Epson 4990 vs v850 [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

joedgaia

30-May-2018, 17:03

ha..actually no, I'm not kidding. If the 4990 is more than capable of capturing the resolution in the 8x10 negative for prints beyond 40x32 (I never print that large) what would be the advantage other than scan speed or led illumination? Is there more dynamic range or something that would positively effect the IQ? According to View Camera magazine there was no noticeable qualitative difference in performance between the 4990 and v700 for scanning large format film. Also, interpolating from this article, https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/ the v700 held it's own, so A=B and B is pretty darn good, therefore A is pretty darn good also, no? Is there a noticeable qualitative jump from v700 to v850?

joe murray | nativesonsfilms
Directors Guild Of America-Director
Int'l Cinematographers Guild -Director of Photography
www.nativesonsfilms.com

coisasdavida

30-May-2018, 18:41

I had the opportunity to take apart both 4970 and V700. it seemed to me that older Epson scanners were much better built than current ones.
I tested one against the other (b&w negative/ epson scan software) after cleaning and 4970 was just a little better.

I never used a V850.

Sal Santamaura

30-May-2018, 20:44

what would be the advantage other than scan speed or led illumination?...I purchased a V850 just over one year ago. It's my first scanner. I don't know anything about the 4990 other than the fact that it uses a fluorescent illumination system. Here are my two cents.

I've waited until the V850 warranty expired to open it up. There are several improvements necessary. First, the plastic used for its housing is extremely static prone. I plan to cut up sections of laminated aluminum-polyester anti-static bags and tape them (conductive side facing the plastic housing) throughout the interior to dissipate that static and, hopefully, greatly reduce the incredible quantity of dust that's attracted to the glass, even in humid ambient conditions. Second, when negatives of low overall contrast with large areas of even tone are scanned, illumination variations from the discrete LEDs show up. The smaller the negative, the lower frequency and more obvious these lateral value variations become, but they're plainly evident even on 8x10 originals. I'll be experimenting with some diffusion materials under the glass in an attempt to even out illumination. I suspect, but don't know for certain, that your 4990's fluorescent tube doesn't suffer from this shortcoming.

Bottom line: unless you know for sure that a scan speed increase will occur and your workload is high enough to benefit from that, if your 4990 is in good shape, I'd stick with it.

Bernice Loui

30-May-2018, 22:04

Newer is NOT always better. Many consumer technology items like scanners are often cheapened with no extra production expense features added that do NOT improve the actual performance of the techno item.

Keep in mind there are inherent cost in producing any technological item. This results in a production cost -vs- market selling cost. These realities are mostly fixed due to resources involved resulting a differences in trade offs.

The 4990 here has been trouble free, makes good scans, been problem free and reliable.

One problem, the plastic housing will out gas leaving a cloudy residue on the scanner glass window. The fix is to remove the scammer top, remove the glass and give it a really good cleaning with windex then cascade dishwasher soap and rinse in verifiable clean water.

Bernice

You’re kidding right? Let’s see10 year old digital equipment versus new state of the art scanner?

Pere Casals

30-May-2018, 23:29

The V850 is a better scanner, but IMHO you won't notice it at all in BW 8x10", you may perhaps see an slight improvement in 6x6cm in certain conditions, but not always.

The cheaper V800 it's near the same than the V850, but the V850 includes multi-exposure feature in bundled Silverfast version that's needed for Velvia if it contains very high dense areas and wanting to recover it. ME feature can be later purchased for the V800. Also the V850 has a coating in the internal pair or lenses (a highres one for until 5.9" wide with hardware 6400 dpi and a "lowres" one for wider scans at 4800 dpi).

A real advantage you may find with the V850 / V800 is that it has a LED illumination that has no warmup delay, and no calibration need for color, as it is very stable in the time.

The V850 (like the V750) delivers some effective 2800 and 2300 dpi depending on the x/y axis with the hardware 6400 dpi lens covering 5.9", and less with the hardware 4800 dpi lens, with proportionally less efective dpi.

IIRC the EPSON 4990 has 4800 hardware dpi, so if you may notice some difference is in MF scans that the V850 scans with hard 6400 dpi ending in 2300/2800 effective dpi, while the 4990 may end in some effective 1700/2000, while in BW 8x10 scans the different may not be much.

And well, what it is really critical is the Photoshop edition, more than if the scanner is a 4990 or a V850.

joedgaia

31-May-2018, 09:42

Thanks for all the considered replies. I do plan on scanning 6x6 but my print size is never larger than 13x19.

"...And well, what it is really critical is the Photoshop edition, more than if the scanner is a 4990 or a V850."

I use the newest version of Photoshop. Why is this more critical then the scanner? I am using the newest version of Vuescan for the scanning software.

Sal Santamaura

31-May-2018, 10:05

...Why is this more critical then the scanner?...

It's not. Knowing whose inputs have a history of being correct/incorrect is very valuable when considering thread replies. :)

Bernice Loui

31-May-2018, 10:51

LEDs as a white light source will have dips and peaks in it's output spectra compared to a good phosphorus based fluorescent tube. This is the inherent limitation with white LEDs due to their three color individual LEDs being blended to deliver "white light". It is also why LEDs can be problematic when used for color evaluations of reflective surfaces.

Basically, no LEDs are not superior to fluorescent tube due to warm up. LEDs are just another set of design trade offs that have it's own set of problems.

As for scanner performance, these flat bed scanners are acceptable depending on the intended goal of the image being digitized. Those who are serious about getting the very most out of a scan will be using a drum scanner with a highly skilled individual making scans and adjusting the system as needed.

Don't be fooled by published specs alone, using techno hardware-software real world and their results is what really matters.

Bernice

A real advantage you may find with the V850 / V800 is that it has a LED illumination that has no warmup delay, and no calibration need for color, as it is very stable in the time.

Pere Casals

31-May-2018, 16:01

LEDs as a white light source will have dips and peaks in it's output spectra compared to a good phosphorus based fluorescent tube.

Today high CRI LEDs are pretty common, amazingly a common white LEDs type contains phophorous to emit whilte light, like those good lamps...

Se here white LEDs section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_lamp

Also perfect scans can be made with 3 monochromatic sources, a 3D LUT would map all perfectly, see color separation to preserve color movies, using 3 BW films.

Bernice Loui

31-May-2018, 21:41

Here we go again, repeat of MTF plots... Tiresome, Amusing, Learning Resistant or ?

White LED spectrum plot. Phosphors used in LEDs are to increase light output, not significantly increase their output spectrum range. If you understood the Physics behind how an LED functions, there would be an understanding of this innate problem with LED as a light source technology.
178848

Spectra plot for a Chroma 50 fluorescent tube (40FT12) originally from GE. This phosphor-fluroscence light source has been the industry standard for reference color illumination for decades and to this day.
178849

Bernice

Today high CRI LEDs are pretty common, amazingly a common white LEDs type contains phophorous to emit whilte light, like those good lamps...

Se here white LEDs section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_lamp

Also perfect scans can be made with 3 monochromatic sources, a 3D LUT would map all perfectly, see color separation to preserve color movies, using 3 BW films.

Pere Casals

1-Jun-2018, 00:15

Here we go again, repeat of MTF plots... Tiresome, Amusing, Learning Resistant or ?

White LED spectrum plot. Phosphors used in LEDs are to increase light output, not significantly increase their output spectrum range. If you understood the Physics behind how an LED functions, there would be an understanding of this innate problem with LED as a light source technology.
178848

Spectra plot for a Chroma 50 fluorescent tube (40FT12) originally from GE. This phosphor-fluroscence light source has been the industry standard for reference color illumination for decades and to this day.
178849

Bernice

Hmmm, Bernice... Bernice...

If you read well my post I was speaking about High CRI (Color Reproduction Index) LEDs, not about the spectrum you posted of a $3 bazar torch.

Please go ahead and learn a little what's a High CRI LED.

178851

178852

Anyway I'm pretty confident that a film scanner can use 3 pure monochromatic frequencies to get top notch results. In that case 3D LUTs may be required for calibrations for each film type, in fact each RGB reading would target a unique point in the destination 3D LUT.

So... in the same way we have high and low CRI phosphorous lamps we also have high and low CRI LEDs.

A proper LED illuminator is perfect for an scanner. Any doubt ?

Steven Ruttenberg

1-Jun-2018, 03:06

I know my V850 scans photos if shot properly will rival a drum scanner and a purely digital i.age from my Canon 5DMKIII. I have a shot in bw of a mural that scanned extremely well and rivals any capability i have ever seen or read about In fact it is noise free which a dslr wouldn't be in phx this tag me of year given the exposure was 30 minutes. I use Vuescan and a better scanning wet mount. Eventually I will be making a comparison dlscanner to a digital capture of my film using a dslr and a 100 mm macro lens.

From my perspective the V850 would be the choice.

Peter De Smidt

1-Jun-2018, 03:26

I know my V850 scans photos if shot properly will rival a drum scanner ....

Which drum scanner?

Pere Casals

2-Jun-2018, 12:58

Which drum scanner?

Hello Peter,

Any drum is a way, way better scanner than a V850, dot.

... but a lot of times a LF scan from a V850 can rival the result obtained with a drum.

The situations were a drum shines is when we have uncommon high densities beyond 3.0D that we want to recover, and when we have detail in the negative that's beyond 40 lp/mm and we need that detail because we also want wall size prints.

Having detail in the negative that's beyond actual 40 lp/mm it's not easy or frequent: we need the scene with that detail, then we need a perfectly steady shot that's not easy outside a lab, then we need a sharp film like TMX of CMS 20 (TMY drops beyond 20 Lp/mm), then we need perfect focus and DOF, and a sharp lens working in his sweet point.

For example at f/32 a drum won't get much more image quality than a V850 simply because a sharper scan will only find blur beyond what a V850 can see.

Time ago a very interesting benchmark was made: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

I took the sample crop from a V750 and I edited it to make it match with the crop of a howtek 4500 drum, it is surprising that with some clicks... with Photoshop sharpening and curve edition... et voilà: the same !!!

You can download the crops from here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/) and do it yourself... no secret...

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

In another sample crop the V750 is not as good, but I think that the V750 scan was flawed because wrong range limits or because not using M-E, I think that with the V750 properly used it would also perform well.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8248/28525825955_3a9295b3af_z.jpg

Of course, no doubt that a drum is a way better system, by far, but in the same way that a Ferrary is not faster than a VW Beetle in a traffic jam also a V850 may rival a drum a lot of times, speaking about LF negatives, specially if BW of color negatives.

interneg

2-Jun-2018, 14:31

Pere:

You can spew all the semi-comprehended statistics you want, but they don't add up. Those noisy, artificially-sharpened-beyond-a-very-poor-real-world-mtf-performance scans from the Epson look really, really bad when seen in context and especially in print (even in small prints) alongside clean, properly natively 'sharp' (and 'sharpness' has very little to do with notional optical resolution numbers and a lot more to do with overall optical performance) from PMT drums. High end CCD can come close if treated sensibly (especially if you control the inversion manually in Photoshop afterwards). A clean 2000ppi will wipe the floor with a noisy, aberrated 2300ppi any day. I wouldn't trust the Epson's optical system beyond maybe 1200ppi & even then, it's noticeably softer (like a wide-open Verito vis-a-vis a Sironar N or S) compared to pretty much any PMT or high-end CCD.

If there was enough demand, Epson would probably make a better scanner, but it would likely be 5-10K EUR/USD/GBP.

Back to the topic in hand, my understanding is that, real world, there's not a significant difference between the 4990 & later Epsons apart from the lighting - choose the one that works well & is compatible with your computer. The theoretical difference is dwarfed by the other limitations of the hardware.

Pere Casals

2-Jun-2018, 17:33

Interneg:

OK, forget my nasty semi-comprehended statistics...

... but download V750 and Howtek 4500 crop samples here http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/ and spend 1 minute with Ps to make it match like in post 16 http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?146305-Epson-4990-vs-v850&p=1447446&viewfull=1#post1447446:

Hey, man... how can it be possible that the result can be so close ? The Epson is not that bad, is it ?

This test also has no nasty math: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/

Look, as the format gets larger scanner performance is less important, in this way a V850 may not be the best choice for 35mm film, but the V850 is an extremly powerful for 8x10" negatives. For 4x5" the V850 simply outresolves the Hassy X5 by a narrow margin, while the X5 is better for MF jobs, and of course for 35mm jobs. The larger the negative format the V850 shines the more.

Then we have the high densities, and yes, if we want to recover 3.6D areas then any drum blows any flatbed. True.

But then it comes the color purity, clarity, beutiful tones and other bla, bla, bla... Well, take 3D LUT Creator and make a conversion LUT from a colorful negative, using as input the drum scan and the V850 scan. You killed all magic and all bla, bla. Now the V850 nails the same "tonality" and colors of the drum.

What I say is that the V850 is a serious device for LF, when densities are not excessive for a flatbed, a common situation. I've calculated that a drum scan would be benefical (over the V850 scan) in aprox 10% of my BW LF shots, but only if wall size prints were to be made.

Pali K

2-Jun-2018, 19:26

Not again. Sorry but my passion for drum scanners doesn't allow me to ignore this as much as I really should. Epson is not as good as a drum scanner under any condition. It's not even close. It's far inferior and if you ever spent time with a drum scanner and Epson next to each other for several hundred hours like I have, the only logical way to describe an Epson is to call it a good machine for what it's intended. Never would I call or compare it to anything designed for professional use. It's awesome as an entry level consumer scanner but don't expect it to be powered with any unicorn magical force.

Pali

interneg

3-Jun-2018, 02:09

Pere Casals

3-Jun-2018, 02:30

Hello Pali,

No doubt that a drum is a way better device than a V850, the question is when this that makes a difference or not . It's easy that it makes a difference with a 35mm dense Velvia, and it's really difficult it makes a difference in a 8x10" BW with common (say) 1.8D densities. (is a Ferrari faster in a traffic jam?)

Let me ask what do you think about this test: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/

Do you think is it fair ? is this consistent with your experience ? This is not a lab test but it's consistent with what I found in practice:

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/05/x1_1250-796x800.jpg

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/05/sidebyside-800x549.jpg

... and speaking about unicorn magic power, consider that it's really difficult that an LF shot has 40Lp/mm detail in the negative (this is 80 lines in a mm !!), no unicorned drum will get more than what's in the negative, so the Ferrari is jammed in the traffic.

PD 1: I've pending showing you the ME effect in with the V850 - Velvia as you asked me time ago. Sorry, then I hadn't V850 with me for some weeks and I forgot that.

PD 2: Since last time we discussed about that I advanced a lot in 3D LUT edition, if you don't use that kind of resources I'd recommend you take a look to 3D LUT Creator, I feel this allows full color control beyond any scanner footprint.

So I admit that a drum works much better than the V with extreme densities, but I don't credit any "better color" because with 3D LUTS we can convert one thing to the other.

Let me insist in the 3D LUT, having seen your dedication to good color, and only for the case you are not using that, just take a look to the 3D L C.

Regards,
Pere

Pali K

3-Jun-2018, 05:24

Pere,

Yes a Ferrari is better than a Camry in a traffic jam because ability to go fast is not the only measure of performance. One area that a pro scanner and drum scanners will blow away Epson and make it look like a toy is an image where you have a tree or sharp lines in front of a white sky or light background. You will get a glow like effect from Epson and no unicorns will eliminate it. It's caused by the optical performance (or lack of it) of the Epson scanner. You will always be able to find an image where the benefits of the pro scanner are minimal against the Epson but pro scanners will ALWAYS be the clear better performer. In some images, Epson will look extremely poor. I have seen this enough times that my Epson just sits in the box even though it is significantly faster at scanning and I shoot 8x10 regularly.

I don't know what else to add to what you and I have already debated several times but I will say that you yourself have admitted that you haven't worked with drum scanners yourself. I promise you that once you do, you will not have the same opinion about Epson. Please keep an open mind as you are asking everyone else to do with your claims about Epson.

Regards,

Pali

Ted Baker

3-Jun-2018, 06:14

I have a 10 year old 4990 scanner that I use for b&w 6x6 and 8x10 film. Would I see any improvement by upgrading to a v850?

My understanding is the sensor in the 4990 and v7xx and v8xx is essentially the same, i.e. two rows offset half a pixel wide, with the same pixel density. May be even the same part number... The increase in resolution from 4800dpi to 6400dpi is accomplished by a using a longer lens when using the film holders which of course has a narrower depth of field...

So if you using 8x10 I doubt you will see any improvement, with the 6x6 (and using the smaller image area of the film holders) I think you may see a small improvement if you ensure your film is correctly focused...

interneg

3-Jun-2018, 06:17

Pere: while we're at it, that article you lovingly spew forth every time someone challenges the Epson is at best wrong, and at worst intentionally misleading. His claims are, unfortunately for you, easy to test. You admit that the Epson does a bad job with 135, but make claims for its 120 performance. It is possible to scan 135 on the Imacon/ Hasselblad using the 120 setup if you turn off auto frame recognition & the resulting scans at 3200 are vastly better than anything the Epson could dream of. Following your logic, this should be impossible. Same with using the 4x5 mode to scan 120. Within the last week I've made scans alongside each other of the same 4x5 negatives on an Epson 10000xl (much the same resolution as the V7xx/8xx/9xx scanners but with autofocus) and an X5 & the difference was blatant. The X5 blew the doors off the Epson with ease. Compared to the X5, drum scans are generally cleaner in the shadows & offer the benefits of wet mounting. Increasingly I suspect that author of having fiddled with the unsharp mask & AF settings in Flexcolor for the claimed 'Epson' scan.

Bernice Loui

3-Jun-2018, 08:25

Current owner of a Epson 4990 and have used it every so often over the years. Yes, it can scan film and other transmitted light media, it can also scan reflected light media. Regardless, it is a Consumer Grade image scanner and will never be anything more than that. The results from these flat bed scanners are OK for some image making needs, they are FAR from what a GOOD drum or similar high quality scanner can do.

The scan results are FAR more complex than LPM or similar simplified marketing metric, there are a long list of technical parameters never mentioned in marketing media as they work against their ability to foist this techno stuff. These consumer items are cheapened with the passage of product life, but hyped up with features that do not improve the actual results of the scan.

Difficulty and serious problem with stuff posted on the web, it can easily deceive and lure those who want to believe into a falsely secure state of mind due to the viewer wanting to believe what they see. Discovering and finding this on the web works as a tool of self deception for individuals who have chosen to validate their beliefs disconnected from hard facts of what reality is.

The other and far more serious issue here is the belief poor quality data can be "improved" using software. This is very wrong thinking in every way as there is NO WAY to increase the amount of acquired information with any accuracy and precision to the acquisition source material. Nyquist Theorem, Information theory which so much of the data centric universe of today would be violated. This is the core reality of why software can never increase information acquired with any accuracy-precision to the original media. Software can only modify what has been acquired and at it's very best with small losses in data acquired.

And yes, those software altered images posted in this thread look horrible.... even as they are viewed data transmitted-processed to this Mac display.

Bernice

faberryman

3-Jun-2018, 09:03

The fact that a V850 gives a lousy scan of 35mm means it gives the same lousy scan of 120, 4x5 and 8x10, you just don't see how lousy it is because you don't blow it up as much. And the scans don't get better by simply sharpening the blur. I wasn't happy with the 35mm scans I enlarged to 6x9 (6x)* so got a dedicated 35mm film scanner, and I am not kidding myself that it is as good as a drum scanner, but it is certainly miles better than a V850. The question is how good is good enough for you. Some have lower standards, some have higher standards, and some have higher standards they can't afford and so have to make do. It is better to recognize that than to rationalize. Unless you are into kidding yourself as an intellectual pursuit. On the other hand, low magnification (small enlargements) covers a multitude of sins.

Pere has already admitted that a drum scanner is "way better" than a V850. The rest is just rationalization that the V850 is good enough .

Query: are many LF photographers printing digitally? I expect most are wet printing. I am trying to see how scanning is even an issue for LF photographers. If you are just scanning to post on the web, almost anything will do.

*which also means I wouldn't be happy with 13.5x13.5 from 120, 24x30 from 4x5, or 48x60 from 8x10.

fotopfw

3-Jun-2018, 09:43

left: Epson V750
right: drumscan
The detail (or lack of it in the Epson scan) shows clearly in a 64x80" print.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139951227@N05/28658065138/in/dateposted-public/

faberryman

3-Jun-2018, 10:02

left: Epson V750
right: drumscan
The detail (or lack of it in the Epson scan) shows clearly in a 64x80" print
Film format?

Pere Casals

3-Jun-2018, 12:00

left: Epson V750
right: drumscan
The detail (or lack of it in the Epson scan) shows clearly in a 64x80" print.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139951227@N05/28658065138/in/dateposted-public/

Hmmm, I think you are not using the V750 to its best.

I got sharper results with a V750, here the bell shows like in a 6m high print, also from 8x10" negative:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/32535835184/in/dateposted-public/

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/669/32535835184_2a10b880f7_o.jpg

To compare with your sample my sample should be reduced to 1/3 H

Pere Casals

3-Jun-2018, 12:34

Pere: while we're at it, that article you lovingly spew forth every time someone challenges the Epson is at best wrong, and at worst intentionally misleading. His claims are, unfortunately for you, easy to test.

I spew that test because it's consistent with what I found, IMHO it shows the reality.

If you don't credit that test (https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/)... no problem, but what about this test ? http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

Unfortunately for you anyone can download the crops from the V750 and from the Howtek 4500 and make both match with a couple of clicks with Photoshop, like me. Why don't you try it ?

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

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanimages/prem-4x5-fullframe-u.jpg

The X5 blew the doors off the Epson with ease.

It depends...

if densities are beyond 3.0D and you want to recover that, yes, the X5 shines.

If you scan 35mm film, then yes, the X5 sports 8000dpi high quality hardware resulting in 6900 effective dpi.

But (this is a LF forum...) if you scan 4x5" then the V850 outresolves the X5. The 8000 pix X5 sensor sees 4" through the good Linos lens so you end in 2000 hardware dpi and some 1800 effective dpi, while the V850 sports 6400 hardware dpi through a lower quality lens but ending in 2800 or 2300 effective dpi, depending on the axis you consider, this is a better resolving power than the X5.

Realize that: for 4x5 the x5 only has 2000 hardware dpi, and the V850 is better than that.

Here you have an interesting and fair document about how a V850 performs, by Mark D Segal, comparing with roll film scanners.

https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-New-Epson-V850-Pro-Scanner-Final.pdf

My opinion is that having a roll film scanner and a V850 for sheets it's a good combination, and this also leaves a budget for those very dense negatives deserving a drum scan.

The other thing that's clear to me is that today color management is about proficiency in 3D LUTs.

Pali K

3-Jun-2018, 12:37

Hmmm, I think you are not using the V750 to its best.

I got sharper results with a V750, here the bell shows like in a 6m high print, also from 8x10" negative:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/32535835184/in/dateposted-public/

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/669/32535835184_2a10b880f7_o.jpg

To compare with your sample my sample should be reduced to 1/3 HPere, can you post this negative scanned on a drum scanner? If not, this is just another apples and oranges argument.

Pali

faberryman

3-Jun-2018, 12:57

But (this is a LF forum...) if you scan 4x5" then the V850 outresolves the X5. The 8000 pix X5 sensor sees 4" through the good Linos lens so you end in 2000 hardware dpi and some 1800 effective dpi, while the V850 sports 6400 hardware dpi through a lower quality lens but ending in 2800 or 2300 effective dpi, depending on the axis you consider, this is a better resolving power than the X5. Realize that: for 4x5 the x5 only has 2000 hardware dpi, and the V850 is better than that.
Numerical resolution isn't the whole ball of wax. filmscanner.nfo did a review of the X5 and compared it to the Epson 10000XL, the next step up up from the V850, which has the same nominal resolution. Here was their conclusion:

"The Epson offers an optical resolution of 2400ppi, thus therewith, it has a higher value than the 2040i of maximal resolution value that is possible with the Hasselblad in case of such large formats. But the result of the effectively achievable resolution is visible in our image example: ...Thereby, we have projected the 2400ppi scan of the Epson to 2040ppi, so that also here, a straight comparison was possible. What is clearly recognizable is that the scan made with Flextight is significantly sharper than the scan made with the Epson-device. But not only concerning the image sharpness but also concerning the range of density, the Hasselblad Flextight X5 outstands the Epson flat bed scanner by far. Herein, the huge class difference between the two devices gets very clear."

Keep in mind the Flextight X5 is not a drum scanner. A drum scan would achieve higher resolution. But even so, the Epson can't keep up with the X5, as is clearly visible in these images. Again Pere, you are just rationalizing what's good enough. If the V850 is good enough for you, use it. But don't go crowing on about how it is better than the X5, and certainly not a drum scanner. It is so disingenuous and makes a mockery of what's left of your credibility.

178902

178903

Pere Casals

3-Jun-2018, 13:02

Pere, can you post this negative scanned on a drum scanner? If not, this is just another apples and oranges argument.

Pali

No, I've not spend $200 is a drum scan for this negative, but if you see the detail quality that would result in a 6m high print then it is evident that the scan has exceding information to make a prefect 1,5m print, to say a size.

I've inspected detail in the negative with a microscope, and the reality is that the negative has not much more than the EPSON retrieves, so I'm really skeptical regarding that investing $200 in a drum service would be worth, and sure it's not worth if not printing it beyond 2m.

What I'm going to do with that negative is printing it on glass, I'm preparing for coating a big glass with my DIY emulsion to obtain a moster slide, but I'm finding challenge to control the result with my DIY emulsion, hybrid is very nice... :)

Printing on DIY emulsion and wanting to obtain a sound result is not that straight.

Pere Casals

3-Jun-2018, 13:53

"The Epson offers an optical resolution of 2400ppi, thus therewith, it has a higher value than the 2040i of maximal resolution value that is possible with the Hasselblad in case of such large formats. But the result of the effectively achievable resolution is visible in our image example: By clicking on the right thumbnail, an image window opens with the marked outcut whereby the image changes any two seconds between the scan done with the Epson Perfection 10000 XL and the one made with the Flextight X5. Thereby, we have projected the 2400ppi scan of the Epson to 2040ppi, so that also here, a straight comparison was possible. What is clearly recognizable is that the scan made with Flextight is significantly sharper than the scan made with the Epson-device. But not only concerning the image sharpness but also concerning the range of density, the Hasselblad Flextight X5 outstands the Epson flat bed scanner by far. Herein, the huge class difference between the two devices gets very clear."

Keep in mind the Flextight X5 is not a drum scanner. A drum scan would achieve higher resolution. But even so, the Epson can't keep up with the X5, as is clearly visible in thee accompanying image. Again Pere, you are just rationalizing what's good enough.

faberryman,

You are quoting a very interesting information, and worth to analyze what it says, but IMHO 2400 is more than 2040, so something has to be explained better by them.

I've a guess about what it happened to them, the 2400 to 2040 downsampling is flawed, it may happen the same than when the monitor resolution is different than the one graphic card of the PC. They could oversample the 2040 X5 image to 2400, but they did the counter. So I'm really skeptical that an scanner showing effective 2170 dpi from a USAF 1951 target shows that worse than another with 2040 in hardware. This is very contradictory to me. The the V850 has substantially better resolving power than the 10000.

I think that something is flawed in that test, I work dayly with lp/mm measurements for machine vision and that contradictory situation is not consistent at all with what I find every day.

Keep in mind the Flextight X5 is not a drum scanner. A drum scan would achieve higher resolution.

Well, a drum often has a worse effective resolution than the x5 for 35mm film, because in that situation the X5 sports 6900 effective dpi, but for sheets the x5 is way inferior than a drum, or course, as the drum mantains its nominal perfomance in a larger format while the x5 not, having always 8k pix wide.

Again Pere, you are just rationalizing what's good enough.

Of course. We target 6 Lp/mm in the print, a higher amount of information won't improve the print. I you read my previous posts I've always said that a drum is a way better machine, but I insist that this may be irrelevant in a lot of situations.

In particular what I state is that a V850 has a not worse result than a drum for prints under 2m from LF negatives, if densities are under 3.0D.

And also I state that the proficiency of the man that edits and process the digital image it's the really critical thing. In particular I consider that proficiency in 3D LUTs (for color) is a nice advantage.

faberryman

3-Jun-2018, 14:12

You are quoting a very interesting information, and worth to analyze what it says, but IMHO 2400 is more than 2040, so something has to be explained better by them.
I don't think raw numbers tell the whole story. Do you have any experience with an X5? Or is all of this just theoretical? Let me ask a practical question? How many LF photographers shoot 4x5 and 8x10, digitize the negatives, and make small inkjet prints?

Pere Casals

3-Jun-2018, 15:43

I don't think raw numbers tell the whole story. Do you have any experience with an X5? Or is all of this just theoretical? Let me ask a practical question? How many LF photographers shoot 4x5 and 8x10, digitize the negatives, and make small inkjet prints?

I've a wide experience with X5 vs V750 images.

While I've no shot that's worth the investment in a drum job, I've processed the work of a certain artist for international exhibitions and for a book, having ordered (mainly) Imacon and X5 scans that previously I had scanned with a V750. Most of the times it was Velvia 35mm shot in challenging light conditions, really I found no need to go to drum service for TMX because roll film scanners performed good enough.

My main activity is related to machine vision, in that realm I use a lot resolution targets and the spectrometer to ensure success in industrial conditions, and in my experience always there is a performance link to lp/mm and MTF.

When the raw numbers don't tell the whole story is because the numbers are arithmetically or conceptually wrong.

How many LF photographers shoot 4x5 and 8x10, digitize the negatives, and make small inkjet prints?

What I learned is that shooting 8x10 isn't related to print size, 8x10 has an aesthetical footprint related to the focal length used: The DOF-OOF transition is different, and also the effect of the movements.

4x5 has exceding resolving power for any application, and 8x10 is an overkill, even if scanned with an EPSON.

I my case I shot 8x10 and I don't make inkjets of any size: I contact print or use Ilford lab direct, and I'm in course to fully move to wet for 810. With all the respect I consider amazing inkjets are not for me.

Regarding Image Quality I feel able to make 2m sound prints from TMX 120, you would not see a flaw if looking a 2m print from two feet, I shot 810 but I find the 600 Eq Mpix in the negative are only a bonus I welcome. We should realize that those "600 MPix" can fill 300 Full HD monitors or 75 4k TVs, so making a 2m print is a like a joke.

faberryman

3-Jun-2018, 15:51

Regarding Image Quality I feel able to make 2m sound prints from TMX 120, you would not see a flaw if looking the 2m print from two feet.

You would be happy with a 80"x80" (30x) enlargement from a TMX 120 negative scanned with a V850?

Pere Casals

3-Jun-2018, 15:59

You would be happy with a 80"x80" (30x) enlargement from a 120 negative scanned with a V850?

In those MF conditions I would use a Plustek 120 to scan, not a V850. If it was a 4x5" negative then the V850 would perform well.

To me it has little sense to make a 2m print and viewing the image with the nose on it. A 2m print has to be viewed at least from 1m, and at that distance 2lp/mm in the print are seen as perfectly sharp.

faberryman

3-Jun-2018, 16:14

In those MF conditions I would use a Plustek 120 to scan, not a V850. If it was a 4x5" negative then the V850 would perform well.
So the V850 at 2300 would be inadequate for the 120 negative; you would want the Plustek with 3450 (1.5x the resolution)? I would agree with you there. I wasn't happy with a 6x enlargement from the V850. I can't imagine you being happy with 30x enlargement from the V850. But I understand standards vary among individuals.

interneg

3-Jun-2018, 16:28

I've processed the work of a certain artist for international exhibitions and for a book, having ordered (mainly) Imacon and X5 scans that previously I had scanned with a V750. Most of the times it was Velvia 35mm shot in challenging light conditions, really I found no need to go to drum service for TMX because roll film scanners performed good enough.

Did you operate the scanner yourself or have any input into the actual scanning process itself with the X5? I've seen many, many, many incompetently made scans off the Hasselblad/ Imacon (and for that matter, drum) scanners & spent enough time scanning for people to know that the operator matters enormously. Post processing 3F files is not the same.

Pere Casals

3-Jun-2018, 16:52

Did you operate the scanner yourself or have any input into the actual scanning process itself with the X5? I've seen many, many, many incompetently made scans off the Hasselblad/ Imacon (and for that matter, drum) scanners & spent enough time scanning for people to know that the operator matters enormously. Post processing 3F files is not the same.

No, I've never operated an X5 on my own, but I've been at the side of the operator, that is a really good professional, a first class one with a solid reputation build on excellent works. But look, it is impossible that an X5 goes beyond 2048 optical dpi in 4x5.

The X5 rocks in 35mm film and in MF, but it is not an specialized LF scanner, Hasselblad always has been linked to top notch MF, and the X5 is a sound MF scanner that also makes some LF, but no 8x10".

Pali K

3-Jun-2018, 17:10

Pere Casals

3-Jun-2018, 17:17

So the V850 at 2300 would be inadequate for the 120 negative; you would want the Plustek with 3450 (1.5x the resolution)?

The V850 is not inadecuate for MF film, but if wanting a monster print a Plustek or an X5 would perform slightly better, as this test shows: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/

IMHO this also depends on 2 factors:

1) Shot quality: Has the negative 40 lp/mm detail ? Shutter speed ? Handheld ? Trepidation/Shake? Sweet aperture? Moving subject? Perfect Focus? Good DOF? Sharp Film? Perfect camera alignment ? Perfect film flatness ?

2) Grain depiction: Large washed areas showing grain ? T or Cubic ? Film Speed ? Want the artist show grain structure or he wants to hide it ?

One thing is a lab test saying the performance a lens has with a flat target, and another thing is real photography with 3D scenes where nothing is in the perfect plane of focus. Negatives have optical flaws from a number of factors, a higher resolving power may not deliver a better result, sometimes what we find in a better scanner is more noise from aliasing with grain or color clouds, as it was the LS case.

Pere Casals

3-Jun-2018, 17:23

Yikes Pere. You should really resist posting such strong opinions about something you have near zero experience with first hand. You have a tremendous bias towards Epson which is not based on anything but your interpretation of randomly collected information from sources that are not your own. I will agree with you on one thing, Epson v series are a great, headache free, and easy to use scanners for anyone that doesn't need anything more than what they can do.

I have said my last words on the topic and I am now out of the conversation.

Enjoy making photos everyone :)

Pali

Pretty sure.

But I challenge you to download the crops in this comparative: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

... and then explaining why with a few Photoshop clicks you can make match the V750 sample to the Howtek 4500 sample:

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

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanimages/prem-4x5-fullframe-u.jpg

interneg

3-Jun-2018, 17:36

No, I've never operated an X5 on my own, but I've been at the side of the operator, that is a really good professional, a first class one with a solid reputation build on excellent works. But look, it is impossible that an X5 goes beyond 2048 optical dpi in 4x5.

The X5 rocks in 35mm film and in MF, but it is not an specialized LF scanner, Hasselblad always has been linked to top notch MF, and the X5 is a sound MF scanner that also makes some LF, but no 8x10".

OK, so you were a client, not the person who made the scan(s). That's what you should have told us long before you started to tell us about the supposed shortcomings of the machine.

Steven Ruttenberg

3-Jun-2018, 18:04

So, in the real world, any scanner isblimjted by image quality to be scanned and no amount of capability, Ferrari included will make the image better. I have used my V850 and obtained great results. I have also used it and got lousy results and when I go back and review the film, I find the image is also bad. If I were working for a xompany andbhad access to a 25.000 dollar drum scanner or Flextite, of course I wod use themose over a 1000 dollar flatbed simply because the technology is better. But does that mean I get a superb, taxk sharp image? Nit if I feednit a pile dog crap. But, If I am making wall murals 10 feet across and 8 feet high, then I would expect, no demand that a 25,000 dollar scanner be better. Can I buy last century's drum scanner, scsi card and all and get better than a flatbed? Maybe, maybe not.

All the number quoting. Nyquist frequency bs means crap if you cannot take an image to take advantage of what the hardware can do. Will I someday acquire a drum scanner? Maybe. In the meantime, I am satisfied wirg my V850 and the people who have reviewd my images after scanning would know the difference between drum, digital or flatbed. What they and what I care about is how the image looks when printed. Does that mean I do not have high enough standards? No, it just means when the image looks right to what I envision then it is good. I am also looking at building my own dslr film scanner. Preliminary results are promising. Best part is I can precisely set focus and exposure before scanning in real time.

The real question is, who can afford a 200.00 drum scan or buy a 25,000 dollar drum scanner or Flextite?

Anyway, these are my opinions and I found this thread an interesting read on the two positions. Seems the different sides each have a dog in this discussion and an investment to one position or another. I think both sides have valid arguments and it should be whatever tool privides you with the reaults you are looking for. :)

Pere Casals

3-Jun-2018, 23:42

OK, so you were a client, not the person who made the scan(s). That's what you should have told us long before you started to tell us about the supposed shortcomings of the machine.

interneg, I told you that before and a number of times, and every time we debated that.

you can tell me why 2048 hardware dpi are so good (1800 effective) in an x5 scan of a 4x5 sheet, and why 2400 effective optical dpi of the V850 scan are that bad.

And then I challenge you explain me what I ask in post #44, as you are a pro scanner user you may have an explanation.

PD: If I was running a pro scanner service probably my choice would be an x1/x5, as an amateur I obtain (most of the times) perfect results from a V850 with LF BW sheets.

interneg

4-Jun-2018, 01:12

interneg, I told you that before and a number of times, and every time we debated that.

you can tell me why 2048 hardware dpi are so good (1800 effective) in an x5 scan of a 4x5 sheet, and why 2400 effective optical dpi of the V850 scan are that bad.

And then I challenge you explain me what I ask in post #44, as you are a pro scanner user you may have an explanation.

PD: If I was running a pro scanner service probably my choice would be an x1/x5, as an amateur I obtain (most of the times) perfect results from a V850 with LF BW sheets.

In two words: optical aberrations. It's perfectly possible to design a very cheap optical system with surprisingly good high contrast resolution and much worse performance elsewhere, loaded with spherical aberration that kills fine, more normal contrast details. That's what the Epson does, much like the lenses in disposable cameras. It's like the difference between a pre-aspherical 35mm Summilux at f1.4 & an Apo-Sironar (choose your flavour) at f22. One could be theoretically higher resolving (diffraction etc) but one will be clearly far, far more perceptibly 'sharp' owing to lack of spherical aberration. The sheer number of glass surfaces in the Epson between film & lens will also drastically increase the amount of halation present, over and above any potential performance of the lens/ optical system. The high price of high-end CCD scanners had and has a great deal to do with a flatbed optical system that's free to a great extent of halation & chromatic aberration, using highly corrected optical systems to do so.

No amount of fiddling in Photoshop will change that - unlike distortion or chromatic aberration correction. Do you now understand why an aberration free 2048ppi is vastly better than a grossly aberrated 2300ppi?

Ted Baker

4-Jun-2018, 03:25

Post processing 3F files is not the same.

How? What hardware controls does the Imacons offer? My understanding is they only offer exposure control, just like the epson.

interneg

4-Jun-2018, 04:39

How? What hardware controls does the Imacons offer? My understanding is they only offer exposure control, just like the epson.

My own experience is that making an adjusted .tiff from the scanner (especially in terms of setting curves before the scan) seems to offer more flexibility than working with a 3F (which by all accounts is simply a notionally straight out of scanner unadjusted, uninverted .tiff openable only in Flexcolor). I find this particularly noticeable in highlights where there can be a sort of tonal break-up following dividing out the base & the inversion if a curve isn't applied at the scanning stage. If I have the time tomorrow I'll perhaps see if the 3F file offers the same adjustability - currently I'm not convinced.

Again, I'd suggest getting some hands-on time with one before going further. If you have some top quality enlarger RA4 prints (not minilab), they're surprisingly to get a pretty close tonal match on with negs scanned on an X5 - if you use the correct techniques. From there, if your sense of colour is halfway decent, it's pretty easy to work out how chromogenic paper responds tonally & the inherent colour balances of the various film emulsions on the market today.

Pere Casals

4-Jun-2018, 07:15

My own experience is that making an adjusted .tiff from the scanner (especially in terms of setting curves before the scan) seems to offer more flexibility

Possibly the x5 is working internally with more than 16 bits per channel. Depending on how the 4.9D range is placed in the 16 bits it is possible that the effect you are guessing can happen, if the curves are applied to the internal (24bit perhaps) value before converting to 16 bits.

Nominal 4.9D is not a joke...

Ted Baker

4-Jun-2018, 09:31

My own experience is that making an adjusted .tiff from the scanner (especially in terms of setting curves before the scan) seems to offer more flexibility than working with a 3F (which by all accounts is simply a notionally straight out of scanner unadjusted, uninverted .tiff openable only in Flexcolor).

I can understand that adjusting an "untouched" tif from the scanner, with say photoshop would be different from working with a 3F which from my understanding is a "RAW" file from the scanner, kept in a modified and unique tif file format, created by IMACON, as the processing pipeline would in fact be different, and the results would vary. I spent some time studying the manual and I could not find any evidence of additional hardware controls (beyond exposure) that change the way the 3F files are created. For example there is no Log amp that needs adjusting.

I definitely intend to do some scans with an Imacon in the future (hence the reading of the manual), scanning them to 3F and using the Flexcolor software.

Pere Casals

4-Jun-2018, 09:35

In two words: optical aberrations. It's perfectly possible to design a very cheap optical system with surprisingly good high contrast resolution and much worse performance elsewhere, loaded with spherical aberration that kills fine, more normal contrast details. That's what the Epson does, much like the lenses in disposable cameras. It's like the difference between a pre-aspherical 35mm Summilux at f1.4 & an Apo-Sironar (choose your flavour) at f22. One could be theoretically higher resolving (diffraction etc) but one will be clearly far, far more perceptibly 'sharp' owing to lack of spherical aberration. The sheer number of glass surfaces in the Epson between film & lens will also drastically increase the amount of halation present, over and above any potential performance of the lens/ optical system. The high price of high-end CCD scanners had and has a great deal to do with a flatbed optical system that's free to a great extent of halation & chromatic aberration, using highly corrected optical systems to do so.

No amount of fiddling in Photoshop will change that - unlike distortion or chromatic aberration correction. Do you now understand why an aberration free 2048ppi is vastly better than a grossly aberrated 2300ppi?

Interneg, IMHO you are right describing that effect, and the Linos/Rodenstock inside the x5 is an important factor.

I guess I know what the x5 has inside because I use the same family of lenses for machine vision and, by chance, also for linear cameras/sensors.

The Linos product range for Machine Vision is a popular choice for linear cameras:

178941
https://www.infaimon.com/producto/rodagon-wa-4-0-60/

Yes, you were right in principle, but you have to consider that V850 plays with some advantage, it has 2 cheap lenses but working each at a fixed distance, while the x5 lens has to enlarge more or less than in the optimal point, by changing sensor to film distance. With a so close subject this has an impact....

I guess that the lens in the x5 was selected to perform optimally for MF, but also working acceptably at 1/2 and at x2 that magnification, for 35mm and for 4x5".

Yes, the retail price (for me) of the Linos is the same cost than a V800... but the lens in the EPSON still has contrast extintion by some 3200 dpi. Well, I've destroyed an EPSON while trying to replace the plastic lens with an spare Linos I had... this would had been a nice hacking !

It is true that the effect you described it happens to some extend, but in a limited way. At the end because that (IMHO) the epson scans benefit from some digital sharpening, remarkably closing the gap, as the Petapixel test explains, and it also can be checked from the large collaborative test, the sharpened sample I posted proves it...

faberryman

4-Jun-2018, 09:50

At the end because that (IMHO) the epson scans benefit from some digital sharpening, remarkably closing the gap, as the Petapixel test explains, and it also can be checked from the large collaborative test, the sharpened sample I posted proves it...
You keep quoting the PetaPixel article in support of your position that the V850 is the equivalent off the X5. Here is what they said:

"The print is quite small at 25x25cm, and it’s questionable as to whether the Flextight scan was necessary here. I’ve had prints made from my v700 scans in the past up to 50x50cm and my printer has told me that the scans are good enough for this with a little sharpening, dependent on the quality of the negative, but going any larger requires a better scan as interpolating up requires the detail to be there first. The other prints I had done at the same time as this one are much larger than 25x25cm, so having them scanned with the Flextight was beneficial."

The author was scanning medium format. A 25x25cm print is 4x. A 50x50cm print is 8x. For prints larger than 8x, they are saying a V850 is inadequate. I think they are being generous. I wasn't happy with 6x enlargements. Why you think 30x enlargements are adequate is beyond me. Like I said, smaller enlargements cover a multitude of sins.

To me it has little sense to make a 2m print and viewing the image with the nose on it. A 2m print has to be viewed at least from 1m, and at that distance 2lp/mm in the print are seen as perfectly sharp.
This is an approach of adequacy, not quality. It makes sense for billboards and bus stop ads, but is antithetical to fine art prints. It is equivalent to recommending cheap enlarging lenses because at 1m no one will be able to tell the difference. Most printers have higher standards than adequacy.

Pere Casals

4-Jun-2018, 16:00

You keep quoting the PetaPixel article in support of your position that the V850 is the equivalent off the X5.

Faberryman,

I've never said that a V850 is equivalent to an X5, I know exactly what each device does.

What I say is that in a lot of conditions the result is really close, if densities are moderate and scanning sheets.

Look, this crop is displayed as if it was was from a 2m high print from a 6x6cm MF, and the diference is what you see:

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/05/sidebyside-800x549.jpg

Yes, perhaps the x5 is slightly better... but if it was a 4x5 negative it would be equal because the x5 has the half the resolving power if doubling the format, while the V850 holds the same.

This is an approach of adequacy, not quality. It makes sense for billboards and bus stop ads, but is antithetical to fine art prints.

IMHO fine art is not directly linked to resolving power in the print: "Fine art photography is photography created in accordance with the vision of the artist as photographer." I like that definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-art_photography.

One of the best AA shots was made with a crappy Adon (and he invented Zone system that day), and fine art also includes soft focus lenses. Sally Mann sometimes makes the finest Art with lenses that have a crack in the middle.

But going to math... not many 4x5 shots are resulting in true 40 lp/mm detail in the negative, in practice most are way under that. A 4x5 shot enlarged to 2 m is x16, so 40/16 delivers a maximum 2.5 Lp/mm in the print. I was speaking of 2 Lp/mm and you were pointing that this was not quality in a 2m print. Well, it's the practical technical limit of a good 4x5" LF shot.

What I say is that usually we don't have detail in a LF negative that requires more than 2500 dpi, and in those conditions a drum sporting 6000 dpi is like a Ferrari in a traffic jam, with the V850 obtaining a perfect result if a proficient Ps edition is performed, speaking for example of BW sheets with moderate densities.

PD: note that with V850 to obtain 2400 effective dpi we need to scan at 4800 and then (optionally) downsampling, and using moderate sharpening to obtain a nice look.

A pro device like the x5 delivers straight a good result, without having to deal with 4x bigger files than with the Epson.