8x10 with a V700, Vuescan can't scan above 1600 DPI

[urs0polar]

Hi,

Just developed my first 8x10 B&W shots (one of the cat, another of a chair haha) and I'm experimenting with Vuescan 8.6.38 on a Mac Pro 1,1 with OSX 10.6.4 and 12GB ram. Scanner is an Epson V700.

I'm using the "film area guide" on the glass bed as my betterscanning mounting station thing only works for 4x5. Because the film was peeling up from the heat of the scan, I am scoth taping the edges down so that it stays reasonably flat (meanwhile I'm looking for suggestions on who can get me AN glass that I can just lay on top of the film).

So, the major issue I am running into is that I can't get a scan over 1.2GB in size. No matter if I select 1600 or 3200 DPI, I get 12700 x 15700 dimensions, and the file size is 1.2GB. 3200 DPI takes like 2+ hours, however. I'm scanning 48bit RGB so that I have the most info to work with for photoshop.

As I understand it, the V700 in this mode will only scan 800 dpi, 1600, 3200, etc and the other in-between resolutions (2400, etc) are interpolated. Otherwise, I would use 2400, as the endless arguments that abound seem to say that 2400 is about all this scanner can do anyhow.

I would like to be able to make a really large scan and then reduce down, which if course I can do now, but I'm a little disappointed, if only because my Nikon 9000 can do just about as good from a 6x7...

Is this a vuescan thing? I have a silverfast license from my OSX 10.4 days (3 weeks ago), but I'm not sure I have the binary (which probably means I'd have to upgrade my license and pay them in order to access any binary at all), and I like vuescan better anyhow from a "lock exposure and film base color" perspective.

Is this a known thing, or am I doing something wrong?

(Haha I haven't even fired up the Nikon 9000 yet since the 10.6 upgrade. One frustration at a time...)

Thanks for any help/ideas

[Walter Calahan]

That's correct.

The higher ppi scans are only made with film 5x7 or smaller. 8x10 film is outside the sweet spot of the scanner.

Look at the owner's manual. The V700 and V750 have two different scanning areas.

[Frank Petronio]

Just a practical question, at the point you need a scan larger than 1.2 gigs, why wouldn't you go and get a drum scan? Working on and printing such a large file is a large investment in time (just dust-busting it!) so why not go the extra step and expense to get a truly great scan?

[urs0polar]

Walter,

Thanks for the confirmation. I think I'm pretty lucky as I was just checking at 100% and the scan is quite sharp! So at least it seems to be focusing on the glass (or right above) as it's supposed to.

Frank,

Well, this Epson is $500, and the scan was $500/(however many scans I've ever made with it since I bought it + 1). Drum scans are ridiculously expensive :) I think that if I ever feel that anything I do is even remotely good enough for a drum scan, then I'll definitely get one. I think it's more of a general down feeling when you find the limits of what you have (well, resolution-wise, anyhow). Just making sure I'm not making an easy-to-fix mistake. The biggest I can print is 24x36 (or thereabouts), so maybe it wouldn't even make a difference, I don't know.

The output still looks pretty awesome, though. The transition from in focus to out of focus is really nice in 8x10.

Thanks

[Nathan Potter]

Mark, how sharp is sharp? I've been studying the resolution performance of a new V750 and find it drops from about 50 to 25 lp/mm from best focus above the glass to on the glass. I just point this out, but it may be that around 1200 SPI may still be OK for what you're doing. That point of best focus reportedly varies between different machines. For reference, my machine focus point is about 2.4 mm above the glass. Another scanner well tested was 3.9 mm above the glass. But visually, for me, there's quite an improvement in scanning at the focus of the scanner.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Nathan,

Unfortunately I cannot speak to the Epson 700, but my best focus for the 750 happens to approximate 3mm above the scanner's flatbed glass surface, where I hang my 8X10 wet mount negatives upside down, emulsion side to the glass, and where I raise the negative into its proper position by using the film guide, and two thin rag board surface strips placed along the longside edges of the film guide. The glass ress comfortably on top of the surface strips, and if I need to square the negative better, it is just a matter of correcting the glass position on top of the strips.

I go larger that 1200 spi with the current Epson scanner software...

jim k

[John NYC]

This is an interesting thread to me. I get very sharp 8x10 scans with a V750 at 2400 dpi. Are you all saying that if I drop back to 1600 I will get better results?

Edit: So, 1600 is not a default option in Epson scan; you have to type it in. I just did a quick test with MF film. I did one scan at 2400 and another at 1600. I then downsized the 2400 image in PS to the size of the 1600. The 1600 is sharper at 100 percent than the downsized 2400 on screen, but I'm not sure what this means in terms of printing. If I sent the 2400 out for printing at 16x20 would it actually be less sharp than the 1600?

[rdenney]

I would like to be able to make a really large scan and then reduce down, which if course I can do now, but I'm a little disappointed, if only because my Nikon 9000 can do just about as good from a 6x7...

Well, not quite. I get about 8800 by 10,500 pixels from my Nikon with 6x7 film. 12,700 by 15,700 is 45% bigger in the linear dimension, and more than twice as many total pixels in the final file.

With a 24x36" print (or, actually, 24x30 from an 8x10), you will still have an abundance of pixels (>500 per inch). Not quite enough to achieve 720 pixels/inch in the print, but on my Epson 3800 I can't really tell the difference between 360 and 720 anyway.

The advantage to 8x10, unless your are printing murals, is that you don't need that much sensor density in the scanner. You'll gain more from insuring proper focus.

If you ever need to print bigger than your printer can handle, then you'll be having to send it out anyway. Might as well get a drum scan for those few prints.

My prints at home are limited to 17", but I can still tell the difference between 4x5 scanned at 2400 on the Epson, and 6x7 scanned in my Nikon. Both produce nearly the same number of useful pixels. But the 4x5 is informed by more tonal information. Both have more than enough resolution for 16xwhatever prints, and are not limited by resolution. Even with lower scanning resolution (as long as it is sufficient for a given print size), larger formats will stuff more tonal information into each pixel. I doubt that 1200 spi will limit what you can print on a 24" printer. I'm more likely to see differences in tonal rendering between the two scanners.

Rick "who has learned to evaluate prints on paper rather than on a computer monitor" Denney

[sanking]

Snip, snip, snip.

Even with lower scanning resolution (as long as it is sufficient for a given print size), larger formats will stuff more tonal information into each pixel. I doubt that 1200 spi will limit what you can print on a 24" printer. I'm more likely to see differences in tonal rendering between the two scanners.

Rick "who has learned to evaluate prints on paper rather than on a computer monitor" Denney

What are the visual markers of "more tonal information"?

Once we get beyond the matter of resolution and sharpness the only difference I can observe between well made prints from MF and LF negatives is the tonal smoothness of the LF print that results from less grain. It seems to me that the absence of grain is one of the main reasons prints from MF digital backs hold up so well to comparisons with 4X5 film, even though the film almost always is capable of more real resolution.

Sandy King

[rdenney]

What are the visual markers of "more tonal information"?

Less grain is part of it. I also think that the accuracy of each pixel will be improved by integrating a larger portion of the negative, assuming that's what the Epson is doing. At 16x20, I'm not sure that a 6x7 Velvia transparency shows enough grain for that to be more than a subtle effect. But subtleties do count.

My 4x5 black and white scans are also smoother than even my 6x7 Velvia scans, even though both end up with the same number of pixels. That smoothness improves the MTF of the print, to my eyes, giving more of the sense of limitless detail. And the 4x5 black and white film has more noticeable grain than the 6x7 transparencies that I've printed to 16x20 even considering the different degrees of enlargement. Clearly, also, the Nikon is better scanner than the Epson, for any given square millimeter of film. The 4x5 still looks smoother. Both make excellent 16x20 prints, of course.

We had this discussion some time back, where it was demonstrated that given enough resolution, color depth didn't matter. But without that resolution, the accuracy of the scanned tone does matter, it seems to me.

Rick "barely beyond arm-waving, but seeing differences in the results so far" Denney

[urs0polar]

Hi John,

I don't know what everyone else is saying, but what I'm saying is that no matter what I set the resolution at above 1600 ppi, the resulting file is 1600 ppi if you divide the resolution by the number of inches it actually scanned (~8" in one case, ~10" in the other). Maybe it does some internal interpolating or something, especially since as I understand it, 2400 is an interpolated resolution anyhow... so, it either interpolates up form 1600, or interpolates down from 3200. Not sure which yours is doing.

If Epson scan gives you more pixels (whether or not they actually hold more information or not is another argument), then maybe it's a "feature" of Vuescan not to output more than 1600ppi.



This is an interesting thread to me. I get very sharp 8x10 scans with a V750 at 2400 dpi. Are you all saying that if I drop back to 1600 I will get better results?

Edit: So, 1600 is not a default option in Epson scan; you have to type it in. I just did a quick test with MF film. I did one scan at 2400 and another at 1600. I then downsized the 2400 image in PS to the size of the 1600. The 1600 is sharper at 100 percent than the downsized 2400 on screen, but I'm not sure what this means in terms of printing. If I sent the 2400 out for printing at 16x20 would it actually be less sharp than the 1600?

[urs0polar]

To answer optimum focus questions, I have a few comments.

One is that there are 2 different lenses in the 700/750. One is focused at or about the glass, and the other (the "high res" one) is at the height of an "average" film holder.

The one that is on the glass will scan an 8x10 area. The one that is at the filmholder height will max out at 6"x8" or something like that.

So, since there is no such thing as an "average" film holder, pretty much everyone's focus is terrible with the filmholder lens.

With my betterscanning variable height mounting station, my optimum film holder height happens to be at ~1.8mm. Well, at least that seems like the best, afaik.

see here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/urs0polar/3317832213/

Now, the 8x10 on the glass isn't that sharp, but it's a whole lot sharper than 6x7 used to be before I went to the trouble of the mounting station.

Then again, 6x7 at 4800 or whatever vs 8x10 at 1600, who knows. Different cameras, different lenses, different film, different everything :)

For rdenney,

Yeah, I guess that it just goes to show how good of a scanner the 9000 is that 6x7 looks comparable-ish to 8x10 on the V700. Of course, maybe I need to mount 8x10 to some upside down AN glass and start shimming it to get better focus. Maybe the fact that at 1600 ppi at 100%, I'm still not seeing the grain per se (i think) has something to do with it.

Mark "definitely arm-waving" Hodos

[rdenney]

For rdenney,

Yeah, I guess that it just goes to show how good of a scanner the 9000 is that 6x7 looks comparable-ish to 8x10 on the V700.

I'm more off-topic than that. My comparison was between 6x7 in the Nikon to 4x5 at 2400 in the V750 (using the supplied film holder, which in my case, seems to be miraculously in focus). Those provide about the same number of pixels.

8x10 ought to be better, even at 1600, where it provides considerably more pixels to work with than 6x7 in the Nikon, and with no chance of grain aliasing or other grain effects. Is it all 8x10 can provide? Of course not. The Nikon scanning 6x7 is much closer to the limits of the film. But it's plenty for prints from a 24" printer. And it may be close to the best the Epson can do in any case.

Rick "who has the wet-mount station and needs to try it out" Denney

[John NYC]

Hi John,

I don't know what everyone else is saying, but what I'm saying is that no matter what I set the resolution at above 1600 ppi, the resulting file is 1600 ppi if you divide the resolution by the number of inches it actually scanned (~8" in one case, ~10" in the other). Maybe it does some internal interpolating or something, especially since as I understand it, 2400 is an interpolated resolution anyhow... so, it either interpolates up form 1600, or interpolates down from 3200. Not sure which yours is doing.

If Epson scan gives you more pixels (whether or not they actually hold more information or not is another argument), then maybe it's a "feature" of Vuescan not to output more than 1600ppi.

Nope using Epson Scan on my V750, I get way more pixels at 2400 than I do at 1600. When I scan 8x10 at 2400, I get a HUGE file.

What is bothering me is are the extra pixels worth anything in terms of resolution when going to the printer? When I downsized the 2400 file to be the same size at the 1600 file, the 1600 file was sharper.

It gets even weirder. When I used PS to "upsample" the 1600 file to 2400 (and a respectively larger number of pixels per side) it was STILL sharper than the scan that was originally done at 2400.

EDIT: I just did a bunch of googling and found on flickr that Tim Parkin (who also posts here sometimes) found that 1600 the breakpoint for the V750. I tend to trust that guy as he does an amazing amount of research into his interests (plus we both do software, which makes me immediately like him ;-).

This has actually been a great thread in that I am going to save TONS of hard disk space by switching to 1600 instead of 2400 scans.

[urs0polar]

Nope using Epson Scan on my V750, I get way more pixels at 2400 than I do at 1600. When I scan 8x10 at 2400, I get a HUGE file.

What is bothering me is are the extra pixels worth anything in terms of resolution when going to the printer? When I downsized the 2400 file to be the same size at the 1600 file, the 1600 file was sharper.

It gets even weirder. When I used PS to "upsample" the 1600 file to 2400 (and a respectively larger number of pixels per side) it was STILL sharper than the scan that was originally done at 2400.

EDIT: I just did a bunch of googling and found on flickr that Tim Parkin (who also posts here sometimes) found that 1600 the breakpoint for the V750. I tend to trust that guy as he does an amazing amount of research into his interests (plus we both do software, which makes me immediately like him ;-).

This has actually been a great thread in that I am going to save TONS of hard disk space by switching to 1600 instead of 2400 scans.

Yeah, I think that basically from your experiments, PS upscales from 1600 to 2400 better than Epson scan does, since the 1600 is sharper. Which would make sense with my experiments in that when I tell Vuescan to give me optically 1600 or optically 3200, but don't interpolate, I get 1600.

Interesting. Wow a thread that's actually solved something! ... for two people at the same time! :)

I'm in software too -- this sort of thing doesn't happen that often :p

I've seen some of your scans in other threads, and they are pretty sharp. Are you wet mounting or raising the negative off the glass at all? I'm not into wet-mounting (tiny nyc apartment as it is), but i could be convinced to start shimming a little if I'm feeling masochistic.

[jim kitchen]

Gentlemen,

I conducted an experiment last year to see what the difference might be with a scanned 8X10 negative that had sharpening applied to the scan, using Epson's various unsharp masks, while the negative was scanned, compared to not... :)

The resulting "low level" scan impressed me, regarding the scan's sharpness, so much so, that I do consider this low level setting to be another scanning option. The resulting "low level unsharp mask" file was quite pleasant to work with, but I would not use this setting as a continuous setting going forward, since I really do not need to do this with my 8X10 negatives.

I can only state that the resulting scanned file was sharper, but the noise level did increase with minimum effect, which could be removed later, if required...

If you have a moment, I would suggest you try this low level unsharp mask setting to see whether it suits your work flow. This setting, initiated during a scan, surely goes against most, if not all written literature to affect a scanned image, but I know that since I use an 8X10 negative, any resulting errors were minimized. Smaller scanned negatives may see the effect more dramatically, compared to an 8X10 negative, therefore generating a less than positive result. This setting does not compensate for blocked shadows, so a drum scan is still the king the hill when that issue arises.

Just my two pennies...

jim k

[John NYC]

I've seen some of your scans in other threads, and they are pretty sharp. Are you wet mounting or raising the negative off the glass at all? I'm not into wet-mounting (tiny nyc apartment as it is), but i could be convinced to start shimming a little if I'm feeling masochistic.

I'm not wet mounting, but the negs are always lifted off the glass in one of two ways, For 35mm, medium format and 4x5, I have always used the film holders that came with the V750. For 8x10, I use a variation of a technique I learned here. I'll copy in a description I wrote about it over on the 8x10 group on flickr:

"1. Get a piece of ANR glass that is larger by at least a half inch than 8x10.

2. Tape the negative to the glass. Put the emulsion side against the ANR glass. Make sure you tape the neg so there is no slack in the middle when you turn the glass upside down. Otherwise, you will get a Newton ring in the middle of your picture (see next step).

3. Place the glass with the negative (backing side) down on the glass, but don't rest it on the glass. Do one of two things: 1) Rest the edge of one long side along the rim of the scanner bed and place a quarter on the other side of the glass to allow air space between the scanner glass and the back side of the neg or (2) accomplish the same thing by placing pennies or other coins on all four corners of the ANR glass.

Scan away! As long as your neg is not sagging and touching the scanner glass in the middle you will have zero newton rings. The Epson 750 I use seems to understand how to focus when the neg is just a little bit off the glass."

[John NYC]

Gentlemen,

I conducted an experiment last year to see what the difference might be with a scanned 8X10 negative that had sharpening applied to the scan, using Epson's various unsharp masks, while the negative was scanned, compared to not... :)

snip

Just my two pennies...

jim k

The Epson sharpening can definitely look good. But what I am in the habit of now is to sharpen in PS afterward (using smart sharpen or more often the regular USM filter). Sometimes after downsizing the neg in PS for posting online, I don't even sharpen it as just the downsizing created a sharp enough image.

Now that I've been doing this a little longer, I really should do a comparison of the two techniques again though.

[jim kitchen]

Dear John,

I do sharpen my 8X10 scanned negatives in PS after I set the finished image size too, but I use a very minimal USM setting, such as 80,3,0. If I marry two 8X10 scanned negatives together, sharpening is not employed resulting from the compressed data present in the completed printer file.

Using USM during a scan produces a sharper original digital file, but as I mentioned earlier, the noise level increases too, which is not a problem for an 8X10 negative, and any incremental noise can be removed successfully. My first impression happens to be that using Epson's low level USM with the 750 during an 8X10 scan, produces a scanned file that looks as though it was a drum scanned negative, where the negative's edge sharpness surprisingly emulates the drum scanned information. Is all the finite detail there compared to a drum scan? Certainly not, but the perceived sharpness is surely there at this low setting, compared to the softer normal Epson scan without low level USM.

Finding the optimum focal point above the scanner's glass bed for any Epson scanner, was my first priority, and once I discovered that location, my images snapped into focus with excellent results. Determining whether I could improve upon that result was left to my experimentation with USM during a scan. I still believe that any USM applied against a smaller negative will deteriorate the results, accordingly, since I do not believe that USM is applied with any programmable linearity, and matter of fact I would bet money that the USM function is not linear, or scaled to the negative size.

The resulting finished image with low level USM during the scan, presents a different look, and feel to the finished image, complete with any applied post processing, compared to not using low level USM during a scan. I have not done any further testing to determine whether I would pursue the low level USM setting during a scan going forward, but it looked tempting. For the moment, I achieve the desired sharpness level within my finished images, while using the tools present with PS, and without using USM during a scan... :)

jim k

[John NYC]

For the moment, I achieve the desired sharpness level within my finished images, while using the tools present with PS, and without using USM during a scan... :)

jim k

Yes, exactly what I do currently. To see what I get there, have a look at my 8x10s on Flickr at the largest "original" size. You have to be a flickr member for the "All sizes" button to show up to see these sizes.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33946021@N04/tags/8x10/

What I am kind of excited and disappointed about at the same time is that the Epson seems to max out on resolution at 1600, I see now. So, smaller files = good for my hard drive. Less resolution than I thought I'd ultimately get out of the Epson = bad for prints(?).

[jim kitchen]

Dear John,

I scan my negatives at 3000 spi, at 7.5" X 9.375" and capture the file as an RGB file because of an old habit, and my Epson 750 produces an RGB file that approximates 3.54GB. Do I need a file this large? Probably not, but I continue to scan at those settings to obtain consistency within my work flow. My captured images with the Epson 750 tend to be softer than I would like, possibly resulting from the Epson's interpolation algorithm, but I live with what I get, and the captured files produce brilliantly sharp finished images when I use PS sharpening properly. If I require a better scan, for whatever reason, I have the negative drum scanned without hesitation, knowing that the scanned image will contain fabulous minute detail with wonderful clarity. The cost of a locally drum scanned image happens to be a very prohibitive barrier, and a barrier that forces me to be very selective, regarding which negative I decide to drum scan.

As a side note, I know that the Epson software requires more ram to accommodate those scanner settings within my Mac, because I tested that issue a few years ago, while playing with the 10000XL, where 4GB of RAM would not capture a larger file, but using 6GB it would. The same issue is true for my 750...

That said, everyone implements their own scanning process, and I would not argue that a few methods are more efficient or better, but I do what I do, because I am used to my own work flow, while capturing a scanned image. I tend to ignore what everyone suggests about the maximum spi, the best settings for their scans, whether it is RGB or greyscale, and not because I wish to be rude, but I have my own scanning procedure that I am comfortable using, and a post processing procedure that happens to be as personal as my finished images. I save the original scanned RGB image file once the image's minor artefacts are processed and cleaned, and I always produce a secondary greyscale image from the cleaned original RGB file to use as my working file, where I press forward to the finished image. Proper digital storage does become an issue, and a very important issue, since I have hundreds of hours locked into my images. I store the redundant HDs properly, once filled and balanced, and I insert fresh HDs into my raid arrays as required. I access any older files, if required, through an external device reader that reads a stored HD independently.

1600 spi just might be the upper limit spi for the Epson 750, where I cannot take the time to explore and confirm that value currently, but I just might do that test later with interest. I am certain that many other qualified users explored this upper spi limit already, while using the Epson 750, and where they could state a definite upper limit spi value with reasonable certainty.

Nice images on Flickr by the way... :)

jim k

[John NYC]

Dear John,

I scan my negatives at 3000 spi, at 7.5" X 9.375" and capture the file as an RGB file because of an old habit, and my Epson 750 produces an RGB file that approximates 3.54GB. Do I need a file this large? Probably not, but I continue to scan at those settings to obtain consistency within my work flow.

snip

Nice images on Flickr by the way... :)

jim k

Well, thanks, but your images are AMAZING! If I were you, I'd not change a thing you do after looking at those.

But yeah, that is a heavy duty file size. My laptop could not handle that! (which brings up another issue I need to solve...)

John

[urs0polar]

Yeah, Jim Kitchen's work is incredible!

especially this one:
http://www.jimkitchen.ca/HTMLPages/PortfolioImagePages/08010501/ImagePage_08010501_largeframe.html

John, your stuff is great as well -- It's hard to make something interesting out of all the jumble that is NYC.

I need to get on the ball and get outside and shoot :)

[jim kitchen]

Dear John and Mark,

Thank you for your comments... :)

The chair image brought many late night wandering folks to my camera location during the late night time exposure, where it was actually past midnight, and I had to place my dark slide in front of the lens a few times while they walked by, or as they stood in front of my camera to chat. Several folks asked what I had in my hand, since it was blocking their view of my camera, and once they realized I was capturing a time exposure image after I spoke a few well placed polite words, they quickly stepped out of the way. The apologetic scenes that unfolded in front of me did so in many comical ways. It was fun to watch.

Every time I see that image, I always wonder how many people sat there, and more importantly, who sat there? The chair has not moved from that location for more than a century. The wear and tear within the chair is very evident in the image.

Again, thank you for your comments.

jim k

[BennehBoy]

2. Tape the negative to the glass. Put the emulsion side against the ANR glass. Make sure you tape the neg so there is no slack in the middle when you turn the glass upside down. Otherwise, you will get a Newton ring in the middle of your picture (see next step).


This may be a daft question, but can any kind of tape be used (scotch variety), or should certain tapes be avoided at all costs?

[John NYC]

This may be a daft question, but can any kind of tape be used (scotch variety), or should certain tapes be avoided at all costs?

No, not a daft question!

I tried cellophane tape at first. Bad idea as it was hard to take off after it was sitting on there a long time.

Now I use that off-white basic masking tape. Comes off the neg and the glass fairly easily. If there is any glue sticking around, it is usually on the glass and I just clean that off with lens cleaner.

[BennehBoy]

Good to know!

[Doug Fisher]

The 3M blue masking tape (3M, not a cheap knock off), is also worth a try for a reasonably priced alternative to the expensive Kami tape.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[BennehBoy]

I have some of that - will try it when my ANR sheet turns up from betterscanning. Oh, that's you Doug! :)

[Jeremy Moore]

The 3M blue masking tape (3M, not a cheap knock off), is also worth a try for a reasonably priced alternative to the expensive Kami tape.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

There is also the 3M Low Tack Artist Tape which is much lower tack than the 3M blue masking tape.

[urs0polar]

2. Tape the negative to the glass. Put the emulsion side against the ANR glass. Make sure you tape the neg so there is no slack in the middle when you turn the glass upside down. Otherwise, you will get a Newton ring in the middle of your picture (see next step).

"

John,

Why do you put the emulsion side against the ANR glass? Wouldn't you then be scanning the base side of the film? I though you were supposed to put the base side against the ground side of the ANR glass to avoid newton rings (because base side is completely flat, hence the need for ANR), and flip the film-taped-to-glass assembly over to let the emulsion face down towards the scanner lens, with the whole negative suspended from the ANR glass above it? The light then comes from the top scanner lid, through the smooth, shiny side of the ANR glass, then through the ground, dull side of the ANR glass, then through the film base, then through the emulsion, then through free air, then through the glass bed of the scanner, then to the lens and ultimately the CCD?

Maybe I'm confused...

[BennehBoy]

I thought the same as you Mark, it's certainly the method by which I scan my 120 film.

[jim kitchen]

Gentlemen,

While I do not wish to answer for John, I always oil mount the negative's emulsion side to the glass, and I do so without any issues, where the mounting oil permeates the micro gaps present within the negative's emulsion, and therefore produces a smoother scanned image, compared to not. I hang the mounted negative above the scanner's glass bed, where the negative's emulsion points to the scanner's light source. This method works, and works very well. My scanner's focal plane happens to be located between the negative's emulsion, the mounting oil, and the glass surface, which I discovered through a series of location experiments. The lens that captures the scanner's information has sufficient depth of field to capture any artefacts that may also be present on the negative's support surface, and possibly any artefacts that may be present within the mounting glass, where these minor annoying marks buried within the mounting glass can be seen repeatedly within every scan. The mounting glass quality happens to be a very important feature that should not be overlooked... :)

I also experimented with a piece of Aztek mylar laid on top of the negative, where I sandwiched the negative on the mounting glass, placing mounting oil between the mylar surface and the negative's non emulsion surface. Therefore, the negative floated within a thin sea of mounting oil between the mylar film and the mounting glass. The reason for this extra layer and mounting oil allowed me to see whether I could push any surface dust away from the focal plane that might have attached itself to the negative's non emulsion side during a scan. Did this incremental procedure work? Yes it did, but it introduced a few more entrained air bubbles that I had to deal with between the mylar and the negative's non emulsion surface, and since I did not have the procedure mastered very effectively, I stopped doing this extra preparation. I will revisit this procedure later because I saw a small improvement in the scan's quality. This procedure would be identical to adding a mylar cover to the negative during a drum scan, where the negative happens to be oil mounted between the mylar and the drum scanner's drum surface.


jim k

[sanking]

John,

Why do you put the emulsion side against the ANR glass? Wouldn't you then be scanning the base side of the film? I though you were supposed to put the base side against the ground side of the ANR glass to avoid newton rings (because base side is completely flat, hence the need for ANR), and flip the film-taped-to-glass assembly over to let the emulsion face down towards the scanner lens, with the whole negative suspended from the ANR glass above it? The light then comes from the top scanner lid, through the smooth, shiny side of the ANR glass, then through the ground, dull side of the ANR glass, then through the film base, then through the emulsion, then through free air, then through the glass bed of the scanner, then to the lens and ultimately the CCD?

Maybe I'm confused...


No need to be confused. People do things different ways and the differences in results are often too small to quantify.

For what it is worth, when fluid mounting with the V700 I fluid mount with the base of the film facing the glass, with a piece of mylar fluid mounted over the emulsion side. Then flip the glass over so that the emulsion side of the film is facing the CCD scanner. The glass is shimmed either with the Betterscanning mount or with washers so that the emulsion of the film is exactly at the plane of best focus.

When scanning on my Eversmart scanner I fluid mount directly on the glass, with the emulsion of the negative facing down toward the scanner, and then fluid mount a sheet of mylar over the negative. The Eversmart has auto focusing so you don't need to worry about shimming the negative.

The directions for most professional flatbeds direct you to scan with the emulsion of the negative facing the CCD, and that intuitively to me seems the best way. I am confused why Epson directions state to place the base side toward the CCD, and this is the way you get correct orientation on the scan (without flipping the image) with the Epson software.

Sandy King

[John NYC]

John,

Why do you put the emulsion side against the ANR glass? Wouldn't you then be scanning the base side of the film? I though you were supposed to put the base side against the ground side of the ANR glass to avoid newton rings (because base side is completely flat, hence the need for ANR), and flip the film-taped-to-glass assembly over to let the emulsion face down towards the scanner lens, with the whole negative suspended from the ANR glass above it? The light then comes from the top scanner lid, through the smooth, shiny side of the ANR glass, then through the ground, dull side of the ANR glass, then through the film base, then through the emulsion, then through free air, then through the glass bed of the scanner, then to the lens and ultimately the CCD?

Maybe I'm confused...

I'm confused by why you are confused. ;-)

The emulsion side is against the ANR. The base side is hovering above the lower scanner glass suspended on the coins.

If you are using ANR glass, I don't see how you are going to avoid light traveling through the glass no matter how you do it.

[urs0polar]

I'm confused by why you are confused. ;-)

The emulsion side is against the ANR. The base side is hovering above the lower scanner glass suspended on the coins.

If you are using ANR glass, I don't see how you are going to avoid light traveling through the glass no matter how you do it.

After reading Sandy and Jim's explanations, we are all doing it the same way, but some people scan with the base side ultimately down, and some with the emulsion side ultimately down.

I've read in the documentation for various scanners (I know the nikon 9000 does it this way) that the emulsion side should be down, but perhaps it doesn't really matter.

The few times I've accidentally reversed it haven't made much of a difference, but I was just wondering in case I was missing some arcane piece of scanner voodoo.

:)

-Mark

[SMBooth]

A picture is worth 100 words, can somebody take a photo.. preferably with the lid up. Im 90% the way to getting the 700/750 and getting the best scan is of interest.

[jim kitchen]

Gentlemen,

Following up with Sandy's reply, I did mount my negatives emulsion side down directly to the Epson 750's glass bed in a previous life, until I realized that the scanner's focal plane was above the negative's non emulsion side as it rested on the scanner's glass bed, and where I took the time to locate that optimum location with incremental testing. As I mentioned earlier, I oil mount the negative's emulsion side to the glass and I hang the negative with the non emulsion side facing Epson's glass bed. That said, what Sandy happens to do is a very good way to conduct this scanning process too, while using the oil mounted mylar cover over the negative's emulsion surface, and where Sandy's method allows the negative's emulsion to face the Epson scanner's glass bed.

If someone were really technically orientated, and had the time to test this issue to the Epson 750's limit, I would believe that Sandy's 700 focal point and my 750's focal point are located parallel to the negative's emulsion, and where we both enjoy maximizing the scanner's simple scanning potential after finding the best focal location, which happens to be parallel and completely through the negative's emulsion. Not located above the emulsion nor located below the emulsion. Although I do happen to enjoy the fact that I do not need to re-orientate a portrait scanned image, I must still re-orientate a landscape image, but then again the rotation issue is really a moot point, once the image is scanned.

When you mount the negative to a glass surface that is properly spaced above the scanner's glass bed, whether the negative's emulsion is up or down, hanging the negative is a very efficient way to process a large format negative, because you can reposition and square the negative easily after you view the pre-scan, compared to oil mounting the negative directly to the scanner's glass surface, and praying that your negative was squared properly upon the scanner's glass bed.

Sandy's method surely adds value too, albeit with a different, but proven scanning method... :)


jim k

[BennehBoy]

My ANR glass sheet arrived last week and my scanning results are much improved.

One question though, those of you that are shimming the neg/glass sheet off the scanner platen, how physically are you achieving enough tension to stop sagging when taping the neg to the glass?

Photos would be appreciated.

[Jeremy Moore]

By pulling it tight enough across the film and securely taping it so it doesn't lose tension.

[Ben Syverson]

Also, it's counterintuitive, but pulling the negative tight helps reduce newton rings. Taped loosely even to ANR glass, I get newton rings -- but adding a little tension absolutely eliminates them.

[BennehBoy]

I can't seem to get the tension right, there're only a couple of millimetres to spare glass around the edge of the neg to tape to. Ah well, I guess I'll just have to persevere.

[Ben Syverson]

I'll take photos next time I scan an 8x10... Basically, I use crystal clear Scotch tape, cut into triangles. The wide side of the triangle gets taped to the clear area of the negative (where the film holder guides were) on the base side, and I use a fingernail to really adhere it to the neg. That gets taped to the glass, and then the next piece applied is on the opposite corner. I tug on the tape to create tension, then lay it down. I repeat, doing alternating sides, until the whole thing is fairly flush (maybe 8 pieces of tape total).

[Professional]

Is there any place around the world where i can order 4x5-8x10 film [neg or slide] exposed to scan it by myself? In my area i didn't find, so are there any stores where i can order exposed LF sheet so i can practice to scan? I don't have LF yet and it will take ages for me to start.