PDA

View Full Version : Epson V750 Scanner



Doug Dolde
12-May-2006, 13:51
Vincent has started his review of the Epson V750 scanner.

www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_1.htm (http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_1.htm)

Bart Nadeau_6607
12-May-2006, 19:35
Is this shipping yet? Thought I read somewhere that it would come out mid-May.
bart

Carl Schofield
12-May-2006, 19:41
Amazon site says will be released May 14
http://tinyurl.com/nzrj3

Andre Noble
12-May-2006, 21:01
So far the 700 and 750 look about the same on film. Agreed?

Ted Harris
12-May-2006, 21:47
Epson told me this afternoon that I am on the top of the list for a 750 for review and that I should have a 700 next week so, with a bit of luck, I will have something useful to report before the end of June.

Meanwhile you will find a very useful review at http://www.galerie-photo.com/test-scanner-epson-v700-versus-4990.html ... it's in French but even if you don't read French worhtwhile for the images. Gaerie-Photo generally do rigerous impartial reviews and on a quick read this seems to be one of those. Seems as though the reviewer felt V700 outperforms the 4990 in some ways but not all.

Jay W
13-May-2006, 07:46
It seems to me that to compared scanners, you first have to optimize the film height (and maybe some other software variables) for each scanner before comparing the scanners. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't get the feeling that the 750 reviewer did that before posting the initial results.

Jay Wenner

Alan Briggs
13-Jun-2006, 12:52
In looking for a current scanner, I have found the Nikon 9000ED and the Epson V750 Pro do not support current Apple products (intel based). Does anyone know any more about this and whether they will support compatibility any time soon? It seems strange that two major products (one new the other established) are incompatible with the current product line of a major computer manufacturer like Apple that they have supported heavily in the past.

Ted Harris
13-Jun-2006, 13:17
Alan, where did you get that info? Epson's FAQ's state: "Yes. EPSON Scan is compatible with MAC OS X 10.2.8 to 10.4.x. and Intel-based Mac running OS X 10.4.4 or later." Could still be that the V750 and 700 won't work with 'em though. I'll let you know by the end of the day as I am going to go hook one up right now.

Capocheny
13-Jun-2006, 17:29
In looking for a current scanner, I have found the Nikon 9000ED and the Epson V750 Pro do not support current Apple products (intel based). Does anyone know any more about this and whether they will support compatibility any time soon? It seems strange that two major products (one new the other established) are incompatible with the current product line of a major computer manufacturer like Apple that they have supported heavily in the past.

Alan,

That would be simply awful and I'll be very surprised to hear that this is, indeed, the path they've chosen to pursue! IMHO, it would be one HUGE blunder!:(

Ted,

We're all waiting with great anticipation to hear the results from your tests... and, in particular, with the results of whether it's compatible with Mac computers! :)

Cheers

Ted Harris
13-Jun-2006, 20:13
I am totally wiped out after working my a** off at the VC Conference. Finished one article for the magazine today and go tthe beast setup ... the phone kept getting in the way but everyone here will be the first to know. Some time tomorrow .... promise.

Ted Harris
14-Jun-2006, 14:12
OK, I have hooked up the V700 to a Macbook with 2GB of RAM and it just did a scan just fine using the Epson software. Since the differences between the two scanners are rather small as far as I can see I see no reason at all why the 750 will not also work with the latest Mac hardware. Stills cratching my head as to where that info came from.

Resolution and Dmax tests to follow shortly.

Ted Harris
15-Jun-2006, 09:04
The article on the V700, with comments on the V750 as well, will be in the next issue of View Camera. It is a follow-up to the article in the current issue as the V700 got to me too late to test for that article.

We have now completed our main tests and it appears as though the V700 offers some slight improvements over the 4990 in some ways and none in others. The major resolution gains are only available when you are scanning at 6400 spi which gives you a very large file when scanning 4x5 or larger film so it is of little value to many LF photographers. When scanning at 3200 or lower the resolution is actually not quite as good as that of the 4990. The Dmax is the same as that of the 4990.

The coated optics of the V750 may improve performance very slightly but I can't imagine it will be enough to make major changes to the results we got with the V700.

More details, of course, in the article.

Armin Seeholzer
19-Jun-2006, 02:39
Hi Ted
Would be very nice to get a short form of your review also on this site. I'm from Switzerland and have not really a chance to buy VC!

Ted Harris
20-Jun-2006, 07:52
Hi Armin,

I will happily post in more detail as soon as I can. Right now I am in West Virginia and don't have all my files with me. And ohhhhh how I wish I were in Nyon without my files rather than here <smile>.

As an aside, you may have noticed I have now joined you and others using high end flatbeds. I am now the proud owner of a Screen Cezanne and will have it in full service in another month (moving studio and house).

Armin Seeholzer
20-Jun-2006, 08:20
Thanks Ted in advance for your review and I wish you a good move!

Ted Harris
23-Jun-2006, 18:41
One additional note, I have been running time test after time test and this seems to be a slow scanner. I have been scanning the same 4x5 transparency using Epson Scan and Silverfast SE, 3200 spi, 48bit color and consistantly am gettingtimes in the 20-23 minute range unsing both my G5 and MacBook. I have discussed resuults with one other tester who alos confirmed "slow" scans without giving times. I hace reported this to Epson with all the particulars of my methods to see if there is anything that I can or should change.

Anyon else hace any time results?

Doug Fisher
23-Jun-2006, 19:48
Hi Ted -

Here is another data point to add to your survey. This is on a mid-range PC with a 750 and I don't have any other options on since you didn't mention them.

4x5 transparency
EpsonScan
3200 ppi
48bit color
Full crop of Epson's OEM 4x5 holder
5:44 from push of scan button until it was opened and ready to edit in Photoshop.

Doug

Keith S. Walklet
23-Jun-2006, 20:33
Ted,

ICE on or off? I gave up on ICE with the 4870 except in rare cases because of unacceptably long scan times. I'm with Doug for typical 4x5 scan times with no scanner post-processing. Seems odd that it would be that long.

Kirk Gittings
24-Jun-2006, 00:01
Ted and I have been comparing scan times. On a 4990 in Silverfast from desktop to desktop was 5 minutes, with Epsonscan 4 minutes all on a highend PC with 4GB of RAM. To PS from the plugin 24 minutes! No Ice on any of them. It seemed odd to me that the new scanners would be such a step backwards in scan time. Any theories as to what is going on?

Tim Lookingbill
24-Jun-2006, 12:34
My Epson 4870 refurb connected by firewire on a 2000 Pismo G3 500mhz Powerbook (OS 9.2.2) with 384MB RAM, virtual memory off, 100MB assigned to EpsonScan---a 4800spi, 48bit full frame 35mm neg takes 6 minutes resulting in a 160MB tiff file. Just a straight Auto exposure scan, no other image manipulation.

Sorry I don't have any 4x5 film to scan, though I could do a 4x6 print if interested.

One thing confounds me about EpsonScan is it won't use the full 100MB assigned according to the About Computer memory usage dialog box no matter the size of the file.

Flakey Epson software, maybe? Beats me.

Tim Lookingbill
24-Jun-2006, 15:10
Correction, my memory's goin'.

172MB tiff file 4min, 30sec.

robc
24-Jun-2006, 16:26
flatbed scanners are hardware bound in that a 6400 dpi scanner has 6400 sensors/lines an inch. Telling it to scan at 3200dpi means it either throws away alternate scan lines or it resamples from 6400 dpi. Since you are using the same PC as tests on lower native resolution scanners, it is not surprsing it will be slow. Your starting file will be 4 X as big as a native 3200 dpi scanner. Doesn't matter how fast the scanner is, its probably your PC which is struggling to cope with:

((((6400 * 5) * (6400 * 4) * 48) / 8) / 1048576) = 4687 MB

My guess is that you either need a lot more memory or a lot faster machine.

If the scanner is well designed then it should be able to do hardware resampling as it goes so that it is limited only by the speed of its onboard chip which since it is dedicated should be pretty fast.

So what is it doing? Is resampling happening in the scanner or in your PC? If its on the scanner, is Silverfast smart enough to use the correct instructions to get it to do it that way or is it just defaulting to doing the resample in your PC.

There's a lot of unknowns here...

just for fun, make a 4.6 GB file on your PC and dowsize it to 1.25GB and see how long it takes. That might give you a clue to whether your PC is upto it.

robc
24-Jun-2006, 16:34
Hi Ted -

Here is another data point to add to your survey. This is on a mid-range PC with a 750 and I don't have any other options on since you didn't mention them.

4x5 transparency
EpsonScan
3200 ppi
48bit color
Full crop of Epson's OEM 4x5 holder
5:44 from push of scan button until it was opened and ready to edit in Photoshop.

Doug

If epson scan throws away scan lines instead of resampling then it would be quicker than software which resamples. Which is it doing?

robc
24-Jun-2006, 16:57
A test to tell you if resampling is causing the slowness would be to scan at 6400dpi and at 3200dpi and see which is faster. If 6400dpi scan is faster then most likely its the resampling which is slowing things down.

Ted Harris
24-Jun-2006, 20:13
In the information I originally posted the6400 spi scan took significantly longer than the 3200. I'm going to run some more tets tomorrow. BTW to extrapolate from Tom's numbers. A 4x5 scaned at 3200 spi produces ~ a 500 MB file or around 12 minutes.

robc
25-Jun-2006, 09:18
In the information I originally posted the6400 spi scan took significantly longer than the 3200. I'm going to run some more tets tomorrow. BTW to extrapolate from Tom's numbers. A 4x5 scaned at 3200 spi produces ~ a 500 MB file or around 12 minutes.

If the 6400dpi scan takes significantly longer then it would suggest (to me at least) that lower res scans are throwing away scans lines or at least leaving a bigger gap between scan rows. That wouldn't result in such a high quality image as scanning at 6400dpi and then downsizing (bicubic resample).


(I should qualify that by saying "Providing that memory limitations are not coming into play at 6400dpi")



Do you test to see if quality is the same doing it both ways?

Tim Lookingbill
25-Jun-2006, 15:25
Just scanned the same 172MB 4800spi 48bit 35mm neg at 2400spi and it took 2 minutes 10 sec. which cut the time in half from the moment I hit the "Save" button to when the EpsonScan app reappears.

From examining pixel count of anti-aliased edge detail it's hard for me to detemine whether Epson flatbed scans have a focus or resampling issue since both low and high rez scans have the same soft look. At different zoom levels apparent sharpness improves producing a reasonably good quality image with plenty of detail. I can say the 4800spi is giving useful enough data to allow more aggressive sharpening to the point noise is broken up into a finer dithered texture resembling cream of wheat.

Boy! 17 year old Agfa XRS 100 sure is some sharp 35mm neg film.

edophoto
5-Jan-2007, 12:33
I just bought the V750 and I cannot scan anything past 2400 dpi. Is this normal? I am trying to scan 4x5 trannies at 6400 set to original size so that I can also take advantage of the lens with better coatings but I get a message stating that the resolution is too high ( see attached). My system is a G5 dual 1.8mHz with 4.5gb Ram and at least 100gb free drive space. A similar message appears with Silverfast 6.5 as well as Epson Scan. What am I doing wrong? The Epson Scan shows the file will be 3 GB. My taget is to scan at 6400 then in PS resize to 11x14 at 300 dpi.Any help would be great ..Epson could not help and said they would cal back in 48 hours.

Doug Fisher
6-Jan-2007, 08:53
This is/was an issue with previous generations of scanners. I have only seen it mentioned a few times in regard to the V series and usually just when people try to scan at large format at high dpi.

One thing to note, the way you switch between lenses is in the software settings where you choose between "film with film holder" (that switches to the high res. lens which focuses at 3 mm above the glass) and "film with area guide" (which focuses close to the scanner glass itself). I think I remembered the right wording for the settings, if not, what I wrote is pretty close and you will be able to figure it out when you check your software settings. If you choose the high res. lens (film with film holder), you ARE NOT limited to just scanning at 6400 dpi. You can choose other resolutions and it will still use the same "high resolution" lens.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

Ralph Barker
6-Jan-2007, 09:10
I seem to recall that there is a maximum image size, expressed in pixels, for the final scan. For the V750, this appears to be 40,800 x 56,160 (4800 dpi), 37,760 x 62,336 (6400dpi), according to the Epson specs. Older models had a much smaller maximum scan size. I suspect this may be the reson for the "too big" error message.

edophoto
7-Jan-2007, 11:18
Thanks Doug. Knowing the difference between the "film with holder" and "film with area guide" is a big help. I guess for now I will just have to see what size file the software will allow. I want to get the best quality scan from my 4x5 transparencies for a final output of around 300-350 dpi sized to 11x14. I have read that its best to scan original size at a high dpi ( >6400) then to use photoshop to resize. Does this sound reasonable or should I scan to the target of 11x14 at 350 dpi?

Carol Giordano
8-Aug-2007, 12:09
Alan, where did you get that info? Epson's FAQ's state: "Yes. EPSON Scan is compatible with MAC OS X 10.2.8 to 10.4.x. and Intel-based Mac running OS X 10.4.4 or later." Could still be that the V750 and 700 won't work with 'em though. I'll let you know by the end of the day as I am going to go hook one up right now.
Hello Ted,
I'm a graphic designer looking for a quality flatbed scanner (working with Photoshop and on a Mac.) What did you find out about the Epson V750 and Mac OS 10.4 compatibility?
Carol Giordano
209 533-0409

Joanna Carter
8-Aug-2007, 15:05
Thanks Doug. Knowing the difference between the "film with holder" and "film with area guide" is a big help. I guess for now I will just have to see what size file the software will allow. I want to get the best quality scan from my 4x5 transparencies for a final output of around 300-350 dpi sized to 11x14. I have read that its best to scan original size at a high dpi ( >6400) then to use photoshop to resize. Does this sound reasonable or should I scan to the target of 11x14 at 350 dpi?
You only need to scan at a resolutio that will give you the finished size at 240-300dpi; 240 being perfectly adequate for excellent quality prints. Taking this into account, if you take a size of 12x15, that would mean scanning at 720dpi (3x240) or 900dpi (3x300). I scan at 1200dpi to give me a finished print size of 20x25 and then I temporarily resize the image to whatever size I want to print at. You certainly don't want to use 6400; that would give you a finished image at 240dpi of something around 9ft x 11ft !!!

Joanna Carter
8-Aug-2007, 15:06
Hello Ted,
I'm a graphic designer looking for a quality flatbed scanner (working with Photoshop and on a Mac.) What did you find out about the Epson V750 and Mac OS 10.4 compatibility?
Carol Giordano
209 533-0409

I am running OS X 10.4 on a Macbook Pro with an Epson V70 - no problems at all.

ifer
16-Aug-2007, 20:17
You only need to scan at a resolutio that will give you the finished size at 240-300dpi; 240 being perfectly adequate for excellent quality prints. Taking this into account, if you take a size of 12x15, that would mean scanning at 720dpi (3x240) or 900dpi (3x300). I scan at 1200dpi to give me a finished print size of 20x25 and then I temporarily resize the image to whatever size I want to print at. You certainly don't want to use 6400; that would give you a finished image at 240dpi of something around 9ft x 11ft !!!

hi
i have been doing some lambda prints of the size of 40x50 inches recently. and since i have no knowledge whatsoever in scanning and stuffs... i was surprised to notice that my image size was 40inches x 50 inches at 140dpi. according to the dude who did the printing for me, he said lambda only requires 120dpi... anything more, it's basically wasted.

he scanned my 4x5 trans at 1200dpi original size.
is he telling me the truth? can i get a better quality than that? i saw the print and it was alright... wondering if i can get anything better?

thanks

Joanna Carter
16-Aug-2007, 23:50
he scanned my 4x5 trans at 1200dpi original size.
is he telling me the truth? can i get a better quality than that? i saw the print and it was alright... wondering if i can get anything better?
I personally would have thought that 120-140dpi was a bit low, 240-300dpi is more usual, unless you can guarantee that people will be viewing it at an appropriate distance. I had two prints done at 40x32, on a Lightjet photographic printer and they required a 300dpi file; the finished results were stunning!

Your printer is telling the truth that a 4x5 scanned at 1200dpi would be sufficient for a 40x50 print at 120dpi; that is just simple maths, 10x size - 10x scan resolution. Whether the finished result at 120dpi is good enough, only you can tell for the final viewing location. If I were you, I would get a small section of a tranny printed at a proportion of the finished size, in both resolutions, and see whether the extra resolution helps or not.

Ken Lee
17-Aug-2007, 10:02
The common knowledge which one hears most often, is that Epson printers take data best at 360 dpi, or multiples thereof. By taking this base number into consideration (the theory goes), you run the least risk of introducing visual artifacts due to differences in sampling rates: "jaggies" , or "rastering".

If you look around here and on other similar sites, you will generally encounter people who consider that number when sizing an image for sending to an Epson inkjet printer.

In my own tests, at close viewing distances (but not under magnification) I determined that there was no benefit in sending more than 360 dpi to the printer. Some send 720. Perhaps they have better vision than me.

My current scanner scans at 1250/2500 - which are not multiples of 360, but when I send to the printer, I downsize to 360 in Photoshop, presuming that PS will do a better job than the Epson drivers. That may be wrong, but I think it's what you will find that most people do.

As I recall, Canon printers are based on a base number of 300 dpi.

paulr
17-Aug-2007, 10:42
In my own tests, at close viewing distances (but not under magnification) I determined that there was no benefit in sending more than 360 dpi to the printer. Some send 720. Perhaps they have better vision than me.

My general understanding is that the desktop printers use a driver that can send 720ppi to the printer; the large format ones 360ppi.

In general, unless you're printing on really glossy paper, 360ppi comes close to the capacity of the ink/paper surface to resolve detail, so you'd be unlikely to see more detail at 720 in most circumstances. But you may well see a reduction in aliasing at 720. Any time you have a straight line, like the edge of a house or a wire, that's almost vertical or horizontal, aliasing can be an issue. Even at 360 ppi, you'll sometimes see stair-stepping in just the right circumstances.

ifer
19-Aug-2007, 06:59
guess the only way to try it is to have this trans drum scanned and at 300dpi, have it printed using the same lambda print at the same size.
compare it side by side...