Scanner Comparison 2019 [Epson Flatbed | Eversmart Flatbed | Drum Scanners]

[Pali K]

I am going to go through a scanner comparison exercise to provide an updated resource on the capabilities of various scanners as of 2019. I will use this thread to document the results and encourage others to chime in and help guide the process but please refrain from taking things off-topic. I am also keeping my fingers are crossed that we will remain kind to one another.


Scanners and computer systems that I will be using:

Epson V700 | Windows 7 64bit | Vuescan & Silverfast SE
Creo/Scitex Eversmart Pro | Mac OS9 | G5 Mirror | Eversmart Scan
Creo/Scitex Eversmart Supreme | Mac OS10.6.8 | G5 Mirror | OxygenScan 2.6.4
Scanmate 5000 | Windows 7 64bit | Color Quartet 5
Scanmate 11000 | Windows 7 64bit | Color Quartet 5
Heidelberg Tango | Mac OS10.2.8 | G5 Mirror | Newcolor 2000




The scanning tests will include scans for the following:

Wolf Faust IT8 Color Target
USAF 1951 Resolution Target
Black and White Negatives [8x10 | 4x5 | 6x7 MF | 35MM]
Color Negatives [4x5 | 6x7 MF | 35MM]
Color Slides [8x10 | 4x5 | 6x7 MF | 35MM]




Since each scanner/software setup is different my approach will be to follow these requirements in order:

5000 DPI Resolution [Espon V700 will be scanned at 6400 DPI and down-sampled to 5000 DPI in Photoshop
RAW Scans [Note: RAW is not possible for Eversmart Pro and Tango but I will turn off all software settings to get as close to RAW as possible
Positive conversions for negatives using ColorPerfect Plugin only and no additional Photoshop edits
Photos will be posted in sRGB using convert to profile method in Photoshop




A little bit information on the USAF Resolution Target that I am using:
See this link (http://www.optowiki.info/faq/how-to-read-an-usaf1951-target/) for a little history about the USAF 1951 resolution target and how it can be used to test for resolution. The scans that I'll post will be able to give a very good estimate of actual resolution using the reference table below:

https://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF Resolution Target.jpg

[Pali K]

Reserve 1

[Pali K]

Reserve 2

[Pali K]

Reserve 3

[Pali K]

Reserve 4

[Pali K]

Reserve 5

[Pali K]

Reserve 6

[Pali K]

Reserve 7

[Pali K]

Reserve 8

[Pali K]

Reserve 9

[Pali K]

Reserve 10

[Pali K]

Epson 700 | SilverFast SE | IT8 Colortarget RAW

LINK TO FILE (https://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorIT8Epson6400DPI.tif)

https://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/SettingsColorIT8Epson6400DPIWeb.jpg

https://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorIT8Epson6400DPIWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

Epson 700 | SilverFast SE | USAF 1951 Resolution Target RAW

LINK TO FILE (https://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951Epson6400DPI.tif)

Image below is cropped from a 6400 DPI scan but not resized. This is the best resolution my V700 can achieve. Vertical is ~2800 DPI and Horizontal is ~2200 DPI

https://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951Epson6400DPIWeb.jpg

Below are links to my "focus calibration" scans

Focus Setting 1 (https://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951Epson6400DPI-1.tif)
Focus Setting 2 **Best Focus** (https://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951Epson6400DPI-2.tif)
Focus Setting 3 (https://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951Epson6400DPI-3.tif)
Focus Setting 5 (https://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951Epson6400DPI-5.tif)

[Tin Can]

Pali, great thread and you are the right person to do it.

I ask that you quantify your target charts. Such as 1951 USAF resolution test chart and how to use it. I use a letter sized download Laser printed and know I am doing it wrong. Several times I have asked for help with that on this forum.

I notice that https://www.edmundoptics.com/c/test-targets/1099/ sells many, some are very expensive and tiny.

I plan to buy this one as it's big and 'only' $50 shipped. https://www.edmundoptics.com/f/resolving-power-chart/11903/

Also a great idea to 'reserve' linear posts so it gets recorded in one string. Genius!

[Pere Casals]

Epson 700 | SilverFast SE | USAF 1951 Resolution Target RAW
Image below is cropped from a 6400 DPI scan but not resized. This is the best resolution my V700 can achieve. Vertical is ~2800 DPI and Horizontal is ~2200 DPI


Pali, yes, this is consistent with all tests posted around, and my own tests. Thanks for making this test.

Think that 2800 effective dpi is amazing for a single pass covering 5.9", any expensive pre-press or pro scanner has to stitch strips to beat that. Sadly the poor vertical driving quality degradates the Y performance.

From scans of practical shots it would be interesting to find at what enlargement a drum makes a difference. My bet is 1.5m for 8x10 and 1m for 4x5.

Still for 8x10, with area guide it has a lower resolving power because the other lens takes the full bed, instead 5.9", it would be also interesting to measure that.

[Pali K]

Pali, great thread and you are the right person to do it.

I ask that you quantify your target charts. Such as 1951 USAF resolution test chart and how to use it. I use a letter sized download Laser printed and know I am doing it wrong. Several times I have asked for help with that on this forum.

I notice that https://www.edmundoptics.com/c/test-targets/1099/ sells many, some are very expensive and tiny.

I plan to buy this one as it's big and 'only' $50 shipped. https://www.edmundoptics.com/f/resolving-power-chart/11903/

Also a great idea to 'reserve' linear posts so it gets recorded in one string. Genius!

Thank you Randy! Good thought on qualifying the resolution target which I will do so now.


Pali, yes, this is consistent with all tests posted around, and my own tests. Thanks for making this test.

Think that 2800 effective dpi is amazing for a single pass covering 5.9", any expensive pre-press or pro scanner has to stitch strips to beat that. Sadly the poor vertical driving quality degradates the Y performance.

From scans of practical shots it would be interesting to find at what enlargement a drum makes a difference. My bet is 1.5m for 8x10 and 1m for 4x5.

Still for 8x10, with area guide it has a lower resolving power because the other lens takes the full bed, instead 5.9", it would be also interesting to measure that.

Thanks Pere! Yes, I plan to post everything here step by step and will consolidate everything in the first 10 posts when all said and done.

[Ted Baker]

Pali,

Have you considered doing a slanted edge test? You can a razor blade at 5degrees for the flat beds, but you may need to create a suitable target for the drums. For the color negative what are you planning on using?

[Corran]

Good going Pali.

[Peter De Smidt]

Great job, Pali. I look forward to more of your results!

[Pere Casals]

Vertical is ~2800 DPI and Horizontal is ~2200 DPI


Pali, just I checked the calculations, in the vertitical bars we can see element 5.6 clearly. This is 57.0*25.4*2 = 2895.6, so it's way better rounded to 2900dpi.

With Hor bars (vert axis) we see 5.4 at least, this is nailing 2300 dpi. Always there is a subjective factor for the 1951, and important thing is having a uniform criteron, but to me a fair reading would be 2900x2300, in special the 2900 reading is clear to me.

[Pali K]

Pali,

Have you considered doing a slanted edge test? You can a razor blade at 5degrees for the flat beds, but you may need to create a suitable target for the drums. For the color negative what are you planning on using?

Ted, I had not and have never heard of this test but I can definitely look into it. I am curious to know what would this test help with? I am using this image for Color Negative testing because the leaves are subtle variations of colors that will be interesting to see across the scanners.

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorNegTestImage.jpg

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorNegTestImageCrop.jpg


Good going Pali.

Great job, Pali. I look forward to more of your results!

Thank you Bryan and Peter!


Pali, just I checked the calculations, in the vertitical bars we can see element 5.6 clearly. This is 57.0*25.4*2 = 2895.6, so it's way better rounded to 2900dpi.

With Hor bars (vert axis) we see 5.4 at least, this is nailing 2300 dpi. Always there is a subjective factor for the 1951, and important thing is having a uniform criteron, but to me a fair reading would be 2900x2300, in special the 2900 reading is clear to me.

Pere, I think my astigmatism may be coming into play here but I went with safer option to what my eye can see. I think that is why you and I are coming at slightly different conclusion. I agree with your assessment though and that is why I noted the resolution as approximate. I will update the numbers once we are done with all the tests and what everyone feels like is the right summary for each scanner.

[Pere Casals]

I think that is why you and I are coming at slightly different conclusion.

The 1951 had been criticized because that silght subjectiveness about what's contrast extintion. IMHO a good criterion is being able to be perceive for sure the bars' orientation, without considering the extremes of the bars.


[QUOTE=Pali K;1478033]I am curious to know what would this test[/IMG]

http://kilopixel.net/publications/EI5294-11.pdf

[Pali K]

Epson 700 | SilverFast SE | Kodak Portra 160 Color Negative 16BIT RAW Scanned at 6400 DPI and down-sampled to 5000 DPI

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160Epson6400DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160Epson6400DPIWeb.jpg

The best ColorPerfect conversion I could achieve without increasing saturation. LINK TO 5000 DPI FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160Epson6400DPICP.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/Settings6x7MFPorta160Epson6400DPICP.jpg

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160Epson6400DPICPWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

Creo/Scitex Eversmart PRO | Eversmart Scan 3.0 | IT8 Colortarget 8 BIT RGB - All Settings OFF

DISCLAIMER:

Eversmart PRO does not have the ability to scan in RAW or save files in 16 BIT.
5000 DPI is interpolated by the software.

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorIT8ESPRO5000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorIT8ESPRO5000DPIWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

Creo/Scitex Eversmart PRO | Eversmart Scan 3.0 | USAF 1951 Resolution Target 8 BIT RGB - All Settings OFF

DISCLAIMER:

Eversmart PRO does not have the ability to scan in RAW or save files in 16 BIT.
5000 DPI is interpolated by the software.

This is the best resolution my Eversmart PRO can achieve. Both Vertical and Horizontal are either Group 5 - Element 5 or 6 (~2500 - 2800 DPI)

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951ESPRO5000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951ESPRO5000DPIWeb.jpg

UPDATE: I zoomed in the image and it seemed the resolution is greater than what is visible on the original image due to file size so I scanned it again at 8000 DPI max allowed and upscaled to 11000 DPI. Here is the result. I think the resolution is safely Group 5 Element 6 putting it at ~2896 for both Vertical and Horizontal.

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951ESPRO11000DPIWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

Creo/Scitex Eversmart PRO | Eversmart Scan 3.0 | Kodak Portra 160 Color Negative 8 BIT RGB - All Settings OFF

DISCLAIMER:

Eversmart PRO does not have the ability to scan in RAW or save files in 16 BIT.
5000 DPI is interpolated by the software.
I converted the 8 BIT file to 16 BIT in Photoshop before using ColorPerfect

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160ESPRO5000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160ESPRO5000DPIWeb.jpg

The best ColorPerfect conversion I could achieve without increasing saturation. LINK TO 5000 DPI FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160ESPRO5000DPICP.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/Settings6x7MFPorta160ESPRO5000DPICP.jpg

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160ESPRO5000DPICPWeb.jpg

[Alan Klein]

Thanks for your hard work. SO what setting should I use on my Epson V600? I shoot medium format 6x7.

[EH21]

Great thread, thanks for doing this!

[Ted Baker]

Ted, I had not and have never heard of this test but I can definitely look into it.


It is one way to measure the MTF of the scanner, for example rather than trying to measure what can be resolved at around 5-10% contrast which is what the USAF target your are using does. You can measure what can be resolved with a contrast of say 50%, or any contrast level for that matter. It is a much better comparison method.

This blog explains https://harvestimaging.com/blog/?p=1328

There is some software in imageJ to the calcs (Its on my todo list to test)


I am using this image for Color Negative testing because the leaves are subtle variations of colors that will be interesting to see across the scanners.


Yes that looks pretty good. I was wondering if you have a photograph taken of color checker chart, in daylight. I am interested in comparing with can be achieved by other scanners or a DSLR so having a target that anyone can create if they have same stock might be useful and for other selfish reasons but perhaps that will take this thread on a tangent.

[Pere Casals]

This is the best resolution my Eversmart PRO can achieve. Both Vertical and Horizontal are either Group 5 - Element 5 or 6 (~2500 - 2800 DPI)

UPDATE: I zoomed in the image and it seemed the resolution is greater than what is visible on the original image due to file size so I scanned it again at 8000 DPI max allowed and upscaled to 11000 DPI. Here is the result. I think the resolution is safely Group 5 Element 6 putting it at ~2896 for both Vertical and Horizontal.


Pali, in this case I'd also rate it better, in Element 6.0 (at bottom) bars orientation is perceived with absolutely no doubt. To me it's 3250dpi.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Thanks for doing this comparison. I appreciate that you have included the raw negative scans. I wouldn't have processed your leaf picture the same and being able to compare them using my normal workflow is nice. Like Ted Baker suggested it would be nice to include an example with a color checker, or at least some reference colors with known neutrals and skin tones.

[Pali K]

Thanks for your hard work. SO what setting should I use on my Epson V600? I shoot medium format 6x7.

Thank you! What software are you using? I would recommend scanning at the highest DPI setting possible in 16 BIT RAW and then using Color Perfect to convert to positive.


Great thread, thanks for doing this!

Thank you!

[Pali K]

It is one way to measure the MTF of the scanner, for example rather than trying to measure what can be resolved at around 5-10% contrast which is what the USAF target your are using does. You can measure what can be resolved with a contrast of say 50%, or any contrast level for that matter. It is a much better comparison method.

This blog explains https://harvestimaging.com/blog/?p=1328

There is some software in imageJ to the calcs (Its on my todo list to test)

Thank you Ted - learned something new. I will try to see if this is something I can incorporate towards the end of the other planned tests. Since the resolution is consistent across all scanners, I would say that we should at least get a reliable comparison even if it doesn't test the performance across all possible scenarios.


Yes that looks pretty good. I was wondering if you have a photograph taken of color checker chart, in daylight. I am interested in comparing with can be achieved by other scanners or a DSLR so having a target that anyone can create if they have same stock might be useful and for other selfish reasons but perhaps that will take this thread on a tangent.

I can look into this for you Ted but likely something that will be done at the end, if time permits :)

[Pali K]

Thanks for doing this comparison. I appreciate that you have included the raw negative scans. I wouldn't have processed your leaf picture the same and being able to compare them using my normal workflow is nice. Like Ted Baker suggested it would be nice to include an example with a color checker, or at least some reference colors with known neutrals and skin tones.

You're welcome Larry! I will be including a variety of other color negatives and will keep some normal scenes in mind as I select the right LF and 35MM film to scan. When all said and done, we should have a comparison across multiple scenes.

[Pali K]

Pali, in this case I'd also rate it better, in Element 6.0 (at bottom) bars orientation is perceived with absolutely no doubt. To me it's 3250dpi.

Pere, I think you are correct on both the Epson and Eversmart Pro. I'll update the DPI accordingly when I summarize the tables. Thank you.

[Pali K]

Thinking about using this image for 35MM Color Negative scans. This image seems to have quite a variation of light and colors from high saturation to pastel. The scene itself is a common one so we should know what the true colors are. Any thoughts before I start scanning?

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5446/31280286445_d8162a7872_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/PE8Dnx)

[Jim Andrada]

Is it just my old eyes or is the image a bit on the soft side??? (Nothing wrong with a soft image - I like it.) But if one is going to compare scans wouldn't a crisper image be better?

[Alan Klein]

Thank you! What software are you using? I would recommend scanning at the highest DPI setting possible in 16 BIT RAW and then using Color Perfect to convert to positive.



Thank you!


I use Epsonscan with my V600 and usually scan at 2400. With medium format that goives me 200mb files. Highest DPI isn;t practical. It would give me 1tb + files. At what pointt does the scanner really not distinguishing pixels?

[Pere Casals]

I use Epsonscan with my V600 and usually scan at 2400. With medium format that goives me 200mb files. Highest DPI isn;t practical. It would give me 1tb + files. At what pointt does the scanner really not distinguishing pixels?

Alan, with the V600 scanning at 2400dpi or a bit higher is OK, as you noted, in practice you won't improve much from scanning at higher dpi. I had the similar V500.

https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20180131040949/https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html

While a very basic film scanner, with MF film for sure it will deliver good enough images to be displayed in monitors and tht are also good for moderate size prints, if no high densities there having to be recovered.

A used V700 for some $250 would be a big improvement, if you can sell the V600 this would be a $150 investment, allowing also for LF scanning.

[Peter De Smidt]

Maybe we should let this thread be strictly about Pali's comparisons, using other threads for advice on particular workflows.

[Pere Casals]

Maybe we should let this thread be strictly about Pali's comparisons, using other threads for advice on particular workflows.

I agree, this is a really interesting initiative and better if we don't go much off topic.

[faberryman]

I use Epsonscan with my V600 and usually scan at 2400. With medium format that goives me 200mb files. Highest DPI isn;t practical. It would give me 1tb + files. At what pointt does the scanner really not distinguishing pixels?
According to filmscanner.info:

"In order to achieve the maximum resolution of 1560ppi, one does not have only to scan the with the highest optical resolution but it is sufficient to digitalize the original with 3200ppi. The effectively achieved resolution does not differ, no matter if one scans with 3200ppi or with 6400ppi - in both cases, an effective resolution of 1560ppi will be achieved!"

[Jim Andrada]

I scan MF at 4300 (optical) on my IQsmart and 6 x 6 scans run around 500MB

I think you meant 1GB, not 1TB

By the way I often get 900MB files from 6 x 12. No issue working them.

Quote Originally Posted by Alan Klein View Post
I use Epsonscan with my V600 and usually scan at 2400. With medium format that goives me 200mb files. Highest DPI isn;t practical. It would give me 1tb + files. At what pointt does the scanner really not distinguishing pixels?

[Pali K]

Is it just my old eyes or is the image a bit on the soft side??? (Nothing wrong with a soft image - I like it.) But if one is going to compare scans wouldn't a crisper image be better?

Good point - its too soft so I'll find another image to go by. Thanks Jim!

I'll be scanning and posting more results tonight. Stay tuned :)

[Jim Andrada]

It's OK to say that it's my fault because I'm getting old - my wife always says things like that so I'm used to it - except she'd blame my brain instead of my eyes. (just kidding of course)

[Pali K]

Creo/Scitex Eversmart Supreme | OxygenScan 2.6.4 | IT8 Colortarget 16 BIT RAW (DT)

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorIT8ESSUP5000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorIT8ESSUP5000DPIWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

Creo/Scitex Eversmart Surpreme | OxygenScan 2.6.4 | USAF 1951 Resolution Target 16 BIT RAW (DT)

This is the best resolution my Eversmart Supreme can achieve when scanned at 11000 DPI. I think resolution is around Group 6 Element 5 putting it around 5100 DPI.

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951ESSUP11000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951ESSUP11000DPIWeb.jpg

UPDATE: Rescanned the resolution target with the Black Frame Glass vs. Purple Frame Glass. I can see lines upto Group 7 Element 1 but lets go with Group 6 Element 6 to be safe which puts DPI resolution around 5700 DPI. Impressive :)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951ESSUP11000DPIBlackGlassWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

Creo/Scitex Supreme | OxygenScan 2.6.4 | Kodak Portra 160 Color Negative 16 BIT RAW (DT)

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160ESSUP5000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160ESSUP5000DPIWeb.jpg

The best ColorPerfect conversion I could achieve without increasing saturation. LINK TO 5000 DPI FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160ESSUP5000DPICP.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/Settings6x7MFPorta160ESSUP5000DPICP.jpg

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160ESSUP5000DPICPWeb.jpg

[mrred]

One thing not mentioned here, is a wet scan on the v700. It does make a huge difference...enough that I will use my v700/wet over my dedicated 35mm scanner with 35mm film.

Although I have no dpi figures, it resolves the grain much better.

[MOW]

I think that Supreme might need a bit of cleaning up of dust. Vertical lines in USAF 1951 target get messed up well before horizontal lines. This is how it should look like.

186459

[Pere Casals]

One thing not mentioned here, is a wet scan on the v700. It does make a huge difference...enough that I will use my v700/wet over my dedicated 35mm scanner with 35mm film.

Peter, it depends on what dedicated roll film scanner you have, but any cheap Plustek 8200 (or 7600) outresolves the V700 by some margin, here it says it resolves group 5.5 : https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html, the test made by Pali shows 5.6 and 5.4, verticals bars and Horizontal bars, while a 35mm Plustek makes 6.0 or 6.1.

https://www.filmscanner.info/Bilder/UsafPlustekOpticFilm7400.gif

Pali also has in his web site a side by side Dry vs Wet with a V800: http://www.analogfilm.camera/2017/11/10/deciding-when-to-wet-or-dry-mount/ but is you apply a bit of sharpening to the best point for each samples you will find equal results.

Wet scanning has an remarkable effect with the V700 when film is curled, the V700 has no autofocus so if film is not in the right height then it has a performance loss, this has been measured by several people with similar results, this graph shows what happens is film is not in place:
186458

The highest curve corresponds to Hor axis, it's more sensitive to height, while in the Vert direction we have a flat in the top (possibly) provocated by vibrations in the carriage displacement or similar.

There are other easy ways to place the film flat in the right position without wet mounting... or making the film to be flat.

Well, yes it would be interesting to also scan the samples wet for the V700, but what's for LF my guess is that it will make little difference, because LF lenses/negatives do extinguish contrast totally by some 2500dpi or 50lp/mm in practical shooting conditions, some LF lenses may deliver 80lp/mm lab, but real photography is not a lab with a flat chart.

Let's see how this test goes, IMHO Pali is to make a very good job by taking the samples. Let's see if once in a lifetime we'll be able to have a serene and fruitful debate about dpi :), we can get useful information about when drum scanning makes a difference, and at what print size.

[Pali K]

I think that Supreme might need a bit of cleaning up of dust. Vertical lines in USAF 1951 target get messed up well before horizontal lines. This is how it should look like.

186459

You're right. I think I need to clean the optics since it is drastically softer than my initial tests when I first got the scanner. This test was done when I first got the supreme. This just highlights one another aspect of owning these higher-end flatbeds that you need to calibrated them once in a while and keep things clean. This may sound like extra work but to me, it's a benefit that you have the ability to clean and calibrate things to get the best performance.

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/media/pictures/scans/EversmartSupreme/ESSup_Res_AftClean_DT.jpg

[Pali K]

...

Let's see how this test goes, IMHO Pali is to make a very good job by taking the samples. Let's see if once in a lifetime we'll be able to have a serene and fruitful debate about dpi :), we can get useful information about when drum scanning makes a difference, and at what print size.

Thanks Pere! I think I can definitely come back and do some of these tests with wet mounted film on the Flatbeds once I get through the initial tests. It would be helpful to see the performance improvement achievable with common solutions such as wet mounting and using adjustable holders. I am currently only using an adjustable holder for Epson and everything on the flatbeds will be dry mount scans for the 1st round of tests.

[Pere Casals]

hmm, the supreme is close to what a Hassie does in 35mm, but this one can stitch all the bed surface with this quality, while the hassie has an increasing loss with the format size increase...

[Pere Casals]

Thanks Pere! I think I can definitely come back and do some of these tests with wet mounted film on the Flatbeds once I get through the initial tests. It would be helpful to see the performance improvement achievable with common solutions such as wet mounting and using adjustable holders. I am currently only using an adjustable holder and everything on the flatbeds will be dry mount scans.

I agree, if not painful to do, the wet mount would clear the potential effect of any film curling in the focus, so results would be more consistent, and at the same time we find what the wet does...

Suggestion from Peter Carter is not bad... nothing wrong to see what's the best a machine can do.

[ropel]

This is excellent work. Following along with great interest.

Maybe a suggestion: how about including comparison to dslr 'scans'? Clearly this initiative is primarily a scanner comparison, yet I've seen proper results from camera diplication on this forum. Just curious. :-)

Thanks for sharing all your results Pali!

Sent from my SM-T590 using Tapatalk

[Juergen Cullmann]

Pali, thank you very much for your resolving tests with your Eversmart Supreme. I got the same result with my Supreme than you with your actual test ( about 5100 dpi). I am surprised what resolution will be possible when the scanner got cleaned. Have you done this before? I know, there is a cleaning manual in the file section but I am afraid I could damage the scanner.

Especially the ccd-row can easy be damaged during cleaning with the wrong wipes or wrong detergent/alcohol.

Could you give me an advice how you would
do this procedure? Thanks, Jürgen

[Peter De Smidt]

Maybe a suggestion: how about including comparison to dslr 'scans'? Clearly this initiative is primarily a scanner comparison, yet I've seen proper results from camera diplication on this forum. Just curious. :-)



I spent a bit of time on dslr scanner development. In the threads on this in the DIY section, there are scans of USAF1951 targets and Stouffer step wedges. These were done many years ago now, and I don't remember all of the particulars. For instance, some sharpening might've been used. Anyway, with a D600 with a Rodagon D 75mm @f/4 and 1x magnification about 3000 dpi were achieved. With a D810 and a Magnagon, about 4000 dpi was achieved. Density tests showed about a one-stop advantage over a then current Epson flatbed. Caveats. At 1x, scanning 35mm film is easy, with no combining of exposures involved. As film size goes up, so does the number of exposures that need to be combined. With 4x5 at 1x, scanning is only practical with an automated positioning system. As Ted has pointed out, what's really important is MTF. My feeling is that the dslr systems did a better job than the consumer flatbeds in that regard, but I don't have objective data. Currently, my dslr-scanner is disasembled, and so no updates will happen in the near future. My guess is that newer cameras, ones with higher resolution and no-vibration shutters, would produce even better results.

[sanking]

I spent a bit of time on dslr scanner development. In the threads on this in the DIY section, there are scans of USAF1951 targets and Stouffer step wedges. These were done many years ago now, and I don't remember all of the particulars. For instance, some sharpening might've been used. Anyway, with a D600 with a Rodagon D 75mm @f/4 and 1x magnification about 3000 dpi were achieved. With a D810 and a Magnagon, about 4000 dpi was achieved. Density tests showed about a one-stop advantage over a then current Epson flatbed. Caveats. At 1x, scanning 35mm film is easy, with no combining of exposures involved. As film size goes up, so does the number of exposures that need to be combined. With 4x5 at 1x, scanning is only practical with an automated positioning system. As Ted has pointed out, what's really important is MTF. My feeling is that the dslr systems did a better job than the consumer flatbeds in that regard, but I don't have objective data. Currently, my dslr-scanner is disasembled, and so no updates will happen in the near future. My guess is that newer cameras, ones with higher resolution and no-vibration shutters, would produce even better results.

I agree with Peter in that a dedicated high resolution digital camera set-up is capable of giving far better results than the Epson flatbeds in both resolution and dynamic range, and in fact better resolution than many high end flatbed and drum scanners. I set up a system with a Sony a7r 11, using the same Rodagon D 75mm f/4 lens that Peter mentions, and got about 4500 ppi in my tests of the system with the lens set to f/8. For the tests I used a chrome on glass target of the USAF1951 target, and focused with a Noritsu Koku Focus Test Chart.

Sandy

[Pali K]

Thank you Ropel, Peter and Sandy. And the additional benefit of a DSLR setup is that it will only get better as technology continues to improve. I don't shoot any digital and my last DSLR was a 5D MKII which I don't think would be much helpful to include. I don't even have a proper lens for it to do justice even for a 10 year old camera.

Pali

[Pali K]

Pali, thank you very much for your resolving tests with your Eversmart Supreme. I got the same result with my Supreme than you with your actual test ( about 5100 dpi). I am surprised what resolution will be possible when the scanner got cleaned. Have you done this before? I know, there is a cleaning manual in the file section but I am afraid I could damage the scanner.

Especially the ccd-row can easy be damaged during cleaning with the wrong wipes or wrong detergent/alcohol.

Could you give me an advice how you would
do this procedure? Thanks, Jürgen

Thank you Jurgen! I am now also thinking if the resolution is impacted by the type of scanner glass that is used. I got my Eversmart Supreme with a black border glass which has the shinny surface and I swapped it with my Eversmart Pro glass with purple border that has an etched surface. I never noticed any resolution impact on the PRO but since the Supreme can resolve way more, I wonder if the resolution is being impacted slightly by the glass. I will test this tonight and post my results to confirm if it is glass or dirty optics that is causing my two tests to be different.

Regarding the cleaning process, it is a fairly straight forward procedure and you can still clean the mirrors and the lens without touching the CCD which is tucked under a clear glass plate to help avoid major issues. The only time you really have to worry is when you remove the protection glass from the CCD sensor and clean the inside of the CCD which I have never touched. I only use clean air pressure gun to blow through the opening and never did the cotton swab step that some recommend.

[mrred]

On the Epson, there is different resolution for verticle and horizontal.

[Pali K]

On the Epson, there is different resolution for verticle and horizontal.

Yes, that is what I am seeing as well.

[Pere Casals]

On the Epson, there is different resolution for verticle and horizontal.

I'd add that this is a well known effect:

https://archivehistory.jeksite.org/chapters/appendixc.htm , see V750 evaluation.

While the High Res lens may resolve around 3000 dpi delivering some 2900-2800 dpi in the Horizontal axis (vertical bars), the V700-850 has a loss in the Horizontal axis (2200-2400), probably from vibrations from the carriage's mechanical drive.

[Pali K]

So, here is something new to add to the notes going forward. The Purple Border Glass DOES impact resolution and if you want the best resolution, you should be using Black Border Glass for your Eversmart Supreme. This is what the resolution target looks like with the Black Border Glass. But the Purple Border Glass is doing what it is designed to do quite amazingly as well which is to minimize the effect of scratches on the scan.

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951ESSUP11000DPIBlackGlassWeb.jpg

PS: My resolution target is indeed in bad shape :)

[Jim Andrada]

I talked to Michael Streeter once re cleaning the glass on my IQsmart 2. IIRC he told me at the time that the IQsmart 1 and 2 had etched glass and the 3 had coated glass because of the higher resolution so I'm guessing that this is the same story as for the Eversmart series. So yes, using the right glass for each scanner is probbaly pretty important

[MOW]

Here is likely the problem. It is not normal that result drops like that due getting dust from the old target scan (as I supposed initially). Eversmart can support 2 different base glasses but you need to do following: check if you have small code tape underside your etched glass (purple). This is how Eversmart recognises that it is a different base glass. If it is there you need to run calibration with both glasses seperately. It will create then to calibration file data for second glass too. If you don't have the small patch taped underside etched glass I can send a scan of patch and you can just print it yourself and tape it to place where it belongs (small square box on edge near saw tooth pattern is reserved for it underside the base glass). The reason for this is that etched glass (purple) is not as thick as the original glass that is shipped with Eversmart and therefore scan is out of focus. I learned this from Micheal (great person and knows everything what comes to Eversmarts) when I bought my oil mounting set a year ago.

What comes to cleaning ccd it is not that hard.

[Juergen Cullmann]

I measured my 2 base glasses (1 with black boarder, 1 with purple boarder). Both have the same thickness of 4mm. So this could not be the reason for the difference in sharpness. I made testscans of my resolutiontarget dry and wetmounted. That caused a remarkable difference.

[Pere Casals]

hmmm, 6.6 an 7.1 !

A X5 only goes one element beyond, and in 35mm only.

This is 36 MPix (effective) per inch2, so 2.9 GPix effective in 8x10" sheet, it outresolves what a perfect 8x10" negative is able by a factor of x5, in Pix jergon.

Thinking in a negative that would outresolve this scanner, it would be a 8x10" TechPan (cold stored) sheet exposed with a 30kg refined aerial lens, in the $500k range I guess.

[Tin Can]

Again I ask for size of USAF chart you guys are using.

I do use the big 8.5X11 inch print out Pere referred to earlier. It's too big! Even this blind old man can see all the lines.

The LaserSoft Imaging SilverFast SilverFast Resolution Target (https://www.adorama.com/slla1211.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2cmh1_333wIVV7nACh2C3Qk3EAQYASABEgJRkvD_BwE)does not specify size or material. Is it a glass 35mm slide?

[Pere Casals]

It's too big!

Randy, that pdf is for lenses, not for scanners or microscopes. For that search ebay: usaf 1951 glass slide, you may offer some $50. Those are not perfect, but my cheap one is very good until 200 lp/mm

[Tin Can]

Thanks Pere!


Randy, that pdf is for lenses, not for scanners or microscopes. For that search ebay: usaf 1951 glass slide, you may offer some $50. Those are not perfect, but my cheap one is very good until 200 lp/mm

[rdeloe]

If this is the tool to use for evaluating a scanner, then can we also use it to evaluate a "camera scanner"?

With my current camera scanning setup, I'm pretty sure it's not worth looking for much more than around 2,666 ppi (as a function of all the limitations of the system). I can get 2,666 ppi with 12 frames. To get 3,000 ppi takes 20 frames -- so for a modest increase in resolution, a lot more work.

I've been judging by comparing "scans" of actual 4x5 negatives at different resolutions. But if I wanted to be more precise, would this tool do the trick?

As an aside, either Edmunds Optics is ripping off the language they use to describe their much more expensive USAF 1951 glass slide from the Chinese eBay sellers, or the other way around... I suspect the other way around. ;)


Randy, that pdf is for lenses, not for scanners or microscopes. For that search ebay: usaf 1951 glass slide, you may offer some $50. Those are not perfect, but my cheap one is very good until 200 lp/mm

[Tin Can]

Yes that's more than I want to spend. One is expensive and the copy seems far less value for the price.

I plan to try reduction negatives.

As I fiddle about!


If this is the tool to use for evaluating a scanner, then can we also use it to evaluate a "camera scanner"?

With my current camera scanning setup, I'm pretty sure it's not worth looking for much more than around 2,666 ppi (as a function of all the limitations of the system). I can get 2,666 ppi with 12 frames. To get 3,000 ppi takes 20 frames -- so for a modest increase in resolution, a lot more work.

I've been judging by comparing "scans" of actual 4x5 negatives at different resolutions. But if I wanted to be more precise, would this tool do the trick?

As an aside, either Edmunds Optics is ripping off the language they use to describe their much more expensive USAF 1951 glass slide from the Chinese eBay sellers, or the other way around... I suspect the other way around. ;)

[Peter De Smidt]

If this is the tool to use for evaluating a scanner, then can we also use it to evaluate a "camera scanner"?

With my current camera scanning setup, I'm pretty sure it's not worth looking for much more than around 2,666 ppi (as a function of all the limitations of the system). I can get 2,666 ppi with 12 frames. To get 3,000 ppi takes 20 frames -- so for a modest increase in resolution, a lot more work.

I've been judging by comparing "scans" of actual 4x5 negatives at different resolutions. But if I wanted to be more precise, would this tool do the trick?

As an aside, either Edmunds Optics is ripping off the language they use to describe their much more expensive USAF 1951 glass slide from the Chinese eBay sellers, or the other way around... I suspect the other way around. ;)

This has already been talked about in this thread. Yes, you can use a USAF1951 target with a camera-based scanner. The real problem is correlating the results with real-world film scans. When I developed my DSLR scanner, I tried all sorts of lenses, from an old 55 micro Nikkor to a 5x Nikon Measuring Microscope lens. The higher magnifications gave much better results with an Edmunds chrome-on-glass high resolution USAF1951 target, but I did a comparison using a 35mm Kodak Technical pan negative. The image was shot using a very good prime lens at it's ideal aperture. I used a cable release, mirror lock up, and a 20lbs tripod. This system should've given higher resolution than that achievable with large format film, at least without a NASA-level budget. The result, with my system, shooting at 2x magnification might've given a tiny bit more detail than at 1x....but I couldn't be sure there even was a difference, even at %400 on my screen. Yes, I used lenses optimized for each magnification. So, the added hassle of going to 2x did not make sense, at least with my system, even though the test slide showed clearly better results.

[ropel]

Thank you Ropel, Peter and Sandy. And the additional benefit of a DSLR setup is that it will only get better as technology continues to improve. I don't shoot any digital and my last DSLR was a 5D MKII which I don't think would be much helpful to include. I don't even have a proper lens for it to do justice even for a 10 year old camera.

PaliThank you all for responding to my suggestion. Encouraging reminder to start working on a DSLR setup myself.

[Pere Casals]

If this is the tool to use for evaluating a scanner, then can we also use it to evaluate a "camera scanner"?

Yes... of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_USAF_resolution_test_chart

You need an slide resolving Group 7, or less if your scanner is not a drum. For a drum you may make a contact copy of the glass slide on Adox CMS 20 film, so it can be wet mounted in the cylinder.

If you have a camera scanner the it would be useful to check focus, so you would see: the quantitative effect of a focus shift, and the sweet aperture point, and average best setting. You may even want to stop the lens beyond the sweet point to increase DOF if you have a curled negative, I guess.

But, think anyway that it's really difficult that a LF negative has much information beyond 50 lp/mm, this is Group/Element 5.5

For rolls, some selected shots (non handheld, etc) may clearly benefit from a better scanning.

[rdeloe]

Thanks Pere and Peter for confirming what I suspected. It makes sense, of course.

As if often the case, the danger is that we create a solution looking for a problem! I already find prints up to 17" wide to be be pleasingly "big" for me. With my current setup I will be able to reliably produce digital version of my 4x5 negs at 2,666 ppi. That would allow for a print of 36"x24" at the Epson "ideal" of 360 ppi. In the unlikely even that I need more -- and the negative can give more -- the occasional drum scan would be more economical.

Really the only actual problem I have is dealing with large areas of low detail. Stitching these is currently possible in my setup only with a lot of manual intervention. Peter's computer-controlled approach seems to have solved that problem nicely, but I'm not prepared to go there yet. Should that ever become a significant barrier to completing a project, I'll probably have to spring for a V750 or V850....

[Pali K]

Again I ask for size of USAF chart you guys are using.

I do use the big 8.5X11 inch print out Pere referred to earlier. It's too big! Even this blind old man can see all the lines.

The LaserSoft Imaging SilverFast SilverFast Resolution Target (https://www.adorama.com/slla1211.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2cmh1_333wIVV7nACh2C3Qk3EAQYASABEgJRkvD_BwE)does not specify size or material. Is it a glass 35mm slide?

Hi Randy, the one I am using is no bigger than 35mm film but it is printed on a wider (almost xpan like) frame. I'll measure it properly and post exact measurements soon but its small enough that I can't see any of the group 6 or 7 lines by eye.

Pali

[Pere Casals]

I guess this was about spotting the line groups... not the individual lines.

Human eye may see a bit the individual lines in Group 1.

Group 2 have lines of around 0.05mm thickness. Whe can see a hair that is 0.07mm, but if two hairs are separated by a hair width then we see a single hair.

In Group 6 lines are around 0.005mm thick.

[Pali K]

Drum scanners are next and while setting up the scans, I took this quick screen capture to show the size of the USAF 1951 target next to my 35MM Color Target and 6x7 Negative.

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951TargetSize.jpg

Those center blocks are Group 4 and 5 and inside them are 6 and 7. It's super tiny!

[Tin Can]

Thanks Pali.

Use screen shots more!

You are doing us all a great service.

I have a USAF tiny target coming on loan!

[Peter De Smidt]

Note that rotating a image in post will cause a loss of detail.

[Tin Can]

I did not know that, I will be more careful with my scan orientations.

But I don't print from scans...yet!

Never say never.


Note that rotating a image in post will cause a loss of detail.

[Pere Casals]

scan orientations.

As Peter notes, one has to be careful with rotations, the image should have highest possible pixel count, and you have do no more than a single rotation, if a rotation has to be corrected then better to undo it and making the right one than making another one on the previous result.

[Pali K]

Unfortunately, I need to keep the drum balanced so rotating them won't be possible without great deal of headache. I will post the drum scan raw files without any rotation so the original file is still intact but I will rotate the images for JPEG demonstration here.

[Pali K]

Scanview Scanmate 11000 Drumscanner | ColorQuartet 5.2.2 WIN | IT8 Colortarget 16 BIT RAW

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorIT8SM1K5000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorIT8SM1K5000DPIWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

Scanview Scanmate 11000 Drumscanner | ColorQuartet 5.2.2 WIN | IT8 Colortarget 16 BIT RAW

This is the best resolution my Scanmate 11000 can achieve. Notice how the scan shows the "Wow & Flutter" effect which is a result of scan lines not matching due to calibration not being 100%. I need to replace the DC motor to correct this and haven't gotten to it yet because I don't need any higher resolution than what can be achieved here.

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951SM11K11000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951SM11K11000DPIWeb.jpg

If I zoom the image 200%, I can see lines at Group 7 Element 2 which puts the DPI at ~7300.

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951SM11K11000DPI200PCTWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

Scanview Scanmate 11000 Drumscanner | ColorQuartet 5.2.2 WIN | Kodak Portra 160 Color Negative 16 BIT RAW

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160SM11K5000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160SM11K5000DPIWeb.jpg

The best ColorPerfect conversion I could achieve without increasing saturation. LINK TO 5000 DPI FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160SM11K5000DPICP.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/Settings6x7MFPorta160SM11K5000DPICP.jpg

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160SM11K5000DPICPWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

I hope no one minds me saying this but as I expected, the colors on the drum are just another level without touching anything. I am sure just as amazing colors can be achieved with some post editing on the flatbed scans.

Epson V700

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160Epson6400DPICPWeb.jpg

Eversmart Pro

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160ESPRO5000DPICPWeb.jpg

Eversmart Supreme

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160ESSUP5000DPICPWeb.jpg

Scanmate 11000

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160ESSUP5000DPICPWeb.jpg

[Pere Casals]

I am sure just as amazing colors can be achieved with some post editing on the flatbed scans.

Of course, the drum has no stray light in the optic system. But stray level can be removed mostly by adjusting the input level in the Ps curve tool, in some images it would require additional work, IMHO.

After removing the stray, if we equalize the images in photoshop we see that images are mostly equivalent, being possible to match one to the other, except (I guess) for the extreme densities.

Regarding the palette, different sensors have different spectral responses being the cross channel different, not better or worse in principle. For an exact color match we may require a 3D LUT.

[Pali K]

You're right Pere. I am sure it could be improved and that is why I am posting RAW files so hopefully others can do some post-edit conclusions as well later. I am scanning through and reviewing the images and though this area of the image shows some interesting differences that are worth sharing.

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ComparisonA6x7MFPorta5000DPICP.jpg

What is most interesting is that in real life, DPI resolving power may not be adding a whole lot if the image itself doesn't have the resolution to begin with. It will be nice to see how slides look side by side and I expect to see bigger differences there.

[Pere Casals]

To me the EPSON requires a 2.5pix 50% sharpening radius to match a bit, and a little touch in the curves shaping in S.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4857/46755757932_c7010da815_o.jpg

[Pali K]

Scanview Scanmate 5000 Drumscanner | ColorQuartet 5.2.2 WIN | IT8 Colortarget 8 BIT RAW

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorIT8SM5K5000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorIT8SM5K5000DPIWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

Scanview Scanmate 5000 Drumscanner | ColorQuartet 5.2.2 WIN | IT8 Colortarget 8 BIT RAW

This is the best resolution my Scanmate 5000 can achieve.

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951SM5K5000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951SM5K5000DPIWeb.jpg

If I zoom the image 200%, I can see lines at Group 6 Element 3 which puts the DPI at ~4100 DPI.

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951SM5K5000DPI200PCTWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

Scanview Scanmate 5000 Drumscanner | ColorQuartet 5.2.2 WIN | Kodak Portra 160 Color Negative 8 BIT RAW

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7Porta160SM5K5000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7Portra160SM5K5000DPIWeb.jpg

The best ColorPerfect conversion I could achieve without increasing saturation. LINK TO 5000 DPI FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160SM5K5000DPICP.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/Settings6x7MFPorta160SM5K5000DPICP.jpg

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7Portra160SM5K5000DPICPWeb.jpg

[Ted Baker]

I hope no one minds me saying this but as I expected, the colors on the drum are just another level without touching anything. I am sure just as amazing colors can be achieved with some post editing on the flatbed scans.


That is indeed interesting, all of these devices have the WRONG spectral response for color negative. Though i suspect the drum scanners with there more sensitive PMT have been engineered to have a narrower spectral response. This would may make it easier to correct the inherent errors, or not... (depending where the spectrum is...)

AFAIK, colorperfect makes no attempt to fix these problems.

[Pere Casals]

all of these devices have the WRONG spectral response for color negative.

Ted, I don't agree. All those devices are amazingly good for color.

Also all can be IT8 calibrated. We also may design our own calibration to target any spectral hue in the negative palette to our (reversed) RGB palette.

A color scanner makes always a color separation. Light from film has an spectral nature but color dyes on pixels or on PMTs makes the R-G-B color separation.

Theory ruling color separations in the movie industry (for archival) it's the same that rules separations/processing from a scanner. With that knowledge it can be nailed what wanted in color processing. Today this just requires 3D LUTs and a colorist technician. At Disney they have plenty.

Think that from each RGB reading from the scanner we may even map the spectrum that the particular film has from that RGB combination, so its about being good in the processing, we have no limitation from the gear (beyond DMax).

[Pali K]

Heidelberg Tango Drumscanner | Newcolor 2000 MAC | IT8 Colortarget 16 BIT TIFF

Note: Tango has no RAW with my setup but this is with everything (end points, curves, sharpness, and etc.) turned off. However, Tango has an auto white-balance routine that has already corrected any color bias seen by the PMTs.

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorITTango5000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ColorIT8Tango5000DPIWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

Heidelberg Tango Drumscanner | Newcolor 2000 MAC | IT8 Colortarget 16 BIT TIFF

This is the best resolution my Tango can achieve. I think the resolution is between Group 6 Element 4 or 5 putting the DPI resolution at ~4600 - 5100 DPI.

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951Tango11000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/USAF1951Tango11000DPIWeb.jpg

[Tin Can]

It does look sharper

Is that 4X the data file to achieve it?

[Pali K]

Heidelberg Tango Drumscanner | Newcolor 2000 MAC | Kodak Portra 160 Color Negative 16 BIT TIFF

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7Porta160Tango5000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7Portra160Tango5000DPIWeb.jpg

The best ColorPerfect conversion I could achieve without increasing saturation. LINK TO 5000 DPI FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160Tango5000DPICP.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/Settings6x7MFPorta160Tango5000DPICP.jpg

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7Portra160Tango5000DPICPWeb.jpg

[Pali K]

It does look sharper

Is that 4X the data file to achieve it?

Hi Randy, which scanner/scan were you asking about?

[Tin Can]

The last one. Never mind, i am downloading all of them.

Keep it coming!


Hi Randy, which scanner/scan were you asking about?

[jp]

I guess this was about spotting the line groups... not the individual lines.

Human eye may see a bit the individual lines in Group 1.

Group 2 have lines of around 0.05mm thickness. Whe can see a hair that is 0.07mm, but if two hairs are separated by a hair width then we see a single hair.

In Group 6 lines are around 0.005mm thick.

.005mm is 5 microns, or about 5-8 waves of light! Probably can't inexpensively scan or capture visible light much better than that.

[Pali K]

This is the same comparison area from all three drum scanners with AUTO COLOR ( CTRL + SHIFT + B ) command. They are all sooo close :)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/ComparisonB6x7MFPorta5000DPICP.jpg

[Pali K]

.005mm is 5 microns, or about 5-8 waves of light! Probably can't inexpensively scan or capture visible light much better than that.

Excellent point JP!

[Pali K]

Phew - round 1 of the tests is complete across all scanners! This will take a while folks and I hope you are all on-board for a long ride. What should I go with next - slide or black and white negative? I'll pick a 4x5 photo this time.

[Tin Can]

B&w!

[Pere Casals]

.005mm is 5 microns, or about 5-8 waves of light! Probably can't inexpensively scan or capture visible light much better than that.

Yes, good point !! we approach to visible light limit wave length, anyway because of light wave lenght still we have room before it starts being a limit, microscope targets end in group 11, group 9 or 10 are usually seen with regular bio microscopes.

186614

A Nikon D850 has a pixel size of 4.34 microns...

[chassis]

Pali, this is great. Thanks so much for your persistence. I'm following this thread until the bitter end.

My vote is for slide film next.

[Pere Casals]

slide or black and white negative?


It would be interesting to see what happens with grain. It would be interesting to compare tabular with classic. A bit this is the shortcoming I find in a EPSON for 35mm, grain depiction, but anyway printers don't depict well grain.

In the Salgado's Genesis they had post 2007 images shot digitally, they then introduced artificial grain in the images with emulation software to keep consistency with TXP shots: the artificial grain was nice but it could not be well printed digitally with lightjet type equipment, and of course also not with inkjets. So they ended printing 8x10 Delta 100 sheets (4 images per sheet) with an LVT Rhino, and then they enlarged optically.

Well, let's see the grains...

With velvia it would be interesting to see what happens with highest densities, but we'll lack a test with EPSON/Multiexposure.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm with Chassis. Great job, Pali!

[Pali K]

Thank you Randy, Pere, BJ and Peter! I am going to go with these two as the next set. Both of these have areas of great sharpness and full range of almost white to almost black.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1451/24366111462_34b7db4be7_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/D89G33)

HP5 | HC110-B

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1931/45044435381_6f95d5c4fc_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2bCqvje)

Vevlia 50

[Peter De Smidt]

Good choices, Pali.

[Pali K]

Does anyone know if SilverFast has a file size limit? It can't seem to save my 6400 DPI files and its frustrating because it fails at the very end.

[Ted Baker]

This is the same comparison area from all three drum scanners with AUTO COLOR ( CTRL + SHIFT + B ) command. They are all sooo close :)


Indeed that quite interesting, do you know anything about the filters that sit in front of the respective PMTs?


Does anyone know if SilverFast has a file size limit? It can't seem to save my 6400 DPI files and its frustrating because it fails at the very end.

Silverfast and vuesscan all have 4GB output files limit which is constrained by version of TIFF file supported.

[Pere Casals]

Does anyone know if SilverFast has a file size limit? It can't seem to save my 6400 DPI files and its frustrating because it fails at the very end.

Also in old Mac, the maximum filesize supported in HFS is 2Gb. HFS+ solved that.

_____

Also to note that if we want color 16bits per channel (4x16, in fact), 8x10 sheets can only be scanned at 2500dpi without going beyond those TIFF 4Gpix mentioned by Ted, being 2400dpi a standard setting.

4x5 would reach the tiff limit at 5000dpi, so 4800 is the right setting, isn't it ?

[Larry Gebhardt]

It's interesting that both your ScanMates have the same jaggy issue my 5000 has, though it appears your's is slightly worse. I've been trying to figure out if it's drum balance or an issue with a position encoder. It certainly limits the useable resolution and would probably. Any ideas on a fix?

[Pere Casals]

it's drum balance or an issue with a position encoder.

From the cyclic nature it has to be a vibration. The Hor elongation looks a Sin, and it takes several rows to complete a cycle.

From the ammount of rows it takes a cycle to complete we have the time period and Hz of the vibration. We should focus in a part that have a natural vibration frequency of that range.

Time ago I had a similar issue with a linear camera, not the same but similar effect... When I saw that image I noticed the similarity.

[Pali K]

Larry, it is most likely a cause of bad DC motor bearings. I have a new motor - I just haven't replaced it yet because I never scan over 4000 DPI.

Pali

[Larry Gebhardt]

Pali, thanks. I did a quick search and see mention of a Maxon 285787 motor. Is that the one? Where did you get the motor and what was the cost? It's not to the point I need to replace it yet for large format, but for 6x7 and smaller I generally scan at the max resolution on the 5000. Getting rid of the jaggies would be nice.

[chassis]

Looks like around $370. https://www.maxonmotorusa.com/maxon/view/product/motor/dcmotor/re/re35/285787

[Pali K]

Larry, I got mine from ABC-Scan before they closed a few months ago. Maxon 285787 is not the stock version but it was speculated that it might work but polarity may need to be changed. The original is 143202.

[Pere Casals]

Also bearings may be simply replaced for a perfect fix, I'd say that the bearings inside a maxon are pretty standard in a skf/fag catalog.

Maxon installs bearings for +20,000 hours service for rated specs without inbalance. It is a surprise if bearings inside a maxon fail, if not a bad design of the assembly. I've played a bit with maxons and found they are top Q.

[Pali K]

Pere the only reason why I say this is bad bearings is because it is a known issue. The Scanmate service manual itself notes that it is due to bad bearings in the DC motor and recommends replacing the motor as a fix. I know some people who replaced and saw significant improvements. The motor is fully enclosed but I am sure there is some tricks to get it to open and replace bearings but might not be worth the effort. I paid $150 EUR for mine but the company I bought it from is no longer in service.

[Pere Casals]

A known issue is a known issue. Anyway it would be interesting to measure the axial play of the replaced motor, to know what play caused the problem, specs (new) are 0.025mm. These are preloaded type bearings to provide a degree of stiffness...

[Tin Can]

Adding my 2 cents.

I scanned the loaned Edmund Optics 2X2" glass 1951 USAF target various ways on a V700. No wet mounts.

Using V700 OE 8X10 film guide with target flat on dry platten. 5.2

Same as above but sitting on TOP of my 8X10 AN glass. I often USED to scan this way. 5.2 but wavy.

The target installed in 35mm slide mount on the V700 OE slide multi multi holder at OE height. 5.4

Good enough for me. I am not posting images.

YMMV

[Pere Casals]

Adding my 2 cents.

I scanned the loaned Edmund Optics 2X2" glass 1951 USAF target various ways on a V700. No wet mounts.

Using V700 OE 8X10 film guide with target flat on dry platten. 5.2

Same as above but sitting on TOP of my 8X10 AN glass. I often USED to scan this way. 5.2 but wavy.

The target installed in 35mm slide mount on the V700 OE slide multi multi holder at OE height. 5.4

Good enough for me. I am not posting images.

YMMV

Randy, with the area guide and scanning on bed the Low Resolution lens is used, having lower performance but covering the entire bed. When scanner detects a film holder then the High Resolution lens is used, having a superior performance but covering only 5.9" wide, wich is also a large coverage capable for even 5x7" film, if having that holder.

Even with the low performance lens with 8x10 you obtain and equivalent 320MPix effective scan, wich is an insane ammount of effective pixels... for 4x5 better to use the holders, if the shots are sharp and wanting a big print.

[Tin Can]

Pere, I know that and use the 4X5 2 up OE holder, the V700 does work best for 4X5. And gives me my best LF scans, but I also shoot 5X7 up to 11X14 and must settle for the lower res.

I don't scan anything smaller, well i do but simply to file away. Evidence...

The V700 also 'sees' the large notch in the 8X10 mask area for some reason and always uses the low rez lens for the 8x10 films, just as it does for paper scans. Normal.

I don't print from my scans, i file them. I print optical.

It seems the low rez and high rez lens capture is not that different, according to my results on my 5 year old V700. Read that twice.


Randy, with the area guide and scanning on bed the Low Resolution lens is used, having lower performance but covering the entire bed. When scanner detects a film holder then the High Resolution lens is used, having a superior performance but covering only 5.9" wide, wich is also a large coverage capable for even 5x7" film, if having that holder.

Even with the low performance lens with 8x10 you obtain and equivalent 320MPix effective scan, wich is an insane ammount of effective pixels... for 4x5 better to use the holders, if the shots are sharp and wanting a big print.

[Pere Casals]

It seems the low rez and high rez lens capture is not that different, according to my results on my 5 year old V700.

Yes... most LF negatives have little detail beyond what the low res lens may see. Anyway 5x7 can be scanned with the highres lens, if necessary...

[TomasCZ]

Regarding the EverSmart cleaning procedure - there are 6 elements total which require cleaning. Top and bottom glass (both sides of each) is obvious I think. Then there are two mirrors, a lens and a CCD array. Both glasses are easy to clean as I am sure you already know, mirrors are also fairly straightforward. The real fun begins with cleaning the lens and the CCD array. In order to remove the lens, you need to remove the CCD head from the assembly. The problem is, once you do that, you need to do the assembly calibration and run a fresh set of tables. And boy, can that be a hassle. It usually takes me about 40 hours of rigorous testing and tuning before I am satisfied with results...

[Pali K]

Epson 700 | SilverFast SE | 4x5 HP5+ Developed in HC-110 (Dil B) RAW

Note: Scanned at 4000 DPI because higher resolutions kept failing. I'll keep 4000 DPI for all scanners for 4x5 tests. Click on the jpeg for full resolution file.

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/4x5HP5Epson4000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/4x5HP5Epson4000DPIWeb.jpg (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/4x5HP5Epson4000DPI.jpg)

[Tin Can]

You run a clean machine, glass and neg, but I find LP easier to compare.

I took it to 100%

Thank you!

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yes... most LF negatives have little detail beyond what the low res lens may see. Anyway 5x7 can be scanned with the highres lens, if necessary...

The high res lens allows you to adjust focus for your neg up to 5x7 by way of an adjustable holder. However, the low res lens does not so you are stuck with whatever came out of the factory and that may or may not be good. I use a V850 and scan at 6000dpi, regardless of what the nay sayers think I find them much better than any lower resolution.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Epson 700 | SilverFast SE | 4x5 HP5+ Developed in HC-110 (Dil B) RAW

Note: Scanned at 4000 DPI because higher resolutions kept failing. I'll keep 4000 DPI for all scanners for 4x5 tests. Click on the jpeg for full resolution file.

LINK TO FILE (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/4x5HP5Epson4000DPI.tif)

http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/4x5HP5Epson4000DPIWeb.jpg (http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/4x5HP5Epson4000DPI.jpg)

Silverfast is annoying. I stay with Vuescan, it lets me go up to scanner max and doesn't crash. I had same problem with Silverfast a few weeks ago. So stopped trying it.

[Pere Casals]

the low res lens does not so you are stuck with whatever came out of the factory and that may or may not be good.

In theory the low res lens is in perfect focus on the bed, the adjustable holders IMHO are more to compensate film curling, but anyway we the benefit of the higher res from a "narrower" 5.9" scan witdh.



I use a V850 and scan at 6000dpi, regardless of what the nay sayers think I find them much better than any lower resolution.

Yes, it's clear that the EPSON increases performance until 6400, this is important for roll film. But if you calculate the image size of a 4x5 color negative in 16bits per channel then you may go beyond 4Gpix, so beyond what a TIFF file (supported version) can have...

[Steven Ruttenberg]

In theory the low res lens is in perfect focus on the bed, the adjustable holders IMHO are more to compensate film curling, but anyway we the benefit of the higher res from a "narrower" 5.9" scan witdh.


In theory that is, in reality, it may not be. There is a tolerance band associated with that optimum factory focus so you could be above or below scanner glass, but with modern mass production, etc the scanners should avg focus at the scan glass most of the time. Unless you are a pixel peeper like our digital counter parts can be sometimes, it probably won't be noticed if it is slightly off.

Yes, it's clear that the EPSON increases performance until 6400, this is important for roll film. But if you calculate the image size of a 4x5 color negative in 16bits per channel then you may go beyond 4Gpix, so beyond what a TIFF file (supported version) can have...

This is why I keep my scans to 6000 for 4x5. That typically results in a file of about 3.6-3.8gb. The additional 400dpi is a nice to have, but not required to have. The difference is there, but very small. So 6000 is the sweet spot for me.

[rdeloe]

Thanks Pali. This thread, and your work, is a genuine public service!

I downloaded your tree scan to see what that much resolution offers for me. The answer is not much. There's a real cost to having huge files "just in case" I ever need to print that large. For me it's much more sensible to line up the resolution I need to my typical printing case, and then get higher resolution scans only if I need them.

It was also good to see how well HP5+ does. I tend to prefer FP4+ in HC-110 with Dilution H because I don't love a strong grainy look. Your HP5+ in Dil B looks quite good. I'd like to be able to use a faster film so this shows it's worth having another look.

[Peter De Smidt]

Related a bit to rdeloe'a comment, one interesting thing related to scanning is the effect on grain size. Before someone feels the need to point this out, I'm referring to photographic grain, the appearance of granularity in a standard photo print. I'm not referring to grains of silver, which are much, much smaller. Anyway, the appearance of grain depends how how the film inherently is, as well as how it's scanned. People talk about grain aliasing and hard/soft light sources, and maybe that's it, but whatever the explanation, some scanning systems really exaggerate film grain more than others. For example, I had a Nikon Coolscan V. It was a very good 35mm film scanner, at least with fine-grained film. But with grainy film, say, Bergger 200 or HIE, it wasn't as good as my Canoscan 9950F, a consumer desktop scanner. The grain with the Nikon with those films was massive. It clearly limited system resolution. With the 9950f, those films had much finer grain but also more subject detail. Moving on to today, with 35mm film I scan at 6000spi with my Cezanne, not because I get more subject detail, but because I get the finest appearance of grain. It's not that I don't like grain, at least with some pictures. I'm just pointing out that some systems increase apparent grain size more than others.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Related a bit to rdeloe'a comment, one interesting thing related to scanning is the effect on grain size. Before someone feels the need to point this out, I'm referring to photographic grain, the appearance of granularity in a standard photo print. I'm not referring to grains of silver, which are much, much smaller. Anyway, the appearance of grain depends how how the film inherently is, as well as how it's scanned. People talk about grain aliasing and hard/soft light sources, and maybe that's it, but whatever the explanation, some scanning systems really exaggerate film grain more than others. For example, I had a Nikon Coolscan V. It was a very good 35mm film scanner, at least with fine-grained film. But with grainy film, say, Bergger 200 or HIE, it wasn't as good as my Canoscan 9950F, a consumer desktop scanner. The grain with the Nikon with those films was massive. It clearly limited system resolution. With the 9950f, those films had much finer grain but also more subject detail. Moving on to today, with 35mm film I scan at 6000spi with my Cezanne, not because I get more subject detail, but because I get the finest appearance of grain. It's not that I don't like grain, at least with some pictures. I'm just pointing out that some systems increase apparent grain size more than others.

This is true. What I find with the films I use, HP5-400, Portra, Extar, Acros, Tmax and D100, is that if I have good exposure, then even at high scan resolutions, I get minimal grain, if I am off too much on exposure, then I get the grain starting to appear. Much like a digital file and underexposing it and trying to pull the shadows out of nothing, gets real noisy.

My last image I posted in the Image sharing was scanned at 6000dpi and resized to 300dpi at 16x20 (approx) and you can see it is a fairly smooth file (little grain) I prefer to scan at max resolution, save that linear raw tiff as my archive file and then If I want, I could resize it as first step to the size I plan to print and edit that file. Will be much smaller, there is another method outlined here https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/03/turbocharge-your-photoshop/and pointed to by Ken Lee that allows you to work an a smaller version of your file and then apply to the image scanned at max dpi.

I havre the coolscan 4000 and about 5000 images to scan for archiving. Slides included and uncut roll film. Need to get the roll film adapter and the slide adapter, but they cost more than the scanner!

[sanking]

I have the coolscan 4000 and about 5000 images to scan for archiving. Slides included and uncut roll film. Need to get the roll film adapter and the slide adapter, but they cost more than the scanner!

The Nikon Coolscan is a very good scanner, but scanning 4000 to 5000 slides might drive you nuts.

Last year I decided to archive all of my 35mm slide collection and debated how to go about it. I have a Howtek drum scanner but that would have taken too long. Eventually I decided to re-purpose one of the old Repronar slide duplicating devices with a modern FF Sony camera. It involved three steps that took about a day of work. 1) Remove and replace the film camera with a FF Sony mirrorless, 2) make an adaptor to connect the Sony to the existing bellows, and 3) replace the existing Repronar lens with a 75 mm Apo Rodagon. The 50 mm Repronar is actually a pretty good lens, but I had the 75 mm Apo Rodagon from an old Leafscan 45 and knew its quality

One might ask, why go to that much trouble? Well, the Repronar is a sturdy unit with a good light unit that one can buy for peanuts on ebay, and once converted one can set it up for a specific format and leave it that way until finished. As recall it cost me about $100 on ebay, quite a bargin for a good sturdy focusing unit and light source. Scanning 35mm and medium format is very easy, just set up the focus, insert the slide or film, adjust exposure, and snap. With the 75mm Rodagon for 35mm or 105 Apo-Componon it is one shot for 35mm or 6X9 film, or some stitching with template for 4X5. Regardless of format I get resolution of over 4000 ppi, which is way more than any of my old slides have. And dynamic resolution with the current Sony FF cameras is way more than most of my old slides and film actually have.

Project might not be for everyone, but for me it was worth the effort for long term saving of time. And I save the drum scanner for larger film like 5X7, 7X17 and 12X20.

Sandy

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The Nikon Coolscan is a very good scanner, but scanning 4000 to 5000 slides might drive you nuts.

Last year I decided to archive all of my 35mm slide collection and debated how to go about it. I have a Howtek drum scanner but that would have taken too long. Eventually I decided to re-purpose one of the old Repronar slide duplicating devices with a modern FF Sony camera. It involved three steps that took about a day of work. 1) Remove and replace the film camera with a FF Sony mirrorless, 2) make an adaptor to connect the Sony to the existing bellows, and 3) replace the existing Repronar lens with a 75 mm Apo Rodagon. The 50 mm Repronar is actually a pretty good lens, but I had the 75 mm Apo Rodagon from an old Leafscan 45 and knew its quality

One might ask, why go to that much trouble? Well, the Repronar is a sturdy unit with a good light unit that one can buy for peanuts on ebay, and once converted one can set it up for a specific format and leave it that way until finished. As recall it cost me about $100 on ebay, quite a bargin for a good sturdy focusing unit and light source. Scanning 35mm and medium format is very easy, just set up the focus, insert the slide or film, adjust exposure, and snap. With the 75mm Rodagon for 35mm or 105 Apo-Componon it is one shot for 35mm or 6X9 film, or some stitching with template for 4X5. Regardless of format I get resolution of over 4000 ppi, which is way more than any of my old slides have. And dynamic resolution with the current Sony FF cameras is way more than most of my old slides and film actually have.

Project might not be for everyone, but for me it was worth the effort for long term saving of time. And I save the drum scanner for larger film like 5X7, 7X17 and 12X20.

Sandy

That is actually an interesting method. I have been looking for a way to use my dslr to scan 4x5 film and stitch together. What is hard to figure out is how to move the neg around without messing up its orientation to get the several frames needed for 4x5. I am going to use either a 100mm macro or a 180 macro. How do you do the 4x5 film without messing up the orientation and maintain consistency for good stitches?

Yeah, it will drive me nuts, it is a lot of insert, scan and wait. Good thing most of it is uncut rolls. But a lot are slides and cut rolls.

[Tin Can]

I also set up a $15 Repronar with a lesser camera and lens to copy slides.

I still use the Nikon PS-4 Slide Copying Adapter with the PB-4 bellows which I did not give away, as it's fun for macro.

[Peter De Smidt]

Great setup, Sandy!

[Alan Klein]

I rescanned my 120 6x7 Velvia 50 at 3200 on my V600 and didn't notice any difference with my normal scan setting of 2400.

[sanking]

How do you do the 4x5 film without messing up the orientation and maintain consistency for good stitches?



Since you can copy up to about 2X3" at a time with a 105 mm lens you only need to set up a simple template for six shots on the x-y axis to capture a full sheet of 4X5" film, with way more than enough overlap for simple photomerge in PS.

That said, 4X5 was never one of my favorite formats so I have so little work in that size that I would probably just scan it with the drum scanner.

Sandy

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I rescanned my 120 6x7 Velvia 50 at 3200 on my V600 and didn't notice any difference with my normal scan setting of 2400.

Can’t speak to 120 or the 600, but there is a huge difference with 4x5 once focus is set using wet mount. And even more at 6000 and up.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Since you can copy up to about 2X3" at a time with a 105 mm lens you only need to set up a simple template for six shots on the x-y axis to capture a full sheet of 4X5" film, with way more than enough overlap for simple photomerge in PS.

That said, 4X5 was never one of my favorite formats so I have so little work in that size that I would probably just scan it with the drum scanner.

Sandy

Cool thanks. I am probing into going to 5x7 and or 8x10.

[Pere Casals]

Cool thanks. I am probing into going to 5x7 and or 8x10.

:) hmmm, Steven never look through a 8x10 GG, see what can happen, min 0:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V40Mz0mVotg

Remember, never look through a large GG, not even a single time.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

It is like crack, one time and your hooked! I almost started with 8x10, but chickened out at the size initially. Now, I think I am ready, 5x7 and 8x10, especially 8x10 for contact printing.

[Tin Can]

85% are not addictive personalities

15% ruin a lot of fun


It is like crack, one time and your hooked! I almost started with 8x10, but chickened out at the size initially. Now, I think I am ready, 5x7 and 8x10, especially 8x10 for contact printing.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

True and in reality I am not an addictive person. So much so, I had to take heart medicine and BP medicine a few years ago, and I got bored of taking them and stopped. Luckily I do not need them any more.

[Cameron Hamill]

I wonder if anyone would care to speculate as to possible scan quality of a Microtek ArtixScan 3200XL? I can hardly find any information on this scanner and I have only been able to find them for sale as brand new. Aside from the tri-wavelength LED and CYMK and LCH modes I'm wondering if there's a major difference with the MikroTek ScanMaker 1000XL Plus.

I realise there's a huge quality difference between these prosumer scanners such as the Epson Expression 12000XL and Creo IQSmarts and the Cezanne Screens.

I'm just interested in reading members opinions on these scanners.

[Pali K]

Sorry for the lack of updates everyone. Been tied up at work and I hope to resume my posts along with some new scans over the weekend. Hope everyone is staying warm in this frigid cold!

Pali

[alen]

Sorry for the lack of updates everyone. Been tied up at work and I hope to resume my posts along with some new scans over the weekend. Hope everyone is staying warm in this frigid cold!

Pali

Not a worry Pali, ive just discovered this thread so there plenty to sift through.
As a V800 user, ive never tried 6400dpi and usually topped out at 3200, but now I might give it a go!

[invisibleflash]

These test patterns are crazy priced. Here is one that looks good on eBay.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tiffen-DANES-PICTA-RES7-Resolution-Test-Chart-for-Electronic-Cameras-and-Optics/182983599575?hash=item2a9aac25d7:g:MtAAAOSw-olaQv~E:rk:95:pf:0

Here are a couple more

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Set-of-Large-High-Resolution-Test-Charts-for-Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3-5-5-6L-IS/270793236929?hash=item3f0c88e1c1:g:cOgAAOSwEetV9KFM:rk:30:pf:0

They are large size 11 x 17. I happen to have an 11 x 17 scanner as well.

But I don't know if they are any good.

We should pool some $ and buy them to put up hi-res copies on the Internet Archive.

I'd chip in $15.

Edmonds prices are ridiculous.

Here are some test pattern I use for printing. But I could only find low res online.

https://archive.org/details/PrinterTestPatternAtkinsonD.D.TeoliJr.A.C.2

[Tin Can]

Yes. Edmonds has some very good products.

It also sells this target i plan to buy. I like the size and price. Cheaper than your posts.


https://www.edmundoptics.com/f/resolving-power-chart/11903/

[rdeloe]

If you want a legitimately free test chart designed for lens testing you could use this one: https://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/res-chart.html

It's based on the old standard and definitely is not a substitute for an actual ISO 12233:2014 chart, but for some purposes it gets the job done. I needed a consistent target when I was evaluating lenses for my APS-C tilt-shift setup, so I printed four and mounted them in a group in a semi-permanent location. This allowed me to make rough and ready apples-to-apples comparisons of how the lenses I was evaluating did under various amounts of shift.

[alen]

To me the EPSON requires a 2.5pix 50% sharpening radius to match a bit, and a little touch in the curves shaping in S.

...

Thanks for the tip, that works well for me too in my scanning results! (Silverfast @6400dpi).
Prior to that I had more modest sharpening, 0.5pix 200%.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I find often at 6000dpi on my V850, I can get away with no sharpening, but if I do any, it is with High Pass and in the mid-tones mostly and only to the point I can just barely make it out.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks for the tip, that works well for me too in my scanning results! (Silverfast @6400dpi).
Prior to that I had more modest sharpening, 0.5pix 200%.

alen, I'd point that this 2.5pix / 50% setting may be good for that particular situation, but IMHO every case is different.

The sharpening radius (etc) also may be optimized for different images depending on:

> Scan dpi

> Lens performance

> image softness from aperture (spheric aberration from a too wide aperture or diffraction from a too stopped lens)

> if not a perfect focus

> Photoshop may also solve motion blur from shake if shutter speed is close of "vibration frequency"

> Film type


or sections of the same image:

> shadows vs mids vs highlights

> perfect plane of focus vs other regions in DOF but not having perfect focus


... and a final sharpening can be done with radius related to viewing distance

[sperdynamite]

Seems like all the images from this thread have disappeared. Any way to reclaim them?

[Peter Mounier]

It's doubtful that those images can be reclaimed.
You might find this post helpful ... https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners
And you can use Google to find other posts on this forum by using this search string ... site:largeformatphotography.info + scanner comparison
And there is this ... https://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

[Pali K]

Seems like all the images from this thread have disappeared. Any way to reclaim them?


It's doubtful that those images can be reclaimed.
You might find this post helpful ... https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners
And you can use Google to find other posts on this forum by using this search string ... site:largeformatphotography.info + scanner comparison
And there is this ... https://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

Sorry, it took a lot longer than expected but wanted to set up things properly with the latest security. Have started uploading the backup and hopefully things are back up fully shortly. If you see something broken, please point it out and I'll try to get it resolved.

I may continue this test soon.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Would be interesting. I redesigned my better scanning holder for finer adjustments and made laser cut masks. I need to get back to scanning once I reset focus on my V850. I also need to use my drum scanner more. I got to snof film to develop but too dusty in my temp home. Scared tonlet film dry in this environment.

[Alan Klein]

Would be interesting. I redesigned my better scanning holder for finer adjustments and made laser cut masks. I need to get back to scanning once I reset focus on my V850. I also need to use my drum scanner more. I got to snof film to develop but too dusty in my temp home. Scared tonlet film dry in this environment.

Steve, What do you mean reset focus in the V850?

[nbagno]

Steve, What do you mean reset focus in the V850?

I think be reset he means to adjust the height of the better scanning holder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alan Klein]

I think be reset he means to adjust the height of the better scanning holder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe he meant something else. After all, the V850 factory-supplied film holders have height adjustments built-in.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

One sets focus by adjusting the height of the film holder. I updated mine with 3/16x100 tpi thread. And made sever laser cut aluminum film masks. Had cerakoted in black and will next cover them in black flocking.

[Alan Klein]

One sets focus by adjusting the height of the film holder. I updated mine with 3/16x100 tpi thread. And made sever laser cut aluminum film masks. Had cerakoted in black and will next cover them in black flocking.

Are you using the more accurate scanner lens that works with the film holders rather than the less accurate on used on the platen for 8x10's?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Are you using the more accurate scanner lens that works with the film holders rather than the less accurate on used on the platen for 8x10's?

Don’t know about more accurate per se, but yes. I use the one for 5x7 and smaller film.

[sperdynamite]

Great to have this back...perhaps the site mods could find a way to archive it all. It's a bit more useful than the existing scanner comparison IMHO.

Makes me pretty confident in my Eversmart Supreme II purchase.

[jesslee]

Are there any suggestions for which in the current world would be a good purchase to get print Quality ( 40x60 up ) scans of 6x7, 4x5, 6x17, 5x7 slides? I have been shooting digital for the most part but I want to get back into film.

[sperdynamite]

Are there any suggestions for which in the current world would be a good purchase to get print Quality ( 40x60 up ) scans of 6x7, 4x5, 6x17, 5x7 slides? I have been shooting digital for the most part but I want to get back into film.


You can easily achieve those sizes with an IQSmart2, IQSmart3, Eversmart Supreme I/II. Easily both in the sense of the scanners capabilities and in the sense of fussing with the hardware.

[bob carnie]

I have three scanners - Epson 850 pro - Eversmart Creo Supreme - and Imocan

I love all three and there are differences and we use each scanner for their strong points. I highly recommend all three.

[Peter De Smidt]

I have three scanners - Epson 850 pro - Eversmart Creo Supreme - and Imocan

I love all three and there are differences and we use each scanner for their strong points. I highly recommend all three.

This is a great insight.

[bob carnie]

This is a great insight.

A friend of mine is designing a light box - high quality lens - imocan style loading system to do copy work of old negs. I will be putting a 100mb mirrorless camera on it . kind of double usage, we are just waiting for the price of these backs to drop in the next two years.
I believe this will be the unit I will use with my young staff moving forward. We do a lot of work from the 50', 60' 70 era now archiving large bodies of work and then ultimately making show prints

[Peter De Smidt]

That should be a great system, Bob, and it will be relatively fast to use.

[bob carnie]

That should be a great system, Bob, and it will be relatively fast to use.

Speed and high quality, I have compared the Phase One system to Imocan and the Creo and it is favorable, I think one of the fuji or sony mirrorless will be the way I go, this tech moves fast.

[bmikiten]

It appears based on my readings and research that the real issue is that there are no solutions to high-end scanning between $2500 (V850 with fluid mounts) and about $9k+. I'm considering an IQSmart2 system (used, of course) to supplement my V850 which will be relegated to quick scans for evaluation. Is that a fair assessment of the current market? I did notice that the larger Epson 12000XL is an option at $4.5k or so but that doesn't really give me any advantage over the V850 other than negative size (I scan 6x17 to 8x10). Would you agree?

[Corran]

The options are essentially older high-end flatbeds like the Eversmart, Cezanne, etc. that have commensurate operational issues (old computers / OS, etc). A turnkey system is preferred, if you want to get to scanning and not spend a lot of time tinkering (and you'll pay for the pleasure).

My first Cezanne was around $2500, shipped to my house. The second one I bought as a backup was about 1/3 of that, picked up. It works fine when swapped in for my first machine but doesn't like the second Mac G4 I have...so it sits as a backup/spare for when my first machine decides it's time to retire.

[Peter De Smidt]

A potential issue with these old scanners is that service is often not available, nor are the specialized parts to perform some of this service yourself available. I'm currently having a problem with my Cezanne, and I doubt I'll be able to fix it.

[bmikiten]

It's a good reason to buy from a tech.

Brian

[bob carnie]

We bought our Creo Eversmart from Micheal Streeter in Lansing Mi and in fact sending it in for repairs due to someone not lifting properly when moving, I am so happy he is around, very diligent and responsive to our emails. I highly recommend his services.

[martiansea]

I did notice that the larger Epson 12000XL is an option at $4.5k or so but that doesn't really give me any advantage over the V850 other than negative size (I scan 6x17 to 8x10). Would you agree?
I once tried using an Epson 12000XL to scan some 35mm and 120 negatives, and the results were extremely poor. This was using the Epson film holders, not messing with any wet mounting etc... I think this scanner is only good for prints.
In my personal opinion, given all the trouble you have to go through to pull a decent film scan from the flatbed scanners, your time+money would be better spent assembling a DSLR scanning rig. Other members here have done this, and after trying it myself, I'll never mess with flatbeds for scanning film again.
In my experience the only straightforward scanner worth using now is the Imacon.

[Sert]

I have GFX100s and some macro lenses and recently purchased 4x5 Chamonix 45F2.I was doing digi scan for 35mm which was super high quality compared to any Epson scanner but 4x5s do i really need Epson V800 or similar? i just don't wanna do stitching which is extra work..

[Alan Klein]

I have GFX100s and some macro lenses and recently purchased 4x5 Chamonix 45F2.I was doing digi scan for 35mm which was super high quality compared to any Epson scanner but 4x5s do i really need Epson V800 or similar? i just don't wanna do stitching which is extra work..

What will you do with the scans?

[Sert]

What will you do with the scans?

Web share only.

[Peter De Smidt]

Web share only.

Then stitching won't be necessary.

[Alan Klein]

Web share only.

Any method probably will be fine. I do scan 4x5, 6x7 and 35mm with a V850 at 2400bpi. (I'm shooting 4x5 with a 45H-1 Chamonix) But that gets reduced for the web at the end of editing to around 1600 pixels wide, at the most. Since you already have the digital camera, you ought to try it out to see if you're happy. No point in spending $1200 on a V850 if you don't need it. Good luck.

[KorDen1977]

Hello Pali!

Please tell me how you got around the scanning resolution limitation of 10600 pixels on the Scanview Scanmate 11000 scanner?

Your scan file has a resolution of about 5000 dpi, but I have to make do with a resolution of approximately 4350 dpi.
http://www.netsoft2k.com/Docs/Media/Pictures/Scans/ScannerComparison2019/6x7MFPorta160SM11K5000DPI.tif

Best regards, Denis Korzun.