were changes to the scanner itself (other than cosmetic) he said the only change was from fluorescent light to LED, and that the change was made largely because the fluorescent parts were getting harder to obtain, rather than any major quality benefit to LEDs. Again, his comment was that the existing scanners worked well, they didn't want to make large changes and mess anything up.

[lbenac]

When I asked if the new holders could be used on the older scanners, the rep said that at the moment the answer was "no" because of the programming used to recognize the positioning of the holders before the scan begins wouldn't work correctly. He said that Epson might change their driver programs to allow use of the new holders on older scanners at some time in the future.

That reminds me of my Epson R2800 that is programmed to clean all cartridge position when you change one cartridge...
I have a separate ink wastage container so as not to saturate the ink wastage pad and send my printer to early retirement and it feels like more ink goes in the container than on the print.
My only solace in this is that Epson is wasting purposely a third party ink instead of theirs so they will not reap the benefit of their dishonesty.

[Steve8088]

I have been thinking of getting one of these v850 Pros, can anyone comment on the quality of the 6x7(MF), or 4”x5” (negative/positive) scanning results on the ability to produce 24”x 36” fine art prints from the finished scanned file printed from Light room?

[Corran]

You can do anything, but whether or not the results are as good as you want is purely objective.

My friend scanned some 4x5 film shot at f/64 on an Epson V700 and printed it to 50x40. Was it cool? Yes, definitely. Did the resolution/detail hold up in close inspection? Heck no - at even a couple of feet away it was visibly soft. 6x7 MF images blown up to 24x36 (about an 11x enlargement) will definitely be similarly soft. You might get away with the 4x5 enlarged to that size (~8x enlargement) if you have good technique and adjust the film height appropriately.

I've used the V700 a lot, but I don't own one. The V8xx doesn't seem like it's going to change much with regard to optics/resolution.

[vinny]

I have been thinking of getting one of these v850 Pros, can anyone comment on the quality of the 6x7(MF), or 4”x5” (negative/positive) scanning results on the ability to produce 24”x 36” fine art prints from the finished scanned file printed from Light room?

well, since they aren't available yet, I doubt anyone has made scans/seen results in person. Since most everything other than the light source is the same, my guess is the results will be on par with the v700/750 which is okay. If you want the results you've seen printed from drum scans, get drum scans.

[Doug Fisher]

>>They have a sheet of AN glass<<

Actually, it is plastic with an AN surface molded into it.

Doug

[Paul Cunningham]

There are far too many factors to give a definitive answer to this. I would certainly print at this size, but a key factor in any print enlargement is viewing distance. I will say that at the low end of resolution, 185 dpi can hold up at 12x18" and if you have more resolution you will be happier, but more than 360 dpi is probably not needed. My two cents.


I have been thinking of getting one of these v850 Pros, can anyone comment on the quality of the 6x7(MF), or 4”x5” (negative/positive) scanning results on the ability to produce 24”x 36” fine art prints from the finished scanned file printed from Light room?

[richardman]

.. 4”x5” (negative/positive) scanning results on the ability to produce 24”x 36” fine art prints from the finished scanned file printed from Light room?

I have done 24x30" for a client a few days ago from a V700 scanned 4x5. They love it!

I wouldn't print any larger from the V700 though. I think it's at the limit of "high quality".

[StoneNYC]

I have done 24x30" for a client a few days ago from a V700 scanned 4x5. They love it!

I wouldn't print any larger from the V700 though. I think it's at the limit of "high quality".

How big is large? I've printed 11x14s from a 6x7 and 14x17's from a 4x5 scanned with the V750 just the holders no wet scan or anything, and it came out super sharp, no degradation or anything.

[Rory_5244]

Lordy, I'm still using an Epson Perfection 2450 scanner. :o I get decent 16x20 prints from 4x5 on that.

[cristimirica]

Hi guys

I have an Epson V800 especially for 4x5 negatives and ...I don't understand how the negative should be installed in holder. See the holder picture attached. Should the film be placed OVER the sides "A" ? I did so and on the scanned file the long sides of the scanning file have light spill...

4x5 holder

127804

scanned picture

127805

thanks !

[StoneNYC]

Hi guys

I have an Epson V800 especially for 4x5 negatives and ...I don't understand how the negative should be installed in holder. See the holder picture attached. Should the film be placed OVER the sides "A" ? I did so and on the scanned file the long sides of the scanning file have light spill...

4x5 holder

127804

scanned picture

127805

thanks !

I don't think ANYONE has the new v800 except you so this will be hard to answer and you're going to get a lot of guesses.

I can't even tell what's there, is there a plastic diffusion panel (That would be pretty cool!) included with each holder?

Are you SURE there isn't light leak that's in the actual sheet of film?

[cristimirica]

I don't think ANYONE has the new v800 except you so this will be hard to answer and you're going to get a lot of guesses.

I can't even tell what's there, is there a plastic diffusion panel (That would be pretty cool!) included with each holder?

Are you SURE there isn't light leak that's in the actual sheet of film?

No, the film is OK. Light leak is due bad fit on the holder. Maybe there is somebody around who use the same equipment.

Thank you

[mijosc]

It wouldn't surprise me if the holder was the wrong size. There is a discussion over on Flickr about the 120 holders being the wrong size.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/isf_scanner/discuss/72157650014822972/

[cristimirica]

great info, thank you

[kshaub103]

has anyone else had issue or new finding about the v800 film holders?

[mycatkins]

Hi guys

I have an Epson V800 especially for 4x5 negatives and ...I don't understand how the negative should be installed in holder. See the holder picture attached. Should the film be placed OVER the sides "A" ? I did so and on the scanned file the long sides of the scanning file have light spill...

4x5 holder

127804

scanned picture

127805

thanks !

Can't help with the light spill, haven't experienced that myself. However you are supposed to put the film over the sides, the idea behind it is that the film is pulled tight for an accurate scan with no parts of the image being out of focus as a result of drooping. The anti-newton diffusion screen tends to help with this too. To me it looks like you've bent the film to make it fit, rather than placing the film in the cartridge properly?

[mycatkins]

It wouldn't surprise me if the holder was the wrong size. There is a discussion over on Flickr about the 120 holders being the wrong size.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/isf_scanner/discuss/72157650014822972/

This guy is loading the film wrong!
cristimirica if you've loaded the 5x4 like this that's why you're getting problems with your scan. These guides are not intended to scan the unexposed parts of the film, they pull on the film to keep it tight and give an accurate scan. If you want all of the film you'd have to get two anti newton glass plates to put your film between. The epson holders are the best way to scan without having to resort to wet scanning.

Also as a side note, the V750 and the V850 come with fluid mount kits in the US which you can claim in the UK if you send Epson an email about it. They are available for £90 from Epson but the chemicals and mylar sheets are near impossible to find for a decent price here.

[djdister]

Hi guys

I have an Epson V800 especially for 4x5 negatives and ...I don't understand how the negative should be installed in holder. See the holder picture attached. Should the film be placed OVER the sides "A" ? I did so and on the scanned file the long sides of the scanning file have light spill...

scanned picture

127805

thanks !

The excess density along the top edge (sky) of the film looks more like a processing problem rather than a scanning issue.