Features of a universal Filmscanner and why the Epson 700/800 has or has not.

[rawitz]

From many competent posts we know the highlights and limits of the Epson 700/800 scanner series.
So I dont want here more resolution- , filmholder- or else-tests but anwers to a simple general question:

What features should a universal (all film formats from 135,120 and sheetfilm) filmscanner have?

For me from the today marketed scanners the epon 700/800 series scanner is the only real candidat for that label,
but is not perfect. Why not? I my view a universal filmscanner should have these features:

1.FILMFORMAT from 135, 120 and sheetfilm up to 8x10.
I personally have to scan ULFilms but prefer stitching from 8x10 than going to a 30x40cm/DIN A3 scanner like the Epson 12000XL (which is a perfect device).

2.FILMHOLDERS that can hold the film flat.
The (newer) Epson AN glass-filmholder for me are perfect but should take larger filmstripes and maybe 5x7 film. The Wet-Mounting-Filmholder is a good addition.

3.If 2. is given for me no AUTOFOCUS is necessary.

4.Real net SCANRESULUTION of 3200 dpi for all filmformats out of the device.
I know the highend-filmscanners make up to 4000 dpi for 135 and 120 film, but not for sheet film.
And for sheetfilmers often 2000 dpi is enough.
But I want here an universal filmscanner: and (around) 3200 dpi would be good for all real world (not testcharts) filmformats.
I dont think that 4000 dpi is technical possible for 8x10`/20x30cm devices.

5. ICC DUST-REDUCTION technic YES.
Thats why I gave up my drumscanners for sheetfilm, because manual dustcleaning in post can takes hours if you want i perfect.

6.For SOFTWARE a "professional mode" that
does not cut off highlights and shadows for "crisper" scans, something like rawscans which are "softer and muddy" with much room in gradation and colors for the post.

7.48BIT SCANNING and output therefore would be fine, but does the epson really scan CCD 48bit intern? I dont know.


Second Part:
Why does the Epson 700/800 match or fail your expectations for universal filmscanner?

For me (and many other people) the most critical point is:
Why does the real/net resultion output of about 2400 dpi from filmholder (or 2200 dpi from groundglass) not match the technical given optical resultion of 6400 dpi or 4800 dpi. Is it really only the scan-optic or the whole scan-technic. I dont know ....

And my last question to the technical specialists and gurus:
Is there a real possibility, to technical upgrade the Epson 700/800 series to an universal scanner with the features we want here.
And will the price stay affordable?

regards
Rainer

[Alan Klein]

As an owner of a V850, Epson recently contacted me for a survey of it. I submitted some ideas to them that I thought would improve their scanners. So they are apparently investigating possible future designs and products. You ought to contact Epson and send them an email of some of the features you would find helpful in future scanners. Are you using an Epson now?

[bob carnie]

Hi Rainer- I do a lot of scanning for various purposes , some high and some low resolution depending on my needs at the time, I think the answer or the product will be a hybrid style of scanner that incorporates a very high resolution capture system combined with a backlight frontlight solution. I feel all the work done by many here in that direction is positive. We are now in the timeline where one can get 150mp sensors on cameras, at the moment they are really expensive but as a few years go down the line these prices on the used market will bring the price way down, I think CUSTOM KITS will be available allow one to put on a mirrorless high rez camera and give the worker the option of having a great camera as well a camera that utilizes its best features to do very fast , high quality scans of film. Right now the scanners I have take about 8-15 min to do very high rez scans, with these new systems it will be in the seconds which if one is scanning large groups of older film be quite rewarding. I too would love to see Epson up its game but if you look at it from a marketing perspective the return of their investment would be low as film production is low compared to a scant 25 years ago.
We have seen the 18 year 1mb or 2mb increase by the manufacturers , I now believe they are close to 4 x 5 - 8 x 10 quality with the phase one systems and thus we will see movement at the high end driving each year the price down so us mere mortals can afford one of these cameras.

I actually know of a young man working on this very solution , and I probably will buy my kit from him when he has finished his testing stage. It is only a matter of time now.



Bob

[Alan Klein]

Bob, What's a backlight-frontlight solution? Bedside resolution, the problem with flatbeds like my V600 and V850 is the dMax - you can't get through those darker shadow areas like in Velvia 50.

[rawitz]

Hi Alan,
of course I read your posts and agree with everything. The last years ago I had many discussions with the Epson folks about their scanners at photokina, but photokina is dead. I´m sitting in Germany and have no more contact to Epson. As you have it in US, of course I give you every permission to give them my informations and thoughts to your Epson contact.
And yes, I used drumscanners (Scanmate) since nearly 30 years (!!), I now also have a Nikon 9000 and know many midend-scanners from teaching my photografer customers. Today I use my 15 year old Epson V700 for my sheetfilm scans from 4x5 up to 10x15`as I told upside.
A "universal filmscanner" would be fine not only for me - I´m sure.

Hi Bob,
to the scanning approach with digital camera I did some trials too.
BUT: I nowadays do pics in 8x10`and bigger. My scans on the Epson 700 with 2400 dpi (net) give me 1500 MP RGB and more. I´m not young enough to wait for a digital camera like the PhaseOne 100 or 150 MP to match this from my Epson Scanner.
Not to discuss the expected price for a 500 MP PhaseOne. The Epson can do it much cheaper.

regards
Rainer

[jp]

I think a universal scanner is about as practical as a universal camera.
We need something quick and high quality (a step up from the Epsons, maybe coolscan quality) for scanning rolls of small and medium format film.
Then an upgraded Epson for medium and sheet films. If it must be universal, then a motor feed carrier for the Epson.

The Epsons could be improved by less plastic. A sheet metal construction would reduce static electricity greatly (and thus dust). I manage by keeping the scanner in a dust free darkroom, something most people can't do.

I don't have any problem with the resolution of the Epson for large format film. It would be nice to have more resolution AND speed for smaller film.

It would be nice to have a brighter light source either for more depth of field of focus, or more dynamic range in overly dense negatives.

[interneg]

For me (and many other people) the most critical point is:
Why does the real/net resultion output of about 2400 dpi from filmholder (or 2200 dpi from groundglass) not match the technical given optical resultion of 6400 dpi or 4800 dpi. Is it really only the scan-optic or the whole scan-technic. I dont know ....

It's nowhere near precise enough in construction - and the way it tries to squeeze resolution from the 1/2 pixel overlapping sensors & interpolating them together (not very well) will deliver a misleadingly high resolution (from an ultra high contrast chart) at very poor MTF. So, the 2200-2400ppi across the sensor is really only about 2x1200ppi + questionable interpolation. High MTF is critical to good scan results - and that overall transfer function is sensitive to both mechanical and optical components/ precision.


And my last question to the technical specialists and gurus:
Is there a real possibility, to technical upgrade the Epson 700/800 series to an universal scanner with the features we want here.
And will the price stay affordable?

If it was built to much higher standards and used leadscrew rather than belt drive systems - and an optical path that is designed for high MTF over absolute resolution, then it might be a potentially good machine. The available length of linear scan sensors is why most of the high end flatbeds resorted to XY scanning & stitching.

Could a better machine be built? Unquestionably, yes. Could it be built for less than USD 10,000 selling price, I don't know - maybe if you could sell a lot of them & leverage newer manufacturing techniques. If it could deliver 1500ppi across the bed & 3-4000ppi down a narrower strip (6000ppi could probably be done, if the thing was well enough designed) at USB 3 speed, then it's potentially very good. Better yet if it automatically complies with how colour neg is supposed to be 'seen' by the paper and how colour transparency is supposed to be viewed (easily done with appropriate RGB LED and engineering). Autofocus and reliable focus calibration should not be difficult to implement either - if it's designed to quality, not price.

[Joshua Dunn]

There will never be a one size fits all solution for high quality film scanning. However I do think we need more options than the market is willing to provide on it's own.

I am working on building a better solution for a scanner, although I don't see it being any faster, just better in resolution and bit depth. I think the real problem is what do you buy if you don't buy the Epson V850? If you buy the V850 it's about $1100 and that comes with Silverfast. But for those of us that want a step up above the V850, there are not a lot of options. I have looked into buying a drum scanner but that is even more impractical than the V850, however with a lot of effort, will give you better results. Realistically they are a lot of money on the used market for such old (although still viable) technology. I would like to see a option that is an easier to use than a drum scanner, but better quality than the Epson V850. The price point that I feel most prosumers would be comfortable with something like that could be around $2000.

-Joshua

[Bernard_L]

For me (and many other people) the most critical point is:
Why does the real/net resultion output of about 2400 dpi from filmholder (or 2200 dpi from groundglass) not match the technical given optical resultion of 6400 dpi or 4800 dpi. Is it really only the scan-optic or the whole scan-technic. I dont know ....


6400 dpi is not optical resolution; just marketing. That is obtained with high sampling (small steps) but because the optical resolution is 2200-2400, at 6400 successive samples are essentially repeats of the same data. In techspeak that is called oversampling.

Leaving marketing aside, the 2400dpi figure is obtained by scanning a resolution chart (there are other means, but let's keep it simple) and looking for the last (finest) patch with discernible lines. At that point, the contrast is almost zero. So even the technically correct figure of 2200-2400dpi does not match very well the perceived resolution. In techspeak one says that the modulation transfer function (MTF) drops to zero at the limit of resolution.

One way to improve the perceived resolution is sharpening (in techspeak MTF restoration). Meaning boost the response at the spatial frequencies below the resolution limit, where the contrast has dropped but not fallen to zero. Best done with unsharp masking (USM). Two parameters must be chosen properly: radius and amount. If done properly, a significant improvement in perceived shaprness is obtained. If overdone, it can be ugly: an image that "hurts the eyes", and, in extreme cases, bright rims around dark areas, and vice versa.

[rawitz]

Hi Joshua,
I fully agree! A better than Epson V850 scanner is not an idea of a small minority of highenders, but the wish of many people and for a reasonable price (about 2000$) it would be a market runner. I had two drumscanners and gave them away for nothing. SCSI bus is antique and runs on antique computers with antique windows/mac systems. Even my Nikon 9000 with firewire bus only runs on my old "highend" notebook. We are practising photographers and not spleeny antique-cars-collectors.

Hi Berhard,
We know that the 4800/6400 dpi optical resolution is sampled. The Epson technical specs say, the scan unit consists of 2x3 (RGB) scanlines with each of 20400 pixel. The second linetriple has an offset of 1/2 pixel to the first triple and with this "optical sampling" the 4800 dpi (groundglass) and 6400 dpi (filmholder) resolution is reached.
But even with only one scanline-triple without oversampling there is a resolution of 2400 and 3200 dpi (half of oversampled). Why dont we get it, for me 3200 dpi net output would be enough. Is it the inferior "high quality" lens or what else?

regards
Rainer

[Bernard_L]

Hi Joshua,
Hi Berhard,
We know that the 4800/6400 dpi optical resolution is sampled. The Epson technical specs say, the scan unit consists of 2x3 (RGB) scanlines with each of 20400 pixel. The second linetriple has an offset of 1/2 pixel to the first triple and with this "optical sampling" the 4800 dpi (groundglass) and 6400 dpi (filmholder) resolution is reached.
But even with only one scanline-triple without oversampling there is a resolution of 2400 and 3200 dpi (half of oversampled). Why dont we get it, for me 3200 dpi net output would be enough. Is it the inferior "high quality" lens or what else?

regards
Rainer
As you guessed, it has to do with the lens. I am unable to say if the lens is "inferior". But the performance of the system is going to be limited by, separately, the optical resolution of the lens, and the sampling of the sensor.


there is a resolution of 2400 and 3200 dpi (half of oversampled). Why dont we get it,
Oversampling is not just moving the sensor in steps of half the pixel spacing (or offsetting the second row by 1/2pixel). The native pixel size may already be oversampling (i.e. be smaller than necessary) with respect to the true optical resolution; meaning the focal spot size from a point source, before discussing any sensor or pixels. From the V700 specs:

Optical Resolution: Epson Dual Lens System, 4,800 dpi and 6,400 dpi
In my book, that is NOT optical resolution. Just CCD pixel density. Optical resolution is a property of the lens.

And, on second thoughts, that V700 lens is (IMHO) not that bad. Quoting again from Epson:

Effective Pixels: 40,800x56,160 (4,800 dpi), 37,760x62,336 (6,400dpi)
Take the hi-res case 37,760x62,336. Decrease linear resolution by a factor of 4, to 1600dpi "only". Giving 9440x15584, i.e. 154 megapixels. When digicams started to push above 24 Mpx, it was said that Canon, Nikon, etc, would have to re-design their lenses to match the increased sensor resolution. What about 154 Mpx!!? And without distortion.

Some high-end flatbed scanners have addressed that issue --high pixel density and large scanning area; can't have both-- by scanning parts of the object (negative, prnt...) and splicing the pieces digitally. Same thing for some folks who scan their film with a digicam.

[Kiwi7475]

I really don’t expect Epson to produce a new higher capability scanner any time soon, and if they did, the price point would not likely be around 2k just based on how much new engineering would be required, the declining market for such higher capability, and current pricing of existing models (including the 12000xl series besides the V series).

The V700 came out in 2006, and the V800 and V850 in 2014, representing relatively minor evolutions over a period of 16 years.

IMO, a higher capability scanner would require a lot of new development in the optical/mechanical front, and is just not something that we have seen coming from Epson for many years.

That’s just my opinion, I do hope I’m wrong. I’d be first in line to buy it.

[Alan Klein]

I think a universal scanner is about as practical as a universal camera.
We need something quick and high quality (a step up from the Epsons, maybe coolscan quality) for scanning rolls of small and medium format film.
Then an upgraded Epson for medium and sheet films. If it must be universal, then a motor feed carrier for the Epson.

The Epsons could be improved by less plastic. A sheet metal construction would reduce static electricity greatly (and thus dust). I manage by keeping the scanner in a dust free darkroom, something most people can't do.

I don't have any problem with the resolution of the Epson for large format film. It would be nice to have more resolution AND speed for smaller film.

It would be nice to have a brighter light source either for more depth of field of focus, or more dynamic range in overly dense negatives.

When I got my V850, I calibrated the height of the various film holders. I was surprised by how important that was. You could really see the difference from one height setting to the next.

[Alan Klein]

It's nowhere near precise enough in construction - and the way it tries to squeeze resolution from the 1/2 pixel overlapping sensors & interpolating them together (not very well) will deliver a misleadingly high resolution (from an ultra high contrast chart) at very poor MTF. So, the 2200-2400ppi across the sensor is really only about 2x1200ppi + questionable interpolation. High MTF is critical to good scan results - and that overall transfer function is sensitive to both mechanical and optical components/ precision.



If it was built to much higher standards and used leadscrew rather than belt drive systems - and an optical path that is designed for high MTF over absolute resolution, then it might be a potentially good machine. The available length of linear scan sensors is why most of the high end flatbeds resorted to XY scanning & stitching.

Could a better machine be built? Unquestionably, yes. Could it be built for less than USD 10,000 selling price, I don't know - maybe if you could sell a lot of them & leverage newer manufacturing techniques. If it could deliver 1500ppi across the bed & 3-4000ppi down a narrower strip (6000ppi could probably be done, if the thing was well enough designed) at USB 3 speed, then it's potentially very good. Better yet if it automatically complies with how colour neg is supposed to be 'seen' by the paper and how colour transparency is supposed to be viewed (easily done with appropriate RGB LED and engineering). Autofocus and reliable focus calibration should not be difficult to implement either - if it's designed to quality, not price.

When you select higher dpi like 6000 over let';s say 2400, the speed has to slow down even if a new machine can reach that resolution. How long would it take to scan and 4x5 at 6000? WOuld it be worth the time spent?

[Alan Klein]

6400 dpi is not optical resolution; just marketing. That is obtained with high sampling (small steps) but because the optical resolution is 2200-2400, at 6400 successive samples are essentially repeats of the same data. In techspeak that is called oversampling.

Leaving marketing aside, the 2400dpi figure is obtained by scanning a resolution chart (there are other means, but let's keep it simple) and looking for the last (finest) patch with discernible lines. At that point, the contrast is almost zero. So even the technically correct figure of 2200-2400dpi does not match very well the perceived resolution. In techspeak one says that the modulation transfer function (MTF) drops to zero at the limit of resolution.

One way to improve the perceived resolution is sharpening (in techspeak MTF restoration). Meaning boost the response at the spatial frequencies below the resolution limit, where the contrast has dropped but not fallen to zero. Best done with unsharp masking (USM). Two parameters must be chosen properly: radius and amount. If done properly, a significant improvement in perceived shaprness is obtained. If overdone, it can be ugly: an image that "hurts the eyes", and, in extreme cases, bright rims around dark areas, and vice versa.

I do all sharpening in post.

[Alan Klein]

I really don’t expect Epson to produce a new higher capability scanner any time soon, and if they did, the price point would not likely be around 2k just based on how much new engineering would be required, the declining market for such higher capability, and current pricing of existing models (including the 12000xl series besides the V series).

The V700 came out in 2006, and the V800 and V850 in 2014, representing relatively minor evolutions over a period of 16 years.

IMO, a higher capability scanner would require a lot of new development in the optical/mechanical front, and is just not something that we have seen coming from Epson for many years.

That’s just my opinion, I do hope I’m wrong. I’d be first in line to buy it.

A better lens that automatically focuses on the film would be a huge leap in quality. Maybe a stronger lamp and better amplifier (more modern). CHangin lenses, amplifiers, and lamps won't change the basic structure. So it should be able to be done on the cheap. After all, the technology has advanced in 8 years.

Also, a film holder with less static doesn't attract so much dust.

They don't have to start from scratch. They could leave the rest of the machine the same.

[Kiwi7475]

A better lens that automatically focuses on the film would be a huge leap in quality. Maybe a stronger lamp and better amplifier (more modern). CHangin lenses, amplifiers, and lamps won't change the basic structure. So it should be able to be done on the cheap. After all, the technology has advanced in 8 years.

Also, a film holder with less static doesn't attract so much dust.

They don't have to start from scratch. They could leave the rest of the machine the same.

Alan, they have autofocus on the Expression series starting with the 10000xl back when it came out in 2004 (!!) what does that tell you about whether they will implement it in a V860 or V900 or whatever new model? Zero chance IMO. They haven’t done it in 18 years and they already had that technology ready to go!

Like the V line, the expression series has not seen more that minimal evolution in interfaces and lamps to LEDs since their inception.

[jp]

Like the V line, the expression series has not seen more that minimal evolution in interfaces and lamps to LEDs since their inception.

Part of my business is being a distributor of a niche of Japanese electronics. That includes having repair parts for 0-20 year old electronics equipment.

I would be confident in guessing that the change to LED in the Epson scanners is because the cold cathode fluorescent lamps (or it's corresponding power supply) probably became discontinued at some point, and some other minor parts have disappeared from production requiring some minor interface updates.

If a 2004 scanner had autofocus, surely the parts for that have disappeared or evolved into something totally different by 2022.

[Kiwi7475]

Part of my business is being a distributor of a niche of Japanese electronics. That includes having repair parts for 0-20 year old electronics equipment.

I would be confident in guessing that the change to LED in the Epson scanners is because the cold cathode fluorescent lamps (or it's corresponding power supply) probably became discontinued at some point, and some other minor parts have disappeared from production requiring some minor interface updates.

If a 2004 scanner had autofocus, surely the parts for that have disappeared or evolved into something totally different by 2022.

I don’t think so. The autofocus capability continued in the 11000xl and then with the 12000xl (which are all the minor evolutions of the 10000xl), which came out in 2017. You can still buy the 12000xl today, it is not out of production.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, they have autofocus on the Expression series starting with the 10000xl back when it came out in 2004 (!!) what does that tell you about whether they will implement it in a V860 or V900 or whatever new model? Zero chance IMO. They haven’t done it in 18 years and they already had that technology ready to go!

Like the V line, the expression series has not seen more that minimal evolution in interfaces and lamps to LEDs since their inception.

The fact that I received a request to review the V850 from Epson is interesting that they're interested in my comments. Something's up.

[Kiwi7475]

The fact that I received a request to review the V850 from Epson is interesting that they're interested in my comments. Something's up.

I hope you’re right but I’m not holding my breath based on past performance… [emoji3]

[Alan Klein]

I hope you’re right but I’m not holding my breath based on past performance… [emoji3]

The survey asked a lot of questions as to use and issues I might have had. Epson hired a private firm that does surveys for Epson, Sony, and a lot of other tech manufacturers. Epson would not be spending money for nothing. Let's hope this portends a more modern unit. After all, Epson is not oblivious to the fact that film has expanded exponentially in the last couple of years. Just look at how prices for old film cameras have gone up. They would want to get in on the latest interest. Don't forget there can be competitors working on this as well. If they don't do something, a new product could obsolete their entire lines. They have to be able to show they have new stuff. No one wants to buy a 2004 Chevy.

[Kiwi7475]

The survey asked a lot of questions as to use and issues I might have had. Epson hired a private firm that does surveys for Epson, Sony, and a lot of other tech manufacturers. Epson would not be spending money for nothing. Let's hope this portends a more modern unit. After all, Epson is not oblivious to the fact that film has expanded exponentially in the last couple of years. Just look at how prices for old film cameras have gone up. They would want to get in on the latest interest. Don't forget there can be competitors working on this as well. If they don't do something, a new product could obsolete their entire lines. They have to be able to show they have new stuff. No one wants to buy a 2004 Chevy.

Sure let’s be optimistic. However sometimes surveys can just be ways to make a customer base feel good without any intention to follow up (a placebo effect that makes them look good), particularly when making it better is not going to necessarily drive more sales, because, let’s admit, who is Epson’s competitor nowadays to the higher end of the V series? If competition drives innovation then…. well, no need to innovate here… We’ve been driving this old Chevy for a long time now. Like I said the same model has effectively been around for 15 years.

I don’t want to sound too jaded or negative , but like I said I’m not holding my breath. YMMV.

[Alan Klein]

Sure let’s be optimistic. However sometimes surveys can just be ways to make a customer base feel good without any intention to follow up (a placebo effect that makes them look good), particularly when making it better is not going to necessarily drive more sales, because, let’s admit, who is Epson’s competitor nowadays to the higher end of the V series? If competition drives innovation then…. well, no need to innovate here… We’ve been driving this old Chevy for a long time now. Like I said the same model has effectively been around for 15 years.

I don’t want to sound too jaded or negative , but like I said I’m not holding my breath. YMMV.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic. But 15 years ago film died. SO they stopped upgrading. So now that's it's been brought back to life, they may be seeing advantages to upgrading. They could charge $1500 or 2000.

How about this one? They'll include a 120mg sensor (or some sensor that''s affordable) and start taking pictures rather than flatbed scanning. Do you think that might interest a lot of people to replace their old unit? They could add an automatic feeder as an option.

[interneg]

How long would it take to scan and 4x5 at 6000? WOuld it be worth the time spent?

It would be defined by how fast you could get data and heat out of the sensor. Much more achievable now than 20 years ago - seconds, not minutes. From 4x5, 1500ppi at high MTF may be plenty for most - and anything beyond 3000ppi will start to test the precision (or otherwise) of your camera/ lens/ film holders.

If they could deliver a really good 1500ppi across the bed and 3000ppi down a narrower 3-4" strip (thus only two lenses needed) with everything designed for high precision, low flare, halation etc & with MTF rather than resolution numbers the highest priority, that would make it a potentially good machine.

[Ari]

The perfect universal scanner already exists. It is made by Creo. Any of the Eversmart or IQ Smart scanners will do everything you need.
They cost around $4000, used, and will scan anything up to 12x18".
It doesn't sound like Epson will go drastically further than what they currently produce.
If they did, it would just be an inferior version of the Creo.

[Alan Klein]

The perfect universal scanner already exists. It is made by Creo. Any of the Eversmart or IQ Smart scanners will do everything you need.
They cost around $4000, used, and will scan anything up to 12x18".
It doesn't sound like Epson will go drastically further than what they currently produce.
If they did, it would just be an inferior version of the Creo.

But the Creo is $4000. If Epson made something better than the V850 approaching the Creo, and charged let;s say $1500, it could get a lot of converts. How old is Creo technology?

[rawitz]

The Creo or Cezanne are antique and we dont want to work like veterans. SCSI on old computers with old Software, and the stitching technic is the only solution to get high resolution on old 8000 pixel scan lines and 14 bit converters. If you scan high resolution 8x10 or larger with them, you feel to get older while scanning. And no ICE dust reduction.

If Epson thinks about upgrading the V-line, will they stay to their basic technic (2x3x20000pixel scanlines (NEC built), optic and mechanical stepping motor, 16bit converter, ICE), just to improve them in detail, or is their a real chance to build with new generation technic a new device?

But is their any new generation technic? The NEC scan-array 15 years ago was and is today the best device, or anybody here knows anything better?
But its also fact the the same basic technic (scan-array) is in the Epson 12000xl Scanner and this Scanner can output a net resolution of 2400 dpi on the double scan area (30x40cm), or the x1,5 linear factor (groundglass) of the optic compared to the V-series with the same net output of max 2400 dpi. Why the V cannot transfer this 1,5 factor to a net resolution of 3200 (or 4800 calculated from filmholder lenth of 15 cm). Is there room for quality upgrade within the basic technic, it seems so ....
regards
Rainer

[bob carnie]

The Creo or Cezanne are antique and we dont want to work like veterans. SCSI on old computers with old Software, and the stitching technic is the only solution to get high resolution on old 8000 pixel scan lines and 14 bit converters. If you scan high resolution 8x10 or larger with them, you feel to get older while scanning. And no ICE dust reduction.

If Epson thinks about upgrading the V-line, will they stay to their basic technic (2x3x20000pixel scanlines (NEC built), optic and mechanical stepping motor, 16bit converter, ICE), just to improve them in detail, or is their a real chance to build with new generation technic a new device?

But is their any new generation technic? The NEC scan-array 15 years ago was and is today the best device, or anybody here knows anything better?
But its also fact the the same basic technic (scan-array) is in the Epson 12000xl Scanner and this Scanner can output a net resolution of 2400 dpi on the double scan area (30x40cm), or the x1,5 linear factor (groundglass) of the optic compared to the V-series with the same net output of max 2400 dpi. Why the V cannot transfer this 1,5 factor to a net resolution of 3200 (or 4800 calculated from filmholder lenth of 15 cm). Is there room for quality upgrade within the basic technic, it seems so ....
regards
Rainer

I have tested Phase One system against my Creo Eversmart Supreme- Paul Bunyan is still relevant just a bit slower.

[pdmoylan]

Too often processed 4x5 film is not flat but slightly curved for one reason or another. Even with adjusting height, I have had inconsistent results with my Epson. Not sure how Epson solves that without a completely different design, which is why I still get drum scans of my better work. Prints from Epson scans can be guite good for lower sized prints as long as the scan is optimized. Dmax is another matter and I still default to drum scans at times. Taylor Photo in Princeton NJ still produces drum scans.

On Landscape UK has produced several comparisons of drum scans of 4x5 film vs digital. As Bob says, the 150MP PO is still not approaching 8x10 quality (subject to choice of film of course), but 4x5 quality has been eclipsed.

On the other hand, the color differentiation is very different from both, so choose your weapon carefully. If you prefer greater color differentiation, clearly film is superior. Not sure this would matter to B+W afficionados.

[Alan Klein]

Here's a comparison I did compare 4x5 Tmax 100 scanned with a V850 vs. another member's Howtek 8000 drum scanner. I gave him my negative so we can compare more easily. They seem to compare very favorably. What's your call?
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ghlight=howtek

[Jim Jones]

Even my old Epson 2450 was good enough (by my standards) for 4x5 negatives, but certainly not for 35mm except for making contact strips or perhaps images for online use. There is little improvement in 4x5 image quality in my present Epson V700, although the newer scanner was a bit better in less important ways.

[Tin Can]

35 mm never worked well on V700

I use my V700 only for sheet film and glass negs

I don't need better and sure don't want bigger files

[Alan Klein]

This is 35mm Tmax 400 with a V850. It's better than my V600, I think. What do you think?

35mm V850 Tmax 400 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157716777378896
35mm V600 Ektachromes original https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157625526207614

[Ari]

Someone's complaining about SCSI adapters on a large-format photography forum? :)
My point is Epson is unlikely to invest R&D into newer scanner technology for a limited market when their v850 represents "good enough".
Waiting or hoping they'll come out with a new-fangled Gestetner wired to a toaster (v950?) is a waste of time. Maybe they will, but probably not.
If you're looking for the summit of flatbed technology and quality, Creo or Cezanne make excellent machines, still sold and serviced in the USA.
But they come at a premium. Still only a fraction of the price you would have paid back in 1999-2005.

[jp]

This is 35mm Tmax 400 with a V850. It's better than my V600, I think. What do you think?

35mm V850 Tmax 400 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157716777378896
35mm V600 Ektachromes original https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157625526207614

The grain seems pretty crisp on the tmax400 scans!

[Jim Andrada]

I like my IQsmart about as much as Ari likes his Eversmart. Even if it IS Firewire. Old Mac Minis work fine, though.

And from personal experience I can tell you why it's called FIRE-wire. Smoked a nice Sound Devices audio recorder one day - the stupid FW plug WILL go in the wrong way around without even pushing hard. I was able to get it repaired for ONLY $350.

[rawitz]

Someone's complaining about SCSI adapters on a large-format photography forum? :)
My point is Epson is unlikely to invest R&D into newer scanner technology for a limited market when their v850 represents "good enough".
Waiting or hoping they'll come out with a new-fangled Gestetner wired to a toaster (v950?) is a waste of time. Maybe they will, but probably not.
If you're looking for the summit of flatbed technology and quality, Creo or Cezanne make excellent machines, still sold and serviced in the USA.
But they come at a premium. Still only a fraction of the price you would have paid back in 1999-2005.

Nobody wants to pay speculation-prices for technical oldtime gear.
If I would sit in the Epson Scanner R&D department, I would do everything to outbeat these not "highend" but "high-over-sky" firms.
But if they only make some cosmetical upgrades, I (and many other) would stay to my 17 years old V700.
The french say "qui vivra verra", or "who survives will see".
So we will ...
regards
Rainer

[Bill Poole]

"Even my Nikon 9000 with firewire bus only runs on my old "highend" notebook."

Most of this discussion is Greek to me. But on this one point, I will note that I am running several Firewire 800 devices, including a Nikon 8000 scanner, through Firewire-to-Thunderbolt adaptors on a modern Mac. With various adaptors, I have run this scanner through four upgradings of my computer. I use ViewScan, which is also upgraded regularly for mew devices and operating systems. (I also use an Epson 700 for large format, and do I wish it was more robust and capable? You bet. And yes, I would go to $2,000--but perhaps not more for a better solution.>