Epson V700 Issue

[asd]

I scan films by V700 with the following settings:

Scanning software : Silverfast (Epson SE)
Scan type : 24 bit color
Image type : Landscape
Filter : Auto Sharpen

My film : 6x8mm (Fujifilm velvia 50)

1st scan : 6400 dpi that gives a 733 MB file. Open it in Photoshop 7.0 and enlarge to see the actual pixel, i.e. 100%, the image is not clear and sharp!

2nd scan : 2400 dpi that gives a 103 MB file. See it at actual pixel, image not clear...

Then, I try to scan at different dpi, such as 1800 and 1600 dpi, no luck...

Finally, scan at 1200 dpi which gives a 25 MB file, the image is sharp at actual pixel.

My questions are:

1. if I bring that 733MB file to printing company to get a 24"x30" print by photo paper, will the image be sharp?

2. if I bring that 25MB (1200 dpi) to have a 24"x30" print by photo paper, will the image NOT sharp?

3. Why not the image be sharp when scanned by high resulotion?

[Joanna Carter]

I scan films by V700 with the following settings:

Scanning software : Silverfast (Epson SE)
Scan type : 24 bit color
Image type : Landscape
Filter : Auto Sharpen
Don't use auto-sharpen.


My film : 6x8mm (Fujifilm velvia 50)
Well, I hope your film is not 6x8mm - 1/4" wide film??? I think you mean 6cm x 8cm.


1st scan : 6400 dpi that gives a 733 MB file. Open it in Photoshop 7.0 and enlarge to see the actual pixel, i.e. 100%, the image is not clear and sharp!
Scanning at anything more than 2400ppi is a waste of effort on a V700, there is no more detail to be had.


2nd scan : 2400 dpi that gives a 103 MB file. See it at actual pixel, image not clear...

Then, I try to scan at different dpi, such as 1800 and 1600 dpi, no luck...

Finally, scan at 1200 dpi which gives a 25 MB file, the image is sharp at actual pixel.

My questions are:

1. if I bring that 733MB file to printing company to get a 24"x30" print by photo paper, will the image be sharp?

2. if I bring that 25MB (1200 dpi) to have a 24"x30" print by photo paper, will the image NOT sharp?

3. Why not the image be sharp when scanned by high resulotion?
You are trying to scan 6cm x 8cm film and that has its limitations as to the maximum size that can be printed easily.

Scanning a 6cm x 8cm image at 2400ppi will give you a working image of 60cm x 80cm (24" x 32") at 240ppi.

If you view such an image on screen at 100%, then you will start to see softness simply because you are seeing close to the grain level of the film and, thus, not be able to see the image for the grain.

Instead of trying to sharpen at the scanning stage, you need to sharpen in Photoshop and, but don't expect the image to appear sharp when viewed at 100% on screen; this is the equivalent to viewing a print with a powerful lupe.

[Ken Lee]

"Scanning at anything more than 2400ppi is a waste of effort on a V700, there is no more detail to be had".

Very nicely stated !

At higher settings, you will get a larger file, but for all practical purposes, there is no more detail to be had: Just more pixels.

One way to squeeze a little more detail out of the Epson scanners, is to adjust the height of the film, to place it in optimum focus. See BetterScanning (http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/models/vseries.html).

[Joanna Carter]

One way to squeeze a little more detail out of the Epson scanners, is to adjust the height of the film, to place it in optimum focus. See BetterScanning (http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/models/vseries.html).
Thanks for mentioning that Ken, I have one of Doug's mounting stations and cannot recommend it highly enough; it really makes a noticeable difference.

[asd]

Thanks for replies.

Then, I don't know why produce a scanner with scanning resolution higher than 2400 dpi...

[Kuzano]

Thanks for replies.

Then, I don't know why produce a scanner with scanning resolution higher than 2400 dpi...

Typical scanner double speak... Can't think of a scanner I have ever had that acheived the stated resolution. It's all interpolation, smoke, and mirrors. If you reverted to a scanner that stated 2400, you wouldn't get that, either.

Even if the scanner reached top resolution, none of your peripheral devices could take advantage of the increase.

Get a better medium format holder. Wonderful scanner which came with HORRIFIC film holders. Get the BetterScanning MF holder with the ANR glass. You'll hardly ever get a good scan with what came in the box. Incredible mistake on Epsons part, and the only real mistake in the package.

Forego the Silverfast SE and open Photoshop first. Then "acquire" your image (file menu) from within Photoshop (it opens the basic scanner SW), and see what you come up with.

Scan at 2400.

[Ken Lee]

Manufacturers of consumer-grade flatbed scanners over-state their numbers for marketing purposes, and/or they use a different testing methodology than we do. At the same time, their scanners are affordable, available, and portable - so it's hard for us to complain.

For Medium Format and smaller film, you can purchase a Nikon Super COOLSCAN 900 ED (http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/ProductDetail.page?pid=9237), a non-flatbed film scanner which will give you 4000 spi. It will let you scan down to the film grain (or dye clouds).

You can also have your film scanned by a competent professional who uses a much more expensive scanner like a drum scanner or high-end flatbed - or you can move up to a... larger format ;)

The same Epson scanner you are using, makes lovely images from 4x5 and larger.

[Clement Apffel]

Then, I don't know why produce a scanner with scanning resolution higher than 2400 dpi...

The Epson marketing line on low-end flatbeds is smoke and mirrors indeed.
On their website you can read that the v750 optical resolution is 6400x9600 dpi...

Non-sense

They give the optical definition using "dpi" unit instead of pixels... and calling it resolution... just random mixed infos.
(Actually I’ve seen the error being quoted as truth by many online tests !)

The optical rez is actually around 840dpi in the width and 960dpi in the length. Anything above this is interpolation.
A scan made at 840dpi upsized to 2400dpi on photoshop and a scan made at 2400dpi look like twins. Same quality. Actually same blurry soup.

I have the same problem that you are facing now : I own the 4870 and I’m VERY disappointed. it suffers the exact same misinformation from Epson and almost the same optical rez. 840dpi.
To my quality standards any scans that come out from that thing can't be printed larger than 8x10". (from 4x5" negs)
I'm thinking about purchasing the betterscaning fluid mounting kit for the 4870.
But I would like to test it before or see scan samples from users.
And I don't know if this scan worth a 100$ additional accessory anyway.

But so far each scan on this device is a disappointment.
In the end, those scanners are ok for contact scans or x2 enlargements. But certainly not above that.

That said, I have to remind that I cannot wait more quality from a 500$ scanner.
You pay for what you get. No matter what the Epson tech doc says.

I’m just waiting to have the $$$ to purchase a Premier or an IQsmart 3.
Meanwhile I have my scans done by pros that own the scanners I want… which is a quite expansive solution as well if you ask me...

[Ken Lee]

"The optical rez is actually around 840dpi in the width and 960dpi in the length. Anything above this is interpolation.
A scan made at 840dpi upsized to 2400dpi on photoshop and a scan made at 2400dpi look like twins. Same quality. Actually same blurry soup."

When I get home this evening, I am going to try this on my Epson 4990.

My recollection is that others have tested these scanners using resolution targets, and have concluded that when set to 2400 and above, they deliver around 2100 spi.

[venchka]

Clement,

Take a look at Ken Lee's galleries. He uses the Betterscanning fluid mounting station with an Epson 4990. That is what I remember reading in his technical area.

[Clement Apffel]

When I get home this evening, I am going to try this on my Epson 4990.

Yes please, and tell me what are your conclusions.

Because I red quite often the statement about the 2000 dpi or so on resolution targets.
But you can have a look to the attachement : unsharpened crop of a 4x5" scanned at 1000 dpi on my 4870...

actually 2 images and the crops.

Is this 2000 dpi optical res ?
even 1000 dpi ?

to me it is not.

But I am very ready to hear that my demand of sharpness is too high.
Or that I misuse my scanner. It is totaly possible.

But I tryed countless drivers, softwares, scan methodology. But none made it.

Please tell me what you think.
regards,

clément apffel

[Clement Apffel]

Second image and crops.

I forgot to mention the tech details :

Kodak T-Max 100
Cambo SCX 4x5"
Schneider Super-Angulon XL 90/5.6

Probably f/16 or f/22 1/125s or so on the image 1.
and f/16 1s or so on the image 2.

[Jim Simmons]

I use the V700 with the betterscanning adjustable height holder with ANR glass. It is required to get what the V700 is capable of. I can't speak to the actual optical resolution, but I've drunk the koolaid and believed it to be 3200, then upressed if you scan at 6400, which I never do. I did a test, and the results were no different than 3200.

I scan at a resolution that gets me a file that is bigger than my intended print size at 300 dpi, then I reduce to final size in Photoshop. Most people think Photoshop's up/down ressing algorithms are better than most scanning software's algorithms. For a print the size you're wanting, I'd scan at 3200 dpi. For a 240 dpi print, that's a little less than your desired 24" x 30" size, but you could up-res in photoshop if you really needed it bigger.

As said before, don't sharpen in scanning. Now comes the most important part of getting a sharp print. You need to apply a series of sharpening passes to the file. If you google "Image Sharpening Bruce Fraser" you'll read articles by and about Bruce and his sharpening techniques. If you can find his book Real World Image Sharpening, it contains the secret sauce formulas for making the sharpest possible inkjet prints. His concepts are embedded in the PixelGenius PhotoKit Sharpener. I use the strategies and photoshop actions in his book, and my prints have have so become sharp that I'm cutting back on the crispness level. I shoot both 6x7 and 4x5, but it's with the MF negatives that I've needed every ounce of what I can get out of the V700. I've had prints made at the 17" x 22" size, and they were very nice at a proper viewing distance.

Some would say that the V700 can't make a sharp 24" x 30" print. I've never tried, but I do believe that may be pushing the V700 beyond its limits.

[Paul H]

I scan films by V700 with the following settings:

Scanning software : Silverfast (Epson SE)
Scan type : 24 bit color
Image type : Landscape
Filter : Auto Sharpen

....

Apart from all the other useful info you've been given, I note that you are scanning in 24 bit colour - you'd be better off scanning 48bit colour (16 bits per colour). Personally, I don't get on with Silverfast, and prefer to use the Epson Scan software.

The only way you can really measure what resolution you are getting from your scanner (remembering there is some unit variation) is to scan a resolution test target.

If you don't want to get the betterscanning holders, you can improve things by using a sheet of ANR or anti-reflective glass cut to fit into the existing epson holders. This helps ensure the film is as flat as possible. BTW, don't forget to get the holder height adjusted properly.

[Ken Lee]

He uses the Betterscanning fluid mounting station with an Epson 4990. That is what I remember reading in his technical area.

Yes, an Epson 4990, but not the fluid mount: I use the Variable Height Mounting Station (http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html).



http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/flowerscan2.jpg
(larger version) (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/flowerscan1.html)
Sinar P, 4x5 Kodak TMY, Pyrocat HD
135mm Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar (un-coated)

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/flowerscan3.jpg
Comparison between scans at 2400 and 800 spi

In the 2400spi sample on the left, you can see the film grain, and you can clearly see some scratches and other flaws.

In the 800spi version on the right, the scratches and spots are present, but not sharp at all.

If we were to sharpen the images in Photoshop, these differences would become more apparent.

My conclusion is what I have learned the sages on this forum: The Epson scanners are affordable consumer-grade flatbed designs, which give us somewhere around 2100 spi. If we want to print at 300 dots per inch, we can enlarge our film by a factor of 7. If we are more demanding, and want to print at 360 dpi, we can enlarge our film by a factor of 5 or 6. If we are extremely demanding, we can enlarge our film by a factor of only 3 or 4.

For 4x5 film, these scanners are good enough to make beautiful prints at 16x20 inches. For Medium Format, these scanners may not be good enough for anything larger than 8x10 or 11x14. It depends on the individual photograph.

If you want to make large prints from Medium Format film, at highest quality, then you should either get a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon, or a high-end flatbed scanner, or a drum scanner. Or, you can send your film for scanning.

Or, you can move up to Large Format ;)

[Clement Apffel]

Thank you for sharing your test.

I agree with you when you say that the 2400spi scan is sharper.
But definitely not by a factor x3.

To me this 2400 spi scan looks just like my own 1000 spi scans : not sharp.
We do see film grain. We do see scratches. But we also see that they are far from being sharp.

Allow me to disagree on the 2100spi optical res value of both our scanners.

It is maybe more than 840. Maybe 960 or 1000… I don’t know.


But once again, I think my demand is far above the head of those 500$ scanners.

I’ll do some dpi tests myself next time I’ll scan some sheets.

[rguinter]

"The optical rez is actually around 840dpi in the width and 960dpi in the length. Anything above this is interpolation.
A scan made at 840dpi upsized to 2400dpi on photoshop and a scan made at 2400dpi look like twins. Same quality. Actually same blurry soup."

When I get home this evening, I am going to try this on my Epson 4990.

My recollection is that others have tested these scanners using resolution targets, and have concluded that when set to 2400 and above, they deliver around 2100 spi.

I also use the Epson 4990 and my results have been marvellous. I scan 6x17 cm panoramics at 3200 dpi and 4x5 in sheets at 4800 dpi directly into photoshop. File sizes are very large (up to a gig for 4x5) but when saved as jpeg are manageable for my local camera shop that prints on Crystal Archive paper for me. For 4x5 I use the film holder that came with the machine but for 6x17 panoramics I use a homemade holder made from heavy paper with a plastic sheet (cut slightly smaller than 6x17) that flips down on top to hold the edges of the film. The key is to keep the film suspended evenly above the glass about a millimeter where it is in proper focus. If the film is laid directly on the glass it is out of focus and you will get interference figures (Newton's rings) everywhere at the contact points. When enlarged to 24- or 30-inches and framed my photos today look better than they ever did with pre-digital printing methods. So I have found no need to go to more expensive drum-scanning for my best shots. Bob rguinter@yahoo.com

[Clement Apffel]

Yeah. Even though I'm not happy with the scans I'm getting from my 4870 and even though I do not agree with the common resolution value that are announced here and there, I trust people when they say they can have good x3 to x6 enlargements with it.

I think I’m still doing something wrong when scanning 4x5”.
No idea what the problem is though.
I tried to set the height of the Epson film holder with do-it-yourself methods but it did not improve the results what so ever. I think my solution wasn’t very accurate though.

This thread actually helped me taking my decision about purchasing the betterscanning fluid mounting kit to get the max quality out of my 4870.

Regards,
CA.

[Ken Lee]

"I agree with you when you say that the 2400spi scan is sharper.
But definitely not by a factor x3."

You make a good point !

Here is a comparison, after sharpening both images in Photoshop.

Perhaps this is a more realistic comparison, because we usually sharpen the image to some degree, before printing.

Perhaps now, the difference between 800 and 2400 is more apparent.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/flowerscan4.jpg

[Matus Kalisky]

Thank you, Ken. But maybe you could post crops form places where the detail has more contrast. Low contrast detail yields lower resolution number (or am I wrong here?) Based on what you show I would guess the resolution to be 1200 - 1600 dpi at most.

... I would still love to see a scanner that delivers 2800 optical resolutin at 3200 setting ... for under 1000 euro ... :o

But none of the above can deny the beatuy of your photo :p

[Clement Apffel]

Yes, I tried it myself by downloading your samples and by sharpening them on PS.

There is no discution at all on your example.

the thing is that I still don't see it on my tests here at home on my scanner.

thanks for sharing.

EDIT :


... I would still love to see a scanner that delivers 2800 optical resolutin at 3200 setting ... for under 1000 euro ... :o

But none of the above can deny the beatuy of your photo :p

We cross-posted. That was my point when saying I did not agree with 2100 dpi optical res value. Actually I still don't.
But what I now know thanks to Ken Lee is that my scanner can make better scans than those I currently get.

[asd]

Here come to my other questions...

Why did Epson design V700 in the way that we need to adjust the height of film holder in order to get sharp scanner? We even need to spend money to buy third party film holder!

Why is the scan not sharp (out of focus) when we lay the film on the scanner glass? When we scan 8x10" or odd size film, such as 6x9 or 6x17, how can we focus correctly?

[Paul H]

Here come to my other questions...

Why did Epson design V700 in the way that we need to adjust the height of film holder in order to get sharp scanner? We even need to spend money to buy third party film holder!

To cover sample variations I suppose. I manage quite happily without the third party holder - if I need something "extra" to keep the film flat (like some curly Efke film), I use a piece of anti-reflective glass cut to fit in the film slot (120). I lay the film in the channel, with the glass on top. Works fine.



Why is the scan not sharp (out of focus) when we lay the film on the scanner glass? When we scan 8x10" or odd size film, such as 6x9 or 6x17, how can we focus correctly?

You have two settings for scanning film - "Film - with film area guide", and "Film - with film holder". The first is for scanning film on the scanner glass, the second uses the second lens that focuses about the scanner glass.

[Clement Apffel]

Here again, the answer is quite simple:

Epson made it this way to lower production costs and retail price.
To my knowledge there is no focusing device on Epson V700 series. Just like on the 4000 series.
Focusing device would have added 1000$ to the retail price.

But why don’t they provide holders that are in the sharp area of their scanner? You’ll ask.

On a production line, it is quite hard to manufacture scanners that are all focused at the exact same distance. Here too, it would have added 1000$ to the retail price.
So the holders provided with the scanner have a height that is set on the average focus distance of a batch of scanners.

That is why some scanners can provide quite ok scans with standard holders while others will provide blurred scans. And that is why when purchasing a height adjustable holder you will have different height setting than those I’ll set on my scanner even though it is the same brand and model.

Concerning the 2 lens settings:
I think the on-glass lens is studied to scan print. So the optical resolution could be lower than the other lens setting.
I’d be careful with on-glass scanning.

[mandoman7]

I was on the verge of buying one of the betterscanning outfits, but went through the testing procedure with the 4x5 holder, scanning small segments at different heights. One of the settings was clearly better and has performed well enough for me for the time being, 4x5 film being flat by nature. Not using the liquid mounting has motivated me to clean up my processing methods so that my negs are now drying fairly spot free.

The 120 holder though, has no chance of holding film flat or at the right height. For those I've had better results placing them on the flatbed under a piece of AN glass to hold it flat, but the results haven't been exactly inspiring. I'm more inclined to shoot to the scanner's strengths of 4x5 or 8x10 as a result.

For me, the big advantage this scanner has provided has been the ability to quickly scan and review the results of the day's shooting which is significant. That's something I've been missing for a long time, losing my darkroom 10 yrs. ago. As a result, I'm back into daily shooting and processing of LF negatives, making proof sheets and plans for future sessions.

I expect that there's a fair likelihood that I will want a better scanner down the road, but for now I can at least shoot and see how its going without a monthly lab bill.


JY

[Jon Middleton]

Hi, All. New to the forum, and a new V700 owner. I bought it to catalog my 3000 Kodachrome slides, but have scanned my 4x5 transparencies and some 120 film. Not thrilled with the results, but a lot of it is film height, bowing, etc. I plan to keep using the Epson film holders for cataloging purposes, but need a better method for critical scanning.

So, I'm considering fluid mount scanning. Seems like the easiest thing to do, just a bit of fluid, then film, then mylar, then a mask, and scan.

Questions:

1) Does anyone here do this?

2) Can you just put a piece of glass over a 4x5 sheet of film and scan, with similar results?

3) Any alternatives to Kami solution that are more widely available? I'm thinking of using baby oil as a test fluid, to see if fluid mounting makes a difference. The shipping on Kami fluid is standard UPS + $20 for hazardous material fees. Ridiculous.

I am familiar with the Epson V750 FMA, and betterscanning.com's products, but it seems that mounting directly to the platten should work as well. Is this correct?

I'm exciting about the ability to scan, as now I can use my Zone VI 4x5 and C330 more. And Yashica 124G Mat.:)

[Doug Fisher]

Try ordering Kami from Pitman Graphics. I found it was a lot cheaper and they did not charge high shipping costs.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[Jan Becket]

There's probably not a lot of real difference between this and Kami, but I've been happy with Scan Science Lumina optical mounting fluid. After the scan, it air dries in a couple of minutes - no cleanup necessary. I'm using it on Doug Fisher's V700 carrier, BTW - a nice combo, until those Imacon prices drop by 3/4.

[Jon Middleton]

Thanks. I was hoping for a more reasonably priced fluid. The Lumina is $25/8 oz, which is a lot more than the Kami at $33/liter. I called Pitman yesterday, but they could not quote shipping charges. I have some mineral oil on hand, which I'd be willing to try if cleanup isn't too much trouble. At least that would give me an idea if fluid mounting is worth the effort.

[Jon Middleton]

So, I called Pitman today. Freight is $10.50 plus $23 Hazmat fee. So, more in shipping than a liter of Kami fluid costs ($32.75).

I did a test today, and mounted a 4x5 transparency to the scanner bed with mineral oil, with acetate over the top. It really wasn't that messy, which is the good news. The bad news is that it didn't make much difference. In fact, no improvement in scan quality. Strange, because I was able to get the film exactly the way I wanted it, which was nice and flat on the platen. The mineral oil doesn't evaporate, so it was easy to take my time to get it just right. What gives?

Also, I was in a custom photo lab today, and they use the V700 for 4X5 scanning. They recommend using the scanner USM on high. Is that right? I have been using no scanner sharpening, and doing it all in PS.

[Keith S. Walklet]

This was a double post...see the next post.

[Keith S. Walklet]

This thread seems to be running parallel to a couple of others with related topics. Since you are discussing the merits of various mounting methods and holders, I thought it would be useful to share these three jpegs.

The scanned image is a small piece of Leigh Perry's collaborative scanning 4x5 Velvia transparency. These were all scanned with the V-750 at 6400spi, downsampled to 2400dpi in Photoshop and sharpened 400-1.0

The first comparison L-R:
-Plain vanilla Epson 4x5 holder
-Wet mounting directly to the platen
-Wet mounting with the Epson mounting station.

The first two methods employ the lower resolution lens that is focused on the platen glass. The last engages the higher resolution lens.

The second set compares:
-Epson wet mounting station
-Wet mounting on a 3/16" piece of plex
- Wet mounting on a 3/16" piece of plex with the addition of a layer of diffuse mylar.

The third jpeg compares:
-Wet mounted 3/16" plex
-Wet mounted 3/16" plexwith diffuse mylar
-Wet mounted 3/16" plexwith diffuse mylar elevated 1/32" above the film.

As it happens, these files show a progressively better result from left to right, with IMO, the best result having been achieved with the 3/16" plex and elevated diffuse mylar.

I use the KAMI fluid and mylar from Aztek for wet-mounting.

[David Luttmann]

Keith, could you describe your wet mounting to platen process?

[Keith S. Walklet]

Here you go Dave:

With a strong light shining on the scanner bed at a sharp angle so I can see dust

1. Wipe platen with microfiber cloth
2. A squirt of Kami in the center of the bed
3. A 5x7" piece of 3/16" Plexiglas placed in the center of the bed on top of the fluid
4. Push bubbles out to sides using the microfiber cloth and soak up excess fluid
5. Make sure no dust is on top of the plex
6. A squirt of Kami on the plex
7. Place the transparency on the Kami (reverse read oriented)
8. Another squirt of Kami
9. 1/2 of a sheet of optical mylar placed on top of the fluid and transparency with an edge hanging off the plex for easy lifting or removal
11. Move bubbles out and make sure there is no dust
10. A windowmat (my old Saphir 4x5 holder works) placed on top of the mylar to hold the diffuse mylar away from the optical mylar's surface

Ready to roll...

[Keith S. Walklet]

Another couple comparisons with Leigh's transparency.

This time my old 4870 vs. the V750.

The 4870 files have a couple of disadvantages with regard to software. I only have the Silverfast SE for that scanner, so the colorspace choice was not 48bit HDR, and the resolution was only 4800spi, downsampled to 2400dpi in Photoshop whereas the V-750 sample was scanned at 6400spi and downsampled to 2400dpi. All the files were sharpened 400-1.0 as with the previous comparisons.

The 4870 files are clearly much noisier, partly because they were scanned in a single pass, where the V750 was done in two passes.

Still, the wet-mounted 4870 is sharper than the dry-mounted V-750 in its stock holder. The overall quality would be even better if the software was equal, I am certain. But, once one starts to work the advantages of the V-750 (wet mounting, high magnification lens, full software package) illustrated in earlier jpegs, it easily outpaces the 4870.


From left to right:

4870 with stock Epson holder
4870 wet mounted directly to the platen
V750 stock Epson holder

[Jon Middleton]

Thanks, Keith. Nothing would make me happier than to be able to fluid mount my film and get superior scans. It just didn't happen in my test, and I don't think it was due to a lack of experience. Mineral oil doesn't evaporate, so I was able to take my time doing the setup, and am pretty sure everything was correct. No discernible difference, and it doesn't look to me like Kami fluid will change the result.

Theoretically, the main advantage of fluid mounting is to maintain film flatness. I guess that begs the question, how flat does the film need to be? How much variability is allowable? In other words, what is the DOF of the scanner lens? So long as your film is within optimal range of focus for the scanner's lens, it's not clear to me that fluid mounting adds much.

Another question regarding your method of fluid mounting. Why not mount the way Doug does it, ie, film down? That way you can experiment with height, and are not limited by the thickness of your plex. You could make different thickness spacers to vary the height off the platen.

Below are some scans of a 4x5 transparency taken of the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone. All were scanned at 48 bit/2400 DPI. 4800 DPI yielded files of 2.2GB, way too big. The first is in the standard film holder, no sharpening. The second is in oil, on the platen, no sharpening. The last is in the film holder, sharpened. It looks a bit harsh, but it's a 100% crop. Smaller enlargements just look sharp, not artificial:

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/8232/cimg396.jpg

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/9522/cimg399.jpg

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/7516/cimg400.jpg

So, the question is, is fluid mounting worth it?

[Keith S. Walklet]

Jon, I think the jpegs I've uploaded so far are probably too small to show the difference in quality. I'll separate the images out so that they can be seen at 100%.

At that level of quality, the differences are obvious. Is wet mounting worth it? Absolutely.

I actually tried wet-mounting my film underneath the Epson Wet Mount holder in a manner similar to Doug's approach, which in my case required taping the edges of the mylar to the glass (which may have been unnecessary, but created a mess that was a pain to clean up). In that round of tests, I wasn't using Leigh's transparency, but one of my own. Since you've asked, I'll probably give it another shot with Leigh's transparency.

For the same reason that Doug advocates mounting underneath, I felt it would be advantageous to have the scan completely enclosed in fluid. Less chance for refraction and flare. That meant finding a piece of plex that was thick enough to duplicate the optimized height that the film was scanned at. I experimented with 1/16" plex, 1/8", and found that the ideal height was a combination of both thicknesses: 3/16".

For certain, the adjustable height mechanism Doug has crafted is far superior than the Epson holders, but I could see no way to incorporate "adjustable" into a process that required a continuous fluid envelope, unless the platen itself was adjustable.

The examples you have posted appear not to have taken advantage of the high resolution lens that the scanner uses for "with film holder" scans. There is a difference in quality there, too. So let me post a few 100% examples.

[Jon Middleton]

I think the two scans with the film holder actually used the higher resolution lens, as it is selected when you choose the document type.

Here's an idea. If the ideal height is 3/16" for your scanner, just mount Leigh's film on glass, put mylar over the top, taping it around the edges (I used blue painter's tape, no mess), but leaving the corners open so you can sqeeze out bubbles and fluid, then flip it over onto the scanner, supporting the corners with 3/16" spacers. That allows you to mount off the platen, avoiding the cleanup. It also eliminates the platen/plex interface. As far as adjustable, just make spacers of different thicknesses. Not a big deal. Once you settle on the optimum height, you're done.

It's interesting that your optimal height is 3/16", as that's 4.8mm by my math. How high was the film in your previous test with the Epson FMA? My optimal height appears to be 3.5mm, though I have only tried higher a couple of times.

[Keith S. Walklet]

OK, here are three.

The first is wet mounted with Kami directly to the bed. Low res lens.
The second is wet mounted using the Epson holder. High res lens.
The third is wet mounted to 3/16" plex that is wet mounted to the bed. High res lens.

[Jon Middleton]

Another question. Is the high rez lens sharper than the low rez lens when scanning at 2400 DPI?

[Keith S. Walklet]

mount Leigh's film on glass, put mylar over the top, taping it around the edges (I used blue painter's tape, no mess), but leaving the corners open so you can sqeeze out bubbles and fluid, then flip it over onto the scanner, supporting the corners with 3/16" spacers.

That is essentially what I did.

But, my goal is to eliminate the airspace between the mounted film and platen. By doing so, I eliminate 50% of the surfaces exposed to air between the film and the sensor=better quality.


Another question. Is the high rez lens sharper than the low rez lens when scanning at 2400 DPI?

Logic would say that it is. But, scanning at 2400spi is not taking advantage of the full capability of the scanner. I scan the 4x5 at 6400spi in three pieces and downsample. I plan on posting the difference in those two approaches, too.

[Rakesh Malik]

From my experimentation so far, scanning at 2400 spi gets sharper results than scanning at 6400 spi and downsampling. It also eliminated some color fringing that I was seeing in the 6400 spi scans.

I'm still using the stock film holders, but I'm thinking very hard about wet mounting, using the better scanning holders, in the hopes of getting scans that are good enough to tide me over until I can get a professional scanner.

[GSX4]

No one here talks about how the film is actually oriented? Epson states that the film should be mounted emulsion side up. My 750 pro seems to like it better when the film is mounted this way

How about the Better Scanning holders? Emulsion up or down?

[Keith S. Walklet]

Rakesh, sounds like your getting Newton rings at the higher spi.

GSX4, I am mounting emulsion side up. I don't use the Better Scanning holders, instead I wet mount a 3/16" piece of plex directly to the scanner bed, and then wet mount the film on top of that.

[Rakesh Malik]

Rakesh, sounds like your getting Newton rings at the higher spi.


So that's what they look like... is wet mounting on ANR glass the best way to get ride of Newton rings?

[Keith S. Walklet]

Rakesh, that's mixing approaches. The ANG works dry. The rough surface keeps the Newton rings from forming.

[Rakesh Malik]

Rakesh, that's mixing approaches. The ANG works dry. The rough surface keeps the Newton rings from forming.

Ah, ok. As you can probably tell, I'm a bit of a newbie at scanning :)

Thanks!

[Michael Gordon]

How about the Better Scanning holders? Emulsion up or down?

The base side of the film gets mounted face down against the ANR side of the glass.

[Ken Lee]

It seems to me that the biggest jump in quality is seen when you go from "Plain vanilla Epson 4x5 holder" to "Wet mounting directly to the platen".

What do you mean by "platen" ?

Are you placing the film (with Kami fluid) directly on the scanner glass ?

I am confused: Don't you have, from bottom to top: scanner glass > kami > plexiglass > kami > film > kami > mylar ?

[Keith S. Walklet]

Ken, that is correct. The biggest jump in quality comes with simply by wet-mounting. Then there are incremental benefits to variations on wet mounting.

The various jpegs illustrate the results from those variations on the approach of wet-mounting. While not as big a jump in quality, there is steady improvement which adds up to higher quality.

Further clarification:
Set 1
a-Plain vanilla Epson 4x5 holder (dry mount in the frames that suspend the film in air)
b-Wet mounting directly to the platen (the platen is the scanner bed glass).
c-Wet mounting with the Epson mounting station. (wet mounted on the glass holder provided by Epson)

Set 2
a-Epson wet mounting station (same as 1-c)
b-Wet mounting on a 3/16" piece of plex (bed, Kami, plex, Kami, film, Kami, mylar)
c- Wet mounting on a 3/16" piece of plex with the addition of a layer of diffuse mylar.

Set 3
-Wet mounted 3/16" plex (same as 2-b)
-Wet mounted 3/16" plex with diffuse mylar (same as 2-c)
-Wet mounted 3/16" plex with diffuse mylar elevated 1/32" above the film.

[sanking]

Keith,

Why are you using 3/16" plexi? If you mount the negative on top of 3/16" plexi it will be about 4.5 mm above the bed? Is the plane of best focus really that far over the bed itself?

Sandy King

[Keith S. Walklet]

I guess so. I originally tried 1/16" and that was no good. Bumped it up to 1/8" and thought the results looked great until I saw my friend's scans were sharper.

We compared the height of his holder to my own, and noted it was slightly higher, so I combined the 1/16 and 1/8 and the results looked terrific. So, I got a piece of 3/16 to use instead of the sandwich of 1/16" and 1/8".

[sanking]

I am very surprised that the plane of best focus would be that far off the bed. The adjustable spacers that Epson provides with their holders only allow for spacing over the bed at three distances, 2.5mm, 3.0mm and 3.5mm. Mounting to the top of a 3/16" sheet of plexi places the emulsion of the negative at 4.76 mm over the bed of the glass, or more than 1.2 mm over the highest spacing that the Epson film holders allow.



Sandy





I guess so. I originally tried 1/16" and that was no good. Bumped it up to 1/8" and thought the results looked great until I saw my friend's scans were sharper.

We compared the height of his holder to my own, and noted it was slightly higher, so I combined the 1/16 and 1/8 and the results looked terrific. So, I got a piece of 3/16 to use instead of the sandwich of 1/16" and 1/8".

[Keith S. Walklet]

I don't have an explanation for why it would be that way.

I also tried the 1/16" on top of the 3/16" and the quality went back down. I suppose I can replicate the effect with dimes, pennies, nickels under the Epson wet mount holder to boost the height to match the 3/16" plex. I'll do that today just for comparison.

[aphexafx]

Okay, well, I'm impressed as hell.

I am motivated to investigate beyond the rated heights on my own 750 using shims, and I am also motivated to try your plexi mounting technique.

Keith, where do you get your Plexiglas? Do you buy full sheets and cut it on a table saw, or is there a source for smaller cut sizes that you've found? The smallest I've seen so far is 2' x 4' sheet.

[Keith S. Walklet]

I buy my plex at Interstate Plastics, which has offices all over the country. I am normally buying full sheets of 4x8 cut to my specs, but for the 3/16", I didn't need big pieces (5" x 7"), so they gave me drops (scraps).

[Ken Lee]

If I want to try wet-mounting directly to the platen, but I don't have any Kami fluid (or other similar product) on hand, can I use Olive Oil and a "reject" negative ?

[sanking]

Ken,

I would recommend Johnson Baby Oil or Mineral Oil. Put a small amount of oil on the bed in the center of where you plant o place the negative, place the negative emulsion side, put some more oil on the base of the negative in the center, then cover the negative with an oversize piece of mylar. Take a clean piece of cloth and rub the top of the mylar gently to expel bubbles between the mylar and negative, and the negative and base platen. This will be much easier to do with mineral oil than baby oil because it has less viscosity. Then, wipe any excess oil from around the edges of the mylar, and tape down the mylar with blue line masking tape you can pick up at hardware stores. Wipe again to make sure you have removed all the oil

After scanning, clean the negative in a mild degreaser, liquid dishwater detergent works fine, and clean the platen with a household glass cleaner.

Sandy King





If I want to try wet-mounting directly to the platen, but I don't have any Kami fluid (or other similar product) on hand, can I use Olive Oil and a "reject" negative ?

[Jon Middleton]

I did exactly that. I used mineral oil on the platen, then film, then more oil, then acetate. I taped the acetate down along the sides before wiping with a clean cloth, otherwise your tape may not stick. I saw NO difference between this and using the film holder on the 4x5 slide. Sharpening improved things noticeably, however.

It is not clear to me that if your film is flat, and at the appropriate height, fluid mounting is worth the effort. Keith is very knowledgable, and is going way above and beyond, scanning at 6400 dpi, in three sections, etc, so his results should be much better. Depending on enlargement ratio, it may be worth it.

[sanking]

I believe you have a V700, right? If Keith's tests are correct in that the best plane of focus with the V700/V750 may be as high as 4.7mm over the bed, direct mounting on the bed may be way off in terms of focus.

My experience with the Epson 4870 and 4990 is that the plane of best focus is 1mm or less above the glass so that mounting directly on the glass does not throw the focus off much, if any. For practical purposes I found very little difference in sharpness with the 4870 and 4990 mounting on the glass, 1mm over the glass and 2mm over the glass. However, 4mm above the glass resulted in obvious drop in sharpness.

The key to best performance with the Epson flatbeds IMO lies more in finding the plane of best focus than in fluid mounting. To determine best focus I would recommend testing with a high resolution target using some kind of spacers (coins,etc) to determine best point of focus. Don't bother with the fluid mounting until you determine the optimum height over the bed as this may confuse results.

Sandy King



I did exactly that. I used mineral oil on the platen, then film, then more oil, then acetate. I taped the acetate down along the sides before wiping with a clean cloth, otherwise your tape may not stick. I saw NO difference between this and using the film holder on the 4x5 slide. Sharpening improved things noticeably, however.

It is not clear to me that if your film is flat, and at the appropriate height, fluid mounting is worth the effort. Keith is very knowledgable, and is going way above and beyond, scanning at 6400 dpi, in three sections, etc, so his results should be much better. Depending on enlargement ratio, it may be worth it.

[Ken Lee]

Thanks for that insight.

I'll stick with my BetterScanning mount, and for an added "magic bullet", stay with 5x7 instead of 4x5. My 10x16 prints are good enough.

[Keith S. Walklet]

My follow-up sharpness tests using dimes, pennies and nickels in tandem with the Epson Fluid mount holder shows a drop off in image quality as soon as I added any spacers beneath the holder. So, that holder seems to be in the "optimized" range.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, when mounting directly on the glass, I use "Film Area Guide" with EpsonScan or "Transparency, Full Area" with Silverfast.

As has been stated, with the V-700 and 750, there are two planes of focus depending on which of those settings is selected.

"Film Area Guide" and "Full Area" scans are focused (supposedly) on the surface of the platen.

"Film With Holder" and "Transparency" settings use the higher magnification lens which is focused above the glass bed. This the method I have used with the 3/16" plex wet mounted to the bed. It consistently achieves the highest quality results.

And, yes, it is important to get the plane of focus, but beyond that, wet-mounting makes the biggest difference in my tests.

On another matter Sandy, what are your thoughts on using distilled white vinegar to clean the glass surface?

[sanking]

Keith,

We appear to be on the same page in terms of the optimum plane of focus because the reference I mentioned was based on use of the spacers with film holders. The maximum spacing with that method was 3.5mm over the glass. I find it difficult to understand that the tolerance of this scanner is so great that the best plane of focus for a specific scanner, as you apparently have found, is over 1.25mm *beyond* the maximum height possible with the Epson mounts.

White vinegar might be a good option for cleaning the glass, if you get no streaks. However, there is no protective coating on the glass of the Epson scanners so a plain household window cleaner with no-streaking property should work fine and not pose any danger for the scanner.

Sandy





My follow-up sharpness tests using dimes, pennies and nickels in tandem with the Epson Fluid mount holder shows a drop off in image quality as soon as I added any spacers beneath the holder. So, that holder seems to be in the "optimized" range.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, when mounting directly on the glass, I use "Film Area Guide" with EpsonScan or "Transparency, Full Area" with Silverfast.

As has been stated, with the V-700 and 750, there are two planes of focus depending on which of those settings is selected.

"Film Area Guide" and "Full Area" scans are focused (supposedly) on the surface of the platen.

"Film With Holder" and "Transparency" settings use the higher magnification lens which is focused above the glass bed. This the method I have used with the 3/16" plex wet mounted to the bed. It consistently achieves the highest quality results.

And, yes, it is important to get the plane of focus, but beyond that, wet-mounting makes the biggest difference in my tests.

On another matter Sandy, what are your thoughts on using distilled white vinegar to clean the glass surface?

[PenGun]

Keith,

We appear to be on the same page in terms of the optimum plane of focus because the reference I mentioned was based on use of the spacers with film holders. The maximum spacing with that method was 3.5mm over the glass. I find it difficult to understand that the tolerance of this scanner is so great that the best plane of focus for a specific scanner, as you apparently have found, is over 1.25mm *beyond* the maximum height possible with the Epson mounts.

White vinegar might be a good option for cleaning the glass, if you get no streaks. However, there is no protective coating on the glass of the Epson scanners so a plain household window cleaner with no-streaking property should work fine and not pose any danger for the scanner.

Sandy

The V750 has an optical coating. It is the main difference from a V700.

[Keith S. Walklet]

I find it difficult to understand that the tolerance of this scanner is so great that the best plane of focus for a specific scanner, as you apparently have found, is over 1.25mm *beyond* the maximum height possible with the Epson mounts.

I can't say why either, but that is apparently where my machine performs best. Could it be an optical property associated with the fluid envelope that is created with my mounting method? Where the fluid envelope acts like a lens?

As for the white vinegar, in advance of my dimes, pennies and nickels test last night, I cleaned the Epson Fluid Mount holder, which was gummed up with residue from the blue masking tape I had used for tests with top mounting and mounting underneath the holder (a simple attempt to replicate Doug's more sophisticated holders). I was having problems getting it cleaned, and remembered from my san/jan days in Yosemite that distilled white vinegar was an effective glass cleaner. It worked superbly. So I was curious what the potential downside to its chemical makeup might be to the optical coatings.

[sanking]

Keith,

Sorry, I was not aware that the V750 had an optical coating on the glass. In that case I think the white vinegar would be safer than household window cleaners that contain ammonia.

Also, I would definitely advise not fluid mounting directly on the glass of the V750 if it has the optical coating. This coating is similar to the coating on lenses and is quite delicate. Certain areas of the glass of my EverSmart Pro scanner, which also has an anti-reflection coating, have been degraded from over-zealous cleaning.

Sandy








I can't say why either, but that is apparently where my machine performs best. Could it be an optical property associated with the fluid envelope that is created with my mounting method? Where the fluid envelope acts like a lens?

As for the white vinegar, in advance of my dimes, pennies and nickels test last night, I cleaned the Epson Fluid Mount holder, which was gummed up with residue from the blue masking tape I had used for tests with top mounting and mounting underneath the holder (a simple attempt to replicate Doug's more sophisticated holders). I was having problems getting it cleaned, and remembered from my san/jan days in Yosemite that distilled white vinegar was an effective glass cleaner. It worked superbly. So I was curious what the potential downside to its chemical makeup might be to the optical coatings.

[sanking]

Thanks for the information. I did not realize the V750 had an anti-reflection coating on the glass bed.

Sandy


The V750 has an optical coating. It is the main difference from a V700.

[aphexafx]

The V750 has an optical coating. It is the main difference from a V700.

The v750's coatings are on the lenses, not the platen, which is what Sandy was referring to as far as cleaning.

I think household "blue" cleaners leave residue, or at least they don't do well with oils. I clean my uncoated platen with alcohol, which can be watered down with distilled water for more delicate surfaces.

*Edit: Well now I'm worried that I misinterpreted the platen/coating issue. I am on my way out the door, but this should be looked up and verified.

**Edit: My 750's platen does not appear to be coated, it just looks like high quality optical glass.

[sanking]

If the glass of the platen is coated it should have some color when viewed by reflected light from the side.

Sandy


The v750's coatings are on the lenses, not the platen, which is what Sandy was referring to as far as cleaning.

I think household "blue" cleaners leave residue, or at least they don't do well with oils. I clean my uncoated platen with alcohol, which can be watered down with distilled water for more delicate surfaces.

*Edit: Well now I'm worried that I misinterpreted the platen/coating issue. I am on my way out the door, but this should be looked up and verified.

**Edit: My 750's platen does not appear to be coated, it just looks like high quality optical glass.

[Steve Wadlington]

Keith,

I know when a filter is used behind a camera lens a correction of about 1/3 the glass thickness is needed. Maybe the plex is acting the same way.

On my 4990 I did tests: on the glass, 1.8mm above, 3.0mm above(all wetmounted). 1.8mm up was the sharpest. I mount to the bottom of plate glass, emulsion down with Kami and Mylar. I use a spacer of mount board 1.8mm thickness between the platten and the plate glass.

Steve


I can't say why either, but that is apparently where my machine performs best. Could it be an optical property associated with the fluid envelope that is created with my mounting method? Where the fluid envelope acts like a lens?

As for the white vinegar, in advance of my dimes, pennies and nickels test last night, I cleaned the Epson Fluid Mount holder, which was gummed up with residue from the blue masking tape I had used for tests with top mounting and mounting underneath the holder (a simple attempt to replicate Doug's more sophisticated holders). I was having problems getting it cleaned, and remembered from my san/jan days in Yosemite that distilled white vinegar was an effective glass cleaner. It worked superbly. So I was curious what the potential downside to its chemical makeup might be to the optical coatings.

[Jon Middleton]

The CCD glass has the optical coating, not the bed. So, glass cleaners should be fine. I wiped off the glass well with a cloth, then cleaned it with a weak dish soap detergent solution. Worked fine without streaking, and I avoided any potential problems associated with vinegar, ammonia, etc.

The plane of focus I used when I mounted to the platen was for "Film Area Guide", which focuses on the surface of the glass. I scanned at 2400 DPI for a 4x5 slide, which gives a file of ~566MB. When I scan with the film holder, my sharpest scans come at 3.5mm. If mounting onto the under surface of plate glass, I would guess my sharpest results would come with ~3.5mm spacers on the platen. Maybe I'll give this a try, but I think the scanner is hardware limited as to resolution. I have a hard time believing that it will actually put out 6400 DPI, especially when the Nikon 9000, with lower listed resolution, outperforms the Epson.

[Keith S. Walklet]

I just popped by to see one of my engineer buddies and had him measure the thickness of the plex exactly. It was given to me as 3/16" and his micrometer put it at .175 inches= 4.445 millimeters.

The hardware limit on the scanner sensor is supposed to be 6400spi, with higher spi achievable with the minute movements of the stepper motor. Epson advertises 9600spi along the stepper motor axis, though I was surprised to find that my tests showed increased resolution even with the 12800spi (interpolated) setting.

I do mount my transparencies so that the long side takes advantage of the stepper motor movement, which is 90 degrees off the direction of Epson's holders.

Jon, thanks for that info on the coatings as well. I posed the question to Epson and hadn't heard back for certain yet. The method you and Steve are using is better than the direct bed wet mount, but there is still and edge to the complete fluid envelope. I truly wish the Epson bed height was adjustable, as it would make life much easier.

And yes, the Nikon kicks the Epson's butt big time in both resolution and shadow detail (as long as one keeps the film flat with at least the ANG holder, or, even better, wet mount). For that matter, it exceeds the TANGO, too. I hope to post some more comparisons that illustrate these observations.


There's another wish. I wish Nikon could have produced a scanner that could handle 4x5 of the same quality as the Coolscan series.

[Jon Middleton]

Keith, that info is in this review. I don't think the scanner bed is coated. I don't want anyone mad at me if it is and they damage it, though:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_1.htm

[aphexafx]

I think it is safe to say that the V750 platen glass is not coated at this point. Clean away, carefully.

[Jon Middleton]

Great news. I had some 11x14 prints made from 2400dpi scans of 4x5 Velvia 50, at Costco no less, and the results are very, very nice. Not sure how large one could go, but I'm thinking 24x30 would be okay. Even a 12x18 print from a 6400dpi scan of an old 35mm K25 transparency is much more than acceptable. I look forward to some prints from MF Provia out of my C330.

[more photography]

The base side of the film gets mounted face down against the ANR side of the glass.


Hi Mike

Sorry not familiar with face and base terminology, is that emulsion side toward the scanner or against the ANR Glass.

[Keith S. Walklet]

The emulsion side of the film will have a three-dimensional quality to it when viewed at a sharp angle, much like a topographic map.

The base side of the film is the smooth, shiny side. It should be in contact with the abraded side of the ANG so that the texture of the ANG creates tiny air pockets that reduce the chance of the Newton rings forming.

[PenGun]

I think it is safe to say that the V750 platen glass is not coated at this point. Clean away, carefully.

I was mistaken. On researching this scanner I had seen a diagram that showed the glass and a light path to illustrate the effect of coating and had not realized it was an illustration of the principal and not the scanner it's self.

[aphexafx]

I was mistaken. On researching this scanner I had seen a diagram that showed the glass and a light path to illustrate the effect of coating and had not realized it was an illustration of the principal and not the scanner it's self.

No problem!

[Rakesh Malik]

The base side of the film is the smooth, shiny side. It should be in contact with the abraded side of the ANG so that the texture of the ANG creates tiny air pockets that reduce the chance of the Newton rings forming.

Does anyone by any chance have an example of Newton rings? It would help me to determine whether or not that's what I've been seeing.

Alternatively, I'll try to remember to post some crops from one of my recent scans that shows the fringing I'm getting, so that someone with more scanning experience than I can tell me whether or not I'm seeing the same thing.

Anyway, it sounds like the best thing to do is to first see about getting the focus right, and then start wet-mounting my slides. I guess that means that it's worth it to get the Better Scanning film holder.

This thread's been really informative!

[Keith S. Walklet]

Here you go Rakesh...

This is a small piece of sky with some Newton rings, which appears as concentric multi-colored rings much like a topo map.

[Rakesh Malik]

Thanks, Keith!

That's not much different from what I'm seeing. It's mostly visible in my scans where there's an edge with some color in it, like along the edge of a flower petal.

So now to figure out the best way to get rid of those. :)

[Keith S. Walklet]

Wet mount!

The rings happen when the film comes in contact with the glass of the scanner bed. The problem with the stock holders is that they don't keep the film flat, so it often bulges and comes in contact with the glass. Not to mention that the plane of focus for a lumpy piece of film is all over the place.

Wet mounting makes those rings (and scratches) disappear. If you need additional motivation, imagine a 1950s TV commercial with tinny music and particularly cheery woman stating the same. ;-)

[Rakesh Malik]

Thanks for the advice!

I guess I'll be trying the wet mount approach next :)

[Jon Middleton]

Here's what I've learned lately. I scanned some 120 Provia 100 using the standard film holders. Painful and poor quality due to the bowing of the film. They improved with fluid mounting. I also tried scanning a small area of a 4x5 transparency, and it wasn't a great deal better than using the stock holder.

I used the following setup, which replicates the betterscanning holder. I fluid mounted the film on glass with mineral oil, taped acetate over the top, then placed the glass, film side down, on spacers I cut with my table saw. I tried .125" (3.18mm), .140" (3.5mm) and .162" (~4mm). The sharpest, by a small margin over the .140", was the .125". The .162", or 4mm, was noticeably softer.

So, I rescanned with the .125" spacers, at many different resolutions- 1200dpi, 1757dpi (random choice to see if it would work. It did.), 2400dpi, 3200dpi, 4800dpi, and 6400dpi. I couldn't see much improvement above 2400dpi.

Conclusions-

1) 120 mm should be fluid mounted for critical scanning. For just judging composition, etc, the standard film holders are okay. Not Epson's fault, you need to clamp all four sides of a frame to hold it well enough to get a decent scan. Scanning 120 strips won't work with the stock film holders.

2) 4x5 can be scanned at 2400dpi with nice results with the stock film holders, and allows enlargements to 32x40 fairly easily. I prefer Smart Sharpening over USM.

[Keith S. Walklet]

John, a couple things to consider.

1. The advantage of the higher resolution (beyond 2400spi) is not as apparent until you sharpen the files.

2. For film that isn't flat, you run the risk of it touching the glass and getting Newton rings. They won't show up in lower resolution scans, but do with higher resolution. I had this problem occur when test scans looked good, but the higher resolution scans showed the Newton rings. Upon closer inspection in the lower resolution files they will result in faint rainbow "clouds."

And I agree with you that sharpening after the fact is the way to go. Much more control.

[Jon Middleton]

I agree, Keith. For warped film, fluid mounting is the way to go. Not just plain glass. Maybe ANR glass would work, but I'll use fluid mounting for critical scans with 120 film.

There may be gains to be had with 4x5 scans with fluid mounting vs film holders, but I can't demonstrate it. My results showed little, if any difference between .125" and .140" off the platen, and no real improvement with fluid mounting. It would be interesting to know the DOF of the scanner itself. In other words, how unflat can film be before you see a degradation of your scans?

I am surprised at how much sharpening improves images. It really shows up in prints. I'm very happy with prints to 11x14. Not sure how big you could go, but I don't have a lot of wall space, anyway.