Epson V700 won't scan over 2400 dpi

[Elizabeth Cox]

I have just purchased an Epson V700 scanner, and I have successfully scanned in negatives and slides up to 2400 dpi ("color negatives" for negatives and "positive film" for slides, 24 bit), using the Epson Scan software in the Home mode. When I try to scan above 2400, it scans, but it is not at the dpi I choose. I know this, because at 2400 dpi, it takes about 2 hours to scan my 16 negatives, and the resulting images are between 9 and 13 Mb; however, when I scan at 3000 or above, it takes just 15 to 20 minutes to scan the same 16, and resulting images are only 1.5 to 3 Mb. Can you tell me what I need to do in order to successfully scan negatives / slides in 3000 or higher (anything higher than 2400) dpi ? I have tried both the Home mode and the Professional Mode, both with and without thumbnail preview. Thank you for your help !

[venchka]

Just guessing since I never use home mode:

Use professional mode. That's what I use and have scanned at 3600 dpi.

OOPS! I see you tried Pro mode. I'm stumped.

Another guess: The file size sounds like the machine is dropping down to 8 bit mode.

Good luck.

[Greg Lockrey]

Its really superfluous to scan higher than 2400 since the resolution of the lens can capture only 2100-2200 with the 700.

[venchka]

Its really superfluous to scan higher than 2400 since the resolution of the lens can capture only 2100-2200 with the 700.

Greg,

Very true. However, the scanner should be able to output higher DPI and larger files.

[Leonard Evens]

This probably has nothing to do with it, but I thought the V700 only scanned at 4800 ppi sampling rate for smaller formats, and for 4 x 5 it dropped back to 2400 ppi. Of course, since I don't have a V700 I could be entirely in left field.

I agree that there isn't too much point in using a sampling rate higher than 2400 ppi as far as the final result is concerned. But is there some advantage to scanning at the higher rate and then reducing to a lower rate by software afterwards?

Finally, if I understand how these things work, the basic hardware will scan at 4800, 2400, 1200, etc., and any other intermediate value is done by dowsizing with interpolation. Is that correct?

[venchka]

Based on the file sizes and number of negatives, Elizabeth is scanning 35mm negatives. Epson Scan should scan 35mm negatives higher than 2400 DPI.

[Greg Lockrey]

Greg,

Very true. However, the scanner should be able to output higher DPI and larger files.

No argument here, but if she has a computer with not much memory, she could get limitation because of file size.

[Brian Ellis]

Have you tried different software? I think you can download a free trial version of Vuescan. You might try that and see what happens. Even if you don't want to use Vuescan permanently, that might at least give you an indication of where the problem lies.

[Ken Lee]

Does the scanner depend on correct positioning of the film holder ? Can the film holder be inserted in the wrong orientation, by accident ? Would incorrect positioning of the film holder, lead to incorrect or unexpected settings ?

[Keith S. Walklet]

I don't have an answer for why the scanner would default to a lower resolution scan other than sometimes inadvertently a smaller scanning frame (marquis) is drawn when you are setting up the scan, and that is the scan frame that is active when the scan is made. A teeny, tiny, frame, with a teeny, tiny, resulting scan. Look to see if you are getting the entire image in your small scans, or just a part.

But, in response to Greg, she should be scanning at the highest optical resolution the scanner is capable of capturing. That would be 6400 SPI, which translates to a measured output resolution of 2000-2400 dpi by most people's reckoning. Those two terms are often used interchangeably, but are very different critters.

[Bob McCarthy]

I don't have an answer for why the scanner would default to a lower resolution scan other than sometimes inadvertently a smaller scanning frame (marquis) is drawn when you are setting up the scan, and that is the scan frame that is active when the scan is made. A teeny, tiny, frame, with a teeny, tiny, resulting scan. Look to see if you are getting the entire image in your small scans, or just a part.

But, in response to Greg, she should be scanning at the highest optical resolution the scanner is capable of capturing. That would be 6400 SPI, which translates to a measured output resolution of 2000-2400 dpi by most people's reckoning. Those two terms are often used interchangeably, but are very different critters.

Scott (Rosenberg) and I did some scan tests comparing the output of an Epson scanner (4990 in this case) and his Screen Cezanne,

What we found was a flattening of the resolution curve with the Epson at about 2000 dpi whereas the cezanne continued to show improvement as requested resolution went up.

It effect it meant that at 600, 1200, and 1800 dpi the "resolution" of the scanners were very close - basically equivalent. Above that the cezanne started pulling away.

At the lower dpi settings there was no advantage to the Cezanne when it came to the resolution question. Above 2400 dpi there was no comparison.

What it meant to me, was scanning really large negatives (ie 8x10) was a totally viable process on the consumer scanner. Smaller negatives especially 35mm and medium format require a more capable scanner. 4x5 was on the cusp, the determinant was the final output (print) size

bob

[Paul Kierstead]

I don't think I've ever used Epson scan (and definitely not for trannies/negs), but my V700 happily scans at 6400 in vuescan. However


I know this, because at 2400 dpi, it takes about 2 hours to scan my 16 negatives

Sounds really wrong. My V700 isn't speedy, but is much, much faster then that. I strong suspect you machine has much too little RAM or the like, and it just woofing its cookies at higher dpi.

[venchka]

My most recent scanning adventure:

Epson Scan, 6 6x7 scans, 48 bits, 2400 whatever Y'all want to call them, 200Mb files. 20-30 minutes total. I was watching the Tour and didn't care how long it took. Absoulutely not 2 hours. Oh, an ancient Epson 1680 scanner.

It seems to me that 2 hours for less than 200Mb total (16 negs @ 9-13Mb ea.) is a really long time.

[Bob McCarthy]

I have just purchased an Epson V700 scanner, and I have successfully scanned in negatives and slides up to 2400 dpi ("color negatives" for negatives and "positive film" for slides, 24 bit), using the Epson Scan software in the Home mode. When I try to scan above 2400, it scans, but it is not at the dpi I choose. I know this, because at 2400 dpi, it takes about 2 hours to scan my 16 negatives, and the resulting images are between 9 and 13 Mb; however, when I scan at 3000 or above, it takes just 15 to 20 minutes to scan the same 16, and resulting images are only 1.5 to 3 Mb. Can you tell me what I need to do in order to successfully scan negatives / slides in 3000 or higher (anything higher than 2400) dpi ? I have tried both the Home mode and the Professional Mode, both with and without thumbnail preview. Thank you for your help !

Elizabeth,

can you give more of the particulars, I'm assuming 35mm, but even at 8 bit those are tiny files.

Based on file size, you might be outputting jpegs.

You numbers are not making sense!

Other issues, are you scanning with ICE on? any other processing?

bob

[Keith S. Walklet]

As Paul said, an underpowered computer would slow things down, or a bottleneck in the path to or type of storage device. All my scanners operate more efficiently when hooked up to my faster machines.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Elizabeth,

Your computer needs more RAM...

Epson defaults to a lower file size if the RAM is not present.

jim k

[PenGun]

Try Vuescan it is quite a different approach and may work better with your machine.

https://www.hamrick.com/

The ability to scan to .jpg may help a marginal machine.

I have used nothing else since I acquired it. Great program.

[Elizabeth Cox]

Thank you all for your input here !!
I am scanning 35 mm and outputing to jpeg format.
I am not turning on ICE or any of those kinds of options - just asking for a straight scan.
I have checked the marquee to make sure it is picking up the whole slide..
I've tried Vuescan, and I wasn't sure about it either - Here's what I got: For one particular slide, when I scanned with Epson scan at 1600 dpi the resulting image was 2.9 Mg, at 2000 dpi the resulting image was 4.03 Mg, at 2400 dpi the resulting image was 5.35 Mg, and at 3000 dpi the resulting image was 713 Kb (which is over 2400 and is the part that I don't think is working right). When I scanned this same image in using Vuescan, at 1600 dpi the resulting image was 456 Kb, and at 3200 dpi the resulting image was 1.36 Mg. Those resulting image sizes using Vuescan didn't sound right... Am I missing something, though ?
It could be a memory issue. Do you know how I can confirm how much memory is on this computer without just knowing that fact ? And how much do you think I need here to go over 2400 dpi ?
Thanks again for all of your help here !!
Elizabeth

[Elizabeth Cox]

Oh ! I just found in the System Information that this PC seems to have 768 Mg of RAM.... Should that be enough, or is that potentially my problem ? By the way, on the weekend, I got my husband to bring home his work laptop, and we tried all this connected to his, with all the same results. I don't know what his RAM is. I'll have to find out. But with that in mind, I still wonder how much RAM we need...
One thing I have failed to mention is this: When I scan at 1600 or 2400 dpi (or a high resolution such as these, up to and including the 2400), Epson scan gives me the following warning: "When you scan with high resolution, the image size may be large or a long time may be required for scanning. Therefore, choose an appropriate resolution setting." I do not get that message when I kick off a scan at a higher resolution than 2400, so it's as if it is not planning to scan at high resolution when I kick off the scan...
Thanks again for brainstorming with me on this !!
Elizabeth

[PenGun]

That's not a lot of RAM. Should work though.

Lets see what ya got:

Hit the start button and type 'cmd' (no quotes) into the Run box.

You should get a command prompt, a window with a black background and white writing.

Type 'systeminfo' (no quotes) into that window. It will cogitate a bit then give you a bunch of stuff about your computer.

Right click on the command prompt window and select 'select all'. Do a Ctrl-c to copy that and paste it into the reply window here.

[Armin Seeholzer]

This is not enough ram in my opinion, for huge files of course not!

Cheers Armin

[PenGun]

This is not enough ram in my opinion, for huge files of course not!

Cheers Armin

The files are written to disk. Low amounts of RAM just means the buffer is small and everything is slow.

Now I'm not sure how broke windose is these days but it should work, albeit slowly. I run Vuescan in Linux myself.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Elizabeth,

It is a memory issue, and your problems will disappear quickly with at least 4GB of RAM.

Again, Epson scanners default to a small file when the required RAM does not exist.

For example I just tested an Epson 10000XL where the computer had 2GB of ram and the file size could not capture an 8X10 scanned negative at 3000SPI. Four (4) GB let it work... :)

I have 8GB, and my issue happens to be waiting 12 minutes for my 8X10 scanned at 3000spi.

jim k

[Elizabeth Cox]

PenGun,
I followed your instructions just to confirm my RAM, and
I couldn't get this to copy here, but here's what happened:
When I got to the command prompt window, it came up in "Documents and Settings" - ie, it said, C:\Documents and Settings\Jason Cox>
At that prompt, I typed in systeminfo, and it told me, "systeminfo is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program, or batch file"
So I typed in the cd\ to change to the root directory, and it showed me, C:\>, where I tried to type in systeminfo again, and it again told me, "systeminfo is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program, or batch file"... I don't know what directory I need to be in for that to work... But...
When I go into START / MY COMPUTER / View System information, it shows mine as a Pentium 4 processor with 768 MB of RAM, so I guess that's what I've got (and I guess this is the same as running the systeminfo command that you gave me ???
Thanks again for your input...

[Elizabeth Cox]

To all of you who have been so kind to answer me, thanks a million !!
If any of you (including PenGun, after you see my last response to you) thinks my problem is anything other than memory, and thus my solution is anything other than adding more memory to my PC, please let me know (I really don't mind it being slow on this, if it would just work, because I think the majority of my scans will be at 2400 dpi anyway)... OTherwise, perhaps it is a memory issue, but it is strange that the Epson V700 specs say you need 256 K (512 K recommended) RAM, if there are limitations to doing all the scanner will do unless you have more (But I know how that documentation can be lacking at times, too...)...
Epson has been trying to answer my question for a week, and my question has traveled up from Level 1 support to level 2 support and on to Advanced Products Support, and nobody there has been able to answer me... So thanks, guys, for all you do here !!

[PenGun]

Oh dear. You are running something before Win 2000.

I'm not sure what dumps sysinfo for Win 98. Still minimum requirments for a V700 are:

PC:

Windows® 98 SE, ME, 2000, XP and XP x64
Pentium® III or equivalent processor
256 MB RAM
350 MB of available disc space
USB or IEEE 1394 port required
CD-ROM drive

So in spite of many opinions it should work. Is your OS Windows 98 or perhaps even ME?

Windows 7 RC is a free download and will work till march 2010.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/download.aspx

Maybe give it a try.

[Elizabeth Cox]

To all of you who have been so kind to help me: I forgot to tell you that I have been able to scan a wallet sized photograph at 3200 dpi, and the resulting image was 8.44 Mg. I scanned that same photo at 4800 dpi, and the resulting image was 19.5 Mg... (When I scanned it at 2400 dpi, the resulting image was 4.76 Mg...)... Does this change your hypothesis on the low memory, or is this different than the slides and negatives ?

PenGun, I have Windows XP Version 2002. My computer does meet the specs that you sent me. Available disk space is 10 Gb (Which I do plan to add to as I start scanning in all these pics, but I would think it was OK for now...)

Thanks again !

[PenGun]

To all of you who have been so kind to help me: I forgot to tell you that I have been able to scan a wallet sized photograph at 3200 dpi, and the resulting image was 8.44 Mg. I scanned that same photo at 4800 dpi, and the resulting image was 19.5 Mg... (When I scanned it at 2400 dpi, the resulting image was 4.76 Mg...)... Does this change your hypothesis on the low memory, or is this different than the slides and negatives ?

PenGun, I have Windows XP Version 2002. My computer does meet the specs that you sent me. Available disk space is 10 Gb (Which I do plan to add to as I start scanning in all these pics, but I would think it was OK for now...)

Thanks again !

The service packs for XP are important. You should have a minimum of pack 2. There is service pack 3 now for XP.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/sp3/default.mspx

The original XP was very buggy and if yours is unpatched, the original install with no service packs added, that could easily be your problem.

It's possible that's why you seem to have no 'systeminfo' on your machine.

[sanking]

Just curious to relate to my own scanners. How long does it take to scan a 6X7cm negative, Grayscale 16 bit, with the V700 or V750 at 6300 dpi?

Sandy

[Joanna Carter]

Elizabeth, what some people are not mentioning is that the computer's memory is shared amongst all the programs that are running on it. And, before you start the Epson software, you have to be aware that Windows can be taking possibly over 250MB just to run itself. Then, if you have anything else like virus checkers and other utilities running, that can take up more. So, if Epson state it requires 256MB to run, that means, out of the 768MB of ram fitted in your machine, after Windows and the Epson software is loaded, you may only have 100-200MB in which to fit the scanned image; and that is assuming that absolutely nothing else is running. If, as Epson state, they prefer to use 512MB, you are already in deficit because with just Windows and Epson running, you have already exceeded the available physical memory in the machine.

When you start running short on memory, the computer then starts using the hard disk as if it were memory; unfortunately, this means that data has to be shuffled betwen the disk and the memory. Think about this like you were in your kitchen with a very small worktop space (memory); when you have too much food to prepare for the size of your worktop, you may need to put some of it in the fridge or larder whilst you prepare some more; this would take you more time because you have to keep swapping stuff in and out of the storage that you have.

To compound this, you say that you only have 10GB of spare disk space; this is not a lot, the memory swap file is usually between 1 and 2 GB but, with such a small amount of disk space, this usually means that the memory can be fairly fragmented and thus take even longer to access a large file that may be split into many parts - a bit like keeping all the kitchen utensils you need in one drawer per utensil.

In short, I am not surprised that you are having problems scanning; you really need to upgrade your machine, both for memory and disk space. Fortunately, both memory and disks are quite cheap now but beware of those who are saying that they have 4GB or more fitted. Windows XP can only ever use 3GB of memory and, with most motherboards, this is further restricted to 2.5GB, due to how the memory is allocated. 2GB should be a very adequate amount and you should se quite a significant speed increase for your effort.

I would suggest that you try to fit a second disk into the machine; something as big as 500GB would be good as it will allow you to move your files to the new disk and free up more space on the system disk to allow for the memory swap file to be managed better.

After you have fitted the seciond disk and moved your files to it, you should then defragment the system disk using the Windows utility provided. This should further increas the speed of your machine.

[venchka]

I forgot to mention:
4 gb ram
XP S.P. 2
Ancient dual Xeon chip Dell
16 or 48 bit TIFF output.

Elizabeth: Why JPEG files? That seems like a waste of time and effort and reduced image quality.

[Elizabeth Cox]

I added Service Pack 3 now, as PenGun recommended, and I even deinstalled and then reinstalled Epson scan afterward. I still cannot scan over 2400 dpi, and I have a little more info: When I scan in Home mode at 2000 or 2400 dpi, I still get the message before the scan starts, warning that at high resolutions it may take a long time and image result may be large, and these scans seem to work (resulting images are about what they were before). But I cannot scan in Professional mode at 2000 or 2400 dpi - perhaps I had not tried these dpi in Professional mode before I installed the Service Pack, but I thought I had, and I thought I had been able to (it's been 2 weeks of trying everything I can think of, so I may not remember well) - when I try 2000 or 2400 in Professional mode, the result is the same as I had been getting when trying to go above 2400 (ie, no message warning me about the long scan time and large resulting image - so it's as if the system didn't intend to do high resolution - ; and small resulting images). I still am able to scan in a photo at 3200 dpi and come out with a resulting image of 9.25 Mg...
Perhaps it is a memory problem, but why would I be able to scan in 2000 and 2400 dpi in Home mode and not in Professional mode ?

By the way, Joanna, thanks for the info. on memory and how that all works...

Wayne, you asked why JPEG... Let me tell you what I am trying to accomplish, and I think JPEG is all I need:

I was actually going to ask all of you about this after I got my scanning problem solved... Here's what I am doing and the conclusions I came to - let me know if you disagree... I am scanning in old negatives, slides, and photos, so they will not fade away over time and the family can look at them 100 years from now (smile). For my resulting image, I would like quality similar to my digital camera, which is a 7.2 Megapixel camera, in most cases. Here's what I've come up with from my research: For slides and negatives: If I want to be able to see a good image on the largest TV screens (perhaps with a little extra for the TV screens that may come out in the future) and be able to print good 4 x 6's, I assume I need to scan at 2000 dpi on slides and negatives. If I want to print good 8 x 10's, I assume I need to scan at 2400 dpi. If I want to print good 16 x 20's, I assume I need to scan at 4000 dpi or more. I think JPEG is sufficient for all of this.... Do you all agree with my conclusions in this paragraph ?
Thanks again for all of your help !

[venchka]

Elizabeth,

After you select the window area to scan, and select the DPI, what numbers show up in the scan dimension window? 1" x 1.5", more less, for 35mm? Grasping at straws. Baffled. Dazed. Confused.

A 16 bit TIFF file will contain more and better information than a JPEG. You can always save the edited TIFF file as a JPEG for giving out to the family.

[Elizabeth Cox]

Wayne, Are you asking about the Destination Target size on the Epson scan window, where you fill in parameters before you do a Preview scan, or are you talking about the figures at the bottom of the Preview screen ? And which mode do you want me to look at - Professional or Home - and do you want me to look at slides or negatives - and what dpi do you want me to pick when I look at these numbers ? I could look at several combinations, if it would help... Also, wouldn't the TIFF file take up gobbs more space than the JPEG file ? I am trying to balance what I need to save quality images and do what I described with the amount of disk space each image would take...
Thanks for continuing to grasp for straws with me...

[Elizabeth Cox]

PenGun, even though the Service Pack didn't help my problem here, thanks for the info anyway, because my system probably needed updating for other reasons... I thought my system was updating automatically, but perhaps those auto updates don't add service packs... I understand why other folks are pointing me in the direction of purchasing more memory and disk, and if I end up using this scanner, I can certainly do that if need be (I am in a testing period on it right now)... But I still wonder if you are right - that perhaps it is not a memory problem, especially when I am able to scan in 2000 and 2400 dpi in Home mode but not in Professional mode ?

I do appreciate everyone's input so very much on the memory and disk stuff, and I am willing to get it if need be... But does it change any of your opinions that I need more memory and disk, given the fact that I am able to scan in 2000 and 2400 dpi in Home mode but not in Professional mode ? It seems that no matter what mode I choose, since I am not turning on anything fancy (like ICE), if I could scan in those dpi's in one mode I should be able to scan in those dpi's at other modes too... What do all of you think ?

Again, I thank you all for "brainstorming" with me here...

[percepts]

jpeg might be smaller files when finally output but the scanner doesn't scan in jpeg mode. i.e. it scans normally and then converts to jpeg which means that specifying jpeg requires more memory and time to achieve it.
Output to tiff and I hope you are using the supplied film holders which allow the higher res output. I think the scanner recognises them as being in place and switches to high res lens. So if you just put film on the glass or use non standard film holders which don't cover a certain area of the platten, then it will assume you are using full area of platten and use the lower res lens. Try scan at 3200spi using epson film holders and output to tiff.

And if you have photoshop open, close it before you do any scanning cos it grabs an awful lot of memory. Infact close as many apps as possible before scan.

[rdenney]

Just curious to relate to my own scanners. How long does it take to scan a 6X7cm negative, Grayscale 16 bit, with the V700 or V750 at 6300 dpi?

Sandy

I scan 4x5 16-bit grayscale at 2400 dpi, with ICE turned off, using Vuescan, and it takes a handful of minutes (and one hand at that). Maybe four or five.

My computer is a now-ancient AMD Athlon machine from about 2002 with Windows XP Home (upgraded systematically to the latest SP2--but not SP3), with 2GB of RAM plus an abundance of disk space. I run Vuescan and Photoshop CS4 at the same time (plus Firefox to play on the Internet while waiting for the scan). I don't have problems with Photoshop unless I've stacked more than a couple of layers and a significant history. The TIFF files are about 190 MB. Performance is adequate, but I'm not looking forward to doing color.

Scans from my Nikon 8000ED take longer. But that's color and with ICE turned on.

Rick "providing a data point" Denney

[rdenney]

I was actually going to ask all of you about this after I got my scanning problem solved... Here's what I am doing and the conclusions I came to - let me know if you disagree... I am scanning in old negatives, slides, and photos, so they will not fade away over time and the family can look at them 100 years from now (smile). For my resulting image, I would like quality similar to my digital camera, which is a 7.2 Megapixel camera, in most cases.

Elizabeth, I'll tell you a story. My wife's father loaned her a family photo album with the instruction to scan the pictures for posterity. Of course, I was the one volunteered for the task. After scanning about four of those pictures, I realized two thing: 1. a flatbed scanner is not set up to make scans of photographs look like photographs, and I was having to spend a lot of time making them look like photos and not copies of photos, and 2.) it was taking freaking forever. I was spending a half hour on each one, and this photo album was four inches thick with every page filled.

So, I had a brainstorm. I remembered how I would have done this same task before the wonders of the digital world came along, and it occurred to me that I already had 1.) a 6-megapixel digital SLR, 2.) an excellent 50mm macro lens, and 3.) a copy stand.

So, I put the camera on the copy stand and photographed the remaining pictures from the album. The camera made the photos look photographic mostly without post-processing and the resulting images were more than good enough to make 8x10's out of them, as long as I moved the camera up close to fill the frame with the picture being copied. A digital camera with a macro lens makes a better scanner than a scanner. I had the project finished and all the photos on CD's to send to other family members in two nights of work. And I didn't have to rebuild my computer.

Rick "offered in case that story sparks any alternatives for you" Denney

[venchka]

Rick saw the trees through the forest.

Back to my question...

Every scanning software that Ihave used had two windows displaying the phsyical size of the scan window selected with the mouse. This was independant of scanning resolution, call it DPI or SPI. When I scan, those numbers closely match the size of the original negative. Usually a fraction of an inch smaller because I don't like black edges around the negative. My question was what size is Epson Scan telling you the scan window is? There should only be one answer independant of resolution, mode, color, B&W, 8 bit, 16 bit, 48 bit, etc. and it should be very close to the actual size of your negatives or slides.

Another question about scanning workflow: Are you setting up all of the negatives in the holder and then telling Epson Scan to scan all of them at once? Or are you scanning each negative individually? I find it very nice to set up 4 4x5 or 6 6x7 photos and tell the software to scan while I go do something else. It cuts down on the time I spend in front of the computer. That's a good thing after 10 hours in front of a computer at work.

Lightbulb: Can you get some screen shots of Epson Scan to show us how you are setting things up?

Good luck!

[Elizabeth Cox]

Rick, Good story - I may use this when it comes to scanning the photos : ) ...

As for slides and negs, I have now tried TIFF, and results are the same - ie, over 2400 dpi in Home Mode does not give the high resolution warning message just before the scan kicks off, scan is very quick, and resulting images are very small (the cutoff is exactly 2400 - ie, 2400 works in Home Mode, but 2401 does not)... And in Professional Mode, I never get the high resolution warning message or resulting images consistent with high resolution, whether I choose 1600, 2000, 3000, 3200, or whatever dpi...

I am using slide and negative holders, and at first I was scanning batches (as I plan to once I get this thing resolved and really begin scanning my slides and negatives in for real), but now I am just scanning one at a time from the batch to work on this problem, so I won't have to wait for the whole batch to scan to try the next thing... But I love the batch, and that is what I plan to ultimately use...

My input size on a single 35 MM negative is .95 inches by 1.4 inches, which should be close to the real size of that negative...

I have some print screens that show what I have set up in a Word document, and I tried to attach those to this reply, but I get a message that the file type is too big to attach (Mine is 1.04 Mg, and the limit is 19.5 Kb), and I cannot get the print screens to paste directly into this reply... So if you know how I can post them, let me know...

I am beginning to wonder if this is a scanner driver issue... I downloaded the latest version of Epson scan, and that is what I am using - Version 3.24A. For those of you who use Epson scan software successfully, what version do you have ?

Thanks again, guys and gals !

[venchka]

...

I have some print screens that show what I have set up in a Word document, and I tried to attach those to this reply, but I get a message that the file type is too big to attach (Mine is 1.04 Mg, and the limit is 19.5 Kb), and I cannot get the print screens to paste directly into this reply... So if you know how I can post them, let me know...

I am beginning to wonder if this is a scanner driver issue... I downloaded the latest version of Epson scan, and that is what I am using - Version 3.24A. For those of you who use Epson scan software successfully, what version do you have ?

Thanks again, guys and gals !

Open an empty file in Paint-the program that came with Windows. Paste the print screen in the file. Size the image to fit the standards here-Max. dimension = 650 pixels. Save as a JPEG. Use Manage Attachments to attach to your posts here. One screenshot per JPEG to keep them small.

I scanned 30 mounted 35mm slides last night.

Target size = output size, approximately 0.95x1.40 inches.
2400 DPI
Avg. file size 40Mb
Firewire 400 connection between scanner and computer
26 minutes for 15 slides.

[Athiril]

Its really superfluous to scan higher than 2400 since the resolution of the lens can capture only 2100-2200 with the 700.

If you put a lens on a camera with x resolution that doenst fully resolve the sensor or film then on a camera with much higher sensor resolution or film, it will resolve more on that second sensor or film than it does on the first.

I'd scan high and then drop it back.

[Martin Miksch]

First you should become familiar with the basics of digital pics. "File size" just describes the amount of space a file uses on an eg. harddisk and has nothing to do with "image size" in pixels. From that pixelnumber you can easily calculate the applied DPI.
Kind Regards
Martin

[Elizabeth Cox]

I got a solution to my problem, and I wanted to share it with you all. I have been scanning everything up to 2400 dpi in Home Mode and then switching to Professional Mode for over 2400 dpi, since you cannot scan in Home Mode over 2400 dpi using thumbnail. I have been filling out all my parameters and then asking for the Preview. At that point, I have paid attention to the Preview and not gone back and checked the parameters from the Epson Scan screen that I filled out and checked before the Preview, assuming all would stay as I had put it before the Preview... But here's what happens: In Home Mode, after it puts the preview on the screen, it changes your target size from "Original," which is what I wanted, to 4 x 6, and scans like that. It does not do that in Professional Mode - in professional mode it leaves your target size where you put it before the preview (for me, "Original"). So when I was going over 2400 dpi, scan times were shorter and file sizes were smaller, because my target sizes were different under 2400 dpi and over 2400 dpi...
Again, thanks a million for listening to me and working with me in an effort to help me get a resolution here. I have learned a lot from the things you have told me, which are going to help me too...

[jb7]

Using silverfast, I can't scan an 8x10 neg above 2150dpi in 48bit colour,
cos the file size is limited to 2Gb.

Saving me from myself, I suppose...

[venchka]

Ah. So I was onto something hey? Epson Scan was changing the size for you. Like it or don't. I never use Home mode so I had not found that "feature."

As several folks have said, save the over 2400 dpi scans for special occasions.

[Diane Maher]

I have read this thread with interest as I have considered buying a V700 scanner (and have the same old computer issues that I read about earlier in the thread) and would want the scanner to scan 8x10 transparencies (among other neg sizes).

[Joanna Carter]

I have read this thread with interest as I have considered buying a V700 scanner (and have the same old computer issues that I read about earlier in the thread) and would want the scanner to scan 8x10 transparencies (among other neg sizes).
Diane, if you want to scan 8x10, then you are going to need memory, lots of memory, and a reasonable amount of spare disk space for when Windows can't fit your image in the memory.

[jb7]

The V750/700 uses a scratch disk with silverfast, so big ram isn't too much of an issue...
though I'm on a mac, I don't know if that makes a difference.

I get by just fine with 2Gb ram on a macbook pro.
A separate drive for the scratch disk should make things a bit faster.

An 8x10 at 2150dpi is still pretty huge...
and I wouldn't have been tempted to try to scan at that size except I'm making a pretty big print-

I know it's beyond the combined resolution of the image,
but it's about the same pixel dimension as the print-

There might be an issue with scanning into the shadows of a transparency, but a colour neg wasn't a problem.


joseph

[venchka]

I scan B&W 4x5 at 2,100 and color & B&W 6x7 at 2400. The files are plump for sure.

I delivered a B&W 16x20 print yesterday from a 16-bit, 2,400 dpi scan made on an Epson 4990. I was pleased with the print. More importantly, my client was more pleased with the print.

[Ben Calwell]

I have no knowledge to impart on this subject, but I just wanted to acknowledge the very polite and kind back-and-forth on this thread. It's been an entertaining read and (cue the violins) it makes me proud to be a part of this forum for lo these many years.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to my darkroom, where I'll switch on a single light bulb to make a contact print. No DPI, no profiles, no RAM.......

[bert10]

Based on the file sizes and number of negatives, Elizabeth is scanning 35mm negatives. Epson Scan should scan 35mm negatives higher than 2400 DPI.