Epson V750 going back

[Scratched Glass]

I just got an Epson V750. It works smooth enough, but I'm not getting as sharp results I was expecting with medium and large format. Upon close inspection the underside of the glass has a a dirty film on it:mad: . I'm not going to open it up and void the warranty, so I guess it is going back. Hopefully I'll get a clean one next time. I'll report on the return process.

[Gem Singer]

Did you purchase the scanner new, or previously owned? New scanners should have spotlessly clean glass.

Are you placing the negatives directly on the surface of the scanner glass or the glass surface of the wet mounting tray?

Are the scans un-sharp when negatives are mounted in the black plastic negative holders?

Are you telling the scanner the type of negative and where it is placed?

I did a series of comparison tests with my new Epson V750 and found scans were the sharpest when I placed the negatives on the surface of the wet mounting tray glass and held them flat with anti-Newton glass.

Of course, the glass needs to be clean.

[Ash]

Mine was like that, I just made-do.

[Tobias Key]

The film is from the plastic components out gassing. You can often see the same film on the inside of a car's windscreen if it has a a plastic dash. I've bought two scanners and they both had the same problem, it's a direct result of how they are made. If you get another one it's almost bound to have the same problem, Id just have the scanner cleaned under warranty or clean it yourself with lens cleaner.

[resummerfield]

My V750 arrived fresh from the factory with that same dirty film on the backside of the glass. It's pretty easy to clean.

[Kirk Gittings]

Mine came sparkling clean. I would send it back.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Mine's clean, but just crapped out!

[gnuyork]

I didn't notice a film on mine, but I should now go check more thoroughly not that this has been pointed out. I have not done any LF scanning with it yet, but 35mm is not great.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I didn't notice a film on mine, but I should now go check more thoroughly not that this has been pointed out. I have not done any LF scanning with it yet, but 35mm is not great.

flatbed is bad for 35mm, ok for MF and good for LF. It is not the best, but is a good compromise of cost vs performance.

[Sirius Glass]

35mm can scan well on a flatbed scanner if the scanner has a 35mm film holder.

Steve

[rdenney]

35mm can scan well on a flatbed scanner if the scanner has a 35mm film holder.

Only if your intentions are small. The 750 will provide only half the resolution and not nearly as much tonal separation (at least without wet mounting) as my Nikon film scanner. Nominally, the 750 is no better than a six megapixel DSLR, but in practice it is not nearly that good because of generational losses and other issues. For snapshot-sized prints and web displays, it's acceptable. But I would prefer finding a used dedicated 35mm film scanner if I was intending to do much with that format. The 35mm scanners are not that expensive (the film scanners that accept medium format are another matter).

I have had to clean the glass on several flatbed scanners, but had my new 750 been dirty out of the box, I would have sent it back.

Rick "thinking there is not enough contrast to sacrifice any to haze" Denney

[tbeaman]

Even on the web, I like to display my 35mm scans at a resolution of 1024 pixels (sometimes cropped to 8x10, so an even bigger enlargement), and a flatbed's flaws become very apparent at that size. As Denney says, it's also not just a question of resolution. I think the differences are noticeable at smaller sizes too, it's just less obvious.

But hey, something is better than nothing. If I hadn't found a good deal on a Minolta Scan Elite II (still only 2820ppi), I'd be using my 4990 for 35mm. Worse than that, I should post some scans I made once on an HP Scanjet 3970!

[rdenney]

But hey, something is better than nothing. If I hadn't found a good deal on a Minolta Scan Elite II (still only 2820ppi), I'd be using my 4990 for 35mm. Worse than that, I should post some scans I made once on an HP Scanjet 3970!

You may only get 2820 spi on that Minolta, but the pixels produced by those sensors are better pixels. They are more accurate, and less influenced by their neighbors. You just have to worry about grain aliasing with very fast films that have large grain.

Rick "who used to get excellent 35mm scans from a Minolta Multi II at the same resolution" Denney