Printable View
Is this true? The V600 doesn't come with the 4x5 trays to scan these LF negatives? From the product description I see it only comes with trays for 35mm and 120. I would have to buy a V800 and the price really goes up $715.25 vs $189.99 for the V600 right now on B&H. I was just about to place the order when I saw this. Have any of you figure out a way to scan 4x5 negatives on the V600 and if so, are you happy with the results?
Thanks.
Yes. Doesn't have the square footage/area required to scan the 4x5 film.
Not total area but the film scanning area: it's a narrow strip on the middle of the scannerSent using TapatalkQuote:
Originally Posted by macandal
I'll be very interested in the feedback as well--I just joined a local community darkroom that has only a V600. In doing some background work, I did run across a Youtube video of a young man who made his own 4x5 "tray" from a repurposed desk mat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFD0MwxniNM
For myself, I'm not sure if the approach will be an improvement over a DSLR "scan," but I'm probably going to give it a shot.
I don't understand? What do you mean by film scanning area? I use an old 3200 and a 4x5 sheet is fine. Both the 3200 and the V600 appear to be the same size (and similar scanning area).Quote:
Originally Posted by analoguey
They're the same size as a whole and they scan the same size reflective area, but there's a smaller, narrower window for illuminating and scanning negatives on the V600 than on the 3200.Quote:
Originally Posted by macandal
Macandal, if your 3200 serves you well, just use it. I did replace my 2400 with a 700, but for my level of photography there was little improvement in scanning 4x5 negatives. If you have other reasons for upgrading to a V600, you can improvise film holders from mat board to scan each half of the 4x5 film, and stitch the halves together.
I don't want to do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Jones
I might keep my 3200 for now or see if I can add an additional $500 so I can get the V800.
If I keep my 3200, I will need a third-party software to use because Epson no longer supports a driver for this scanner. If you can recommend a software to get, I'm all ears.
Thanks.
The V600 does not scan 4x5 negatives, because the width of the backlight is under 4".Quote:
Originally Posted by macandal
In theory you can scan with the V600 two strips of the 45 negative and then stitching the strips in photoshop.
If for the moment you don't want to spend money in a LF scanner you can buy a used HP G4050
Attachment 182028
Now you have one used for $40 at ebay that does not include cables/holders, I guess.
Other used having all accesories may cost some $80.
It looks it works with XP to Windows 10. https://support.hp.com/es-es/drivers...canner/3236371
A V800 is a way better scanner, but with the G4050 you may get decent images to post, here you can see a flickr search showing images scanned with a G4050: https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=...050&view_all=1
For the long term I'd recommend a V800 or V850 if you scan dense slides, as the 850 includes multi-exposure software feature in the boundled silverfast version that you would have to purchase separately if buying the V800.
But you can start with G4050.
I was in a similar situation and bought a used Epson 4990. I also bought Vuescan and am quite happy with the combination.
I’ve never stitched a 4x5 negative, but I have stitched 35mm and 120 negatives that I used a DSLR to scan. It’s easy to do in Photoshop. It’s an automated process. The down side is sometimes it doesn’t align them properly. And then you either have to do it by hand or reshoot/rescan them and try again. If there is plenty of overlapping detail and things aren’t too repetitive or empty on each section (like a building with repeating rows of windows or a plain blue sky), it usually does a good job. Once you get the hang of it, it’s not too hard to predict problems before they happen and adjust accordingly. The less scans/shots you try to stitch at one, the better. 2 isn’t bad. 4 is usually acceptable. 9 gets pretty dicey.
The 4990 is a way better scanner than the G4050, a bit more expensive usually, and as always we should check if the film holders are included, as some people sell it separately.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim10219
Actually, with the 4990, maybe not. The later V series scanners have a second lens focused a bit above the glass to accommodate film holders. So they can definitely benefit from a film holder. The 4990, however, does not. I sold off the film holder I had bought for this scanner because I found out I got much shaper scans by scanning directly on the glass. That discovery led me down the path of fighting Newton rings, which caused me to settle on wet scanning directly on the glass. That threatened to be very costly, but by using Dura-Lar instead of Mylar, and Ronsonol instead of Kami fluid, I saved a bunch of money. And in the end, it's probably less hassle than messing with a regular film holder, because there's less dust to deal with afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pere Casals
>>Ronsonol instead of Kami fluid<<
Gamsol is a great substitute for Kami and available at most art stores.
Doug
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim10219
In practice the 4990 with holders resolves about 35-40 lp/mm on film, which is about 1800-2000 effective ppi. The V7xx/8xx resolves more, some 2400 effective depending on how we measure, but the G4050 resolves way less than the 4990...
We also can avoid dust by scanning in a dust free environment, by using a cheap HEPA air purifier.
I bet it would be. It's the same stuff! Check out the MSDS. They're both naphtha!Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Fisher
What OS do you have?Quote:
Originally Posted by macandal
I have a 3200 and got it and Epson Scan software to work on Windows 7 by a well known trick using the 4990 drivers.
I believe the same trick will work with Windows 8, not sure about Windows 10 though; although compatibility mode might help with it.
I have the latest X OS. What are we up to? "Raccoon"? Whatever it is, that's what I'm running. I have a mac, by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Dake
Thanks.
Anyway, I think I'm getting the V800.
Oh, Mac OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by macandal
Sorry can't help with that one.
Good luck, I am happy with my 3200 results.
This is a powerful tool for LF, you won't regret. For MF it also works nice, for 35mm a dedicated roll film scanner like the Plustek (35mm) its a better choice, anyway a V800 also delivers nice 35mm scans...Quote:
Originally Posted by macandal
The V800 includes a bundled silverfast version that does not have the multi-exposure feature, if in the future you find that you want to recover better the deep shadows in dense Fuji slides you always can upgrade your silverfast version to have Multi-Exposure.
Which model?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pere Casals
Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macandal
Basicly you have to decide is you want a Plustek 120 that makes also MF but costs $2700 or you have enough if it scans 35mm.
I'd recommend the cheapest, the $300 Plustek 8100, it has Multi-Exposure that's (to me) the important thing for velvia, IIRC it lacks infrared channel for dust, I think that best is using a bare HEPA air purifier to not have dust, and if there is some dust then I prefer to see it in the scan, to be aware that I've dust and to correct that situation.
The Plustek 120 it's too expensive for me, I'm happy with V800/850 MF scans, and the 120 (to cover MF) has a lower ultimate performance than 8100 for 35mm.
Here you have the details:
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/Plus...cFilm8100.html
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/Plus...Film8200i.html
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/Plus...icFilm120.html
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/Plus...icFilm135.html
https://plustek.com/usa/products/fil...hoto-scanners/
That's odd. I have a 4990 as well and years ago, I did some testing and found that I got marginally better resolution if I used the film holders and shimmed the holders so that they were roughly 1mm higher than usual. With negatives placed directly onto the platen, resolution was noticeably degraded. My results were in line with what was widely reported and also the reason why the BetterScanning holders (which I don't have BTW) have an adjustable height setting that allows the film holder to be raised a little above where the stock holder sits. Perhaps something is slightly out of alignment in your scanner?Quote:
Originally Posted by jim10219
btw, here there is a mesuring of the impact of height in the ressolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by koraks
https://www.photrio.com/forum/thread...t-spot.151784/
Attachment 182077
Attachment 182078
That's for the 750 and I think we have established that the optical array is supposed to be different from the 4990. I believe I've seen similar charts with comparable results for the 4990 though, which always makes me wonder how big the difference in terms of optics really is between these scanners.
I'd say that the main glass difference is that the V7xx/8xx has two lenses, and that the 750/850 have coatings in the lenses. This allows the Vs perform better when width is under 5.9" when the "hires" lens is used.Quote:
Originally Posted by koraks
That is odd! I thought the 4990 was supposed to be focused on the glass, since unlike the V series, it doesn’t have a second lens specifically for film. But I could be mistaken. Anyway, they say that manufacturing tolerances vary, so it wouldn’t be unusual for two scanners to have different optimum heights. Still it sounds like our’s are way off from each other. In any case, mine scans well, so even if it is out of alignment, I’m not messing with it!Quote:
Originally Posted by koraks
If I provide my own illumination I can scan 4x5s on the V600 with one scan (previously I stitched from multiple scans). I used a ceiling 2x2ft edge lit light panel meant for hanging ceilings. Placed on top of the scanning bed with the lid flipped up. I used the regular flatbed document mode in Vuescan at 1600dpi and 48bit. I then brought the file into Photoshop and added two adjustment layers; inversion and then the BW layer. Lastly I flattened the image. The stars aligned on this project. I was helping family install a hanging ceiling and had a few old 4x5s from the 70s that my father took, and was able to try this out. I'm very impressed with the resolved detail, and how it just worked. The specific model was by a brand NEOX NX-ELP22-27D40ST. This model I guess is dimmable, but my family didn't wire it that way. Full power. It is 4000k temperature. Wish I could see the dimming, since that might negatively effect the scanning if it flickers, but if it doesn't that could be nice to control for exposure. Vuescan doesn't have exposure options when in flatbed mode. Unfortunately in transparency mode it limits the bed view to the restricted center section where the built-in light is.
This makes me want to try some X-ray film in my great grandpa's Kodak No. 3A and develop in Caffenol. I've only delved into 120 and 35mm.
Attachment 203781Attachment 203782
Crop from a waist up portrait. Very impressive sharpness on the eyelashes(the forum upload will probably soften it...:-( ):
Attachment 203779Attachment 203780
I have a 3200 and it runs great with Vuescan, got more options you can control than the epson software had.Quote:
Originally Posted by macandal