Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

[ryanmills]

I have been scanning 4x5 with a v700 for years now And I was happy with it. Since going up to 8x10 this year the jerry-rigging is annoying and I just don't feel like I'm getting the sharpness and detail I should. I have not found any 8x10 drum scanners that are in my price range. I know a really good 8x10 shooter than loves his Creo and im looking at an IQSmart2. I'm not worried about the older drivers and software. I edit on a windows machine and from the looks of it I could get it working with XP and firewire. However on paper other than the bed size they read like they are simialr in quaility. I feel like it should give a higher quaility scan but has anyone made this change and have any thoughts good or bad? Given the cost i'm not sure if the IQSmart2 is a step up over the v700 or if I need to go up to something like the 3 or just wait till I can get a drum scanner?

[bob carnie]

I am using the Eversmart Supreme and very happy with this unit

[sanking]

I have been scanning 4x5 with a v700 for years now And I was happy with it. Since going up to 8x10 this year the jerry-rigging is annoying and I just don't feel like I'm getting the sharpness and detail I should. I have not found any 8x10 drum scanners that are in my price range. I know a really good 8x10 shooter than loves his Creo and im looking at an IQSmart2. I'm not worried about the older drivers and software. I edit on a windows machine and from the looks of it I could get it working with XP and firewire. However on paper other than the bed size they read like they are simialr in quaility. I feel like it should give a higher quaility scan but has anyone made this change and have any thoughts good or bad? Given the cost i'm not sure if the IQSmart2 is a step up over the v700 or if I need to go up to something like the 3 or just wait till I can get a drum scanner?

Make sure that the software of the IQSmart2 allows 16 bit saves. If so, the IQSmart2 would give you a considerable bump in scan quality to the Epson V700. Another good choice would be an Eversmart, but to get 16 bit capability you need an Eversmart Pro II or higher model.

An obvious downside to these machines compared to the V700 is size and weight.

Sandy

[ryanmills]

Make sure that the software of the IQSmart2 allows 16 bit saves. If so, the IQSmart2 would give you a considerable bump in scan quality to the Epson V700. Another good choice would be an Eversmart, but to get 16 bit capability you need an Eversmart Pro II or higher model.

An obvious downside to these machines compared to the V700 is size and weight.

Sandy

16 bit saves is the one area thats very murky. I have to be able to scan 16 bit "raw". I have seen people having issues with saving in DT depending on versions and OS's. Thou im not sure what the advantage is to DT over tiff. It sounded as thou they were very similar. I hope it allows a larger file size. Right now im hitting the size limits with tiffs and im only scanning at 1200 dpi.

[B.S.Kumar]

AFAIK, oXYgen for Windows is a "lite" version, and is difficult to find. The regular CDs do not contain this software. I posted a compatibility chart some time ago.

Kumar

[Pali K]

Ryan,

I don't own this scanner but an Eversmart Pro that is running on an old mac machine. I also have the Epson v700 and a very high-end drum scanner (Scanmate 11000). I am almost certain that you will be extremely happy with the IQSmart2 if it's anything like my Eversmart Pro. I mentioned my drum scanner because I made some comparison scans with the Eversmart Pro and the drum scanner and found the Eversmart to hold up extremely well with the drum scanner. Keep in mind that my Evertsmart Pro cannot save Raw or 16 bit but it still easily puts my Epson scans to shame.

If you are interested, you can see my test scans in this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?130562-Scitex-Eversmart-Pro-Scanner-Users

Regards,

Pali

[Jim Andrada]

The IQsmart 2 won't support Digital Transparency (or maybe the software won't support it on the IQsmart 2) but the IQsmart 3 will support it. I bought an IQsmart 2 to replace my 750 but haven't installed it yet - in fact the seller is holding it for me for a while until I finish some mods to my workspace to accommodate it. (Scanner size and weight vs available desktop space and a recent back injury) so I can't give any experience based reply quite yet. Ari Tapiero just upgraded to an Eversmart Pro and he told me he's amazed at the improvement vs the Epson. He may chime in here one of these days. He's scanning mostly 8 x 10 I believe. Michael Streeter at Genesis can probably answer any question you may have about the Creo/Kodak units. He's extremely helpful about this stuff.

[Ari]

Jim's 100% right, the Creo is a huge upgrade over any Epson. Yes, the software is old, and you may find yourself using an old computer, but the trade-off is worth it.
What you get are perfectly sharp scans and if you keep things simple when making pre-scan adjustments, you'll have a fantastic file to work with.
The best part for me is there's no more fussing with holders, height adjustments, tape, or scanning fluid. Just lay the film on the bed and scan.
Heaven!

[Jim Andrada]

The glass in the IQsmart is ANR (anti Newton Rings). I think there's also a non-ANR glass available for wet mounting but not 100% sure.

[Pere Casals]

I have been scanning 4x5 with a v700 for years now And I was happy with it.

You have something strange there.

I use a V750 that's near exactly the same than the V700

From 8x10 V700 scans you have lots of resolution to fill entire walls with edged sharpness. As a format is smaller you need much better scanners... but for 8x10 any pitfall from the V700 would be divided by 2 or by 4, compared with same the pitfall in 4x5.


(I supose you save the scanned file in TIFF format that allows uncompressed and 16 bits... )

Perhaps your problem is in the image size reduction, those algorithms can play very, very dirty, I was not aware of it and I had the same problem when I scanned my first 8x10 negatives (HP5+)

I supose you use Photoshop... What algorithm do you use for image size reduction ??

The Image Size dialog (Alt+Ctrl+Q) has a combo box at the bottom, you can select one of 5 algorithms for resize. By default it is selected "By aproximation", and this is a very bad one for reductions !!! specially for film !!! IMHO

Then you can also select Bilinear, and three types of "Bicubic" interpolation. You have a Bicubic Soft [ imagon flavour : ) ] , then you have a Bicubic ideal to enlarge, and then the good one "Bicubic Optimal for Reductions". This is the good one, I think.

Beyond this I had next problems to scan 8x10, first was newton rings because film is in contact with glass, this was mostly solved by placing the emulsion down, the grains, I think, work like ANR glass.

Also it happens that the negative is not at the correct height because it lays on the glass instead of being elevated by holder, but this has very minor importance in a 8x10, perhaps it has some for large prints from 135.

If you use a wet mounting that would lay the sheet at the precise height you'll see if there is a change, I think nothing for 8x10.

I see no remote way to exploit the hundreds of "perceptual" mega-pixels a V700 can extract from a 8x10, from a drum perhaps you can extract 800 preceptual MPix and from a V700 perhaps it will be 400 perceptual MPix, but a 4k Monitor has 8 Mpix, a very large print can take more, but to take 400... At the end you are going to manage smaller file sizes.

About DMax, BW film is no challenge for any flatbed.


Suggestion: With the V700 make an scan of a 8x10 with a number dpi (2400 perhaps, or 1200), save it TIFF uncompressed 16 Bit. Then make the same negative scanned by a Drum from a lab with same dpi, TIFF uncompressed 16 bit. Then perform image reduction of both with the same software and same settings.



Also there is this : http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?68019-Glassless-V700-Bye-Bye-to-newton-ring!

Regards.

PD: I've seen your work... superb !!!

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Pere

I don't think it's about the number of pixels at all - more about the "quality" of the pixels. Hopefully I'll get my unit up and running in the next few weeks so I can talk more intelligently from actual experience, but I had a 5 x 7 that I scanned on the 750 (wet mount) and also had drum scanned by Lenny Eiger. The drum scan had a much better range of tonality and shadow detail. I don't expect the IQsmart to be quite as good as Lenny's Aztek Premier, but I do expect a significant improvement over the 750.

[Pere Casals]

Hi Pere

I don't think it's about the number of pixels at all - more about the "quality" of the pixels. Hopefully I'll get my unit up and running in the next few weeks so I can talk more intelligently from actual experience, but I had a 5 x 7 that I scanned on the 750 (wet mount) and also had drum scanned by Lenny Eiger. The drum scan had a much better range of tonality and shadow detail. I don't expect the IQsmart to be quite as good as Lenny's Aztek Premier, but I do expect a significant improvement over the 750.


Hello Jim,

I've a technical approchach to this concern, from my dayly work spectrometer in hand...

Be careful with hype...

My opinion is that there is absolutely no difference in BW tonality from a V700 Flatbed to a Drum. You have a IT8 calibration target with your V700,

If you have some (strange) problem just calibrate it http://blog.silverfast.com/quicktip-why-and-how-to-it8-calibrate-the-scanner-part-i/ and obtain the ICC

You know that each calibration target can be slightly different but there is a file for each individual target for the slight discrepance it can be, that file can be downloaded from the target serial number, for maximum dead on accuracy.

I can bet you that if you scan the calibration target in the V700 and in a Drum you'll obtain same exact values.

It can happen that proffesional scanning people do apply some image enhancing software, or they manually adjust a bit the curves for your image. Also expensive scaners apply some digital sharpening in hardware to justify a bit more the price, just sharpen a bit with PS the V700 and drum result until sharpening has done what it can do and compare... this even solves blur from negative, this is evident when the Drum scanner gets sharper digital images than it was in the negative...

Nothing you cannot match with PS curves or your own image enhancing soft ("perfectly clear" like)


Scanning is a difficult science, it is possible to confuse own skills with the hardware performance. I know people that has a V700 and a High-End Drum, and they use the drum only for a few certain difficult situations, (with Velvia with very deep shadows).

Belive me, you have an extraordinary tool (the V700). I've you want a new scanner go for it, but it's like with the camera, shot will not depend on if it is from a CAMBO or an Ebony, it's you.

This is my conclusion, an expensive Scanner makes a difference over V700 with Velvia deepest shadows and in 135. It looks you use film that can only reach 3.0D and also you shot king format, so it is very difficult that the scanner hardware makes a difference, I think you should focus in your knowlege of the digital chain. Yes, I know, for a LF photographer it is boring... I bet you enjoy when have a model in your GG more that when you are scanning : ) like other passioned LF artists like you... (I'm not... I'd like...)

If you print at darkroom you have to master burn/dodging, if you print at inkjet or Ilford Lab Direct you have to master PS, ICC and soft proofing, this is the key: one uncompressed pixel for each dot and soft proofing. Ask Ilford Lab Direct for the profiles (Neil Hibbs), they have one for the Frontier machine (under 10" prints) and a different one for the LightJet beast (over 10"). Never print inkjet, this is for newspapers and for people not aware that Ilford prints in silver for people. (inkjet it's a sin, one can go hell when he dies : )

And for digital display, just master PS...

PD: Because your activity, perhaps you should obtain Silverfast Plus, that comes with the 750,

http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast-seplus-8/en.html

It has multiexposure (shadow detail, specialy for provia/velvia), and other enhacements.

$40 at ebay:


http://www.ebay.es/itm/Epson-Perfection-v700-v750-SilverFast-8-SE-PLUS-Software-LaserSoft-Imaging-/141489375045?hash=item20f16c8745:g:o4gAAOSwPhdU74ci

You can also go to the V800 ($500) or the V850, LED illumination, better holders, near calibration-free, no wait for heating, some practical benefits, same performance.

Regards

[Peter De Smidt]

It's true that an Epson flatbed can reach about 3.0D, but if you scan a step wedge, you'll see that difference between steps as you reach 3.0D trails way off with the Epson flatbed. For film that reaches close to 3.0D or higher, a pro flatbed, dslr scanner, or especially a drum scanner will do better. But as Pere says, bw negatives don't generally get that dense.

[Pere Casals]

It's true that an Epson flatbed can reach about 3.0D

The V550 can reach 3.4D but the V700 can reach DMax 4.0, way more the density than a BW negative can reach in strong saturated highlights, and TMax or Tri-X can reach 3.0D only. From 3.0D to 4.0D there is an entire world in the middle !!

The V700 has no problem to squeeze any drop of shadow or highlight detail a BW negative can have.

In the Velvia realm, there is a difference in some situation.

This comes from datasheets and from true real experience. I've scanned/processed images for an artist, and I've sent some negatives/slides to a pro lab with last model Imacon and Hassy, I've seen very well the difference:

1) For a 8x10 an enlargement beyond 3m can show a difference, perhaps, not always because it has to be a technically perfect shot with less than 0,01º shake, and observing the 3m image at reading distance.

2) Densities beyond 3.5D are better rendered by a drum, because better micro contrast. Those densities are not present with TMax, Tri-X, Neopan, etc. And yes... it can be found in Velvia/Provia, also in Silvermax but only with special energic developer, not with D-76, Xtol, HC-110, Rodinal etc...


Any lack of quality is more from personal skills than from the scanner. We do silly things with digital infomation, even there are people that save/load/edit/save/load the files in jpg. every time they do they loss quality, then the image reduction algorithms... working with 8 bits, the ICC profile...

A pro lab don't do silly things, and they touch curves with wisdom, that's the difference, not the scanner, talking about 8x10 BW...

For 135, yes... its easier to see it, but even in 135 usually shots have more shake than flatbed (V700 class) scanning generated blur.

This is my second 8x10 shot, scanned in a V750, HP5+

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24852468435/in/dateposted-public/

There are some jpg artifacts in the darkness, not from the scanner, but because compression to make a light weight file.

This is a crop of the original file:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24534566679/in/dateposted-public/

You can see each hammer hit from the flintstone.

At what hell of print magnification can those holes be seen ????

From the tower's clock (+6) to the stairs (-2) there where 8 Zones !!! With HP5+ the clock was shot at an exposure suitable for an ISO 6 film, 6 stops overexposed: 400->200->100->50->25->12->6 , N-4 development

Was the scanner a problem ?

[Ari]

After years of scanning with Epsons, my first scan on the Creo made me jump out of my seat, quite literally.
The clarity and range were astounding.
I'm inclined to think that on a consumer-grade scanner, priced below $1000, the lens is the difference-maker.
I think I spent so much time futzing with the Epson because the images were inherently soft, and there wasn't much I could do about the lens.
Scanning fluid and custom holders don't make much difference in the end if your hardware is less-than-optimal.

[Pere Casals]

futzing with the Epson because the images were inherently soft,

: )

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24852468435/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24534566679/in/dateposted-public/


Soft ? look at the crop ! this is from an epson, second hand.

Do you enlarge 135 to wall size ?

From the crop, do you think this is a "soft" scan ?

Please show me a sharp crop from the Creo... I'd like to know what sharpness is...

PD: and now the V800 it's at $500 range, new.

[coisasdavida]

Scanning fluid and custom holders don't make much difference in the end if your hardware is less-than-optimal.

I have looked at their lenses and I see no problems.
But them this is all guessing.
My belief is the sensor from the 90's were something else. First they were made by the thousands and not the millions.
And then the XY factor makes so much difference, being able to use the entire sensor every time and actually using the limit of the optical resolution.

[coisasdavida]

Do you enlarge 135 to wall size ?

I did these scans on a Cezanne for this friend, they are Superia 400 35mm.
http://www.iarafreiberg.com/2014-Nenhum-Lugar

[Pere Casals]

I did these scans on a Cezanne for this friend, they are Superia 400 35mm.
http://www.iarafreiberg.com/2014-Nenhum-Lugar

Nice scans, but the shown resolution is 1200 dots per inch scanning, a V700 can do much more than it is shown. Show a crop, please !!!

Superia needs some good 3200 dpi to get most of possible sharpness. You only show me your skills to modify the common Superia color look to the shown one, with a color profile or a image enhancing software, or PS, I don't know.

With the sharp Superia film the Cezane have a little edge over the V700 in detail sharpness, for enlargements beyond 40x60cm. With 8x10" negatives it will have an slight edge for print size beyond 4mx6m, and looking at reading distance.

But then happens that the lens is less sharp than film, shake, etc and at the end no big difference.

About colour, with Superia, V700 will perform like the Cezane, density 3.0D is not challenging at all for V700, and final look will depend on color profile or enhancing software.

I can also take a V700 color scan, pass it throught "Perfectly Clear", as most of this people do with raws: https://www.flickr.com/explore and say that it is the scanner.

Hype is hype...

This is not Hype:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24852468435/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24534566679/in/dateposted-public/

This is a crop of 2% of the image surface, Need more sharpness?

[Ari]

I won't get into a peeing contest here, suffice it to say I owned a v750, a 4870 and a 4990 and they were adequate, I'm not slamming any of them (ok, maybe the 4870 a little).
Once I saw the first scan from the Creo, it was like a veil had been lifted, literally; the sharpness of the film grain was in plain evidence, the colours were excellent, and the scanned image looked like the image I had made in my camera.
There was a huge difference for me in the quality of the scan; whether I make a 1:1 scan or enlarge for murals, the quality of the Creo is plain to see...for me.

[Pere Casals]

I won't get into a peeing contest here, suffice it to say I owned a v750, a 4870 and a 4990 and they were adequate, I'm not slamming any of them (ok, maybe the 4870 a little).
Once I saw the first scan from the Creo, it was like a veil had been lifted, literally; the sharpness of the film grain was in plain evidence, the colours were excellent, and the scanned image looked like the image I had made in my camera.
There was a huge difference for me in the quality of the scan; whether I make a 1:1 scan or enlarge for murals, the quality of the Creo is plain to see...for me.

I've only asked for a crop... The contest was made long time ago:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

Here you have scans compared from Drums to the V750, Cezanne, etc. The differences are made well evident.

About resolution take the scan from a drum and from a 750, (from the images in the scan-comparison) and apply sharpening to both until each enhances and compare. Little difference. Drums apply some sharpening in hardware, so this test if good to compare.

About color profile, once calibrated to the IT8 both should do exactly the same, as linear CCD dyes can be different, for a given film V750 vs a Drum can have different look, but take a image from each and build a conversion LUT, from then V750 and that drum will render equal tones, but a special LUT has to be made for each color film to match.

I repeat, for 135 and/or Velvia a Drum has an edge over, Cezanne has an smaller advantage. For color Print film and BW film LF that edge is seen with wall enlargemets at reading distance.

A good scanner operator can do more with a V750 than other people with a Drum. There is multiexposure, image stitching... and wisdom applied to color.

Perhaps you discarted the V750 before you controled it well.

No such a magic difference is there, what is important is own skills. Hype... there is more around than skills.

[Pere Casals]

And gents... if one have money that do not fit in his pocket... and want to play with sharpness... just adquire an Universal Heliar 36cm !! contrary to the scanner investment your wealth will rise every month : )

Or get a Sironar-S... that is sharpness.

[Pali K]

This may be the only time I have heard that an Epson can match a high end scanner and a drum scanner to top it off. Either my v700 unit is the crappiest assembled unit that left Epson's factory or my Eversmart Pro and Scanmate drum scanners are far superior.

I would like to debate on the topic but I am afraid I got into the film game fairly recently so will likely lose all arguments based on my lack of experience and arguably skill. However, one thing I know is that I see what I see and my eyes are perfectly good. I have owned an Epson for over two years and bought every darn accessory to make my scanner get the most my unit is capable of. Though it's a beautiful scanner, it just doesn't match an ES or drum by any stretch.

My experience is consistent with what Ari has already mentioned above.

Ryan, are you only looking for a scanner for LF B&W negatives? Would you be scanning any color negatives or slides? I ask because I generally agree that Epson is a great scanner if you are only scanning LF and B&W unless you wish to make really large enlargements from your scans. The Epson in my experience shines best under 1500 DPI which for me is more than enough for most of my 4x5 and larger negatives. For color, Epson falls a great deal behind the ES and no calibration will make it match the ES.

Regards,

Pali

[Pere Casals]

This may be the only time I have heard that an Epson can match a high end scanner and a drum scanner to top it off.

Hello Pali,

It do not match it... A Toyota Auris do not match a Ferrari, but inside a traffic jam both have same top speed, acceleration and down force.

About resolution from MF and up the enlargement has to be wall size to see any difference from a V750 to a Drum, and view it at reading distance.

The human eye can see some 8 peceptual megapixels without moving eyes or head. If we move eyes but not head we can see 60 perceptual Megapixels in our field of view, this is 6 lppmm at reading distance. Once a scan has that image quality... A 4k TV has 8 megapixels...

If one needs more image quality the best way if a bigger format, from 135 to 6x7 there is way, way more image quality (with a V750) than with 135 and a $1 million Hassy. Big format makes scanner performance irrelevant.



color

About color the single important thing is software, it do not depends on faltbed or drum, sure that a pro lab has better software and skilled professionals that know more than an amateur. I'm pretty sure that a conversion LUT can be built to make V750 colors look like any other scanner, and the counter.

Even a DSLR can look like any film...

http://www.vision-color.com/impulz/

Anyway any digitalization destroys the magics of an slide, colors in a Velvia slide cannot be matched by a monitor today, because important Velvia colors are not even in the sRGB space. As TVs will end implementing all chapters of Rec.2020 this will improve.

It is true that for ultra deep velvia shadows a drum has some better microcontrast.


Please make this test, if you are interested in knowing the truth:


It will take 15min, but you'll remember life long...

Go here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

Take the crops from V750 and best Drum. Then looking the general image try to imagine at what enlargement a difference can be seen.

Then take the V750 scan crop and with PS add some sharpening, it will nearly match, and then move a bit image controls... saturation, vibrancy, contrast... you'll get just the same.

Just do this test, it's good because it blows Hype and then one can concentrate in the important things, that's to create art, to the extent every one is able.

[Peter De Smidt]

The V550 can reach 3.4D but the V700 can reach DMax 4.0, way more the density than a BW negative can reach in strong saturated highlights, and TMax or Tri-X can reach 3.0D only. From 3.0D to 4.0D there is an entire world in the middle !!



That's wonderful, and very surprising. How did you determine that the V700 has a DMax of 4.0D?

[Pere Casals]

It is in the specs, and that specs are true.

Also I've been using the V750 as a densitometer

http://www.mrecord.talktalk.net/density_measurement/index.html

And compared with the IT8 calibration target the V750 includes.

I've been scanning velvia Slides of an artist, shot in Finland, (Low sun, very underexposed for earth to get sky) , I've measured Velvia densities, and I compared with scans from last model Imacon.

Later with multiexposure and image stitching I got close performance with the V750, not as much than the imacon but closer than it may be thought, resolution, near DMax detail, and color.

Sure Multi-exposure and stitching takes a work, but also it does drum wet mounting.

The stitching is so straight. Put images in PS layers, resize 4x, auto-aling, combine.

http://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-practical-guide-to-creating-superresolution-photos-with-photoshop/


Note: (The artist is Josep Martí Fornons, winner of Zoom Photo Festival 2010 Sanguenay, Quebec)

[Peter De Smidt]

Well, I've scanned a calibrated Stouffer step wedge with an earlier Epson flatbed, and the specs, which also claimed 4.0D, were false in practice, and not by a little bit.

[Kirk Gittings]

Well, I've scanned a calibrated Stouffer step wedge with an earlier Epson flatbed, and the specs, which also claimed 4.0D, were false in practice, and not by a little bit.

I've done the same on a 750 and had the same results. The specs are notoriously inflated.

[Pali K]

Please make this test, if you are interested in knowing the truth:


It will take 15min, but you'll remember life long...

Go here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

Take the crops from V750 and best Drum. Then looking the general image try to imagine at what enlargement a difference can be seen.

Then take the V750 scan crop and with PS add some sharpening, it will nearly match, and then move a bit image controls... saturation, vibrancy, contrast... you'll get just the same.

Just do this test, it's good because it blows Hype and then one can concentrate in the important things, that's to create art, to the extent every one is able.

Pere,

This is what I pulled from the comparison scans from the link and it seems consistent with what I see.

Epson V750
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanimages/v750-4x5-shadow-u.jpg

Eversmart Supreme
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanimages/Supreme1-4x5-shadow-u.jpg

Howtek 4500
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanimages/Howtek4500-4x5-shadow-u.jpg

Regards,

Pali

[Pere Casals]

Pere,

This is what I pulled from the comparison scans from the link and it seems consistent with what I see.

Pali

You pointed the worse case, but look how with a slight PS action is not that as far. Even it could be scanned bad for that area, if in auto mode it discarted that range, if I scanned that negative for shure I'd do better, i think...

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8248/28525825955_3a9295b3af_c.jpg



And now look how it looks the other V750 sample vs Howtek, after slight sharpening and color correction inside the green frame :

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8561/28420386682_d481942db8_o.jpg

This second case do not look that bad, as the enlarging would have 4m high, and in competition with a drum, aslo I think I applied to much sharpen.


The first case problem, I think it comes from a bad scanning procedure, it is something It would not happen to me, knowing how V750 autoexposure works. I always scan 16 bits full range and then I put the thresholds manually.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8779/27910101114_b802ff6d33_o.jpg

remember, this would be 4m high, looking it from 4m far, no difference. Not one even at 2m.... You see some difference because it's a 4m enlargement and you see it at reading distance, as estated in previous posts, move 2m from monitor and judge.

[Pere Casals]

Pere,

This is what I pulled from the comparison scans from the link and it seems consistent with what I see.



Pali,

I'd like to attach some more V750 scans, made by me

What can one want more beyond this:


6x7 Portra 160, look colors

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/14746731361/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/22337902418/in/dateposted-public/


135 cinestill 50D, look resolution

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/23845394741/in/dateposted-public/

[Pali K]

Thanks Pere for the scans. I'll see if I can make some comparative scans myself.

Regards, Pali

[Pere Casals]

Thanks Pere for the scans. I'll see if I can make some comparative scans myself.

Regards, Pali

Remember to manually override auto-exposure with the V750, it always clips some shadows and some lights by default, save it TIFF uncompressed 16bits per channel, then process in PS.

[Pere Casals]

Well, I've scanned a calibrated Stouffer step wedge with an earlier Epson flatbed, and the specs, which also claimed 4.0D, were false in practice, and not by a little bit.

It is not false with the V750, it really can measure until 4.0D, but no scanner works well at its limit.

With Velvia, the V750 beyond 3.5D lacks microcontrast, specially if a part of the slide is clear and it enters stray light, and Velvia/Provia can well reach 3.8D.

[Pere Casals]

Well, I've scanned a calibrated Stouffer step wedge with an earlier Epson flatbed, and the specs, which also claimed 4.0D, were false in practice, and not by a little bit.

I forgot to add that Multi-exposure has to be used with V750 to obtain acceptable detail in dense areas. This is something also used with Drums.

Even V700 measures until 4.0D, it can only work well until 3.0D, with multiexposure it works well until 3.4D.

From 3.4D to some 3.6D it can work well if image stitching also used later. Perhaps wetmount improves an additional 0.1D, or 0.2D, I've not well measured it.

There are critics to the V750 that don't know that this scanning option is available only from the bundled Silverfast Software, that they have not even installed.

http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/multi-exposure/en.html

It makes 2 different exposures for the same points, then it is combined in single 16 bit per channel reading for each pixel.


I'm the first who think that myself I've to improve my scanning science and digital chain knowledge, but in my opinion there are a lot of people that despize a superb machine like an V750 without make it working as it can.

Other mistakes are using autoexposure without looking what it clips, and saving/procesing 8bit/channel files, sometimes even compressed. File has to be TIFF 16-bit, if compression it should be without loss. And mantain 16 bits uncompressed until end of process, then resize to desired size by using the right algorithm, one must select (normally) Bicubic Optimal for reductions.

Also color handling is something people is not aware.

[Kirk Gittings]

None of that info is new to me or many here. We have been talking about this for years. I have been using the 750 since they first came out. I don't know why you insist on using such an insulting tone because some of us have not found found the same results you claim.

[Christopher Barrett]

Hmm, I think I'll be keeping my Howtek, but have been considering an Epson for proofs. The comparisons, then, should be fun.

[Ari]

Part of my point in comparing the Creo with the v750 is that the Epson needs so much additional pieces, options, holders etc etc just to make an acceptable scan.
I think that's why so many people spend a lot of time making mods to it, because the scans out of the box are just ok; not great, but acceptable for many.
When you see what another scanner can do without resorting to a great amount of noodling around, it changes the game significantly.
I can't tell you how fantastic it is to be able to place my film on the scanner bed, and…scan it. That's all I have to do.

And I haven't even mentioned Newton rings. :)

[Pere Casals]

None of that info is new to me or many here. We have been talking about this for years. I have been using the 750 since they first came out. I don't know why you insist on using such an insulting tone because some of us have not found found the same results you claim.

Sorry for that insulting tone, it was not intentional, I was not aware and I'll change it.

I'd ask what results you did not found,

resolution, colour, at what format? 135, MF, 4x5, 8x10 ? with BW, Color print film, Velvia/Provia?

In what arena did it fail for you?

[Pere Casals]

Hmm, I think I'll be keeping my Howtek, but have been considering an Epson for proofs. The comparisons, then, should be fun.

The comparison is made yet: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

After some PS adjustment to match the V750 do not look that bad

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8561/28420386682_d481942db8_o.jpg


Considering you see a equivalent 4m enlargement at reading distance:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8779/27910101114_b802ff6d33_o.jpg

Of course this is from a sheet, and not a lesser format.

If you put some effort in the V750 , like Multi-Exposure, 16bit/channel, and overriding auto-exposure you'll get pretty decent results for most situations, including all BW film and all color print film scans, with some Velvia shots more challenging for the V750

[Pere Casals]

Part of my point in comparing the Creo with the v750 is that the Epson needs so much additional pieces, options, holders etc etc just to make an acceptable scan.
I think that's why so many people spend a lot of time making mods to it, because the scans out of the box are just ok; not great, but acceptable for many.
When you see what another scanner can do without resorting to a great amount of noodling around, it changes the game significantly.
I can't tell you how fantastic it is to be able to place my film on the scanner bed, and…scan it. That's all I have to do.

And I haven't even mentioned Newton rings. :)

Of course, the V750 is entry level for a pro who makes money with it in a dayly base. A professional that work for others sure he may seek another kind of tool, I completely agree that it's worth.

For a photographer that is only going to use the scanner 5% of the time for it's personal work, that's different, also this depends on his pocket.

If one wants better image quality there it no other way than negative size, from MF and up... scanner resolution is not a concern !!! Are yo to enlarge a single shot to 4m to be seen at reading distance every week?? If not, one can stay with a 750 and to send a negative from time to time to a last model high end drum.

Do you shot a lot underexposed Velvia? then the V750 comes short, as all other flatbeds.

This is my statement: From MF and up with BW film a V750 scan cannot be even distinguished from high end drum scan by anybody, if the enlargement from MF is less than 1.5m, if it is under 3m for 4x5, and if it is under 6m for 8x10.

Because density reading and resolution are more than required. Anybody doubt about this ?



Later we can talk about color.

Rings... Do you place the emulsion side to the glass ?

Where the rings are?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24852468435/in/dateposted-public/

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Pere

Kirk had a good point. A lot of us have been using the Epson scanners for - well a lot of years, and nothing you say is surprising or particularly new information. Most of it has been said before and most Epson users here are very well aware of it. The 750 is my third Epson scanner and I think I get fairly good results from it - it is a good scanner and nobody here thinks otherwise. At the same time a lot of members also have experience with a variety of high-end flatbeds and drum scanners (as well as the Epsons) and find that they're getting better results from them than from the Epson, at a higher price in $ and time. Whether the difference is worth the price difference is of course up to the individual.

[Pere Casals]

Hi Pere

Kirk had a good point. A lot of us have been using the Epson scanners for - well a lot of years, and nothing you say is surprising or particularly new information. Most of it has been said before and most Epson users here are very well aware of it. The 750 is my third Epson scanner and I think I get fairly good results from it - it is a good scanner and nobody here thinks otherwise. At the same time a lot of members also have experience with a variety of high-end flatbeds and drum scanners (as well as the Epsons) and find that they're getting better results from them than from the Epson, at a higher price in $ and time. Whether the difference is worth the price difference is of course up to the individual.


Hi Jim,

I only have a 750 but I've sent sometimes some jobs to an X5, basicly underexposed Velvia, but also I made scan TMax 100 with the X5 to know about.


Conclusion, with say a TMax 100 sheet, 4x5, high dynamic range, or not:

> No grey tone difference, tonalilty etc removed as a factor by IT8 calibration
> Absolutely no difference in sharpness in a 2m enlargement
> Exactly same grain depiction
> A skilled observer cannot tell if the scan was from the X5 or the V750


Important factor:

> How the curve was adjusted, how PS over/under expose tool was used while in 16bits

The skilled observer could say every time who was the guy that processed the file with PS, because the different styles.


"Better results" are always seen after paying $3,000 for a box, I'd like to discuss about true performance, and what I say is that for 4x5-BW-2m enlargement even a X5 makes absolutely no difference to a V750.

In the same way a Ferrari makes no difference to a Toyota Auris in a traffic jam, because both have a capable enough engine, thougt in Indianapolis speedway a big difference would be there...


With 135 we can see the difference in a smaller size. With underexposed velvia we can see it always. But BW LF??? No... not at all.

[ryanmills]

Thank you everyone! I think i agree with almost everyone. The v700 does a decent job, i have and printed and sold work from from it. But in the end it just does not have the detail it should.


Ari, Pali & Jim thanks for your input. Right now the IQSmart2 is looking ideal with 16bit and firewire. But the EverSmart Pro II looks good too. I did hear from Michael at genesis. Costs were a little higher than I expected, its starting to get into the range of drum scanners if I buy direct from them. He did confirm the windows drivers are quite limited. I wont be ready to buy till after I get done with my summer work. I guess i will have to see whats available on here vs genesis then what I can really afford. No matter what I need a better scanner so I might just have to save and wait a little longer.


Pere Casals, honestly I dont think you have as good of a grasp on scanning as you may feel. I have literally scanned 10k+ shots on my epson since buying it. I shoot a lot of film 120, 4x5 and 8x10. The method you are describing for scanning will ultimately clip or force a curve. It can work on a lot of images but I like most people dont have the perfect negative every time or most times. I miss focus, exposure, etc. To get the most out of it you need to really get everything you can out of your negative There is no such thing as "exposure" on a v700, the exposure is fixed on scanner Its nothing but curves and levels. Multi-Exposure gains you nothing you cant do in photoshop with levels and layers. In fact there is no such thing as exposure on film, its just density. To get the most out of an epson you need to scan it as a linear tiff. Basically scanned a positive at 48bits then inverted in photoshop and set your levels in there. I own both Vuescan and Silverfast AI. I found both to be inferior to just scanning as a liner tiff with Epson Scan. You also have to understand the difference between true sharpness and perceived sharpness. I looked at most of your images and I dont really see sharpness or detail that impresses me. In fact i'm getting better results out of my own v700. I dont see the v700 winning any of the scanner tests but honestly the images from the scanner test feel really compressed as well. I would say if you like your v700 by all means keep with it. But I have found nothing to support what you have claimed. You also have to understand were not all printing 8x10s. I am printing 40x60, i have found that the v700 is only good to about 16x20 for my taste on a good negative. None of your view distance argument has any baring what so ever to scans at all. Lastly scanning 8x10 on a v700 is a pain in the ass, scanning it directly on the glass will not get you a good scan. If you think it does your entire argument is invalid.

[bob carnie]

Ryan

Micheal is a first rate vendor , he was extremely helpful when I purchased from him.

Like you I feel one of the posters here is pretty much dead set with the unit they Own and will argue its merits to the dying breath.

I have done lots of testing , Imacon - Aztek - Eversmart Supreme - Epson 10000xl - Fuji Frontier - I own 4 of the five listed so scanning is very important to me and like you have done thousands of scans
and I do make monster prints as well as silver gelatin prints off a Lambda which is very tasking indeed.

I found the Aztek and the Eversmart to be in over 30 photographers viewpoints basically equal- the Imacon close second to them , followed by the Fuji Scanner then the Epson.

I recommend that Micheal to provide you with the Mac system to boot up your scanner. I will say the workflow is old school so it takes awhile to figure out how to maximize these units. the unit
I purchased has a wet mount unit but to date I have not seen the need to use it.

One day I will test this out as well.

Bob

[Pere Casals]

Hi Ryan, I'd like to dicuss this




But in the end (V750) it just does not have the detail it should.



What size do you print your work? Beyond 4m? 10m?

Lets see if a V750 has resolving power in excess for you:

this is a V750 scan: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24852468435/in/dateposted-public/

and this is a crop of the 1% of its surface: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24534566679/in/dateposted-public/

Please tell me at what enlargement size occurs that detail of the crop can be seen in an enlargement, as we see 6 LPPMM with our eye. You may take calculator and tell me...




I looked at most of your images and I dont really see sharpness or detail that impresses me.


I'm not talking about my skills to make high perceived sharpness photographs, but about the scanner performance.
Presently I'm focussed to use unsharpness to depict volumes https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/26942241092/in/dateposted-public/ making vision take an effort, I try to learn a bit this style https://www.flickr.com/photos/55873497@N04/ to later develop mine, I'm interested in glasses of the Universal Heliar 36 range...



The method you are describing for scanning will ultimately clip or force a curve.


Any method will do: TV's sRGB have 0 to 255 values per channel, paper may have 1:100, a BW scan 3.0D has 0 to 1000 values, and a velvia scan has some 0-8000 values, dynamic range of the scene is much wider than Monitor or Paper. There is a considerable photographic-artistic effort to reduce Dynamic Range from scene to paper or to monitor in a pictorial way. It's the same to reduce the range more in the negative acquisition or in the post process.

I usually use the PS under/over exposure local tool in the same way burning-dodging is used in the darkroom, befor touchong curves to make fit DR to the output medium, This theory is included in the BTZS one, I think.




To get the most ... tiff. 48bits then inverted in photoshop and set your levels in there.


It's what I do, just that, but inverting in PS or in scan soft it is exactly the same, if value is L it is to make INV = 65535-L , (2^16-1)




Multi-Exposure gains you nothing you cant do in photoshop with levels and layers.


That's incorrect, and this explains why you did not obtain good results with V750, How can you say this ??? They do this to not overflow A/D converter, Digital DSLR use this as HDR, it is a powerful digital tool !!!

Also Arri Alexa cameras use DGA, dual gain amplifier (search for it, interesting) to take advantage of the same concept, to extent DR near to Kodak Vision 3 is able. Alexa has 2 stops advantage in shadows and Vision 3 in lights, for this reason Vision 3 is better for cinematography than Alexa.




You also have to understand the difference between true sharpness and perceived sharpness.


I understant it very well, still I've a lot to learn to master how to obtain it



the images from the scanner test feel really compressed as well.


Don't undertake that test, it's a very good test, anyway V750 was used with low skill, as it looks autoexposure was used, clipping lights and shadows in 3rd sample. The rest is very good information, I know... also it's a shame for some hype scanners.




I am printing 40x60, i have found that the v700 is only good to about 16x20 for my taste on a good negative.


You cannot state for what printing size V750 is good without mentioning the negative size, if V750 is good to print 16x20 with 120 it will be good to print 3x4m with 8x10



None of your view distance argument has any baring what so ever to scans at all.


Human eye sees 6 LPPMM this is 12 dots per milimeter at reading distance, this explains what standard print quality is, and how many perceptual pixels are in the human field of vision, I'd suggest you a reading about that, it is amazing.




Lastly scanning 8x10 on a v700 is a pain in the ass, scanning it directly on the glass will not get you a good scan. If you think it does your entire argument is invalid.

You are well mistaken... this is a 1% surface crop of a 8x10 on glass scan https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24534566679/in/dateposted-public/

this certifies completely that the original complete file is suitable for at least 4x5m

It is true that when on glass the negative is not at it's ideal distance and this produces a lack of sharpness, but this is minor in front of the benefits of the size increase.





honestly I dont think you have as good of a grasp on scanning as you may feel.


I know wery well what a V750 is: exactly, and I know what a X5 do: exactly. With a lot of precission. And I know very well when a negative scan for a target output media needs a X5, and if the X5 will make a difference or not, depending on negative size and display size.

I've a technical profile, at job (Machine Vision) I usually have narrow margins between was it is required and what is possible, I constantly meter physical performance of image acquisition with telecentric glass MTF, color theory in all of its complications, spectral responses, a lot in IR, spectrometer in hand, what I mean is that my aproach to scanners is technical, belive me, in my job hype it is not useful, before I rely in a telecentric glass I've calculated how many microns error I'll have when metering the width of a bolt's thread.

For this reason I base my contribution here in cold technical analysis, not in opinions like "better results".

I'm not a professional scanist, nor a professional photographer. I digitize film for free for a friend that's also a true artist (and darkroom mate), using the 750 for what it is extremly good, and a X5 when it makes a difference.

One thing else, I've replaced the illuminator of the 2nd 750 we have by a 4x powerful one, this is near additional 0.5D enhacement, then I make a multi-exposure with the regular illuminator's power and a second one with 4x illuminator, then both go as layers to PS, auto-align, etc.

Now I'm working on c++ code to combine properly the ranges, common HDR soft do not work ok.

Don't think the 4.9 DMax of the Hassy X5 is to work with 4.9 densities, this is just to have a good reading of 3.8 densities (that only velvia has)

With this improvement I plan to go further.

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Pere

I wish you had said earlier that you were using a modified 750 to effectively get an "HDR" type result and not a stock scanner. It would have made some of your comment more understandable.

[Pere Casals]

Hi Pere

I wish you had said earlier that you were using a modified 750 to effectively get an "HDR" type result and not a stock scanner. It would have made some of your comment more understandable.


I was talking of standard V750. The modification I've in course still it is not operative, I'm writting the software that automates the image blending with OpenCV library, it will take me a while, and still i've to print 3D some assemblies to make it reliable A fan to get heat out, without vibrations.

Replacing the 750 illuminator it's easy as there is space enough...

BW film and print film usually have less than 3.0D, with multi-exposure it's OK , Velvia... depends, if strong shadows the V750 do not do it well even with multi-exposure, but no other flatbed can.

Then there is solutions: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463800-REG/Hasselblad_70380301_Flextight_X5_Scanner.html

4.9D but it only makes bare 4x5.

this is cheaper

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463799-REG/Hasselblad_70380201_Flextight_X1_Scanner.html

But only DMax 4.6D

4.9D X5 is very good for underexposed velvia, the 4.6D X1, I don't know.

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Pere. I have a question. If the Epson line of scanners is equal in performance to the large flatbeds and drum scanners, why were companies paying tens of thousands of dollars for them? There must be a reason.

Re Vision 3, I'd be hard pressed to say that film isn't superior to digital (Alexa) but even the Vision 3 has to be scanned for edit and digital distribution. How do they do that and keep the extended DR?

And the last time I looked the price of a fully optioned Alexa was close to $100,000 (and add another $30,000 to $70,000 if you'd like a lens with your Alexa) so not sure it's relevant to the current discussion.

[ryanmills]

Pere im going to be honest, you make my face hurt. There is just so much wrong information mixed in with completely irrelevant information I can't if figure out your point. Bottom line, the image is not as good from a v700/v750 as a creo. I dont understand the point you are making beyond you telling me im just not using it correctly. More importantly real world tests from actual photographers counter your argument as thou everyone else has no idea how to scan a neg. Honestly, they are far more convincing then you quoting the math on how many bits are in a byte as thou that has relevence. Im not looking to spent $6k on a scanner just so I can say I have one as thou the last 10k scans I have not tried every way possiable. I want images that look there best. The things you are talking about are so far beyond anything relevent. Your going to write drivers to make a v750 multi exposure then hack the hardware? How is that going to solve the fact that the lens is not sharp and has a fixed focus... Unlike yourself I do have a background in software, writing drivers is about the hardest disiplince there is in programing and you're just going to whip one out on the weekend? What in the hell does a 100k digital cincema camera have anything to do with film. DGA is just a version of HDR, you can get it on a mkiii for $95k less. Its not "like film", its trying to add range. Yes i get the concept but the v700 is a fixed exposure. You already tried to say the silverfast could make it multi exposure (it cant, its just two sets of levels blended) then your saying your going to hack the software but your not done, then your saying you have already done it. Quite franky I dont belive any of it. And how it could it even relate to a $600 scanner or how it relates to me as thou im going to do those things I have no idea... I think its better to spend the $6k on scanner than $50k on a computer science and engineering degree.

I feel as thou you are googling terms, copy paste blurbs in an effort to sound intelligent... Your 1% crop? You mean 100% crop? It looks like crap, that is not a good image, its not sharp, you're relying on perceived sharpness, because as we can see in your crop, nothing is sharp... You keep saying its good but really its not, even for a v700. I question the quality of the screen your using to view and edit your photos.

Here is a 100% crop example from my last shoot. Not getting real picky here and not the sharpest shot since I was shooting a 1/15th of a second but still decent. Using a 240mm Rodenstock apo-s with tri-x 320. 8x10 neg scanned correctly (not on the glass like yours) at 1200DPI. The detail is ok, sharpness is there thou slightly missed on the focus. But I have seen work from other photographers with the excat same camera and mine is just not as good. That photographer is using an IQSmart2 and the detail he gets is just better. I asked my question here to see if anyone else had changed to this scanner and seen improved results as well. They had, but you're here arging about how its better to hack the scanner? Honestly just stop, your points are not valid and have nothing to do with my orginal question even if you are the Steve Jobs of scanners.

http://ryanmills.net/zips/img070.jpg
http://ryanmills.net/zips/img070-2.jpg

[wilcoxerma]

very happy with this unit
http://hautavis.net/146/o.png

[Pere Casals]

Hi Pere. I have a question. If the Epson line of scanners is equal in performance to the large flatbeds and drum scanners, why were companies paying tens of thousands of dollars for them? There must be a reason.

It is not equal in performance, as a Toyota Auris is not a Ferrari.

It is equal in results in most of the usual cases, as both cars above have same performance in a traffic jam. You have to go to Indy speedway to make a difference as for normal roads you can violate traffic law the same with both. Are you to print 2400 dots per inch? a Lightjet prints 300...

It is easy to proof that for the above enlargements there is no difference in MTF of USAF 1951 target, nor it cannot be separated by human eye. And mood it will depend the most on human operator that processed tha image in order to reduce DR to the output medium, if we display all the excessive DR of a neg to paper we'll get something flat.

Here there is the difference: What Ansel was doing whith hands for Moonrise prints. Now this is done with curves and Under/Over expose tools. For this reason a professional scan looks better, becasue scanist do that all day long, like Graniere did it for Salgado.

Then it comes the thing, a FM2 it's a "worse" camera than an F5, but you can take better shots with it, more difficult, but deppends more on the operator.

If I had a Pro scanning service bussiness I'd buy a Hassy X1 or X5, $10k or 25k it's nothing for a bussiness. With the X1 it's faster and perfect, you don't mind it if comes a Velvia with 3.8D shadows there.

For a private usage, I can bet I can obtain 100% of the performance needed with a V750, and equal mood in most of the cases, for usual enlargements. Exeption 135 and underexposed Velvia.

It is more about confort, holders etc than real performance, what counts: the scanits (and I'm not a good one... but there are...)





Re Vision 3, I'd be hard pressed to say that film isn't superior to digital (Alexa) but even the Vision 3 has to be scanned for edit and digital distribution. How do they do that and keep the extended DR?


Oh... this is a matter that passionates me, I'm a hard core defender of movie film stock, "Taliban" supporter of JJ Abrams, Mendes, NOLAN, TARANTINO, SPIELBERG !!!! I see every one of their pictures shot in film just to delight technical excellence from Vision 3, I cry like a baby when I see every well tecnically executed scene, this is orgasmic...

What can do Alexa in front of a IMAX film camera? Nothing !!! just it can help making preshots to prepare real shooting. Alexas were stored when JJ arrived with Dan, the stars, the tech crew and the Vision 3 65mm cans. This was to shot a $2 Billion box office release, plus $3Bn in merchandise. Can't they afford Alexas ? Yes, they can, very useful for preshots !! Only Vision 3 can capture all Daisy Ridley beauty, not the Alexas, by no means, and there is a technical demonstration for it.

But Rogue One (Dec 2016) "A star wars story" is being shot now in Alexa 65, really a good camera. One day Alexa will emulate Vision 3 perfecty, not for now.

Star Wars 8 (Dec 2017) is being shot now in Vision 3.

That's the answer: They do not keep DR, as they they don't keep it from an Alexa.

DCI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Initiatives) recommends 48 cd/m2 projection performance, a shame. They project shadows but no light, much inferior that old good projection film. TVs have 300cd/m2 even 1000. Also Alexa has near same DR than V3.

Vision 3 is used by Disney/Lucasfilm because some advantages:

1) Stars look pretty with V3, look Daisy Ridley !! Take an Alexa and try... if you want I can explain it, it takes a bit.

2) Uncompressed 64k IQ raws, Alexas are 4k or 8k, Disney will sell Star Wars 8 in 2040 with the broadcasting quality that digital crap can have by then. (Note I use "crap" ironically : )

3) Smooth highlight roll-off, beter volume depiction than ends in viewer's immersion, the the viewer becomes a witness, beyond a viewer.





And the last time I looked the price of a fully optioned Alexa was close to $100,000 (and add another $30,000 to $70,000 if you'd like a lens with your Alexa) so not sure it's relevant to the current discussion.

No, not irrelevant at all. Just I showed that HDR blending of images was used as an universal digital tool, it is used in a consumer DSLR and in a high end Alexa, this was the point, and for this is also useful with flatbeds and Drums.

But one thing.. not very useful for BW if silver was developed until 2.5 densities,a common situation, then the silicon works perfectly alone, With Velvia underexposed and deep shadow... then please use Multi-exposure, because silicon's DR do not reach required performance.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks, for discussing this with me, lets remove personal involment and let's go to technical discussion, I'm the first that I want to learn and to know if I'm mistaken, with science and reality proofs.


the image is not as good from a v700/v750 as a creo.


This is subjective, let's separate things. So why ?

Because tonal depiction? microcontrast? image ressolution? grain depiction... ? Or we don't know why?

I'd like concrete claims to discuss it. All of we are used in the technical analysis of images, we know the source of every blur component, the sironar's S aberrations, in corners, in center, the film MTF, the shake, the silver solvent, the enlarger vs contact, etc, etc. So let's go to the technical points as we do when comparing a N to an S glass, as "Bob" do :)

may we? or we are going to be tied to the "I like this more" argument ?

tonal depiction, microcontrast, image ressolution, grain depiction, please let's later discuss in those terms



I dont understand the point you are making beyond you telling me im just not using it correctly. More importantly real world tests from actual photographers counter your argument as thou everyone else has no idea how to scan a neg.


Scanning is a very deep science, nobody scans perfectly.

For example: http://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-practical-guide-to-creating-superresolution-photos-with-photoshop/

did you know that with this technique one can match drum ressolution performance with a bare V750 ? (DMax apart, applied to BW film, not velvia)

And that it takes less effort than a wet mounting if PS automated?




Your going to write drivers to make a v750 multi exposure then hack the hardware?


Not at all, I master Kernel IOPL0 programming, since DDK to WDK, but I'm not to make a driver for V750, I just hook the process before the digital chain. Modifiying illumination, and making 2 scans, each with silverfast multi-exposure, to end blending both by an utility program that I'm just started writting. This is appart of our discussion of a standard V750 vs other.



. Unlike yourself I do have a background in software, writing drivers is about the hardest disiplince there is in programing and you're just going to whip one out on the weekend?


I been using DDK and WDK, for RT I use to hook IRQ0, with 8254 throwing 200KHz to IRQ0 and passing control to Win task scheduler only 100Hz, or what set in Multimedia timers with timeBeginPeriod, https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd757624(v=vs.85).aspx

Also I hook IRQs from a driver to timestamp events, also I triger flash/camera from a RS232 Pin and use performance counters to timestamp, thread is working in a single core (affinity mask) as each core can have a different count. I've some lead under skin with these things, perhaps you have more...

I've some 1million hand written C++ lines in my back, (hand written, not compiler counter) most in machine vision from scratch or with OpenCV, 90% of time using Point Grey cameras. I do not writte bugs to go fast. This is my tech background. Ask me about any C++ compicated topic and I'll answer it in seconds, polymorphism, casting, MFC, machine vision algorithms, how every OpenCV function works.... anything you want to check I know... I don't know all, of course.




What in the hell does a 100k digital cincema camera have anything to do with film. DGA is just a version of HDR, you can get it on a mkiii for $95k less.


You said multi-exposure was not useful for V750, I replied it to show that HDR image blending is a powerful digital tool to expand sensor DR, in a cheap DSLR it blends images of 2 different captures, with the Alexa it is the same shot passed by 2 amplifiers in parallel working at different ISO, I pointed the Alexa to show that this tool is universal in digital image enhancing, from a consumer DSLR to an Alexa, including Flatbeds and Drums. Of couse it is not necessary for V750 with 2.5D developed BW film, as silicon sensor performs well. It is useful if you bring TX to 3.0D and want the most detail in lights, and very useful for velvia/provia if deep shadows, even the V750 will not perform well there, no Flatbed will perform well... X5 will perform, not your flatbed...



Its not "like film", its trying to add range. Yes i get the concept but the v700 is a fixed exposure. You already tried to say the silverfast could make it multi exposure (it cant, its just two sets of levels blended) then your saying your going to hack the software but your not done, then your saying you have already done it. Quite franky I dont belive any of it.


fixed exposure is not hardware, but software, "Epson Scan" soft don't do it, Silverfast do it, they have a Patent.

I said another thing, I've dismantled a V750 and I replaced the cold cathode illuminator by a LED illuminator that has 4x the power, for the moment I only made preliminar tests, it heats up, film and box. When it finished I'll make an scan with the regular illumination power (with silverfast multi-exposure) and another one also with SF M-E. Then I'll have 2 images I will autoalign and blend. This is because I've Velvia 8x10 sheets to shot, and 5x7 frozen Ektachrome. Also I've personal project to depict with 8x10 Velvia some landscapes I love, and the modified V750 is part of the project, to not depend on drums. We'll see if it will work ok, I'm in it.




Your 1% crop? You mean 100% crop?


I was not using % as enlargement ratio but as surface ratio (crop vs image surface) in order you can calculate how big the print has to be to show that detail, this is the hammer hits made by the flinstones, 6 centuries ago.

It is a general frame of a 50m high church, if V750 can depict (see crop) every flintstone hammer hit on every stone, at what print size image quality from the V750 is ot enough ???

Please, take calculator and tell me your opinion...




It looks like crap, that is not a good image, its not sharp, you're relying on perceived sharpness, because as we can see in your crop, nothing is sharp... You keep saying its good but really its not, even for a v700. I question the quality of the screen your using to view and edit your photos.


If you scale full image with the same crop magnification the full image will have 5m high, make the calculation. If you look it at reading distance... yes you'll see that the Creo performed a bit better, not very much. But if you look the monster 5m high print from say 3m it is physically impossible you notice it, and there are not people with "sight score" 400, people has 80 or 140, not 400. And for a 2m print size absolutely no difference from V750 to a Creo or an X5.

Look, for TMax 100, if your print size is 3x4cm (in a newspaper) you are not to notice if it comes from a 135 or a 8x10" negative, or a ULF camera. Just the same.



Here is a 100% crop example from my last shoot. Not getting real picky here and not the sharpest shot since I was shooting a 1/15th of a second but still decent. Using a 240mm Rodenstock apo-s with tri-x 320. 8x10 neg scanned correctly (not on the glass like yours) at 1200DPI. The detail is ok, sharpness is there thou slightly missed on the focus. But I have seen work from other photographers with the excat same camera and mine is just not as good. That photographer is using an IQSmart2 and the detail he gets is just better. I asked my question here to see if anyone else had changed to this scanner and seen improved results as well. They had, but you're here arging about how its better to hack the scanner? Honestly just stop, your points are not valid and have nothing to do with my orginal question even if you are the Steve Jobs of scanners.

http://ryanmills.net/zips/img070.jpg
http://ryanmills.net/zips/img070-2.jpg


At 1200DPI it cannot be noticed if it is scanned overglass or at the optimal heigth, because circle of added confussion is much smaller than 1/1200 inch, I calculated it to be 1/2000 of an inch, I've pending to measure it well with a USAF 1951 target and MTF, as I plan to scan velvia 8x10 overglass and I want to know exacty what impact has overglass, and know if I have to make a custom holder with side clamps to get the neg tight in place or not.

1200 dpi is a resolution than V750 works exactly the same than a creo or an X5, no absolute difference, impossible. At 3200dpi, you will notice it. At 8000dpi the X5 rocks, but anyway film MTF is the main limitation at 8000, if there was no shake or subject moviment at 1/15

Have you tried it? Take the 8x10 and scan it V750 and Creo at 1200 dpi, then put it in PS layers, auto-align, then substract images, then move curves a bit, contrast etc to match, this until you see a near all black after substraction. Then compare crops.

(The reference image in the autoaling has advantge, the autoalign-substraction is find contrast-cruve settings than makes images match in tone gradation, this to discard ICC issues)

I bet you'll see absolute nothing of nothig: Nothing.

If you scan at 3200dpi you'll notice something, but at 4m height, perhaps.

Make the test... !!!

BTW, nice shot, superb, I like it a lot.

[bob carnie]

Are we sure Mustafa has not came back as someone else. holy shit I have to leave this discussion, hope it turns out well.

[Pere Casals]

Are we sure Mustafa has not came back as someone else. holy shit I have to leave this discussion, hope it turns out well.

Of course...

I'm roman catholic, only extremist with film : )

I just want to turn it interesting, going to real facts, and throwing science light on it.

[koraks]

I just want to turn it interesting.
Then go out and make some photos. I don't get how you can live in a gorgeous country and waste your time writing 1 million lines of c code in order to get a slight improvement from a consumer flatbed scanner while you could be out making art.

I really think you're lost, Pere. Your message is clear: you like tinkering with your V700, someone else prefers a Creo and I myself stick with my 4990 until it dies on me (scanning 8x10 off the glass - sue me). It's different for everyone. You don't have to sway them to enjoy doing what you do.

Having said that, this is a forum dedicated to photography. If you want to discuss the intricacies of driver programming or the physics of machine vision, I'm sure there are great places for that. This is probably not it.

[Pere Casals]

Then go out and make some photos. I don't get how you can live in a gorgeous country and waste your time writing 1 million lines of c code in order to get a slight improvement from a consumer flatbed scanner while you could be out making art.


I'm new to 8x10 and I'm preparing for it, all DIY, from developing to scaning the complicated Velvia, with E-6 in the middle. I'm almost ready, for the moment I've some spare time to discuss and to test my points of view aganist better photographers than me.




I really think you're lost, Pere. Your message is clear...


I'm not lost at all, my message is clear but it is not what you say.

What I say is that a 1200 dpi scan of a BW 8x10" cannot be distinguished if it was made by a V750 or a Creo or a X5, because at this resolution all those machines perform exactly the same as they are IT8 calibrated, and they are not at their optical limit by far. And also say that a Creo do not make much a difference to a V750 when dealing with 3.8 Velvia densities, but X5 will do.



Having said that, this is a forum dedicated to photography. If you want to discuss the intricacies of driver programming or the physics of machine vision, I'm sure there are great places for that. This is probably not it.

I don't want to discuss about M.V. and drivers, just replied Ryan I've also a background about digital imaging to discuss in depth about digital chain.

This is about photography: Serious Hybrid Process. Nothing like darkroom, but today cultural difussion is throught the net, this leads to digitalization.

This discussion is important, for me included, if one can and want afford both an expensive scanner and a Sironar-S collection, including macro, there is no problem. But many people can have to choose between a new scanner and a glass or film, then it is very important to know in what way and in what situations a more expensive scanner will improve the result.

My statement is that for LF and BW a V750 performs like a Creo and like a X5, specially if we are not to print beyond 3m size and viewing the monster at reading distance.

And that there is no tonal difference at all.

I'd like to go beyond "better result", and discuss with technical arguments if there are any differences (LF / BW) in tones, sharpness, grain depiction, microcontrast... and at what precise print size it is seen... just the information it will be useful to take decisions.

And one option is to stay with a V750 that will perform exactly the same than a drum for LF-BW, and keep the money to hire drum service for 3.8D Velvia-Provia that cannot be done on any flatbed, Creo included, if deep shadows there.

Others say that Creo will render a better image for LF-BW.

Then I ask... How it can be this if we all scan LF at 1200 or 2400 dpi as much, at 2.5D, 3.0 exceptionally?

At those requirements there is no difference, I state. Let's be serious about what is performance and what is hype.

[williaty]

Pere, the Epsons cannot meet their claimed Dmax spec in the real world. I have a Stouffer step wedge that has densities ranging from 0.05 to 3.03. In a one-pass linear scan, my Epson V850 does not show any differentiation above step 10, which is 1.37 density. Applying the most extreme curve the software is capable of, applying multi-exposure, and applying every other trick you can use to recover highlight detail, the V850 still cannot differentiate between step 21 (3.03 density) and step 20 (2.89) density. This means the Dmax is below 3.03 (not 4.0 like Epson claims). Of course, applying all those functions to get up to ~3.0 Dmax results in a file that's completely unusable! To produce a file that can actually be edited and produce a smooth range of tones, the scanner seems to have a usable Dmax somewhere around 1.5 and, even then, it's definitely shouldering off and losing separation between steps at that point.

[ryanmills]

Ha Bob, i'm a gluten for punishment so im posting once more then im done too!

Pere, I honestly have never seen anyone say so much but really say so little. You joined this forum this month. These other photographers have been shooting film possibly longer than I have been alive. I would look at there advice a bit more before you dismiss them. As far as my post, you just conveniently skip over where you have contradicted yourself and start spilling out more information that has no relevance. You just said at 1200 dpi there is no difference between a $600 v700 and a $20k x5. So your saying the same optics are used in both? Or are you really trying to tell me I can't tell the difference because of DPI or lines resolved? By that logic there should not be any detail difference between lens on the camera. I mean we cant see that fine detail, oh but wait... we can... optics matter. None of what your saying is going to change the fact that the lens on a v700 is just not as good as a creo. Thats what this topic was about.

The WDK is for hooking hardware into windows not the reverse. Drivers are written in C or mostly ASM not C++ thou obviously if you know C++, C is easy but you keep quoting C++. Kernel programming has nothing to do with any of this. IOPL0 is not even a thing, IOPL is a flag on an x86 system and I think there is something in the STDIO for linux with it? Neither has relevance here. The ADC obviously happens on the scanner so you would have to desolder, dump the firmware, rewrite it likely using ASM with no docs to add most of what your talking about. There are a number of issues you have to solve like the init calibration is done pre-scan everytime, changing the lamp would throw everything off. You would have to override that as well in the firmware. Among other things. Lets say none of that was true. And you could access it all in the drivers. Where is it your getting the source code? If you decompile it your working in ASM not C++ and how are you expecting to compile it again or are you saying you can modify raw machine code? Even if you did something like DLL injection you would still need to decomplile the drivers and work in ASM to know what to hook saying it was even there. And you would have nothing but pointers and flags with no names to modify. Dumping anything to a RS232 connection (there is no pin) would do nothing since thats a serial bus. Using IRQ0 or just the PIO is really kind of archaic and really low level. timeBeginPeriod() is part of a timing routine thats the correct way to time something, ok... why you would use IRQ0 lowlevel then call a high level windows function... Not that any of that matters because you said you were going to hook into it before the digital chain... so your going to hook into an analog chain as if that is a thing... *thumbs up* I'm sure everyone here is looking forward to seeing this Frankenstein v750 you have made (or are making, as you have said its both done and not done). That can out perform an x7 just using multiple exposures.

What were all wondering is why are even discussing all these. This thread was about the quality difference between a v700 and a IQSmart2. What does any of what your saying have to do with that? You dont even have an IQSmart2 to compare. Your basing everything off scanner examples that the IQSmart2 wins but saying if you hack a v750 thats some how going to make the lens and scanning method on a v700 better than a IQSmart2. A scanner you dont even have to try?

Thank you everyone else for all the input. If some crazy person reading this is selling an IQSmart2 I will be looking for one in the fall! And im done!

[Pere Casals]

IQSmart2 not better at all than a V700 for LF and BW

Hello Ryan, let's go...



v700 and a IQSmart2


IQSmart2 is better than a V700 for some jobs, to scan large format BW sheets at 1200 or 2400 dpi it will perform exactly the same than a V700, because both have optical performance in excess and excess capability for 3.0D BW densities, with no difference in results. In smal prints the same, in moster prints beyond 4m it may be some difference looking at reading distance.

No difference in BW tonality.

For 135/120 may be a little edge for the IQSmart2.

For Velvia 3.8D deep shadows none will perform, a drum will









You just said at 1200 dpi there is no difference between a $600 v700 and a $20k x5. So your saying the same optics are used in both? Or are you really trying to tell me I can't tell the difference because of DPI or lines resolved? By that logic there should not be any detail difference between lens on the camera. I mean we cant see that fine detail, oh but wait... we can... optics matter. None of what your saying is going to change the fact that the lens on a v700 is just not as good as a creo. Thats what this topic was about.


Yes, I state this. V750 has a optical performance of 2400 to 3200 dpi this may agree is 1200 to 1600 LPPMM high contrast MTF at extintion with a USAF 1951 target, you scan 9600, but there is no more optical information there.

A X5 we may agree it delivers 4800 to 6400 dpi true performance, this would be 2400 to 3200 LPPMM.

If put it in a bitmap of 1200 dpi the V750 information will be reduced to 1200 dpi, (pixel binning, it is called). With the X5 the IQ also will be reduced to 1200 dpi

The quality of the 1200 dpi from V750 will be the same of the X5, because we degraded in both cases form higher quality.

An example, imagine you take 2 shots of 24Mpix, one from D610 and from a D3200. The D610 image has 22 mega perceptual pixels and the D3300 shot has 12, if we resize the image to 1536x1024 will have indistinguishable images. Do you understand this?


Want to talk about DDK etc, not of my interest but if it's your's, let's go:



The WDK is for hooking hardware into windows not the reverse. Drivers are written in C or mostly ASM not C++ thou obviously if you know C++, C is easy but you keep quoting C++.


You can make drivers hat are not to control hardware at all, for example I open ports for a User mode application from a Driver. Every win proces has a IOPM table that specifies what port numbers, classic example if Porttalk http://retired.beyondlogic.org/porttalk/porttalk.htm, I still use source code from this. Note these are not TCP ports, but mapped registers of the PC hardware, for example to program 8254 or 8259 chips, that today are firmware implemented in chipset.




Kernel programming has nothing to do with any of this. IOPL0 is not even a thing, IOPL is a flag on an x86 system and I think there is something in the STDIO for linux with it? Neither has relevance here.


IOPL is Input Output Priority Level. Since Intel protected mode (386+), it It occupies bits 12 and 13 in the FLAGS register. It can be 0,1,2,3. Windows uses only leves 0 and 3. Processor only can move from a level to the other by executing an ISR. All user level apps run in IOPL 3, drivers can run in IOPL 0 o 3, in case level is 0 this is a kernel driver and a special instruction set is available, while in IOPL 0 software can directly access all resurces, including physical memory, in IOPL 3 you can only acces virtual memory, at the end via HAL.




The ADC obviously happens on the scanner so you would have to desolder, dump the firmware, rewrite it likely using ASM with no docs to add most of what your talking about.

You are wrong I told of may skills as a programmer, I do not use this in my V750 modification projed, read again my message...



Dumping anything to a RS232 connection (there is no pin) would do nothing since thats a serial bus.


COM 1 is linked to the 3F8 register, by writting in that register you can modify manually the state HI/LO of each pin, making what is known by bit banging, also you can progran the UART and let it manage the comms, thats the usual way. In machine vision I use bit banging to signal camera trigger because there I avoid glue logic and I know when I take the shot with uS precission.




Frankenstein v750


Of the V750 I've only modified the illumination, nothing about drivers or hardware, read again above.



What were all wondering is why are even discussing all these.


You should know, I'm just answering you.




v700 and a IQSmart2


IQSmart2 is better than a V700 for some jobs, to scan large format BW sheets at 1200 or 2400 dpi it will perform exactly the same than a V700, because both have optical performance in excess and excess capability for 3.0D BW densities, with no difference in results. In smal prints the same, in moster prints beyond 4m it may be some difference looking at reading distance.

No difference in BW tonality.

For 135/120 may be a little edge for the IQSmart2.

For Velvia 3.8D deep shadows none will perform, a drum will

I'm also done, if you cannot argue anything beyond kernel programming...


Also thank you everyone else !!! best regards !!


******************************************
But remember, hype and performance... not the same

[Ari]

I agree with Pere about one thing: there's no need for personal attacks; we all use different gear and have very different opinions on what works.
I didn't call him crazy because I'm the one with a 250-pound scanner in my basement!

As for the rest of what he says, well, I disagree, and what's more, I don't really care to test the theory at all, having (very happily) sold my v750 in May once I made my first Creo scan. The difference in IQ and ease of use were very pleasantly shocking, to put it mildly. If, by and large, we're all getting the results we want, then what are we arguing about?

[koraks]

I know I often loose myself in the technical aspects of photography. However, it's reassuring to know that it could be much, much worse.

[Christopher Barrett]

I agree with Pere about one thing: there's no need for personal attacks; we all use different gear and have very different opinions on what works.
I didn't call him crazy because I'm the one with a 250-pound scanner in my basement!

The Howtek is 140lbs. I believe that makes me 110lbs less crazy than Ari!

:)

[Pali K]

Ryan,

To get back to your original question. I think you'll be extremely happy with either the IQSmart or Evermsmart series scanners. Avoid Jazz and Eversmart (non pro) versions because even though these produce exceptional scans, it is extremely slow and scanning single 8x10 sheets at 2000+ DPI can take more than an hour. Michael from Genesis also cautioned me against the Jazz versions as he believes the Creo/Scitex ES units are built with much higher overall quality.

Also, I have the many examples of drum and eversmart pro scans on my flickr that you can review to get an idea of what to expect. I would argue that ES Pro is just as good with dens negatives as my drum scanners but tends to introduce an ever so slight color cast in shadows. This of course only matters if you are scanning color and even the color scans, are phenomenal. At this point, I scan using both side-by-side to speed my scanning workflow and have never felt that I compromised on the quality because I scanned on the ES Pro vs. the drum.

I also did a resolution test from the Eversmart Pro and my test concluded that my unit could resolve 3500+ DPI optically even though my version is only rated at 2750 max. Keep in mind that DPI from these scanners is directly correlated with fine calibration of the lens, scanner optics and CCD which can be manually fine tuned. I worked with Michael from Genesis Equipment to tune mine and he was not surprise that my unit was able to resolve more than the rated max DPI.

Here is the resolution test from the ES Pro.
http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/EversmartPro/Comparison/SCAN_ESRES_8000DPI.jpg

And here is a link on how to read the target scan. http://www.silverfast.com/PDF/resolution-target/Resolution-Target_long_en.pdf

Hope this helps and good luck on your scanner search.

Regards,

Pali

[Pere Casals]

The difference in IQ and ease of use were very pleasantly shocking, to put it mildly. If, by and large, we're all getting the results we want, then what are we arguing about?

More ease, ok

more IQ with what? 135? 120?

Do you think that a 1200 dpi BW scan of a 8x10 or a 2400 dpi of a 4x5 has any difference if it was taken from a V750 or a Creo ?

What is the difference ?

Have you a LF scan form the V700 that you made again with the Creo ?

: ) that 250-pounder should be nice !!!

[Pere Casals]

I also did a resolution test from the Eversmart Pro and my test concluded that my unit could resolve 3500+ DPI optically even though my version is only rated at 2750 max.



Hello Paly,

That's information...

I may ask if your 3500 reading is in both vert and hor, problably it is better in one direction, because this perhaps official rating is 2750 of the worse axis.

If you look your posted USAF 1951: vertical bars does resolve way better than horizontal.

You have a good unit, as with LF lenses there is a variability with scanners.

Also I want to point this results for a Epson V750 scanner, to put things in context, V res better that H res:

http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/chapters/appendixc.htm

This points a maximum (of 5 readings) 2299 for Horizontal bars, and maximum (of 5 readings) of 2896 for Vertical bars.



Nikon LS5000 ED Scanner reach 4000 lines, in both directions but cannot do sheets : ).

[Pere Casals]

Also I want to point that a top notch LF glass can resolve 4000 dpi on film, , high contrast at extintion, but at its very sweet point, and in certain area of the circle, real shooting very rarely delivers more than 2000, and 1200 it's a lot.

This happens because not ideal aperture, shake, subject motion, not ideal distance, not in ideal plane of focus...

Some film (TMax 100) does not limit resolution, other like TMax 400 is not as good and can limit a technically perfect shot with superb lens.

If not high contrast numbers fall dramatically, and nothing of that has much importance.

[Pere Casals]

One thing more: Aztek recommends direct wet mounting on the bed.

Look last page: http://www.aztek.com/Products/EPSON%20KAMI%20Direction%20V750%20PRO.pdf

The image cannnot be compared directly to the one posted by Pali because pdf images do not shows outer shapes of the target.

Something to be tested...

[Jim Andrada]

I think the $100k Alexa didn't have 4K - need another option for that. I'm happy enough with my 2.5k Black Magic Cinema Cam and my Canon C100, but if someone has a spare Alexa (with lens) taking up valuable space and would like me to store it for them for a few years at no charge I'd be more than happy to oblige - I might even pay the shipping (both ways) to show what a nice guy I am. As long as the owner pays the insurance!

Hope to have the IQsmart2 up and running sometime in the next few weeks. Then I might make a couple of comparison scans before I put the 750 up for sale. Maybe Pere would like another one. One reason I want the IQsmart is to scan 4 X 5 etc at high resolution. Not because I want huge prints but because I always leave extra space around the main subject in camera and tend to crop pretty severely after the fact when I can stare at the print for a week or so and evaluate it as an image. Some prefer doing it on the groundglass, all I want to do in the field is get close and finalize later. Similar to why I want the 2.5K video cam to produce 1080 final output.

[Pere Casals]

I think the $100k Alexa didn't have 4K - need another option for that.


Hello Jim,

There is the Alexa 65 beast, open gate delivers 6560 x 3100 photosites, rental only, Max. frame rate capability: 60 fps (Open Gate) Recording time: 43 minutes @ 24 fps

The Amira Premium is 4k by paying a license https://www.arri.com/camera/amira/camera_details/amira-premium/subsection/technical_data/



Alexa Mini is 4K upsampled https://www.arri.com/camera/alexa_mini/camera_details/alexa-mini/subsection/technical_data/

Then this module upscales from 3.2k to 4k, interpolating... not true 4k for other models
https://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/cameras/camera_details/xr-module-upgrade/




I'm happy enough with my 2.5k Black Magic Cinema Cam and my Canon C100


I'd also be happy : )



Hope to have the IQsmart2 up and running sometime in the next few weeks. Then I might make a couple of comparison scans.


With that machine you cannot go wrong, just a professional tool for the future.

This would be nice !!! having the chance to compare both it would be great.

Anyway I'd like to see the results comparing with the V750, my theory is that image quality for BW it's the same, but as you crop "pretty severely" into 4x5" that advantage disapears as crop goes to the MF size, beyond 2400 dpi IQsmart2 has some advantage, I'd like to know how much in practice, and at what enlargement!!

One thing I suggest for the tests is to place V750 and IQsmart2 scans in PS layers, autoaling and then substract, then move curve, contrast etc until substraction result is black, then there will be equal tones to compare, as perceived sharpness may depend on contrast. The image used as a reference has advantage as the other is stretched, so the procedure is only useful to find the settings that make tones equal.

The other important test is dark Provia/Velvia slides...

[richardman]

Not that I can afford an IQSmart or IQDumb for that matters, but I would be interested in comparison for C-41 4x5 Portra on V7xx vs. anything else.

I have done drum scans on 2 negatives and printed them to 4 by 5 feet and they look great. The greatest difference is the shadow details and more tonal values. Resolution wise the drum scan is definitely better also

[Pali K]

IQDumb Lol Richard :) Thanks for the laugh - this thread needed it.

I am making some test scans but starting with Epson and Eversmart Pro for B&W. I went through the headache to setup the Epson so will try to make some color and drum comparisons in the future but it might take a little while. Will post at least the starting point tests tonight.

Fingers crossed that I don't get accused for not knowing how to scan but I think the effort is worth the debate.

Pali

[Pali K]

1600, 2500, and 4000 DPI resolution tests

Focus calibrated Epson V700 and straight negative on the Eversmart Pro test target scans. Starting foundation for the comparison is potentially the best case for Epson which is B&W and relative low 1600 DPI setting.

Epson V700 - Vuescan 1600 DPI - 16 BIT Tiff 2 Sample Scan - No Adjustments - Inverted in Photoshop
Eversmart Pro - 1600 DPI Scan - 8 BIT Tiff - No Adjustments - Inverted in Photoshop

http://i.imgur.com/f72CoER.jpg

[Pali K]

Epson V700 2500 DPI
http://i.imgur.com/Eh09o82.jpg

ES Pro 2500 DPI
http://i.imgur.com/SRSQRv7.jpg

Epson V700 4000 DPI
http://i.imgur.com/2VqemQf.jpg

ES Pro 4000 DPI
http://i.imgur.com/5TucjsV.jpg

Full resolution JPEGS here. LINK (http://imgur.com/a/nhnLB)

Argue all you want but please at least enjoy my awesome test target.

Pali

[Pere Casals]

Argue all you want but please at least enjoy my awesome test target.



You have an awesome test target !!!

Let's to argue something:

ES Pro at 4000 DPI scan has a bit more granularity comming from "in hardware" digital sharpening, I guess, if you take PS and apply sharpening to the V700 scan until you see the same granularity they will match.

Also both, at 4000 dpi, they are beyond their optical performance, anyway oversampling beyond optical resolution is useful, as sampling do not introduce more degradation.

[Kirk Gittings]

ES Pro at 4000 DPI scan has a bit more granularity comming from "in hardware" digital sharpening

By my tests done many years ago (and I have 0 interest in revisiting them), the ES Pro is actually resolving grain which the 700 is not capable of. Adding sharpening to the 700 will not match as it sharpens mush into grain clumps.

[Pere Casals]

Not that I can afford an IQSmart or IQDumb for that matters, but I would be interested in comparison for C-41 4x5 Portra on V7xx vs. anything else.

I have done drum scans on 2 negatives and printed them to 4 by 5 feet and they look great. The greatest difference is the shadow details and more tonal values. Resolution wise the drum scan is definitely better also

Portra 160

Looking datasheet page 11 it is not a very hi-res film, for portraits you seek not a very high resolution, but other things, it reach some 50 cycles/mm at 50% modulation transfer, so 2400 dpi may be more than correct to extract all optical information. Beyond 2400 dpi you are oversampling, not bad, but sterile.


Please look this 6x7 shot, scanned with a V750 that it's exactly the same than V700


http://www.paulbohman.com/blog/2011/10/mamiya-rz67-the-worlds-best-portrait-camera/

http://www.paulbohman.com/blog/2011/11/skin-tones-resolution-and-the-mamiya-rz67-pro-ii-with-kodak-portra-160/


I'm in love with those portraits... Portra 160 is a superb thing.... how I love it !!!!! DSLRs will need a century to match... at least 20 years from now. Only Fuji 160 can rival it.

[richardman]

Is Ektar 100 a more high-res film? I have "standardized" on Portra 160 and 400 since I am doing 3 portrait projects, but I do shoot landscape and other stuff occasionally. May be I should start a separate thread, but for 4x5 Color Neg scanning, if size, weight, and convenience of use are all factors e.g. drum may be least convenient to use and an IQSmart may be too heavy (130 lbs!!!), then wouldn't something like the V7xx/V8xx be the best low cost solution and something like the Flextight X1/X5 be the best high end solution?

I mean I can dream to own a Flextight, but a 130/200 lbs machine is just a bit much to consider...

[Jim Andrada]

IQsmart weighs 77 pounds. 130 (approx) is shipping weight. Eversmart on the other hand (well, make that two or three other hands - it's bigger and heavier.)

[richardman]

I see... I already have a behemoth (Epson 7900), so another beast, if if I have dough, is probably out

[ryanmills]

Thanks Pali! The fine detail is what I was most curious about. its fairly evident in the scans. Shooting portraits I really want that detail, kids with fair skin wash out quickly, just a lack of texture. I have had to meter slightly under if the sun is bright just because their skin acts like a reflector lol. I also hope it can handle the denser negs. The v700 really needs a kind of thin neg to keep detail well. It really rolls off with thick highlights. When I first got it i still had an enlarger and there were prints I could do in the darkroom that just did not scan as well. The photographer who recomended the creo likes thincker negitives. I prefer them myself just starting to understand why its worth it. Now I just have to decide how much i really need a second kidney.


richardman: I want to be clear I was never bashing the v700. Everything on my site was scanned on one. I get good results, just could be better. But were talking about a price jump from $600 to $6500. I think for most people the v700 is fine. In my case im selling work and i really want it exceptional. Despite what some in this thread think. With a difficult negative even at 16x20 you can start to see a difference, 40x60 it stands out, even with 4x5. I will say with a perfect negitive it does a damn good job. I have 6x7 shots that look better than 4x5 shots printed. Its all about the negitive and what the scanner can pull out.

[Jim Andrada]

Bigger house???

Just kidding. I have the same issue so I tore out the inside of my office closet and am building a cabinet for the IQsmart and the 4880. That's why I delayed taking delivery. Hope to have the cabinet finished by the end of this week.

[Pere Casals]

Is Ektar 100 a more high-res film? I have "standardized" on Portra 160 and 400 since I am doing 3 portrait projects, but I do shoot landscape and other stuff occasionally. May be I should start a separate thread, but for 4x5 Color Neg scanning, if size, weight, and convenience of use are all factors e.g. drum may be least convenient to use and an IQSmart may be too heavy (130 lbs!!!), then wouldn't something like the V7xx/V8xx be the best low cost solution and something like the Flextight X1/X5 be the best high end solution?

I mean I can dream to own a Flextight, but a 130/200 lbs machine is just a bit much to consider...

Portra and Ektar are engineered to have lower "resolution" than its silver grains can provide. Color clouds are bigger than they were in the past.

When minilabs became digital Noritsu, Fuji (Frontier), KIS, etc started printing discretization noise from the new scanning technology: that was "the future for sure".

The industry solution was making bigger color clouds. Kodak states that Portra and Ektar scans better and this is true, but they don't say it's because cloud size. IMHO. Anyway Portra results are atonishing. Film resolution charts is something overestimated.

Best solution for roll film is a dedicated roll film scanner, a discontinued Nikon 5000 throws unnecessary 4000 effective dpi a flatbed don't reach, the 9000 makes 120. Then there is the Plustek range. 135 likes good scanning, and a good scanist.

For sheets best solution for individuals is flatbeds, in LF optical performance beyond 2400 is absolutely irrelevant for LF. The other day I was laughing a lot because I found a link where Ken Rockwell also was saying it : ) Even Rockwell says it to every body.
In my opinion Flatbed has to be not too expensive, and send some rare jobs no flatbed can do to drum service.


Yes, I'm a strong supporter that V7xx/V8xx is as good for the job than machines with 10X cost, and that performance is more related to operator. If one has money to burn there are other nice options that make sense, of course. Personally I'd prefer an Ebony to caress it : ) chacun à son goût


Please everybody, look again this scan from Bohman done with a V750:

http://www.paulbohman.com/blog/2011/10/mamiya-rz67-the-worlds-best-portrait-camera/

Nice to obtain such a 3d sensation, that perfect highlight roll-off, that beauty !!!!!

Left eye do not look that sharp because browser image resize criminal behaviour of browsers, but look at the crop of the eye.

You can go with a negative to a drum service and ask for that result... but it's better to ask Bohman.

Or you can read what Bohman says here:



IMPORTANT: http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Zdeb



(If the V750 is good for Bohman it's more than perfect for me.)

[Pere Casals]

The v700 really needs a kind of thin neg to keep detail well. It really rolls off with thick highlights.

Even in the case of Jose Villa style, who set fire to film, V700 will peform perfectly with those top 3.0D densities.

Looking datasheet, page 5

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4051/e4051_es.pdf

Red channel can reach density 1.8D, green channel can reach 2.2D and blue 2.8D. When all layer (logarithmic addition) densities added it results some 3.0D.

At this density level Multi-Exposure is recommendable, as multi-exposure is usefull for dense velvia shadows it is also good for negative dense higlights, it works the counter, of course.

My experience is that the V750 depicts a perfectly highlight roll-off for Portra films to the extent the medium is capable.

Portra is very easy to scan because it's engineered to shine when processed/printed at the Digital Minilabs of that era.

Here it's well exlpained, IMHO: http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Zdeb see 1st and 3rd posts.

http://www.paulbohman.com/about

[Ari]

Pali, those are pretty awesome test targets; where did you get them?
In comparing the Epson vs the Creo, the test targets tell the whole story.

Like some others here, I never printed that large, maybe to 13x19 paper, but the Epson scans always seemed to be lacking.
For general-purpose use, and moderate-size prints, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend a v750 or v850, but if someone needs higher quality scans coupled with ease of use, the Creos and their ilk are the way to go.

I have no problem with Pere defending the Epsons, they do fill a need, but Creos and drum scanners are in a different league altogether.

[Pere Casals]

Pali, those are

I have no problem with Pere defending the Epsons, they do fill a need, but Creos and drum scanners are in a different league altogether.

In the past V750 defenders were well beaten, but here you have a tougher contender : )

Let's take it with some fun. Analyzing targets let's see as both perform exactly the same

No... the Creo is much the same than a V750, drums and X5 are in a different league.


Well, first what shows targets certifies that there is no practical difference.

Second, the ES Pro shows clear noise from "in hardware" sharpen, at 4000 dpi those optics cannot deliver that grain noise in any way, but only smoothness.

I took the time to prove it to you, by taking the smooth Epson image and adding sharpen with PS it appears just the same grain noise, also I normalized contrast to make look Epson scan it even better. If you see the lines at the 40 position... now the EPSON is better.

Single difference is that Epson do not make the in hardware sharpen to you have the option to do it in your way later.

I prefer the EPSON way, as to apply two times the sharpen may be worse than a single one.

So Epson Perform the same than the other, about resolution, any doubt now?

The smoking gun:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8728/27971003003_f0cf39912a_o.jpg

[Jim Andrada]

Took a look at the links Pere suggested. Meh!! Nice try

Oh well, as Pere said "Chacun à son goût/好きなように/As you like it". Might be time for the "ignore" button again. Great invention.

[Pere Casals]

Took a look at the links Pere suggested. Meh!! Nice try

Oh well, as Pere said "Chacun à son goût/好きなように/As you like it". Might be time for the "ignore" button again. Great invention.


:)

Hey !!! Jim... Imagine it... To caress an Ebony, kissing its titanium, smelling its bellows, well... even licking its GG... :cool:

Would one exchange this for couple of plastics that make weird noise when pressing a button ? :mad:


Or an Universal Heliar 36cm... the diffusion ring is clitoric... !!! :o


So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found?
The same old fears.
Wish you were here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j8mr-gcgoI

[Pali K]

I love that Epson scans have hidden information that only Pere can access.. oh wait it's just stolen from "the good scanner" which is not that good because Epson is just as good.

http://i.imgur.com/8ZSflK9.jpg

Pali

[Pere Casals]

I love that Epson scans have hidden information that only Pere can access.. oh wait it's just stolen from "the good scanner" which is not that good because Epson is just as good.

Pali

Le me check it, I've edited both and both were quite equal after performing best sharpening, it is possible I took one by the other because both were equal, let me 10min to check it.


PD: Sorry, this is the V700 right file:

153292

As you see as good as the good one. Click in it to enlarge.

Please check it you on your own with PS, and tell me if you do not obtain just the same result like me...

[Peter York]

An 8x10 and an Epson is a powerful combination. That said, my Cezanne smokes my Epson 4990.

My first impression when comparing the two was that the Epson scans using default software and medium sharpening were almost as good as the Cezanne. Now I know that I screwed up the focus in the shots I took, or the film sagged in the holder, or the wind was too strong, etc. No scanner can fix technical issues with the negative/positive, and I think these issues happen quite regularly to even the best large format photographers. So, given that you probably won't scan an 8x10 at resolutions greater than 2000 spi, the Epson is, as stated above, very good provided you solve scan height issues and newton ring issues.

Resolution is not the only factor at play, however. Tonality and color are superior to my eyes with the Cezanne. For myself this is most critical in B&W landscapes with subtle gradations in skies (which even my plastic yellow filter can muddy), and interestingly with shots taken w/ a soft-focus Verito where resolution is irrelevant.

When the Cezanne dies I will switch to digital.

[Pali K]

Pali, those are pretty awesome test targets; where did you get them?

Thank you Ari! I got it from Marin (username: LF_rookie_to_be (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/member.php?26057-LF_rookie_to_be)) who was selling these on the forum last year. I believe he has the original glass negative and may be able to make you a contact copy if you are interested. I used it to calibrate my enlarger but it also comes in handy for tests like these.

Pali

[Pere Casals]

An 8x10 and an Epson is a powerful combination. That said, my Cezanne smokes my Epson 4990.

My first impression when comparing the two was that the Epson scans using default software and medium sharpening were almost as good as the Cezanne. Now I know that I screwed up the focus in the shots I took, or the film sagged in the holder, or the wind was too strong, etc. No scanner can fix technical issues with the negative/positive, and I think these issues happen quite regularly to even the best large format photographers. So, given that you probably won't scan an 8x10 at resolutions greater than 2000 spi, the Epson is, as stated above, very good provided you solve scan height issues and newton ring issues.

Resolution is not the only factor at play, however. Tonality and color are superior to my eyes with the Cezanne. For myself this is most critical in B&W landscapes with subtle gradations in skies (which even my plastic yellow filter can muddy), and interestingly with shots taken w/ a soft-focus Verito where resolution is irrelevant.

When the Cezanne dies I will switch to digital.

Hello Peter,

From the 4990 to the V750 there is quite a remarcable difference, being the 4990 very good.

BW tonality is just the same, as it is calibrated IT8.

You can prove it to yourself. Take an old scan of the 4990, then scan again the negative with Cezanne.

Place both scans in layers in PS, auto-align and substract both layers, move contrast and curve until the result of the substraction is a near black image. This will show you that it cannot be any difference in BW tonality that cannot be solved with the simple controls we always touch.

If there is a difference was because ICC profile handling.

[Pere Casals]

color are superior to my eyes with the Cezanne.

With color you can also make same process than I showed it to you with BW.

Just take a V750 and Cezanne scan, layers, autoaling, then first convert color to BW and adjust curves until the substraction match to black image.

Then remove the BW conversion and touch colour controls until subtraction is black.

Also there are software that makes a conversion LUT from color of a image to another.

Color profile is about flavours, for V750 users, for portraits I'd recommend the settings shown by Bohman in the 3rd post of this link:

http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Zdeb

Regards.

[Peter De Smidt]

Pere,

A few points:

An IT8 target and calibration is not the ne plus ultra of color and tonal reproduction, just as CRI is a very limited characterization of the quality of a light. Higher end scanners use Hutch targets, and no doubt even those have limitations. While profiles can be helpful, it's even better to have an excellent native response that doesn't need as much tonal re-mapping to get a good result. For example, take two high quality monitors, say an NEC and an Eizo. Use their respective profiling systems. Now compare the monitors. The color and tonality will still differ between the two monitors.

Second, using auto-align layers will inherently cause a loss of detail. As the geometry of an image is adjusted there will always be pixels from the original positioning that will not make it completely to a new pixel location in the new geometry. This will cause averaging, which inevitably involves a loss of information. That's why it's best to modify image geometry as few times as possible, and also why it pays to get it right in camera or in the scan.

Third, you are dead wrong about the dmax capability of an Epson. Using it as a densitometer doesn't prove a thing, as for all you know it's a very crappy densitometer. A scan of a calibrated step wedge is the correct way to discover in-use dmax.

[Peter York]

I disagree w/ Pere as no amount of post could achieve the same tonality and color with the Cezanne. This should not be surprising as we are comparing a unit with a plastic lens, fixed focus and a cheap stepper motor. Given the constraints the performance is really quite good, but in my opinion in a distinctly lower league than the high-end flatbeds.

I trust the OP can form their own opinion.

[Pere Casals]

Pere,

A few points:

An IT8 target and calibration is not the ne plus ultra of color and tonal reproduction, just as CRI is a very limited characterization of the quality of a light. Higher end scanners use Hutch targets, and no doubt even those have limitations. While profiles can be helpful, it's even better to have an excellent native response that doesn't need as much tonal re-mapping to get a good result. For example, take two high quality monitors, say an NEC and an Eizo. Use their respective profiling systems. Now compare the monitors. The color and tonality will still differ between the two monitors.


IT8 targets are very good because from barcode calibration sofware downloads a file from the target manufactured with the pecise calibration for each cell of that individual target, as from one to one there are differences.

Problem comes from that the R,G and B dyes on the pixels of the linear sensor are different from one scanner to the other, as dyes for each color are different from Portra to Ektar, or from Canon to Nikon DSLRs.

No dye is better to the other, but they have a different look, and then one can like Imacon, or Cezanne, or Epson.

At the end what counts is post process and image enhancing software, IMHO there is a lot of unjustified hype to the "colors" of scanners, because the important thing is your color profiles for each film. As Jose Villa say.





Second, using auto-align layers will inherently cause a loss of detail. As the geometry of an image is adjusted there will always be pixels from the original positioning that will not make it completely to a new pixel location in the new geometry. This will cause averaging, which inevitably involves a loss of information. That's why it's best to modify image geometry as few times as possible, and also why it pays to get it right in camera or in the scan.


The reference layer do not lose detail, the other can, but this test is not about detail, but about tonality, just to check that there are no difference.




Third, you are dead wrong about the dmax capability of an Epson. Using it as a densitometer doesn't prove a thing, as for all you know it's a very crappy densitometer. A scan of a calibrated step wedge is the correct way to discover in-use dmax.

IT8 As a densitometer is perfect, I've the particular calibrated densities of my IT8, I've cut the calibrated BW strip and I scan it at the same time that the negative, 16 bit, then I compare and interpolate. Perfect. I fact I use it as the calibrated step wedge yo say.

[Pere Casals]

I disagree w/ Pere as no amount of post could achieve the same tonality and color with the Cezanne. This should not be surprising as we are comparing a unit with a plastic lens, fixed focus and a cheap stepper motor. Given the constraints the performance is really quite good, but in my opinion in a distinctly lower league than the high-end flatbeds.

I trust the OP can form their own opinion.

About the resolution performance it's clear by the USAF 1952 tests,

http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/chapters/appendixc.htm


2900 dpi in the vert axis and 2300 in the Hor, this is a lot in true terms of performance. real photography have shake, subjects moving, lenses at not ideal stop etc

About colors, you know it's all software, if you don't agree please review color theory, a LUT converts anything to anything, even film is perfectly emulated by VSCO and other. See this : http://www.vision-color.com/impulz/

what counts for color is having a good profile for each film we use, as Jose Villa says.

[Pere Casals]

Pali, have you tried to sharpen + contrast both targets to best point and compared ???

[Peter York]

Its not all matrix transformations (software). The information in the original matrix that is to be transformed (hardware) is very, very important.

[Pere Casals]

Its not all matrix transformations (software) but the information in the original matrix that is to be transformed.

http://www.vision-color.com/impulz-training-tutorials/


Peter, it's really important when we make the capture, then information is reduced in a extraordinary way, we have an spectral signal that arraved at each photosite, having a power value for each 1nm bandwidth (to say a interval), that signal has a SPD (spectral power distribution for each photosite) but then information is reduced to 3 numbers R,G and B for a píxel, or to 3 densities in a color film. This is a big loss of information.

For this reason emulating velvia from a portra shot is not easy, and if you make a portrait with Velvia 50 it will be very dificult to make him look like a "person", with PS...

But once color has been reduced to a tri-stimulus reading, say portra, yes... the impact of one scanner or another it can be near exactly matched with a conversion LUT. This is well known, and Hollywod has a big industry working just in it. So scanner has no importance for color, the important thing is your set of color profiles.

I've really been reading a lot about colorimetry (because job), I could be speaking about it during weeks, including organic process of it, I use spectrometer every week... look what that people do http://www.vision-color.com/impulz-training-tutorials/ it's amazing.

Then there is "Perfectly Clear" :)

[Peter York]

Its an even bigger loss of information with inferior hardware. I have an area on film that is 3 pixels. The high-end flatbed measures [(4,4,4) (4,4,5) (4,4,6)] whereas the Epson measures [(4,4,4) (4,4,4) (4,4,4)]. A LUT ensures that a 4 is a 4 is a 4 across scanners, but it cannot correct for the roughness of measurement in the Epson vs the high-end flatbed. Mashing in post gets you closer, but my eyes see the difference.

[Pere Casals]

Its an even bigger loss of information with inferior hardware. I have an area on film that is 3 pixels. The high-end flatbed measures [(4,4,4) (4,4,5) (4,4,6)] whereas the Epson measures [(4,4,4) (4,4,4) (4,4,4)]. A LUT ensures that a 4 is a 4 is a 4 across scanners, but it cannot correct for the roughness of measurement in the Epson vs the high-end flatbed. Mashing in post gets you closer, but my eyes see the difference.

You can scan 16 bits... until 3.0D V750 has a perfect color discrimination. Color resolution of V700 is way, way better than human eye can see.

Flatbeds have conceptual limitations that are equal for all models, the most evident is that when neg is scanned there is a glass in the middle, a not coated one, thus limiting microcontrast in certain circumstances. From V750 and Up there is not much a difference between models. Epson is cheaper because for them it's a subproduct of printers range, they manufacture hundred millions of scanners that are on the top of printers, and for them the industrialization of a scanner is cheap, also is to mantain a distribution chain that also serves consumer product range. For them a V850 is a plastic with a better sensor.

Creo people etc sell few units and every electronic development is a challenge to pay back. They have to show an edge to make people pay +5000, and sometimes all they can do is some in hardware sharpen and add some color Hype.

This is the crude reality.

These are good machines oriented to a minor Pro market that can pay and pay. But technically a V750 performs near the same, for very underexposed velvia... go to drum service, no faltbed will perform if you want to recover it well.

It will count more postprocess skills, than any advantage from Creo to V750.

Look again what Paul Bohman says, comparing with Imacon: http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Zdeb

In my opinion this is the crude reality.

[Peter York]

[QUOTE=Pere Casals;1342384]You can scan 16 bits... until 3.0D V750 has a perfect color discrimination..QUOTE]

Theoretically. Add in a plastic lens, cheap stepper motor, etc. etc. and reality is different. My eyes see a difference. That is my conclusion, and this is the last post I will make here.

I trust the OP can formulate their own opinion.

[Pere Casals]

Add in a plastic lens, cheap stepper motor, etc. etc


Expensive glasses people wear are also made of polycarbonate, an you can find polycarbonate elements in top notch Nikon lenses.

The stepper is not a limitation, as Vert resolution (related to stepper) of the V750 is 40% better than horizontal, (2900 vs 2300dpi) see http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/ch.../appendixc.htm



My eyes see a difference. That is my conclusion,

This is subjective, I'd liked to bring the discusion to technical facts as Pali did when he posted a scan comparative.



this is the last post I will make here. I trust the OP can formulate their own opinion.


Ok, I also think all is told, and everyone can judge, if he wants to read all that. :)



Anyway with cash to replace the V750 by something "I say" is equivalent one can buy:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/EBONY-NEW-WIDE-45-4x5-inch-camera-/141064954282?hash=item20d82061aa:g:TlcAAOxys6dSOHTs

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Voigtlander-Universal-Heliar-36cm-f-4-5-Lens-Compound-5-deardorff-810-board-712-/142060989126?hash=item21137eaac6:g:eAQAAOSwxYxUt670

and 5 boxes of this, for the cambo 8x10: :)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/FUJIFILM-CUT-Velvia-50-NP-8X10-20-Reversal-Film-Fujichrome-20xSheets-Japan-/191911378033?hash=item2caecf3c71:g:OEUAAMXQC-tTEMlb

[Kirk Gittings]

The stepper is not a limitation, as Vert resolution (related to stepper) of the V750 is 40% better than horizontal, (2900 vs 2300dpi) see

The stepper is a limitation (or was perhaps maybe the software has been reworked) as the length of the scan varied so much between passes that the software could not align the passes correctly in multipass and gave out of register results. And don't tell me about sample variation. I've tried it on 19 machines (where I teach that has 18 plus mine). This has been discussed much in the past. Pull your machine apart and look at the stepper and then compare it to an IQ or such and tell me that is a precision piece of machinery.

[ryanmills]

Dont bother replying to pere he is just trolling, most of what he says is false/made up. The rest is just copy/paste from google. As the original poster the other real photogs have answered my question :)

[Pere Casals]

Dont bother replying to pere he is just trolling, most of what he says is false/made up. The rest is just copy/paste from google. As the original poster the other real photogs have answered my question :)

Hello Ryan,

I'm to discuss with you what you would like about this topic, under the light of the technical arguments, and to advance, without personal involving and with the target of all of us improving our knowledge.

How are your pants ? Is it all right ? (just joking) :)

So if you want we can go, if you wnat to revisit any concept of what was said just "reply with quote" to that post and let's see it, I'm ready for action, are also your pants? (just jocking again :)

Seriously, let's go, I'm ready for action.

PD: The fact that you are a better photog than me do not makes you right in your statements. This is a technical discussion, baby.

[Pere Casals]

The stepper is a limitation (or was perhaps maybe the software has been reworked) as the length of the scan varied so much between passes that the software could not align the passes correctly in multipass and gave out of register results. And don't tell me about sample variation. I've tried it on 19 machines (where I teach that has 18 plus mine). This has been discussed much in the past. Pull your machine apart and look at the stepper and then compare it to an IQ or such and tell me that is a precision piece of machinery.

Hello Kirk,

Nice to discuss this with you.

I think in practice Multipass usage it's quite rare and not 1 of 1000 scans (to say a number) are made like this because time consumption and because single pass it quite good for any aplplication spaceially from MF and up, and for sheets scanning beyond 2400dpi is rare to me.

Anyway let's analyze it.

For single pass:

The stepper is not a limitation, as Vert resolution (related to stepper) of the V750 is 40% better than horizontal, (2900 vs 2300dpi) see http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/ch.../appendixc.htm

This V res better than H res it can also be observed in the ES Pro, if you look post #64 by Mr. Pali K and see the USAF 1951 target scan posted, it makes clear that at extintion vertical bars are well detected in 3 figures smaller than in the Horizontal bars case.


For multiple pass:

Both in the case of Creo and in the case of V750 the mechanical transmission it cannot repeat 1/3200 of an inch in say 4 inches , this would be 0,008 mm in 100mm, 1/10000 range, precission of that range are possible in "r G1 Mini SCARA robots" have repeatabilities down to 0.005mm. A multipass at lower 1200 dpi perhaps can perform better, I've not measured it and I don't know. I've you have experience with that I'd like to know more details and to know if I'm mistaken.

Anyway when I tested super-resolution that can be obtained from multi-pass, I've did it via PS upon these instructions:

http://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-pr...ith-photoshop/

Because PS auto-align/stitching... in this way mechanical precission is not a factor.


Best regards,

PD: I'm proud to discuss this with you, I'm happy I can discuss technically all that with somebody. Ill be here again in 8 hours, here it's late.

[Jim Andrada]

Just added him to my ignore list. It's easy and it works. Highly recommend doing it.

[Pere Casals]

Just added him to my ignore list. It's easy and it works. Highly recommend doing it.

Jim, this is not necessary, gentlemen can discuss with arguments, and arguments can be enlightened with logics, mathematics and links to science facts, today we can access by the net to a lot of knowledge, it's just taking some time to proof things.

Anyway sticking to the "to my eyes image is better", this is a poor argument. And get angry because it is not convincing, this is of low maturity and low ethics.

Regards.

[Pere Casals]

The stepper is a limitation (or was perhaps maybe the software has been reworked) as the length of the scan varied so much between passes that the software could not align the passes correctly in multipass and gave out of register results. And don't tell me about sample variation. I've tried it on 19 machines (where I teach that has 18 plus mine). This has been discussed much in the past. Pull your machine apart and look at the stepper and then compare it to an IQ or such and tell me that is a precision piece of machinery.

Also, I'd like to add that multipass has a problem, film heating may make it move, as illumination heats it the film expands a lot beyond pixel precission. For this reason blending images in PS with auto-align and stitching it can be a better choice.

Multipass may work worse with high densite negatives because they take more heat that well transparent ones that do retain less heat. Also different densities in the film leads to irregular heating. I don't know if better holders and wet mount would help.

[koraks]

Anyway sticking to the "to my eyes image is better", this is a poor argument.
When it comes to photography, judging by eye is in my opinion an excellent criterion, especially if you combine it with some knowledge of what you are seeing so you can interpret it.
When I'm looking at a photograph, I'm not admiring mathematics or physics. I'm seeing a picture. I have the impression throughout this thread that you're missing this crucial aspect of photography.

[Pere Casals]

When it comes to photography, judging by eye is in my opinion an excellent criterion, especially if you combine it with some knowledge of what you are seeing so you can interpret it.
When I'm looking at a photograph, I'm not admiring mathematics or physics. I'm seeing a picture. I have the impression throughout this thread that you're missing this crucial aspect of photography.


Hello Koraks,

I completely agree with you in the sense that at the end one have to judge by his eye what is good for him, and also from technical information to better know.


But... look, when we technically discuss Sironar-N vs Sironar-S saying "to my eyes image is better" this is a poor argument in front of what the MTF charts say in Lppmm, specially if you want to know at what enlargement the better negative sharpness will be noticed (by 100 sight scored people...).


There are much people there that can read this, beyond OP, and they perhaps would like to know if spending $6000 instead $500 will be noticed in a 1m BW print from an LF negative.


Then it's when it comes the controversy, even insulting language. I don't know why it has to be like this...


My proposition, beyond the also good opinions, is to go to scientific facts to state (or not) that a digital print from that Creo cannot be distingushed, even by his author, from a print made from a V750 in a given situation, for example Tri-X 4x5 2400dpi scan 1m print, and 8x10, 1200dpi scan 2m print.


Also I state that tonality can be the same, if we calibrate the V750 IT8 with EZMonaco (bundled Silverfast version don't do it) as we calibrate IT8 the IQSmart2. Or in any case both images can be sustracted in PS layers to find corresponding curve settings to make both match.

Then the "to my eye" becomes a poor argument, because we can scan USAF 1951 targets at 1200 dpi and see the difference.

If anybody want to discuss it technically, I'm well open to do it in a polite and constructive way. Everybody can be mistaken and everybody can learn from others. Also I'm open to discuss all my previous statements, they can be quoted. And I'd like to discuss about it without presonal "superiorities", searching truth from proactive technical dialog.

Best Regards.

[Pali K]

This is what Eversmart Pro can do in 10 minutes. Mind you, this is not even calibrated and the colors are pretty much accurate. Precision is on a different level - the scanner pretty much needs no calibration and I think that in itself speaks to it's ability and quality.

Quick Specs:
Eversmart Pro Scan
2000 DPI - 8 BIT Tiff - No Sharpness - Auto End Points

1st image has a slight adjustments in Photoshop (leveled horizon, quick dust spot removal, and levels for black point) to match the slide. The bottom two crops are straight from the scanner scans prior to these adjustments.

http://i.imgur.com/ZWHiNTd.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/3sh7rOg.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/LXFCFlS.jpg

I did try to scan this on the Epson too and everything was just different and not for the better. The overall color tones were not only muted but also "mushed" with each other where orange became more red because of surrounding reds and etc. I also found that the Epson files don't edit the same way. Levels and other adjustments seem to behave more organically on the ES Scan vs. the Epson scan. I know most of this is subjective but it's the only way for me to describe it. Below is a comparison scan with the Epson AFTER I spent 15 minutes trying to make the Epson match the ES. The ES scan in this image is straight from the scanner.

http://i.imgur.com/gq3QpGc.jpg

I am sure the Epson file can be edited better but my main point here is that things just work with the ES and they look spectacular without any fuss. With color scanning workflow, it will be easier to post-process slides from Epson scan because you have a positive visual reference. In fairness to Epson, it seems to do much better with color for color negative scans vs Velvia and Provia slides. However, there is still a noticeable difference between the two and ES gets things to my final stage quicker.

DISCLAIMER: I was reluctant to post this information because of the potential deviation again but finally decided to post it. My hope is that this will provide additional reference information for those who read this thread and are interested in a basic comparison between the Epson and the higher-end flatbeds. I do not claim to be an expert in scanning for either scanner.

Regards,

Pali

[Peter De Smidt]

Thank you for posting, Pali.

[Jim Andrada]

Thanks Pali. Good information as always.

I certainly noticed the vastly better rendition in the sky as well as the openness of the shadows.

[Ari]

Thanks, Pali; I also like to highlight the ease of use of the ES Pro. It makes a huge difference for me in quality of scans and it helps keep the frustration level to a minimum.

[ryanmills]

Thanks Pali! Don't worry, I like most wont be bothering to respond to the other guy who will come to rant nonsense again. What you described is what I see in my Epson vs a friends IQSmart2, it just lacks the fine detail. I just wish it did not cost $6500 to get that fine detail :)


I also spent some time testing Silverfast 8 AI again over the weekend. Its exactly what I said before, multiple exposure is hype. At least on an epson v700. Not only is there zero difference when scaning as a full range digital transparency between ME and single pass mode. Its also forcing points. My raw Epson scans have a noticeable increase in shadow depth because of silver fast auto setting white and black points where the epson uses the true range. Further testing using the silverfast auto exposure and levels also resulted in an identical image that again had less range.

[Pali K]

You are welcome Peter, Jim, Ari and Ryan! :)

[Christopher Barrett]

Well... my V850 just arrived. I'd been meaning to pick up a decent flatbed for proofing and I did a quick scan of this neg which I have previously drum scanned. This is with the Epson software and minimal adjustment (I just made sure the levels weren't clipping info). I'm pretty damn impressed.

Full Disclosure: I also just made myself and the wife some pretty stiff margaritas.

https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13248611_10209023649963497_3657478409585718948_o.jpg

[Pere Casals]

1st image has a slight adjustments in Photoshop (leveled horizon, quick dust spot removal, and levels for black point) to match the slide. The bottom two crops are straight from the scanner scans prior to these adjustments.



Hello Pali,

First note that Silverfast SE and SE plus need EZMonaco calibration to get a ICC. while Silverfast ai supports calibration.

Color Accuracy can be well stated by scanning the IT8 target, if you do that you'll see that both scanners are very accurated after calibrating.

Some scanners provide a slight image enhancing action over what it is scanned, it is hiden in some options, and then it looks better. This may be done in the same way Creo applies a in hardware sharpening mask as it was showm in Post #90, (after my mistake posting a wrong image in post #89 )

In my opinion scanner has to deliver the rawest posible imformation, without sharpening or hidden color enhancing.



Still, because particular dyes on semsor's pixels the image can look slightly different form one scanner to the other.

Color results of 2 scanners can be matched near 100% with LUT software, I've been using this: http://3dlutcreator.com/ http://www.brizsoft.com/lut-converter/

Any professional color handling implies dealing with LUTs, and the scanner direct output is irrelevant, the rawest is the better.


Anyway with 2 clicks with PS now the V750 looks better inside square, at least the clouds (where I focussed) are more Velvia style.

153524

Regards

[Pere Casals]

quick scan of this neg which I have previously drum scanned. This is with the Epson software and minimal adjustment (I just made sure the levels weren't clipping info). I'm pretty damn impressed.



Well said, looking for what levels can clip it is very important, the automatic setting it is useful to get a correct image without editing, but it can clip shadow/highlight detail.

[Pere Casals]

Anyway the Creo can have a slight advantage over the V750 with deep velvia shadows in complicated slides.

But for that job only a drum or an x5 (DMax 4.9D) will perform:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1456/26276532831_214f87ef25_k.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkin/26276532831/in/faves-125592977@N05/


The advantage of the V750 is that you still have additional $5000 in your pocket to get drum service for that complicated cases.

[Christopher Barrett]

Continuing to work my V850 and I'm impressed with this cheap flatbed. Here's a comparison against my Howtek 4500, running DPL. The Drum scanner really shines in the shadows and I live for that little bit of extra image quality. For a lot of users, though, the Epson is pretty damn good. This is from a Kodak VC 160 neg (6x12 roll film shot on the 4x5).

I love my drum scanner. I mean it's a pain in the ass and slow as dirt, so I must... but I can genuinely see the attraction of the Epson. I've never used the Creo. I'd probably love it.

Howtek 4500 / Digital Photo Lab
https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13923434_10209039616122641_4113729263145971715_o.jpg

Epson V850 / Silverfast
https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13652986_10209039616002638_7180387457912153528_o.jpg


-CB

[Pere Casals]

Continuing to work my V850 and I'm impressed with this cheap flatbed. Here's a comparison against my Howtek 4500, running DPL.

-CB


Hello Christopher,

Let me comment a bit these images.

The main difference I see is gamma correction. As it is negative film then shadows come from low densities areas, that are no challenge so both have to be equivalent, but the drum has better microcontrast there (little house in the darkness). I don't know if you used auto-exposure that automaticly can clip a bit.

By using multi-exposure in the V850 also the strong light point can improve a bit, as it is a high density area (around 3.0D) on film. In the V850 scan I see concentric circles from the light point, this can be avoided by saving a 16bit/channel TIFF file.

With some post process both results can match a lot, anyway the luxurius drum footprint is noticeable.


Regards

[Jim Andrada]

Of course I'd vote for the Howtek scan. But, as you say, the Epson is certainly capable of nice results.

[Ari]

The Epson has its place, it fills a need and a void. I got by quite nicely with several of them for 10 years.
The Creos are quite affordable, given the quality behind the hefty price tag, and having Michael Streeter's customer support is alone worth half the price of the scanner.
I was initially looking for a drum scanner, but I dreaded the set-up time and prep work, so I'm glad I stumbled onto the Creo.

[Pere Casals]

The Epson has its place, it fills a need and a void. I got by quite nicely with several of them for 10 years.
The Creos are quite affordable, given the quality behind the hefty price tag, and having Michael Streeter's customer support is alone worth half the price of the scanner.
I was initially looking for a drum scanner, but I dreaded the set-up time and prep work, so I'm glad I stumbled onto the Creo.


The Epson has its place, but it is a very big place, the V850 for $1000...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Epson-B11B224201-Perfection-V850-Pro-Flatbed-Scanner-6400-dpi-Optical-/311670125378?hash=item4890fcb342:g:VasAAOSwaB5XpDUG

V850 covers until there is a clear need for a drum service that no flatbed can perform.


The Creo is also a good option, well build, A3 scan area... customer support... a good machine that you'll enjoy for sure. For me, I find it too much expensive, and I see no advantage, as at the end for Velvia deep shadows I have to go drum or x5 service anyway.

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Ari. After spending a day with Lenny Eiger i concluded that the drum scan workflow wasn't for me so I started looking into a big flatbed instead. I do a lot of MF and I plan to make up a mask that will take a couple of rolls of 120 cut into 2 to 4 photo strips and separate them in PS, and set up a template that I just have to tweak a bit each time - this will be a big improvement over having to adjust each frame into the right position on the Coolscan

[Ari]

Hi Jim,
You can use a mask with strips cut out for your negs, then scan the whole bed.
After that, it's easy to tell the machine which negs to scan, you just have to come back a bit later when it's done.
If you need a fresh Creo mask, I have a couple of spares, but we should first make sure it'll fit on your IQsmart's registration pins.

[Jim Andrada]

Thanks Ari.

What you said is exactly what I'm planning to do. I think I can get two rolls on the bed at once. In principle I can define a separate (virtual) area for each neg so each one comes in as a separate file, just not sure if there's a limit to the number of such areas. I get 15 negs per roll on my 645 so if I can define 30 separate areas I should be good to go. Right now with the Coolscan I have to physically adjust the film in the carrier for each frame so I don't scan everything. Really want to fix that.

[Pere Casals]

Hi Ari. After spending a day with Lenny Eiger i concluded that the drum scan workflow wasn't for me so I started looking into a big flatbed instead. I do a lot of MF and I plan to make up a mask that will take a couple of rolls of 120 cut into 2 to 4 photo strips and separate them in PS, and set up a template that I just have to tweak a bit each time - this will be a big improvement over having to adjust each frame into the right position on the Coolscan


Hello Ari,

What are you saying ??? are you to trade a 4000dpi true optical performance from the coolscan for something way inferior??

MF is not LF, and you can need every drop of optical performance.

This will be clearly seen with big enlargementes, I'd say beyond 20" if a sharp negative there. For sure a 1m print, seen close up, will show a clear, clear, clear better result from the Plustek.

In fact, a MF intensive photopgraph has no other good choice, if you had at home the best drum, the best flatbed and a Plustek 120 you may end with something like the Plustek: The drum mounting is too much work, and the "best flatbed" would perform clearly worse.


If you are to throw the coolscan to trash... please make me a gift :)

Regards

[Evanjoe610]

Hi Jim and Ari,

The IQSmart mask are slightly different in its pin registration over the Eversmart Pro mask.

You might want to ask Michael Streeter for a plain mask or a Pre-Cut Assorted Mask.

I find that these mask will eventually go brittle over time.

Evan



Thanks Ari.

What you said is exactly what I'm planning to do. I think I can get two rolls on the bed at once. In principle I can define a separate (virtual) area for each neg so each one comes in as a separate file, just not sure if there's a limit to the number of such areas. I get 15 negs per roll on my 645 so if I can define 30 separate areas I should be good to go. Right now with the Coolscan I have to physically adjust the film in the carrier for each frame so I don't scan everything. Really want to fix that.

[Jim Andrada]

Thanks Evan

I asked Michael to put a few spare uncut masks in with the scanner when he ships it.

[Peter De Smidt]

What are you saying ??? are you to trade a 4000dpi true optical performance from the coolscan for something way inferior??



This wasn't directed at me. Nonetheless, I had a Coolscan for years. It was a fine scanner, but was inferior to a good pro flatbed, which I also have. You like to make wild claims and then 'discuss' the issue by communicative avalanche. This methods makes it quite unlikely for experienced people to take what you say seriously.

[Ari]

Hi Jim and Ari,

The IQSmart mask are slightly different in its pin registration over the Eversmart Pro mask.

You might want to ask Michael Streeter for a plain mask or a Pre-Cut Assorted Mask.

I find that these mask will eventually go brittle over time.

Evan

Thanks, Evan, very helpful of you.
Jim, to scan a roll of 645 film, I use my 8x10 mask, and lay the neg strips inside the 8x10 area.
I make a pre-scan, then I individually select each negative and press "Scan Active Crops".
The machine will scan each negative in turn.

It's probably better to mask off each neg, if you can, but I've not seen any light leaks doing it this way.

[Jim Andrada]

That's sort of what I'm thinking of doing , ie cut several windows each big enough for a 2 to 4 photo strip of film and then define a bunch of templates with windows set for 6 x 4.5, 6 x 7, etc

By the way, I really recommend adding Pere to your "ignore" list. It makes it so much easier to pay attention to the real discussion and not get distracted by the irrelevant drivel.

[Christopher Barrett]

This wasn't directed at me. Nonetheless, I had a Coolscan for years. It was a fine scanner, but was inferior to a good pro flatbed, which I also have. You like to make wild claims and then 'discuss' the issue by communicative avalanche. This methods makes it quite unlikely for experienced people to take what you say seriously.

I had a Coolscan 9000. Was unimpressed and sold it fairly quickly.

[Pere Casals]

I had a Coolscan 9000. Was unimpressed and sold it fairly quickly.

And the Plustek 120 ? What do you think ?

[Pere Casals]

This wasn't directed at me. Nonetheless, I had a Coolscan for years. It was a fine scanner, but was inferior to a good pro flatbed, which I also have. You like to make wild claims and then 'discuss' the issue by communicative avalanche. This methods makes it quite unlikely for experienced people to take what you say seriously.


Ok, no comunicative avalanche... no a wild claim

Please see this test:

http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/chapters/appendixc.htm

A LS5000 delivers 4000 dpi with USAF 1951 target, 4000 being the best of 5 measures. What flatbed can reach 4000 dpi performance with a USAF 1951 target?

[Peter De Smidt]

A Screen Cezanne can reach over 5000 spi, or greater, according to the Seybold comparison test. http://www.kar.fi/Skannaus/pixelperfect1_part2_seybold_1999_vol28_nro11.pdf That has been my finding as well, using an Edmund Scientific chrome on glass target.

[Pere Casals]

That's sort of what I'm thinking of doing , ie cut several windows each big enough for a 2 to 4 photo strip of film and then define a bunch of templates with windows set for 6 x 4.5, 6 x 7, etc

By the way, I really recommend adding Pere to your "ignore" list. It makes it so much easier to pay attention to the real discussion and not get distracted by the irrelevant drivel.


I would like you consider a different way to do things, this is analyzing the statements and arguments, separating controversy from technical facts.

If you want some credibility just quote something wrong what I said and reply it. I've made dozens of posts in this thread, something false or ridiculus may be there.

So I invite you to discredit me with arguments.

Best Regards

[Pere Casals]

A Screen Cezanne can reach over 5000 spi, or greater, according to the Seybold comparison test. http://www.kar.fi/Skannaus/pixelperfect1_part2_seybold_1999_vol28_nro11.pdf That has been my finding as well, using an Edmund Scientific chrome on glass target.



Here it says interesting things http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-57047.html

Here "Peter De Smidt" said (2009): "A scan of a 4x5 inch piece of film with a Cezanne will involve interpolation at 5000 and 3000 dpi. 2100 would give you straight optical resolution, assuming you put the long side of the film parallel to the front of the scanner. (8000 element ccd over 3.75 inches = 2133 spi."

"the Seybold reports" say more...

I don't know in what way the Cezanne scans smaller 120 format, but if with 4x5 it delivers 2100... this is less than the V750 effective performance.

This is contradictory or I didn't understant what I read... or perhaps it is another model...


The 5300 dpi information of your link is pure inflated commercial information, IMHO. It reads "Scanner Specifications" . http://www.kar.fi/Skannaus/pixelperfect1_part2_seybold_1999_vol28_nro11.pdf


The link I provide http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/chapters/appendixc.htm is about a real test made by a museum.


5000 dpi can be delivered by a drum or X5, not by a flatbed, I guess. With Epson V750 manufacturer also says a lot, but its is 2896 the best of 5 Vert measures... And Hor is worse, while EPSON says SPECIFICATIONS

Optical Resolution: 4,800 DPI, entire bed, or 6,400 DPI in an area 5.9 x 10. As far from reality than those Cezanne 5300dpi.

"the Seybold reports ... hmmmm ... much better would be if someone of us had checked with a USAF 1951",

Isn't it?

The Cezanne may match in practice and subjectively what a coolscan can do? yes, I guess...

[Pali K]

Please spend a day with Creo, Scitex, Kodak, Screen, or a Scanview flatbed. Pick the worst one by your own definition and then you can come back and tell us that they are no better than an Epson. If you don't need convincing then just make a note that neither do we.

Regards, Pali

[Peter De Smidt]

This is contradictory or I didn't understant what I read... or perhaps it is another model...

That's right. You didn't understand what you read. That limit is only the limit of one pass at a specific scanning width. You can make as many passes of smaller strips as you'd like, and they're easy to combine. You can scan an 8x10 at 6000 spi if you really want. Some of the scanners stitch these strips automatically.




The 5300 dpi information of your link is pure inflated commercial information, IMHO. It reads "Scanner Specifications" . http://www.kar.fi/Skannaus/pixelperfect1_part2_seybold_1999_vol28_nro11.pdf

Again, you didn't read carefully. The article posted both manufactures specifications, which, btw., you've been happy to post as Gospel in other threads (Epson 4.0D!), and measured results.




"the Seybold reports ... hmmmm ... much better would be if someone of us had checked with a USAF 1951",

Isn't it?[/B]



That's exactly how the authors of the Seybold Report determined resolution. And, as I said, that's how I confirmed it. This is what I used to do so: http://www.edmundoptics.com/test-targets/resolution-test-targets/1951-usaf-glass-slide-resolution-targets/58198/

[Pere Casals]

That's right. You didn't understand what you read. That limit is only the limit of one pass at a specific scanning width. You can make as many passes of smaller strips as you'd like, and they're easy to combine. You can scan an 8x10 at 6000 spi if you really want. Some of the scanners stitch these strips automatically.





You should understand than any scanner can do do multipass (or at least we can auto-aling+stitching in PS ) Mixing multipass in optical performance with a scanner and not including it in the other to compare scanners is not fair.

A Cezanne is not by far a 5000 dpi machine, and as professional you know it very well, if it was like this drums would make little sense.

In post #109 I talk about multi-pass:

For multiple pass:

Both in the case of Creo and in the case of V750 the mechanical transmission it cannot repeat 1/3200 of an inch in say 4 inches , this would be 0,008 mm in 100mm, 1/10000 range, precission of that range are possible in "r G1 Mini SCARA robots" have repeatabilities down to 0.005mm. A multipass at lower 1200 dpi perhaps can perform better, I've not measured it and I don't know. I've you have experience with that I'd like to know more details and to know if I'm mistaken.

Anyway when I tested super-resolution that can be obtained from multi-pass, I've did it via PS upon these instructions:

http://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-pr...ith-photoshop/

Because PS auto-align/stitching... in this way mechanical precission is not a factor.






you've been happy to post as Gospel in other threads (Epson 4.0D!), and measured results.


No Gospel, Peter: in Post #35 I say:

"Multi-exposure has to be used with V750 to obtain acceptable detail in dense areas. This is something also used with Drums.

Even V700 measures until 4.0D, it can only work well until 3.0D, with multiexposure it works well until 3.4D.

From 3.4D to some 3.6D it can work well if image stitching also used later. Perhaps wetmount improves an additional 0.1D, or 0.2D, I've not well measured it."

Note that Silverfast SE version included with V700 do not support multi-exposure, while SE Plus version V750 included does. So with V700 you have to install SE Plus to go Velvia. "Plus" It also has Multi-sampling to reduse noise in dense areas.





That's exactly how the authors of the Seybold Report determined resolution. And, as I said, that's how I confirmed it. This is what I used to do so: http://www.edmundoptics.com/test-targets/resolution-test-targets/1951-usaf-glass-slide-resolution-targets/58198/

A Cezanne is not by far a 5000 dpi machine, and you know it, don't reiterate in that argument because you discredit yourself. A Hassy X5 it is, also a drum with 3um aperture it is. You should be aware about the difference of an X5 or Drum over a Cezanne.

[Pere Casals]

Please spend a day with Creo, Scitex, Kodak, Screen, or a Scanview flatbed. Pick the worst one by your own definition and then you can come back and tell us that they are no better than an Epson. If you don't need convincing then just make a note that neither do we.

Regards, Pali



Hello Pali,

I only use the V750 and X5 service.

I know very, very well when a X5 makes a difference or not to the V750, depending on density, negative size and target enlargement.

Note that it is possible that in some conditions X5 and V750 have results that cannot distingushed. We can discuss again in what conditions.

Single difference is that X5 or Drum always delivers better microcontrast than any flatbed, because less stray light than in flatbeds, because device class nature (Velvia 3.8D shadows apart).


I'm prety sure that color and grey tonality are a matter of LUTs and post. And about perceibed resolution the important thing is using Bicubic for reductions and adjusting sharpenning, note that some scanners sharpen in hardware or by the host driver. The best, to me, it is no default sharpenning, I'll do it on my own with PS where I've a lot of choices.


One thing I've noted with V750 is for LF/BW 1200dpi I have to scan 2400 and make the pixel binning in PS, using "Bicubic, Optimal for reductions" I guess that X5 is more intelligent and makes a Bicubic pixel binning by default from higher resolution, while V750 delivers straight 1200dpi.

The X5 1200 dpi is not sharper than the v750 1200 dpi, but it looks sharper.... until with V750 I make a 1200 dpi from 2400 dpi with bicubic binning.

I think this is something a lot of people is not aware... and then it may confuse things, and make them spend a lot of cash.


Anyway the Creo is also a good option, if one uses it a lot and $5000 is not much money for him.

With the V750 I'd do mostly the same, and have a budget for X5 or drum service when it makes a difference.

Regards

[interneg]

Note that it is possible that in some conditions X5 and V750 have results that cannot distingushed. We can discuss again in what conditions.



Only if the X5 operator is clueless & does things that enable the test to be skewed to suit your pre-existing agendas.

In my experience as a printer, a 4x5 scanned on an X5 at 2040ppi (the max optical resolution available for 4x5) with appropriate settings will happily blow a v700 scan out of the water, no matter the 'resolution'. There is a lot more to the quality of a scanner than the manufacturer's claimed Dmax & resolution. Anyway, a high contrast resolution target is only part of the story when it comes to the performance of a scanner.

More to the point, the X5 is essentially a CCD flatbed, just with a different film holder/ feed mechanism.

iQSmart/ Cezanne/ etc scanners are all far better than an Epson in just about every metric that matters.

Given the choice between going to 8x10 & getting a high end flatbed or drum scanner, I'd always get the best possible scanner.

[Peter De Smidt]

Jim, you gave good advice!

[Pere Casals]

Only if the X5 operator is clueless & does things that enable the test to be skewed to suit your pre-existing agendas.

I don't sell scanners nor scanning services, my only agenda is separating true performance from hype. Others here have commercial interests, not me.




In my experience as a printer, a 4x5 scanned on an X5 at 2040ppi (the max optical resolution available for 4x5) with appropriate settings will happily blow a v700 scan out of the water, no matter the 'resolution'.


Specs are here, I viewed it a lot of times. http://www.hasselblad.com/scanners/flextight-x5

X5 will blow the V700 with dense film specially if you use Epson Scan software or bare Silverfast SE, using SE Plus (V750/850 included) version allows multiexposure and multisampling and then V700 improves a lot. Then in some cases the X5 will blow Epson, Creo etc just in the same way.




There is a lot more to the quality of a scanner than the manufacturer's claimed Dmax & resolution. Anyway, a high contrast resolution target is only part of the story when it comes to the performance of a scanner.

More to the point, the X5 is essentially a CCD flatbed, just with a different film holder/ feed mechanism.


Yes, there is stray light in the optic system, a drum has none, al flatbeds have some, and X5 has much less stray light because Flextight system, thus aproaching to drums, even the manufacturer rates it al 4.9D it won't work well at such a density, but note the film with more density we normally have is Velvia/Provia at 3.8DMax




iQSmart/ Cezanne/ etc scanners are all far better than an Epson in just about every metric that matters.


I don't think so, it may be a slight difference. No difference in color / grey tonality, at the end sRGB triangle is the limitation, Velvia has beautiful colors that are not in the sRGB or AdobeRGB space.

IMHO it's far better a new V850 and having a budget for drum service for the shots that any flatbed can deal with.




Given the choice between going to 8x10 & getting a high end flatbed or drum scanner, I'd always get the best possible scanner.

No, not at all. It depends on the job. Not at least for Velvia deep shadows. Look my post #124.

X5 and drums deliver higher microcontrast quality because lower stray light that cannot be later well corrected by soft. Some BW shots deserve a Drum/X5, for other it is irrelevant.


About comparing V750 vs high end solution I full agree with what Paul Bohman says here, and with his working method:

http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Zdeb

Look... $1000 in a new V850 and the rest in the pocket !!! If the scan result is not good just improve your skills, because it's not the scanner.

[Pere Casals]

Jim, you gave good advice!

Dear Peter,

In the flatbed range from V750 and up it's much more the scanist and the post process skills than the hardware, until you go to high end drum/x5 segment, that it is another league.

You said about Gospel and I pointed you Post #35.

If you have no arguments you may go to personal atack, like Ari and Ryan.

I've dozens of posts on this topic, just quote something really wrong or ridiculus, this is the way you can discredit me. Are you able?

Look Post #30.

Best Regards.

[Kirk Gittings]

If you are including post processing in assessing how good a scanner can do you are not comparing scanners. Any post you apply to one scanner can be applied to another making the results just that much "better".

As I said near the beginning of this thread, your tone is insulting. It hasn't changed. You invite hostility. It appears you prefer to argue more than making images. Live with the atmosphere you have created or change.

[Pere Casals]

If you are including post processing in assessing how good a scanner can do you are not comparing scanners. Any post you apply to one scanner can be applied to another making the results just that much "better".

As I said near the beginning of this thread, your tone is insulting. It hasn't changed. You invite hostility. It appears you prefer to argue more than making images. Live with the atmosphere you have created or change.


Hello Kirk,

Thanks for your calmed tone.

I just try to separate scanner from processing, not to mix it:


Comparing to a DSLR one can save RAWs and process that later or one can adjust the DSLR to make it deliver a result: Auto WB, Sharpen, picture control vivid, portrait etc...

With scanners it hapens the same, some models do apply sharpenning in hardware or in the driver, I showed that in post #90, also some models have "adaptative contrast", etc and color enhancing capabilities.



My position is that the scanner has to deliver a result as raw a possible to the PC, to be later processed with powerful software tools. This include LUTs,profiles, and custom sharpenning. For this reason I say that post process skills are so important, much more than scanner capability of auto-adjusting images. (Yes... this invite hostility... )

V750 is a scanner that delivers very raw results, for this reason I say that by improving post process skills one can get same results than with a more expensive device that pre-cooks the image to justify its price. (also this invite hostility... )

Best scanner operators I know may adjust multi-sample and multi-exposure but never will allow the scanner to sharpen or to enhance color.

With PS we can do sharpen with a lot of choices, and each escene, or even each part of the scene needs a specific sharpenning technique, for example algorithm applied to eyes is different to the one applied to the chick. Even "Perfectly Clear" software do that, but not the scanner, so if the scanner does it then it can limit what you can do later with PS.


About tone

I invite hostility because I defend opinions that don't like to high rank experts and they cannot rebate that with technical facts. But I'm not hostile at all.

Here there are very good photographers (much better than me) that feel insulted if smebody challenge what they think. There are "ranks". What it is true is that I've replied with insulting tone to insulting tone.

So what I'd like is a contructive technical discussion, with more technical replies and less personal attacks to know from facts. If you read my posts you'll see that I always tried to go to technical discussion, but sometimes I answered viscerally to personal attacks.


Not easy here, but I want to discuss in these terms:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1456/26276532831_433fc90b8b_h.jpg



Best Regards.

[DennisD]

I am just an innocent bystander following this thread In hopes of learning more about the OP's original topic.

IMHO the exchanges have become unproductive confrontational, fed by one sticky individual who keeps stoking the fire.
The thread is really accomplishing nothing at this point and would be better off closed.

[Jim Andrada]

There's a lot of good information in the thread itself and rational dialogue should be encouraged. But there should be some mechanism to shut down individuals who abuse the forum and post overly argumentative comments.

[Pere Casals]

There's a lot of good information in the thread itself and rational dialogue should be encouraged. But there should be some mechanism to shut down individuals who abuse the forum and post overly argumentative comments.

Jim, I repeat, just quote a technical statement I made you don't agree and let's discuss it politely in technical terms.

Please don't argue I'm making noise, just point where you think I'm mistaken. We are talking about digital data and technical image quality, so it should be an objective way to discuss it, beyond subjective opinions.

Please, quote where I'm technically mistaken. Let's start by my "overly argumentative comments", please quote first one...

[Pere Casals]

I am just an innocent bystander following this thread In hopes of learning more about the OP's original topic.

IMHO the exchanges have become unproductive confrontational, fed by one sticky individual who keeps stoking the fire.
The thread is really accomplishing nothing at this point and would be better off closed.


Everything is said, but not debated. It is not a discussion about aesthetics but about digital image technical quality. I don't keep stoking the fire, just I hold a strong position, in a sticky way, true. And I'm open to discuss it politely in technical terms.

The issue is important, because if properly debated it can conclude in what LF conditions (Negative size, print size, Velvia , BW) a $1000 scanner performs like a $5000 scanner or not.

My position is that for usual 1200dpi 8x10" LF scans with 3.0DMax films there is no difference for 2m prints, and the important thing is post-process, bicubic resize, etc. I'd like to discuss it technically, beyond opinions.

If nobody can sustain a technical analysis of the topic, for me it can be closed, because opinions are well known yet.

[rdenney]

We're done here. OP, let me know if you didn't get your answer.

Enough has been said so that readers can form their own conclusions.

This as been like a dog chewing on a bone--a bone the other dogs did their chewing on years ago. I don't like closing threads because of the discovery that the chewing was still going on after the bone was consumed.

For the record, movie cameras and small formats are not appropriate topics here. Please limit discussion of same as much as possible.

Also, remember that the burden of proof is on the challenger of the dominant paradigm. The dominant paradigm has usually become such based on long experience by top experts. If the evidence presented is not persuasive, there is nothing else to say, and no need to say it.

As for me, I trust my V750 to a 4X enlargement, and getting that takes a lot of work. Telling me I'm not working hard enough to get the results one easily gets with higher-end equipment will be unpersuasive. But that's all the bigger I can print anyway.

Rick "let's go make some photographs" Denney