[www.betterscanning.com] Film scanning mounts, any good? Your experience and advice??

[l2oBiN]

I am currently scanning 4x5 film with the v700. I am thinking of potentially purchasing the betterscaning.com product

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html


in order to 'improve' my scans. However I would like to hear your experiences and thoughts on the film holders and whether they truly offer an increase in scaning quality and by how much? (Image examples would be great).

[D. Bryant]

I am currently scanning 4x5 film with the v700. I am thinking of potentially purchasing the betterscaning.com product

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html


in order to 'improve' my scans. However I would like to hear your experiences and thoughts on the film holders and whether they truly offer an increase in scaning quality and by how much? (Image examples would be great).

The product is excellent and it's a great value but it won't turn your V700 into a drum scanner but it will help maximize it's capabilities. This product has been discussed sort of ad nauseum on the LFPF just do a search for discussion threads. Or Google for discussions on other forums.

Don Bryant

[mdm]

They are fine but it takes a lot of effort to scan a negative, compared to the epson holder. I did not appreciate mine untill I scanned a 5x7 neg, which I found much easier to tape to the glass. For 4x5 I prefer the epson holder, they are not as bad as people make out and I am happy with many of the scans made with one. I will sometimes wetmount a good 4x5 on the betterscanning holder, but dont produce many good ones, so if it wasnt for the 5x7 I would be better without the betterscanning holder. Personally, I would spend the money on film instead.

David


I am currently scanning 4x5 film with the v700. I am thinking of potentially purchasing the betterscaning.com product

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html


in order to 'improve' my scans. However I would like to hear your experiences and thoughts on the film holders and whether they truly offer an increase in scaning quality and by how much? (Image examples would be great).

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Just the ability to fine tune the focus is worth the price. I'm getting sharper scans than ever with this device.

[Richard Mahoney]

They are fine but it takes a lot of effort to scan a negative, compared to the epson holder. I did not appreciate mine untill I scanned a 5x7 neg, which I found much easier to tape to the glass. For 4x5 I prefer the epson holder, they are not as bad as people make out and I am happy with many of the scans made with one. I will sometimes wetmount a good 4x5 on the betterscanning holder, but dont produce many good ones, so if it wasnt for the 5x7 I would be better without the betterscanning holder. Personally, I would spend the money on film instead.

David

I only use my v700 to knock out web scans so I'm not at all concerned that the base scans -- even when focused -- can appear a little soft. A *wee* bit of USM tends to make them tolerable for the monitor at least. I wouldn't, though, use the 700 for anything but rough and ready proof prints. In my opinion, serious prints should always be made from decent drum scans. That said, if you're not happy with the v700's focus you could always try attaching Post-it notes to the feet, adding or removing them until you're happy ... But really, the v700 is not designed to be a high end scanner so why would one really bother? It might just be best to use it for what it was designed for, a cheap and convenient way of getting your work out there.


Kind regards,

Richard

[mdm]

btw Richard, I really like the photograph on your home page. I wonder if those chimneys are still standing?


I only use my v700 to knock out web scans so I'm not at all concerned that the base scans -- even when focused -- can appear a little soft. A *wee* bit of USM tends to make them tolerable for the monitor at least. I wouldn't, though, use the 700 for anything but rough and ready proof prints. In my opinion, serious prints should always be made from decent drum scans. That said, if you're not happy with the v700's focus you could always try attaching Post-it notes to the feet, adding or removing them until you're happy ... But really, the v700 is not designed to be a high end scanner so why would one really bother? It might just be best to use it for what it was designed for, a cheap and convenient way of getting your work out there.


Kind regards,

Richard

[sully75]

I use it with the 4870 and it's absolutely essential. Works great.

[Frank Petronio]

But really, the v700 is not designed to be a high end scanner so why would one really bother?

Sure we can admit that, but most people don't have the resources for doing drum scans of everything. And at moderate print sizes the Epsons are capable of producing serious, more than acceptable work. I draw the line at wet-mounting with them but finding the optimal film holder height is a small positive effort so why rain on their parade?

Of course I just tried pennies under my holder, I am really cheap and lazy.

[sully75]

I think the epsons are a good balance of quality and price. They definitely take some futzing with, but at this point it's not the scanner that's the problem, it's my photography. Maybe if I had everything else dialed in, I'd start to feel crappy about the scanner, but I'm not even close. I'm not sure I ever will. I'm not sure about making huge prints, but that's not my goal. At 13x19 it's 100% awesome.

I'm sure a drum scan might look better if you had the two prints side by side, but guess what? You don't. My prints look great as they are.

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/BetterScanningNegative.jpg
6x9 Negative: Agfa Record II with 105mm Apotar (1950's Folding Camera), TMY, D-76


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/BetterScanningTest.jpg
Epson 4990 - Raw scan @2400 spi at 3 different heights, adjusted with the BetterScanning holder.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/BetterScanningTestSharpened.jpg
Same image with moderate sharpening.

Given that these Epson scanners have limited resolution (approx. 2300 spi for the v700 (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html) and 1600 for the 4990), it's best to get the full resolution out of them - especially when using Medium Format or 4x5 film.

A BetterScanning film holder costs another $100, or around 15% more money - and gets us around that much better resolution. To get more resolution, we need to spend a lot more money: a disproportionate amount, you might say.

[PenGun]

The scan platform makes height adjustments easy. Big deal. You only need to find your focus height once, it does not change. Well mine has not anyway.

You can set the height many ways and although the Betterscan holders are nice they are in no way essential to sharp scans.

Ken's statement that:

"A BetterScanning film holder costs another $100, or around 15% more money - and gets us around that much better resolution."

Is simply not true.

[timparkin]

The betterscanning holder allows you to wet mount which means your transparency stays at a fixed, consistent height which you can manage.

Great focus is cool but more importantly, because you end up with your transparency in the same position, you can use multi-pass scanning which will significantly reduce your noise base. Also, you can then scan at 6400 dpi which even further reduces your noise base which means you get Dmax way, way better than a straight scan (i.e. 6400 dpi means your thermal noise is a lot finer/higher frequency than your details and are easy to filter out).

Finally, if you take the step to wet mount, you can get rid of a lot of those nasty colour fringing effects around highlights and some of the large scale halation around high contrast edges.

If you set things up very well, you will end up with a scan that is sharper than your typical Imacon (although without the colour fidelity in the shadows).

I spent some time trying to get my Epson performing for a scanner comparison test here in the UK and the results on a good sharp 4x5 transparency were as follows.

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/scanner_comparison_1/epson-imacon-howtek-raw.jpg

Interestingly, Dmax was reduced by wet mounting because of some newton ring like effects in the very deep shadows which I presume come from a slight sagging of the wet mount mylar because you don't have a drum to tighten the film against.

Oh - here's the original full size picture

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/system/ecommerce/547/mainImage

Tim

[Ken Lee]

Ken's statement ... Is simply not true.

Please correct me. I'll be the first to admit I am mistaken, and appreciate your help.

[sanking]

Ken's statement that:

"A BetterScanning film holder costs another $100, or around 15% more money - and gets us around that much better resolution."

Is simply not true.

Actually what Ken Lee said is indeed quite true. Adjusting the scanner's plane (4990, V700 or V750) for best focus does indeed increase resolution by about 15%. At least that is what happened in my experience with these scanners.

Yes, there are other ways to adjust the height using either the Epson holders, or with a sheet of window glass spaced above the bed with washers or coins. But the BetterScanning holder is a system that has some advantages in that it allows 1) easy adjustment of the height, 2) a method to center negatives up to full place size, and 3) use of either AN glass to avoid Newton Rings or fluid mounting.

For about $100 that seems to be a pretty good deal to me.

Adjusting the height of the plane of focus and fluid mounting is not going to turn the 4990 or V700/V750 into a drum scanner, or even a high end flatbed for that matter, but scan quality is significantly improved.

Sandy King

[sanking]

Interestingly, Dmax was reduced by wet mounting because of some newton ring like effects in the very deep shadows which I presume come from a slight sagging of the wet mount mylar because you don't have a drum to tighten the film against.

Oh - here's the original full size picture

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/system/ecommerce/547/mainImage

Tim

Tim,

Thanks for posting. Very interesting test.

Sandy King

[Ken Lee]

Here's the same image, with more robust sharpening.

It shows more clearly, the improvement offered by the film holder.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/BetterScanningTestSharpened2.jpg

[sully75]

I tried to find an anti-newton piece of glass, but even anti-glare glass was expensive (the best picture frame glass). The glass, plus the holder for the price is a great deal.

Not to threadjack, but do people use the masks he provides (the black mattes you can cut out)? I didn't really see any purpose in them and never use them. Should I?

[D. Bryant]

I tried to find an anti-newton piece of glass, but even anti-glare glass was expensive (the best picture frame glass). The glass, plus the holder for the price is a great deal.

Not to threadjack, but do people use the masks he provides (the black mattes you can cut out)? I didn't really see any purpose in them and never use them. Should I?

Yes they help align the film in the center of the scan area and help reduce flare.

Don Bryant

[PenGun]

Here's the same image, with more robust sharpening.

It shows more clearly, the improvement offered by the film holder.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/BetterScanningTestSharpened2.jpg

No. It shows the improvement offered by proper focus.

I have spent a lot of time going on about the lack of focus in most of the examples offered for comparison in these scanner tests. I do not have Betterscan holders. I use the Epson ones. I have spent quite a bit of time getting my focus as close as I can.

Although if I was rich I would probably buy them they are in no way essential for proper focus. The reason I said you were wrong is because that _is_ what you imply.

[Ken Lee]

"that _is_ what you imply".

Thank you for explaining.

Any such implication was unintentional - but had I qualified my statement, adding that BetterScanning holders are merely one of a variety of options which allow us to get better focus, it would certainly have been more... expeditious :)

[l2oBiN]

How about the issue of holding film flat? Epson holders do not have any backing for the film. They simply clip the edges holding the film within the holder. Don't the betterscan holders back the film onto the glass so in theory at least should hold the film flatter ?

[sully75]

Yes they help align the film in the center of the scan area and help reduce flare.

Don Bryant

Damn. I never used them. Hope I haven't been making terrible scans in the meantime. They look ok. I'll have to try them though.

[D. Bryant]

How about the issue of holding film flat? Epson holders do not have any backing for the film. They simply clip the edges holding the film within the holder. Don't the betterscan holders back the film onto the glass so in theory at least should hold the film flatter ?
You probably want to visit the better scanning site for complete operating instructions. All of your questions are discussed there last time I looked.

Don

[sully75]

I feel (without ever trying wet mounting) that taping negs provides pretty decent flatness. Sometimes not totally perfect but pretty darn good.

The trick is to have a system...I tape one side securely, then tape the other side. Once the tape is attached to the far side, I slowly lift the tape from the glass, and pull the film tight with the tape, than I put it down again.

Seems to work for me.

[nonuniform]

I tried the Betterscanning mount with Epson V750, and compared it with the Epson fluid mount. I decided to do this because my original Epson fluid mount had broken, and in looking at replacements it seemed like the right time to test out the various theories.

Long story short, I ended up deciding the Epson fluid mount for the v750 was the better choice for a sharp, wet mount 4x5 scan.

The Betterscanning mount worked, but the Epson mount worked better with *my* scanner. Your mileage may vary.

[domaz]

I feel (without ever trying wet mounting) that taping negs provides pretty decent flatness. Sometimes not totally perfect but pretty darn good.

The trick is to have a system...I tape one side securely, then tape the other side. Once the tape is attached to the far side, I slowly lift the tape from the glass, and pull the film tight with the tape, than I put it down again.

Seems to work for me.

Taping negatives to the glass has resulted in Newton's rings for me. Did you replace the scanner glass with ANR glass or something?

[PenGun]

Largly because the actual focus point of the V700/V750 is somewhere around a half millimeter thick, give or take, a lot of us get good results with the regular non glass holders. The little bit of curvature can be almost mitigated by the wide focus area.

[sully75]

Taping negatives to the glass has resulted in Newton's rings for me. Did you replace the scanner glass with ANR glass or something?

I thought the scanner glass was ANR glass? I believe it is in mine. No rings that I know of.

[D. Bryant]

The little bit of curvature can be almost mitigated by the wide focus area.

Almost? I guess it depends upon ones standards.

Don Bryant

[sully75]

Now I'm looking on the site and I don't see that the large format holder specifically says that it's ANR glass. I think the wet mount holder is regular glass and the wet/dry mount holder is ANR glass (more expensive). But I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure the one I have (wet/dry) is ANR glass.

[Nathan Potter]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/4989733373_1d5cc658b1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/argiolus/4989733373/)

Don, the depth of focus clearly does depend on ones standard. I plotted the resolution as a function of distance from the platen for my V750 pro a couple of months back and put the plot in a previous thread. I added a copy above (I hope). Note some astigmatism with the scan direction but there is more DOF at the 10 to 12 um range than I would have expected. Of course this is only relevant for my machine but I suspect that most recent 750s' are quite similar.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[domaz]

I thought the scanner glass was ANR glass? I believe it is in mine. No rings that I know of.

My Epson 4990 sure doesn't have it. Maybe your Epson does? I didn't think any Epsons came with it out of the box but I could be wrong.

[Ken Lee]

My 4990 doesn't have ANR glass either. I have gotten plenty of Newton's rings.

[sully75]

Sorry...didn't mean the scanner glass. The holder glass. I believe the holder glass on the dry mount better scanning holder is anti-newton. I'm not sure about the wet mount.

[PenGun]

Almost? I guess it depends upon ones standards.

Don Bryant

You do not seem to understand what I said. I see it has been explained better.

[D. Bryant]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/4989733373_1d5cc658b1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/argiolus/4989733373/)

Don, the depth of focus clearly does depend on ones standard. I plotted the resolution as a function of distance from the platen for my V750 pro a couple of months back and put the plot in a previous thread. I added a copy above (I hope). Note some astigmatism with the scan direction but there is more DOF at the 10 to 12 um range than I would have expected. Of course this is only relevant for my machine but I suspect that most recent 750s' are quite similar.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Thanks Nathan, that's why I use the Better Scanning adjustable film holders.

Don

[PenGun]

Thanks Nathan, that's why I use the Better Scanning adjustable film holders.

Don

I'm not sure I understand. Nathan makes clear there is an area of about 0.5 mm where focus changes very little. What that has to do with BetterScanning holders escapes me.

[D. Bryant]

I'm not sure I understand. Nathan makes clear there is an area of about 0.5 mm where focus changes very little. What that has to do with BetterScanning holders escapes me.


Maybe I'm just being picky but:

1) I like my film to be as plano parallel as possible. BS holders provide that capability better than Epson OEM holders. You used the word 'almost' which rivals the word 'reasonable' for vagueness, but in the context of your post I don't agree that almost is okay or acceptable.

2) I do not like cropping my film which the OEM holders do. I attempt to compose to the very edge of the film. I like seeing the rebate in my scans. So for me OEM holders are inferior in two major ways.

3) There aren't any OEM holders larger than 4x5. So for 5x7 we have to use the wet film holder (either dry or wet). Over the years I've determined that purchasing the BS option gives me a productivity boost (compared to The Epson solution.)

4) For portfolio work I drum scan, even so I like getting maximum quality from Epson flat bed scans.

Don Bryant

[PenGun]

Maybe I'm just being picky but:

1) I like my film to be as plano parallel as possible. BS holders provide that capability better than Epson OEM holders. You used the word 'almost' which rivals the word 'reasonable' for vagueness, but in the context of your post I don't agree that almost is okay or acceptable.

2) I do not like cropping my film which the OEM holders do. I attempt to compose to the very edge of the film. I like seeing the rebate in my scans. So for me OEM holders are inferior in two major ways.

3) There aren't any OEM holders larger than 4x5. So for 5x7 we have to use the wet film holder (either dry or wet). Over the years I've determined that purchasing the BS option gives me a productivity boost (compared to The Epson solution.)

4) For portfolio work I drum scan, even so I like getting maximum quality from Epson flat bed scans.

Don Bryant

You miss the point completely. Hi ho.

[feppe]

You miss the point completely. Hi ho.

I think he meant that with Epson holders and supplied spacers you might or might not be at the 0.5mm sweet spot. If not, you're SOL, or have to use your DIY spacers. With BS holder you have more room to adjust and more precision, so you are sure to be able to reach the sweet spot.

Or perhaps I missed the point(s) as well :)

[PenGun]

I think he meant that with Epson holders and supplied spacers you might or might not be at the 0.5mm sweet spot. If not, you're SOL, or have to use your DIY spacers. With BS holder you have more room to adjust and more precision, so you are sure to be able to reach the sweet spot.

Or perhaps I missed the point(s) as well :)

Depth of Field is my point. There is no way a betterscan holder will get me closer to focus. I had already found there was about 0.5 mm of sweet spot with my own investigations.

The point is that all the efforts to achieve perfectly flat film are not necessary. Many people including me get very sharp scans over the whole, negative in my case, with the regular holder. The reason this is possible is because the slight film curvature is within the scanners depth of field. It is possible that if you focused your scanner/holder you might find all the fooling around does not produce a better scan.

The Epson holders do not crop my negs. I'm not sure what you are talking about D. Bryant but that seems to be normal.

[feppe]

Depth of Field is my point. There is no way a betterscan holder will get me closer to focus. I had already found there was about 0.5 mm of sweet spot with my own investigations.

The point is that all the efforts to achieve perfectly flat film are not necessary. Many people including me get very sharp scans over the whole, negative in my case, with the regular holder. The reason this is possible is because the slight film curvature is within the scanners depth of field. It is possible that if you focused your scanner/holder you might find all the fooling around does not produce a better scan.


Again: if the Epson film holder doesn't put the film within the 0.5mm sweet spot you're SOL unless you want to fiddle with DIY spacers. If it does - and seems to be the case with you - there's probably not much benefit from the BS holder.

[PenGun]

Again: if the Epson film holder doesn't put the film within the 0.5mm sweet spot you're SOL unless you want to fiddle with DIY spacers. If it does - and seems to be the case with you - there's probably not much benefit from the BS holder.

No the stock spacers are not useful on mine. None at all is close but I had to shim a bit to get to where i am happy.

Indeed. Another point I did try to make. The Betterscan holders seem nice but the are not necessary for good scans.

This is a place where people buy lens boards. An opaque material with a hole in it. I have always been a hacker both software and hardware and that seems a bit ludicrous to me. I have several so I won't need to make any but still. I have built copy stands for my 35mm efforts way in the past. Registering masks is a bit of a black art but I got pretty good at it. All om my home made crap.

The function is what matters. Not how well it buffs your ego.

[feppe]

No the stock spacers are not useful on mine. None at all is close but I had to shim a bit to get to where i am happy.

Indeed. Another point I did try to make. The Betterscan holders seem nice but the are not necessary for good scans.

This is a place where people buy lens boards. An opaque material with a hole in it. I have always been a hacker both software and hardware and that seems a bit ludicrous to me. I have several so I won't need to make any but still. I have built copy stands for my 35mm efforts way in the past. Registering masks is a bit of a black art but I got pretty good at it. All om my home made crap.

The function is what matters. Not how well it buffs your ego.

And not everyone is a DIY type, not even here.

I don't have a BS holder and am not considering one at the moment. When I'm done doing scan tests with my V700 with the Epson holder I'll keep using it unless it can't reach optimal sharpness, at which point I'll see if there's a reasonably hassle-free DIY option.

No idea what the ego comment is about.

[PenGun]

And not everyone is a DIY type, not even here.

I don't have a BS holder and am not considering one at the moment. When I'm done doing scan tests with my V700 with the Epson holder I'll keep using it unless it can't reach optimal sharpness, at which point I'll see if there's a reasonably hassle-free DIY option.

No idea what the ego comment is about.

Photography especially the way we do it is DIY.

A spacer is not high tech. The focus of the holder/film combo is what matters. If you cannot achieve that with the Epson holder the betterscan holder will not achieve focus either.

What matters is the ... oh I give up.

[D. Bryant]

The point is that all the efforts to achieve perfectly flat film are not necessary.

I guess all these years spent using my glass negative carrier in my Saunders LPL enlarger have been a waste of time. Once again you've demonstrated that dialoging with you is a waste of time. I should have known this anyway since you don't have the guts to use your real name.

Don Bryant

[rdenney]

What matters is the ... oh I give up.

What matters is having time to actually do something, rather than spending all one's time making stuff. The Better Scanning holders make convenient the possibly necessary adjustments required to focus the negative in an Epson flatbed scanner.

I rather expect some 4x5 films to hang more than half a millimeter when held horizontally, though actually if they do hang half a millimeter the height of the holder will have to be precise to nearest tiny fraction of a millimeter to fit within the depth of field Ben measured.

And some people want to see the outline of the film holder in their scan, for reasons important to them (but maybe not to you).

There are many things people buy to make their lives easier, even though gritty backwoods self-sufficient types such as yourself might scoff at them.

Rick "thinking the desire to communicate is sometimes stronger than the desire to be communicated with" Denney

[Jon Shiu]

Where did this .5mm figure come from? Looking at the graph, it appears that the range is more like 2mm.

Jon

[Nathan Potter]

Jon, I think the DOF is sort of what one finds acceptable - sort of like choosing an acceptable circle of confusion when evaluating a scene. I think I would be happy with anything within the 12 um range on my plot.

The amount of sag with an Epson holder is certainly an issue. I have not found any measurements of this. Looking at my Epson holder and a 4X5 chrome I'd suspect the sag at more than 0.5 mm. but I guess I'll try to measure that when I have a chance - but image making comes first.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[sanking]

Jon, I think the DOF is sort of what one finds acceptable - sort of like choosing an acceptable circle of confusion when evaluating a scene. I think I would be happy with anything within the 12 um range on my plot.

The amount of sag with an Epson holder is certainly an issue. I have not found any measurements of this. Looking at my Epson holder and a 4X5 chrome I'd suspect the sag at more than 0.5 mm. but I guess I'll try to measure that when I have a chance - but image making comes first.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Nate,

Do you run your test with the highest resolution lens or with the other one. In my tests I found that DOF was significantly less with the "super high resolution" lens than the "high resolution" lens.

Sandy

[Brian Ellis]

. . . Given that these Epson scanners have limited resolution (approx. 2300 spi for the v700 (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html) and 1600 for the 4990), it's best to get the full resolution out of them - especially when using Medium Format or 4x5 film. . . .

Others haven't found this kind of difference between the 4990 and the 700/750. The late Ted Harris' tests found them to be essentially identical, both right at 2000 ppi. See his August 30, 2006 post in this forum, in which he said in relevant part:

"We have tested the 4870/4990/V700 (V700 scanning at lower than the 6400 setting) and the improvements all seem to be related to things other than resolution and DMax. The resolution is virtually the same and the DMax, which I recall improves marginally from the 4870 to the 4990 doesn't improve at all on the V700. What Epson is doing is stacking one chip on top of another so that they can claim a continuing higher resolution every time they add another chip. It is an honest theotretical claim but has no real world validity as we all now know. . . . Yes, you will get nearly 2000 spi when setting the 4990 or V Series to 3200. . . . Finally, given the low price of these scanners I a (sic) delighted by the quality of their performance rather than dismayed that they are not delivering more."

I don't really care one way or the other and since I haven't done my own tests I don't want to argue about it. But given the way relative offhand statements here sometimes become gospel, I just think it should be noted that not everyone has found a 1600 ppi maximum with the 4990 or a 700 ppi difference between the 4990 and the 700/750 scanners.

[Ken Lee]

"not everyone has found a 1600 ppi maximum with the 4990 or a 700 ppi difference between the 4990 and the 700/750 scanners."

True enough.

Other than Ted Harris, has anyone else demonstrated greater than 1600 effective spi with the 4990, or demonstrated that the 700/750 scanners deliver an effective resolution other than ~2300 spi ?

One could make the claim that both scanners deliver 9000 effective spi - but it would be an exceptional result - rather than the norm. We would have to consider it as an anomaly, rather than a vindication.

Since Ted's test images aren't available - and since he is no longer with us to elaborate on his methodology - we might want to consider his results, respectfully, as just that: an exception to what others have found and shared.

Here are links to my comparison tests: raw scans (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/Epson4990ResolutionRaw.png) and sharpened (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/Epson4990ResolutionSharpened.png). I have not shot a USAF target, but my tests on the 4990 accord with that of the others: resolution peaks somewhere between the 1200 and 2400 settings, and does not improve after that. In fact, the only compelling improvement among the scans, is seen when we go from 800 to 1200 spi. After that, you really have to squint.

[Brian Ellis]

"not everyone has found a 1600 ppi maximum with the 4990 or a 700 ppi difference between the 4990 and the 700/750 scanners."

True enough.

Other than Ted Harris, has anyone else demonstrated greater than 1600 effective spi with the 4990, or demonstrated that the 700/750 scanners deliver an effective resolution other than ~2300 spi ?

One could make the claim that both scanners deliver 9000 effective spi - but it would be an exceptional result - rather than the norm. We would have to consider it as an anomaly, rather than a vindication.

Since Ted's test images aren't available - and since he is no longer with us to elaborate on his methodology - we might want to consider his results, respectfully, as just that: an exception to what others have found and shared.

Here are links to my comparison tests: raw scans (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/Epson4990ResolutionRaw.png) and sharpened (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/Epson4990ResolutionSharpened.png). I have not shot a USAF target, but my tests on the 4990 accord with that of the others: resolution peaks somewhere between the 1200 and 2400 settings, and does not improve after that. In fact, the only compelling improvement among the scans, is seen when we go from 800 to 1200 spi. After that, you really have to squint.

I really don't know whether anyone other than Ted Harris has found greater than 1600 ppi with the 4990. And I don't care enough to research it. Ted was generally considered a pretty reliable source of scanner information and test data and I'm happy to go with his results.

As for his results being "an exception to what others have found and shared," the numbers thrown around here relating to ppi of the 4990/V series have been all over the place so I'm not sure who is an exception to who. Just in two recent threads I've seen one person claim 2300 for the 4990 and another who claimed something like 600 for the 4990 or the V series, I forget which.

My point wasn't to argue over who is right and wrong. My point was that just because you've finally settled in your own mind on these 1600/2300 numbers doesn't mean they're universally accepted truths.

[sanking]

People can claim whatever they like and indeed you are likely to see all kinds of reports on the web.

I have personally owned and used both the 4990 and the V700. I tested both with resolution targets. If you compare the 4990 to the V700 (using the lens that engages on the V700 when you choose film area guide) they give very similar results, about 1600 spi, maybe 1800 spi if you have optimistic eyes. If you compare the 4990 to the V700 (using the lens that engages when you choose film holder) the V700 is clearly superior in terms of resolution, with about 2300 spi. I also tested two other V700 scanners, with the same result. I have posted my results from the 4990 and the V700 on this forum.

Similar results to mine for the V700 can be seen at http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html. Several others, Nate Potter for example, have show similar or even better resolution from the V700.

I have never seen any real test results with a target, by anyone, that shows resolution from the 4990 over about 1600 spi - 1800 spi.

Bottom line for me is that the V700, if you use the better of the two lens, is a significant improvement over the 4990 in terms of resolution. And that is an opinion derived from a lot of experience with both scanners.

Sandy King

[Nathan Potter]

Sandy, good point above. I used the film holder, engaging the better lens, for the above plot and scanned at 2400SPI. The technique is fairly simple. I lay a glass resolution mask directly on the scanner glass platen with one end touching the platen and the other end suspended above by several mm. I just use a shim on the suspended end. Then I scan with no sharpening or other software functions. The image of each line pair cell is then expanded in PS (on screen) to about 100X and examined for a condition where there is a complete line of clear pixels between a complete line of black pixels. This is somewhat arbitrary in that one can change the individual pixel density using numerous PS functions. But I try to adjust the contrast to what I would use in printing the average image. I think this complication of interpreting the resolution is just a manifestation of the resolution/contrast (MTF) problem, and why MTF kind of data is so much more definitive.

I was initially concerned that the sloped glass plate technique would cause some inaccuracy in the results but a check using the same resolution plate parallel to the platen and at the sweet spot in height above the platen showed essentially identical results.

I think some of the difficulty here is the lack of a consistent methodology between different users when attempting to estimate scanner resolution. This especially in how one reads and interprets the data from the scanner. This is digital data that is read out using software and the conversion from scan to a viewable resolution image is somewhat of a black hole.

The scanner I used was new in June 2010 (V750Pro) so could there possibly be some recent hardware upgrades? I still would conclude it fair to say the actual max. resolution for my scanner is in the 2000 to 2500 SPI range.

BTW scanning at 3200SPI showed very slight difference (got to find the data) but < 10% improvement. At 6400SPI no improvement over 3200SPI. I'm satisfied using 2400 SPI for chromes yielding about a 260 MB file.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Ken Lee]

On a related note, one way to improve the resolution on the 4990 - and I presume on the 700 series as well - is to scan in RGB, and use the Green channel only.

Of course, this doesn't help when scanning color media, but for b&w, there is a discernible improvement.

Here's a link (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanningGreen.html) to a short article with sample b&w images, scanned at 1200 spi in RGB. Each channel is shown separately, before and after moderate sharpening.

Dust and scratches, while normally removed, can be very helpful for testing purposes. :)

[Richard Mahoney]

btw Richard, I really like the photograph on your home page. I wonder if those chimneys are still standing?

My apologies for the delay in answering but I've only today gone up country to see how the place has been faring during the recent run of earthquakes. Probably built sometime in the 1860's the cottage has seen a bit. Sad to say that either the big shock on September 3rd or one of the after shocks took down the kitchen chimney (far right). It was held together with lime mortar -- not cement -- so shouldn't be too hard to rebuild. Prospects are probably better than many in Christchurch:

Chimneys and people come unstuck
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/perspective/4153274/Chimneys-and-people-come-unstuck

Fingers crossed that this wasn't the last shot ...

http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-buddhica.com/portfolios/portfolio-one/saltwater-two-chimneys/saltwater-creek-two-chimney.jpg


Kind regards,

Richard

[Lachlan 717]

Anyone tried replacing the plastic clip holders on the V700 with a piece of ANR glass that fits in the film space? Referring to the 120 holder...

Seems my biggest issue is film flatness with pano strips.

[wclavey]

Lachlan, I use a 4990 and I had some museum glass cut to replace the snap clips on the MF film holder. I use it with film that has a really strong curl, like Foma 100. I put the emulsion side up and put the non-reflective surface of the museum glass against it. It works well keeping the film flat - - much better than the clips do. But it makes no difference when I am scanning film that already dries really flat, like Tmax 400, so I don't use it then. The non-reflective surface has never given me rings, but why risk it if I don't need it?

[Lachlan 717]

Lachlan, I use a 4990 and I had some museum glass cut to replace the snap clips on the MF film holder. I use it with film that has a really strong curl, like Foma 100. I put the emulsion side up and put the non-reflective surface of the museum glass against it. It works well keeping the film flat - - much better than the clips do. But it makes no difference when I am scanning film that already dries really flat, like Tmax 400, so I don't use it then. The non-reflective surface has never given me rings, but why risk it if I don't need it?

Thanks for that.

The long strips of 120 in pano shots seem to curl both laterally and longitudinally. Buggers of things to deal with when not flat!!

Add to that the fact that I'm impatient, and I need a better solution.