Scanning 8x10 method Epson v850 super resolution lens

[1erCru]

Recently purchased an 8x10. Was pleased with the scans off the glass shooting Ektar. The difference was pretty extreme stepping up from 4x5.

Decided to experiment with scanning 8x10 using the super resolution lens. I use a piece of anti newton glass and sandwich the negative between it and a piece of Mylar wet mounted same as the better scanning holder.

The jump in resolved detail is significant. I’m scanning at 2400.

For still life I’m tempted to just take two shots and cut the negative in half and scan it in strips.
For most of my shots the Epson can get to around 6 inches of width using the super resolution lens which
Covers most of the detail in the stuff I shoot.

You guys probably already know this but I’m blown away at the scan quality.

Also use four nickels to elevate the negative which my calipers state to be 1.8 mm which is the sweet spot on my better scanning holder.

[Jim Andrada]

Are you stitching two scans? If not how can you use the higher resolution lens for 8 x 10 when it only covers a band a little under 6 inches wide.

[1erCru]

The first shot I used it on was a sculpture I made that really only needed sharp focus in the middle 70% of the image so I was a bit lucky first go around. I started out and made a platen scan at 2400 and then wet mounted and scanned at 2400 and shopped them together.

What struck me was the sharpness of the super lens on an 8x10. There was a noticeable difference at 2400. I’m probably just going to cut the negatives and scan this way. The glass looked amazing , the super lens wet mounted blew my mind for an at home scan.

[Jim Andrada]

Well, if you only use the middle 5 or so inches of the negative I guess that will work, but you might want to think about cutting 8 x 10 down to two 4 x 10 pieces and using a 4 x 10 film holder. You won't really see much difference in quality and you'd save a lot of $$$ in the process, but of course it all depends on the aspect ratio of what you're photographing. I doubt very much that you're really getting 2400 dpi out of the Epson - most estimate seem to peg it at closer to 1500 - 1800 best case. Which is still pretty good for 8 x 10

[IanBarber]

From my testing, to get pretty close to 2400 ppi from the V800, you need to be scanning at 6400 ppi. Having said that, my tests have only been on 4x5 negatives so I am not 100% sure what effective ppl you would get with an 8x10 negative

[interneg]

The Epson scan system delivers in the 2200-2400ppi range under extremely high contrast test conditions. However that is pretty irrelevant when the MTF drops under 50% below 700ppi and drops under 10% by about 1500ppi - so 1200-1500ppi is about the useful resolution limit at best - and it will look less crisp/ detailed even at those resolutions than higher performance systems.

[IanBarber]

The Epson scan system delivers in the 2200-2400ppi range under extremely high contrast test conditions.

Is this when scanned at 6400 or is that irrelevant

[interneg]

Is this when scanned at 6400 or is that irrelevant

Under any conditions - all that scanning at the higher resolution does is sharpen things a bit via downsampling (and add noise). Here's a way to consider what's happening - if the MTF50 (50% contrast response is generally considered a good threshold for critical sharpness) of the imaging system/ camera/ lens/ film holder/ film etc on average 4x5 setups using a flat/ high aspect ratio grain 100 speed film is in the order of perhaps 1200ppi, but your scan system is only delivering 10-15% MTF response at 1200ppi, it doesn't take a huge amount of effort to realise just how poorly it's representing the image on the film/ the film's visual granularity, let alone the object/ person/ landscape before the camera lens. Once you add in that 8x10 has greater potential film flatness issues, tighter depth of field etc, the effective MTF recorded on the film will be lower - which when combined with the lower potential enlargement of 8x10 (how many people are really going above 2x?) may lessen the demands on the scanner's performance. However, even then, the lack of ability to represent low frequency granularity characteristics of the film often makes Epson scans look less good than those with higher inherent MTF performance.

TL;DR - a 30-40mp DSLR + macro lens may be a better scanner.

[1erCru]

I guess what I was trying to say was scanning wet at 2400 using the super resolution lens was clearly much better than scanning 2400 off the glass dry. Whether it’s scanning at 2400 or not idk.

I’ve personally seen a difference between scanning 2400 versus 3200 using 4x5. This difference was to my eye. Anything above seems to not make any difference.

[Alan Klein]

Here's a comparison I did comparing 4x5 Tmax 100 scanned with a V850 vs. a Howtek 8000.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

[1erCru]

Well yeah. Drum scanners are pretty nifty