scanning 8x10" film by Epson V700 scanner

[Linhof]

I shot a lot Velvia 50 8x10 film. Now, try to capture by Epson V700 scanner.

Settings :
24 bit color
scanned by Film (With Film Area Guide)
first scan : 800 dpi and get a 146MB file.
second scan : 1200dpi and get 329MB file.

Result :
800 dpi scan could be sharpened by Photoshop CS5, overall quality is OK
1200 dpi scan file sharpened by PS CS5 but could not get sharp image.

I find out by using lower dpi setting and the image could be sharpened by PS. By 1200 or higher dpi, the scanned file fails to provide sharp image. If it is the case, why do I need to buy V700 which cliams to deliver 6400 dpi resolution?

[Brent Long]

An image will appear sharper the closer you scan it to it's actual size. So, to simply view it on your monitor you would, presumably, scan it at 96 dpi, which is probably your screen resolution. Going above that, the image will appear less and less sharp. But, the benefit is that you will be getting more and more actual detail off of the film. If you scan at a low dpi, you will leave a lot of detail out of the scan. But you must "overscan" to make sure you have that detail to begin with.

What is your purpose for the scan? If you are printing it, you would need 300 dpi (or 360 if you are printing with an Epson inkjet) for an 8x10 print with no enlargement factor. If you are going to enlarge by a factor of 2, then multiply the dpi accordingly, and so forth.

Many like to scan at the highest resolution they can, factoring in their computer specs, and then downsample in Photoshop. At any rate, the image can be sharpened just fine, but it will take different sharpening parameters depending on the dpi you've scanned the film at to begin with. You should be able to sharpen a 1200 dpi scan just fine, but you'll need to spend some time figuring out the best way to do it. An image scanned at 96 dpi, for example, would need precious little sharpening.

Anyway, those are some hints for you. Why don't you also post how you sharpened the scans so people can help you more specifically.

[Walter Calahan]

"why do I need to buy V700 which cliams to deliver 6400 dpi resolution?"

Please read the scanner manual.

The scanner's resolution is beholden to the size of your film. Epson made the scanner has two maximum resolutions. There is a "sweet spot" area with a 6400 dpi resolution for smaller formats from 5x7 or smaller. The lower dpi is normal for scanning 8x10.

[timparkin]

"why do I need to buy V700 which cliams to deliver 6400 dpi resolution?"

Please read the scanner manual.

The scanner's resolution is beholden to the size of your film. Epson made the scanner has two maximum resolutions. There is a "sweet spot" area with a 6400 dpi resolution for smaller formats from 5x7 or smaller. The lower dpi is normal for scanning 8x10.

V750 has highest resolution of 2400dpi but most will be slightly out of focus and will probably peak at 1600dpi. To get 2400 sadly you have to scan at 4800 and reduce.

If you are placing film directly on glass the you may be out of focus

[Linhof]

V750 has highest resolution of 2400dpi but most will be slightly out of focus and will probably peak at 1600dpi. To get 2400 sadly you have to scan at 4800 and reduce.

If you are placing film directly on glass the you may be out of focus

Placing film directly on glass is the only way to scan 8x10 film. No film holder is provided. That is to say, V700 could not scan 8x10 film. Is it the case?

I did scan 4x5 film with film holder and got similar result. That is to scan by 1200 or higher dpi, the image is out focus.

[jp]

For 8x10 you use the film area guide, which is a flimsy plastic mask that surrounds the film. I'm pretty happy scanning 8x10 at 600dpi, but I don't do anything too serious with the files. I've set the film on the scanner glass, and on a sheet of glass to gain height, but I got newton rings when adding my own sheet of glass, and didn't see appreciable difference in image quality scanning at 600dpi.

[jon.oman]

This was scanned at 600dpi on a V750, using the area guide:

http://www.gophotog.org/allphotos/film/medium_photos/Vendange_8x12.jpg

This was my first 8x10 inch film attempt, and my first scan of this film.

I did try a scan at 2400dpi, which is said to be the best resolution for these scanners, but the file size was about 2.7GB in size. I could not work with a file that large on my system! I did load it in, but it took way too long to make it practical.

[Brian Ellis]

Placing film directly on glass is the only way to scan 8x10 film. No film holder is provided. That is to say, V700 could not scan 8x10 film. Is it the case?

I did scan 4x5 film with film holder and got similar result. That is to scan by 1200 or higher dpi, the image is out focus.

Scanning at different resolutions will produce different size files and hence different degrees of detail and possibly "sharpness," but it has no effect on "focus."

I scanned 8x10 film for years on my Epson 4990, placing the film directly on the glass. I'm sure the 700 is at least equally capable.

With all due respect, it doesn't sound to me like you have read your manual and/or you don't know much about scanning. Which isn't a criticism, nobody is born knowing all this stuff. But some time with the manual and then some other reading about scanning in general (e.g. Wayne Fulton's "A Few Scanning Tips") would be time well-spent IMHO.

[falth j]

I had the privilege some years back, to a attend a weekend scanner workshop hosted at MEX in Columbus Ohio, presented by Michael Mutmansky and the late Ted Harris.

Various scanners and printers were available for us to use.


Two or three scanners were available at the time, being the latest version of the Epson V700 series and the older Epson 4990.


Participants were scanning 35mm, 4x5, and 8x10 films.


Participants scanning with the V700 and 4990 questioned Harris and Mutmansky on the scan differences between the scanners, at which the reply given, and was plainly evident from the scan results ’not much’ to the naked eye.

Participants were disapointed with trying to obtain decent scans from both scanners at higher and highest resolutions indicated within the selection choices on the scanners.


Both Harris and Mutmansky related that despite the claimed maximum resolution of some 6400 dpi, that resolution was not really attainable in actual practice by ordinary users…


and, the maximum useful scan resolution to be obtained using 4x5 films was to be had around 2200 dpi or under.

[Frank Petronio]

To scan 8x10 with my obsolete Epson 4990, I bought a piece of 4mm Anti-Newton glass ~ 9 x 11 and I tape the film to the glass. Then I invert the glass and raise it off the platen with four pennies, each placed in the corner of the glass, just off the film area.

The sequence is: Scanner Platen; Negative, Emulsion side facing Glass; AN Glass, texture side against film emulsion. If I feel fancy I would mask the film with strips of black paper but most of the time I won't. It is important to keep the calibration area of the scanner clear of anything.

I also experimented with the height (more pennies or layers of tape) and found that with my scanner a single penny's thickness was best. Your scanner will probably vary.

With the 4990 I have to scan at 1200 ppi but I do take the trouble to scan at 48-bit since it is color after all.

The glass keeps the film pretty flat and prevents Newton Rings (from allowing the film to touch the platen directly.)

The results are pretty good for 11x14 - 16x20 prints and I have gone larger without problems. If you compare the scans to a good drum scan then the scans will look short in contrast, but if you are ignorant of better options then these are pretty amazing scans for consumer desktop machines.

I will probably be getting a 700 soon but not because I want or expect to benefit from more resolution. In fact I rather keep the file sizes down since if I nail a super-wonderful neg, it will be going out for a really nice drum scan. It's pointless to sweat the last drop of perfection out of an Epson, they aren't meant for that critical use.

Every flatbed scan needs a little sharpening but by all means try some different heights (with all film sizes and holders) to get the optimal focus first.

For your problem, have you ever gotten sharp scans from smaller formats with that particular scanner? I'd want to eliminate the scanner itself first, then work through from there.

[Brent Long]

Another thing for all posting here . . .

First, Linhof's problem, I think, is only a perceived one. The only thing different between the 800 dpi scan he was happy with, and 1200 dpi scan that he wasn't, was the dpi setting. He apparently just isn't used to looking at files at different magnifications which inherently look softer (or reveal the inherent softness) as the dpi is increased. Both scans were of film on the glass.

Unless he was scanning different images and comparing something that was misfocused to something that wasn't, it isn't a focus problem at all, either of the scanner or the image.

Anyway, what I really want to point out, is that when using Vuescan and outputting Raw tiffs, I noticed that setting the dpi to 2400 did not give me a 2400 dpi file! This, I think, may be a very significant finding. What I got was a 3200 dpi file, and that's because with a Raw file, there is zero processing done to the scan. It takes the image in as analogue a fashion as possible. This leads me to believe that the scanner hardware, natively, only scans at fractions of 6400 dpi; so 6400, 3200, 1600, 800, 400, 200 . . . (I don't know how low it actually goes, but considering how bad the preview images are natively, probably lower even than 200).

So, if this is the case, then asking for a 1200 dpi file is also asking for the scanning software to resample the scan; something that would probably be better performed by Photoshop or similar.

With my V700 I scan my 6x9 film at 6400, 48bit, and downsample to 2400. They do look much better than asking either Epson or Vuescan to scan at 2400 dpi (though I haven't tested, I don't recall, scanning at 3200 dpi and downsampling, which would be great if it works because opening 1.5 gig scans, even just to downsize to 2400 dpi, is not fun . . . at least when I'm doing many scans anyway).

So, this was on of my findings, and I wonder if some of you may experiment and see if this is likely correct. It would seem likely, to me, that the scanner hardware does indeed only have a certain number of steps it can operate at natively.

[earlnash]

I am told that the accuracy and precision of the scan is superior if you should scan at the final, desired resolution of your largest print, and specify the size of that print. The scanner does a better job that way. For example, if you're going to print a 16x20 from a file that has 360 dpi resolution (optimal for an Epson printer), the negative size is 8x10, the final size is 16x20, and the resolution is 360 on the scanner settings. It will give you the same file size as if you scanned 1440, but the result will be superior.

[Lenny Eiger]

I am told that the accuracy and precision of the scan is superior if you should scan at the final, desired resolution of your largest print, and specify the size of that print. The scanner does a better job that way. For example, if you're going to print a 16x20 from a file that has 360 dpi resolution (optimal for an Epson printer), the negative size is 8x10, the final size is 16x20, and the resolution is 360 on the scanner settings. It will give you the same file size as if you scanned 1440, but the result will be superior.

I question this. I don't think an Epson printer has any need to go at 360, 363 or anything else. I have seen Epson printers do better at higher resolutions - with my own eyes. I think this is a lot of misdirection.

Lenny

[Frank Petronio]

Scan high and resample it down. You won't know your final crop until after you scan it anyway.

[Brian Ellis]

I am told that the accuracy and precision of the scan is superior if you should scan at the final, desired resolution of your largest print, and specify the size of that print. The scanner does a better job that way. For example, if you're going to print a 16x20 from a file that has 360 dpi resolution (optimal for an Epson printer), the negative size is 8x10, the final size is 16x20, and the resolution is 360 on the scanner settings. It will give you the same file size as if you scanned 1440, but the result will be superior.

OT but 360 is one view of what's optimum for an Epson printer. There are different views, including my own (based on my own tests), which is that it doesn't make a bit of difference what ppi you send to the printer as long as it's above whatever you think the minimum should be for the print size, viewing distance, etc.