Epson V850: better optics, *really*?

[sharding]

Hey all. I know this topic has been debated in various places, but I haven't been able to find anyone who has actually tested the real world performance. I'm looking at picking up either a V800 or a V850 refurb. Epson claims that the V850 has better optics ("the V850 Pro has anti-reflection coatings on the optics, and high-reflection coatings on the mirrors"). But it's unclear to me how much difference this is going to make in the real world. The price difference is about $160, which isn't huge, but is enough to feel like it would be a waste if there's no noticeable difference in the results.

If it matters, I expect the vast majority of my scanning on this to be 4x5 black and white. A lot of the scanner tests I've seen have centered around color transparencies, which I rarely shoot in 4x5 (and I have other ways to get E6 35mm scanned, so 4x5 is all I'd be using this for).

Has anyone here tested this, or are you aware of anyone who has? Is there any other reason I should pony up the $160 for the V850?

[williaty]

I have the V850. I can't attest to the differences in the optics to the V800 but I will say that it is surprisingly resistant to flare when scanning B&W negs compared to my MUCH older Epson 2450U. The downsides, as with all flatbed scanners, are a limited real-world Dmax and a useful resolution limit much lower than what Epson claims.

The upgrade to the V850 also comes with a version of SilverFast AI that makes it much cheaper to upgrade to AI Studio 8, which I think is absolutely a must-do for scanning. AI Studio just works a hell of lot better and easier than any other scanning software I've tried (Vuscan, NikonScan, Epson's own thing, etc).

[sharding]

Good feedback, thanks. In the past I've found myself severely allergic to Silverfast, so I'm not sure that's a big selling point for me, but perhaps with the Epson scanners it's a different situation...

[williaty]

The thing I find with SilverFast is that it's like a command line interface for a computer. I like it because it allows me direct access to the levers and knobs I need in order to bend the scanner to my will. However, the supposedly helpful or automated bits of it are basically useless as I can never figure out why it is trying to do what it's doing nor how to get it to stop when it does something I want. So basically I use SilverFast for the very low-level, serious nerd controls and ignore everything else. What drives me mad about Vuescan, NikonScan, EsponScan, etc is that there's no way to completely stop them from thinking they're smarter than you and doing things without your permission.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

What is the next step up from the 850?

[williaty]

What is the next step up for the 850?
From the V850, your next step up is "I am getting a business loan for this scanner". Well, if you want to buy an off-the-shelf pre-built package. You're looking at things like the Screen Cezanne ($40k) or a Hasselblad/Imacon scanner (starts at $11k, goes up rapidly). If you still want better quality than that, you're into drum scanner territory. Pretty much any way you want to play it, even used, the next step up from an Epson flatbed is one hell of a big step up in price.

If you just want better resolution and better Dmax/DR for considerably less money but a LOT more sweat equity on your part, then you can do much better with a DSLR scanning rig like Peter de Schmidt and rdenny are discussing on here over the last several years.

[sharding]

Regarding, the next step up, my plan with the V800/V850 is to do "good enough" scans for day-to-day use, and send out for drum scans when I need something better. When it comes to 4X5, I'm an extremely casual hobbyist. I'm neither a fine art photographer nor a professional. I just shoot 4X5 film for a fun break from the tyranny of modern digital photography. I'm currently shooting with a Crown Graphic, so half the time it's out of focus or incorrectly exposed anyway :p So there's no way for me to justify the cost of a drum scanner (especially since I'd also need a separate computer to run most of them). But over the years since I've mostly switched to digital, I have gotten accustomed to being able to get things into Photoshop and post them online easily. My current scanner barely works, and I've found that I've been curtailing my 4X5 photography because it's too much of a hassle to get a usable digital copy. I think the Epsons will fill that need adequately, and for the once in a blue moon that I'm thinking of doing a large print or something, there are other options.

williaty, I know what you're saying about Silverfast. To be fair, it's been many years since I've used it. I just found it to be needlessly arcane (and I'm a Unix guy, so I'm not afraid of arcane), and their licensing scheme seemed to border on punitive. Every time I used the software both the UI and business aspects left a bad taste in my mouth. With my other scanners, I've always been pretty satisfied with VueScan. But I will re-evaluate Silverfast if I end up buying one of these.

[williaty]

I absolutely agree that the licensing is harrowing. I would very much like to use SilverFast AI Studio (SFAIS, they have several other products too these days) with my Coolscan as well as my Epson but buying a license to add the Coolscan is close to $400 and that dog just won't hunt! So, on the Coolscan, I'm consigned to using VueScan even though it makes me pull my hair out because it constantly tries to be helpful and screws things up.

The trick to getting comfortable with SFAIS for me was figuring out that 99% of it I could ignore. I'm getting reliable, repeatable, and good results on my V850 by setting SFAIS to scan as a Transparency, Positive, 16bit/ch and then using ONLY the histogram tool to set the black and white points to avoid clipping anything. It'll try to turn on a bunch of other stuff like Tone Curve, NegaFix, etc. Just turn it all off. Scanning this way allows me to bring all the data the scanner can extract from the film into photoshop without the scanning software trying to do anything to it.

The result will look incredibly light but works well

Once in photoshop, I invert the file (since I scanned negative film as a positive. Positive mode, for some reason, causes it to do no processing of the scan data in SFAIS), use a Levels adjustment layer to precisely set the white and black clipping points (per color channel to eliminate the orange mask if was color negative film), then a Curves adjustment layer with a MASSIVE downwards pull to the gray channel to get the overall luminosity right (and tiny per-channel movements in the middle to get the color set exactly if it was color negative film). Then a new layer for spotting out dust. I'll do a make stamp visible layer at that point and then use the Camera Raw Filter on it to have access to the tonal shaping tools I'm most comfortable with (Dehaze especially can be very useful for adding contrast to a black and white scan).

[Jim Andrada]

A completely refurbed IQsmart is around $4k -$6k with all the needed goodies - software, calibration sheets etc depending of course on where you are and which model. Private sales are cheaper if you can find one in good condition. Another way to look at is that it's about the same $$$ as a new Canon 5D with a top quality lens.

[williaty]

A completely refurbed IQsmart is around $4k -$6k with all the needed goodies - software, calibration sheets etc depending of course on where you are and which model. Private sales are cheaper if you can find one in good condition. Another way to look at is that it's about the same $$$ as a new Canon 5D with a top quality lens.

That is something I've looked at, actually, along with the LS-9000ED, refurbed or used drum scanners, etc. The thing I keep coming back to is the worry that we're way out on the dying edge of film scanners now. If I dump multiple thousands into a film scanner, am I ever going to be able to get it fixed if it breaks 7-8 years from now? Heck, for some of the scanners, if it breaks tomorrow, can I find parts for it? How long is the company making it going to stay in business and keep updating the control software? At what point am I going to have to scrounge around to maintain a computer made of old hardware to run an old OS that's required to run out of date scanning software? As much as I don't want to take on another project, those worries are pushing me towards the DSLR-on-a-stepper-gantry scanner idea. At least if I built the damned thing, I can fix it and upgrade it to keep it up to date and usable for a very long time.

[sharding]

I just realized I meant to post this in the Digital Hardware forum and accidentally posted in Digital Processing. Sorry about that! Moderator, feel free to move it if you want.

MODERATOR'S NOTE: done, no problem!

[Peter De Smidt]

When I started work on a dslr scanner, I had a D200. Cameras now are much better. If you're just scanning large format, then a system that takes 4 or so pictures of the negative should suffice for a lot of purposes. Making a manual positioning system is much easier than building an electronic positioning system. I used a thick glass plate that I slide a negative carrier on to do this, but there are a lot of ways. I recommend anyone thinking about building a dslr system do that first. It's probably all you need. If you need really high quality for 35mm, then a fancier system would be preferable.

[axs810]

What is the next step up from the 850?


Epson Expression 12000XL Photo Scanner then Imacon or a drum scanner like the Aztek 8000


In this link there is an Aztek/Howtek HR 8000 for $8800

http://cresimaging.com/filmflatbeddrumscanners.html

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

but I haven't been able to find anyone who has actually tested the real world performance.

Hello from France

A French photographer living close to where I am has tested (in Dec. 2014) the real world optical resolution of a freshly acquired V850 scanner with two tests targets, a Silverfast target on film and a USAF-1951 type of target, from Edmund optics, metal strips on glass.
Results obtained with the glass target where a bit difficult to understand, probably the reflectivity of the metal-on-glass target is too high for the scanner and tends to generate a lot of parasitic stray light.

Reading with the Silverfast target, he found an actual resolution limit of the V-850 between group 5/4 and group 5/6 according to the USAF numbering, this yields something between 2299 dpi and 2896 dpi i.e. an actual optical resolution limit between 45 and 55 cycles /mm.
As a comparison, similar measurements for the V-750 have been reported here, between 2148 and 2163 dpi, the resolution improvement looks marginal for the V-850 w/respect to the previous V-750.
http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/chapters/appendixc.htm

In both cases, a lower resolution is found in the scanning (vertical) direction.

Optical resolution limits as claimed in the manufacturer's data sheet for the v-850 could not be achieved in this test, this is another question I'll not address here.

Details of the discussion (in French) are here, dated Dec. 2014 (http://www.galerie-photo.info/forumgp/read.php?3,52546,57113#msg-57113)

45 to 55 cy/mm is not so bad for large format photography!
You can check on this lens test article by Chris Perez, 60 cy/mm @f/22 is not uncommon, but higher resolution figures for lenses covering LF are quite rare.
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

However, this figure of 50 cy/mm is the minimum resolution limit anybody could achieve through a direct optical enlargement, with a good enlarging lens, 40 years ago!!

However, if you consider that 4.5 to 5.5 cy/mm yields a high quality print from a human visual point of view, the Epson V-850 will allow you to print up to a 10X magnification ratio; from a 4x5" image this yields a 40x50" print, which is more than sufficient for many applications!!

[Doug Fisher]

A test of multiple units of new V800, V850 and even thrown in some V750 in good condition would be really interesting to see. I believe the amount of variability between the new units would be surprising. Kind of like how good lens tests utilize more than one copy of a lens.

Doug

[axs810]

Hey all. I know this topic has been debated in various places, but I haven't been able to find anyone who has actually tested the real world performance. I'm looking at picking up either a V800 or a V850 refurb. Epson claims that the V850 has better optics ("the V850 Pro has anti-reflection coatings on the optics, and high-reflection coatings on the mirrors"). But it's unclear to me how much difference this is going to make in the real world. The price difference is about $160, which isn't huge, but is enough to feel like it would be a waste if there's no noticeable difference in the results.

If it matters, I expect the vast majority of my scanning on this to be 4x5 black and white. A lot of the scanner tests I've seen have centered around color transparencies, which I rarely shoot in 4x5 (and I have other ways to get E6 35mm scanned, so 4x5 is all I'd be using this for).

Has anyone here tested this, or are you aware of anyone who has? Is there any other reason I should pony up the $160 for the V850?


I think most people get the v850 over the v800 because of the second set of film holders, a special mount adapter for keeping film flat (haven't seen this so I dont know what it looks like), and Silverfast SE Plus 8 (vs the Silverfast SE 8 that comes with the v800)

For $160 I would say the holders alone would justify the price but that's if you need them.


What I find more important is to figure out the optimum film holder height for whichever scanner you choose. Especially if you plan on printing.

[Jim Andrada]

I think I just plain get better scans with the IQsmart than I ever did with the Epson 750 - resolution is nice but not the whole story. I'd ppossibly do even better with a good drum scanner, but the workflow with the IQsmart is much simpler.

[Pere Casals]

I think most people get the v850 over the v800 because of the second set of film holders, a special mount adapter for keeping film flat (haven't seen this so I dont know what it looks like), and Silverfast SE Plus 8 (vs the Silverfast SE 8 that comes with the v800)

For $160 I would say the holders alone would justify the price but that's if you need them.


What I find more important is to figure out the optimum film holder height for whichever scanner you choose. Especially if you plan on printing.

The V850 comes with a Silverfast version that includes MultiExposure, this feature is critical to obtain better deep shadows with Velvia/Provia, this is a major advantage. For the SE (without "Plus") version normally you can purchase that software function separately for V800 as normally it does not include ME.


For BW I see little need for ME, a 2.8D WB negative is something weird, IMHO, and the V800/850 performs excellent at these densities. What's about resolving power I really don't see any need to have more than true 2000 dpi resolving power, a resolving power that V850 reaches easily, this ends in true optical 320 MPix for 8x10, this is 160 times the information a Full HD monitor can display.

For prints beyond 3.3m wide (from 8x10) it can be interesting having a better scanner if prints are to be viewed from reading distance. For 4x5 a better scanner can be useful for prints beyond 1.65m wide (if the shot is technically perfect).

Under those sizes a V850 fullfills printer requirements, being more resolution a waste of 16 bits edition time, as even today's PCs get sluguish, at least my i7.

[Peter De Smidt]

Is it multi-exposure or multi-scan? The former is taking many readings at one position. The latter is doing multiple scans of the whole negative. The first way is better, as a lack of registration with the other way can lead to a loss of sharpness.

[williaty]

I seem to recall the Epson flatbeds are only compatible with multi-pass scanning (regardless of whether the software calls it ME or MS) and do have enough problems with registration to make it basically useless.

[Pere Casals]

A test of multiple units of new V800, V850 and even thrown in some V750 in good condition would be really interesting to see. I believe the amount of variability between the new units would be surprising. Kind of like how good lens tests utilize more than one copy of a lens.

Doug

This can be noticed perhaps with 35mm film, with new height adjustable holders (of with betterscanning holders ) most of variability should cancelled. I Use a V750 and a V850, both performs equal but the adjustable holder has to be click moved from the V750 to the V850 for same good results in 35mm film.

But I find that difference totally irrelevant for LF, even for MF...

[Pere Casals]

I seem to recall the Epson flatbeds are only compatible with multi-pass scanning (regardless of whether the software calls it ME or MS) and do have enough problems with registration to make it basically useless.

V850 and V800 are ME compatible, but used Silverfast version must support ME. Silverfast SE does not support it, but Silverfast SE Plus does support ME.

ME and Multi-pass are totally different features. ME makes two exposures with different exposure time before moving to next row, to extend dynamic range. Multi-pass make the scan several times and averages a result.

I find ME really powerfull, but I don't use Multi-Pass.

[Pali K]

I find ME really powerfull, but I don't use Multi-Pass.

Pere, can you post some comparative scans of a dense E6 image with and without ME using Silverfast? Vuescan has this as well and I find that it does absolutely nothing other than add digital gain and brighten the shadows but not really increase detail.

Pali

[williaty]

Pere, can you post some comparative scans of a dense E6 image with and without ME using Silverfast? Vuescan has this as well and I find that it does absolutely nothing other than add digital gain and brighten the shadows but not really increase detail.

Pali

It will depend on whether your scanner allows software control of the hardware exposure. With VueScan on the Coolscan, for example, I can actually adjust the brightness of the RGB LEDs per channel plus adjust the exposure time. That sort of ME is more helpful though I can't say I think it's actually useful enough to take the time to turn it on. On the Epson, there's no way to alter the physical exposure so it doesn't do much of anything.

[Pere Casals]

Pere, can you post some comparative scans of a dense E6 image with and without ME using Silverfast? Vuescan has this as well and I find that it does absolutely nothing other than add digital gain and brighten the shadows but not really increase detail.
Pali

I'll prepare it, it will take me a while, I've a series of deliverately underexposed shots of this roll https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/22709055453/in/dateposted-public/ where an awesome difference is seen with ME.



It will depend on whether your scanner allows software control of the hardware exposure. With VueScan on the Coolscan, for example, I can actually adjust the brightness of the RGB LEDs per channel plus adjust the exposure time. That sort of ME is more helpful though I can't say I think it's actually useful enough to take the time to turn it on. On the Epson, there's no way to alter the physical exposure so it doesn't do much of anything.


You really are not aware of what ME does with Silverfast. With ME V700/850 scanners deliver a very decent performance for challenging Velvia. With ME V700 improves practical readable density from 3.1 to 3.4, this is in logarithmic terms, in linear terms this is reading half of the light level. These numbers are from LaserSoft web site, IMHO published measurements based in ISO 21550 method are pretty fair.


http://www.silverfast.com/img/newsletter200612/ExtendedDynamicRange_big_en.png




IMHO no high end flatbed can deal with dense Velvia without using multiexposure, because Dynamic range of CCD simply comes very short in front of PMT sensors. But this can be solved easily with HDR technique. IMHO high end flatbeds use ME without saying it, but for cheap scanners like V series this comes at a price, (some extra $50, IIRC). When bundled software is the "Plus" or "Ai" version then it comes included, but you also pay for it. For this reason having or purchasing ME feature closes the gap between V700/850 and high end flatbeds.


Velvia may deliver +3.6D, so contrast can be 1:4000, this is x4000 more light in the transparent areas than in the shadows. If the sensor delivers (top) 14 bits DR this is some 16000 levels of gray, so this will leave 2 bits to describe detail in the shadows (and a lot of noise), if the adjusted exposure also has to describe higlights... This imposes taking the reading with to separate shots, one with more exposure integration time than the other.


In the digital chain front end, it is very difficult for the A/D converter delivering those 14 bits in a short conversion time from the pixel photosite integrated voltage. High end cinematography cameras, like Arri Alexa, use DGA: each analog photosite is connected to two different amplifiers working at "different ISO", so this shortcomming is adressed by building an HDR frame from two A/D conversions comming from a single shot.

For a flatbed electronics, best industrial solution is taking 2 consecutive shots per row, as we do when processing HDR images from multiple shots in PS.


By using ME a CCD sensor may surpass PMT nominal dynamic range, but drums still have another major advantage, this is being exent of stray light problems.

[Pere Casals]

Epson V850: better optics ? [/B]

V850 vs V800 lenses difference is coating. A better coating delivers less stray (parasite) light. This may make a difference in the deep shadows of contrasty slides, I see little impact with negatives reaching 2.3D, to say a number.

Most of the effect can be compensated in post, in the same way PS can make mostly match a shot taken with an uncoated lens to same subject taken with a coated lens. Digital filtration makes wonders.

[EdSawyer]

Pere thanks for the detailed info on the V-series scanners and your expertise in it all. Its' interesting reading, thanks for sharing.

[Pere Casals]

Pere thanks for the detailed info on the V-series scanners and your expertise in it all. Its' interesting reading, thanks for sharing.

Not at all, thanks for reading it. Sharing allows own knowledge organization, and to find own missconceptions.

I'd like to point that the more I learn on digital processing the more I appreciate darkroom wet printing. Digital tools are amazing, something to use and love, but IMHO a photographer can also be measured by his ability get a sound print with simple tools, by understanding original light comming from subject, and treating that light with respect.