What is the next step up in quality scans from Epsom flatbed scanners.
Printable View
What is the next step up in quality scans from Epsom flatbed scanners.
In my experience, quality goes something like this: flatbed then to drum. I have not found a solid middle ground for negatives that are larger than 120mm. Once you pass up flatbeds, you start into drum scanner which are wallet breakers, think Hasselblad Flextight, and a few others. Typically, anything older requires archaic software and equipment to use. Basically, what I am getting at is that, as you start looking for higher quality scanners (aside from Hasselblad Flextight), you will need to buy archaic computer equipment (Power Macs, Adapters, etc.) The maintenance cost of these old PCs, as well as the cost and sourcing of the parts for the scanners can really be a hinderance.
My best recommendation is to purchase an Epson V800 and buy Silverfast software. It does take quite a bit of experimentation to get correct, but in my experience, it's better than breaking the bank on a drum. Here's what I currently do, for personal work or non-publishables, I scan myself. For work that is important or part of a project, I send it off to the lab for a drum scan if my self-scans will not be suffice.
The Epson software is a wee bit of a let down, and if you're shooting color, forget it. Silverfast is the way to go since it has what is called Negafix.
I guess what I meant to ask is whether there are better flatbed scanners than the Epsom scanners?
There are higher end flatbed scanners like the Kodak Creo IqSmart series that will provide better scans than any Epson, but these units are quite pricey and, as coltvance said, older hardware that needs older platforms to run on. Like coltvance, I do my own scans with Silverfast Ai Studio on an Epson flatbed, and then if I have something extraordinary I'll send out for a drum scan. You may, also, want to check out:
http://www.richardmanphoto.com/scanningservices/
I've never used Richard's scanning service, but the prices are certainly reasonable.
Dslr scanners can be better than an Epson.
There are, but nothing within the same price range. If your budget is $1000 or less, the Epson scanners are pretty much the only game in town.
I bought the V750 Pro in 2012, and it took some learning to get the best out of it. But once I had learned to navigate its quirks, I was quite satisfied with the results. Its far from perfect, but "perfect" isn't very affordable.
PS: Take a look at this review of the current "Pro" model of Epson scanner, the V850 Pro: https://www.filmscanner.info/en/Epso...onV850Pro.html
Note that the reviewer concluded that this model didn't do an appreciably better job that the V750 Pro, in terms of scan quality. The default film holders that come with the device are quite poor, and most users will suggest that you get the Better Scanning film holders (Which I have yet to do, myself. But that day is coming, I am sure): http://www.betterscanning.com/ I've learned how to deal with the quirks of the Epson film holders for 120 roll film and the output is just fine for my needs. Scanning 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film is pretty easy too, but the 35mm output is pretty poor: its very difficult to achieve sharpness of any kind from 35mm film with the Epson.
My present experience is that using my Nikon D850 on a very solid and very aligned copy stand, very evenly lit light panel, a 120mm f/6.3 Micro Nikkor (lens used on a Nikon Multiphot) at its optimum aperture for the film size that I am shooting, and masking the borders of the film beats my Epson V750 Pro scanner hands down. Am producing digital files from 35mm up to 11x14 films. For shooting 35mm chromes, the V750 is really noticeably inferior in sharpness and for accurate color reproduction.
I moved up to an IQsmart 2 rather than deal with the drum workflow. It's a far better machine than any Epson. BUT it was pricey (I bought a refurbed unit) and big and heavy. I think the shipping was around $600.00 I had a couple of older Macs lying around - a Mini and a Macbook. The scanner is solid as a rock, the Creo/Kodak software can be iffy, but the old Macs are not a problem.
For MF and 35mm I think the Plustek might be worth a look. I was using a Coolscan 8000 until it self destructed but with the IQsmart I can load a couple of rolls of 120 on the glass and let it scan everything overnight. It isn'a speed demon.
For 35mm, I use a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II. It does a pretty good job; way better than any Epson flatbed.
My Microtek Scanmake i900 scans circles around the Epsons. Separate bed underneath for negatives to 8x10, no glass in the path. The brand name has changed, but there is a newer model. I don't recall the new brand name.
I have a older Microtek, I don't use it that often, it works great with Vuescan software. I run a nice Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm. There's no glass in between with the Microtek film holders except for 8x10 negatives. All I scan is color reversal film and occasionally b&w. I would definitely take the D850 route with a motorized Beseler carriage and white LED light box before I would take for ever fiddling with a scanner. Even the old school Nikon PB4 bellows and a slide copier attachment with a bellows lens.
Having said that my old Microtek has a 20 slide holder, I think it would take 4 hours to scan that many.
Greg, this is true and false, depending on situation.
This is true because the V750 extracts only 8,5 Mpix effective of a 35mm shot, while the D850 may extract perhaps 30Mpix effective (if the shot also has that level of quality).
But it is false because for 8x10 the V750 extracts 300MPix effective and the Nikon D850 only 1/10 of that.
Of course with the copy stand you may take very tinny crops to even beat a drum... if later stitching the crops in Ps.
But really it makes little sense the copy stand, as a cheap roll film dedicated scanner like a Plustek 8xxx is a better choice. And for LF the V750 anyway delivers an insane amount of image quality exceeding demands for most jobs.
(The 30Mpix effective is for BW targets, less for color as the D850 has 22 green MPix, and 11Mpix of red and blue, so with a red subject you have a 11MPix hardware limitation).
Not at all, I don't agree with that. The V750 is IT8 calibrated and what's not IT8 calibrated is the Nikon D850, specially if you have custom settings like "vivid" or not saving raw. You may like more the D850 colors, but the calibrated ones are those from the V750.
IMO these scanners offer superb prices for quality work.
One recently listed on eBay for $1 and $59 Shipping (excessive) ended with no bids. Included everything from original box except one of the targets.
Working with one for eight months, and thus far have scanned 10k in A120 negs.
Purchased a BU a few months ago off eBay that included everything including the original box. Many eBay listings of these are priced too high and are absent nearly all the original accessories (requires shopping).
I've never scanned any 8 x 10 negs, however tested the lower platen glass some years ago on 4 x 5's and was not pleased with the quality (didn't try elevating the neg or emulsion).
Very timely thread. For those of you with a Microtek i900 scanner, is there a driver for windows 10? I did not see one on the website but then again I may have missed it.
Not that I'm aware of. In 2011 I downloaded all the drivers that were available. Have blank folders for 7_32 & 7_64.
If your able to locate a 7_64 driver it may work on the W10.
Don't recall if I have the i900 installed on my XP64 machine, which I rarely use and is boxed away.
On a google Microtek suggested using Vuescan for W10
IMO the next step up, in a similar price range, is something like the Microtek M1 scanner. It's basically a better Epson (like for example, actually focusing on the film). I had one for a while and it was quite good. I never scanned 35mm on it though.
There's also some cheaper high-end flatbeds out there, if you can find them and get them running and keep them clean. I used to have an Agfa (rebranded Microtek or something) T2500 that was great, but had some dust issues inside on the sensor. I couldn't ever figure out how to open it up and clean it though. I retired it once I couldn't get SCSI to work on my Windows machine. Another option in this space is the Polaroid SprintScan series. Never used one but have seen good scans from them.
And then finally the high-end flatbeds that are big, somewhat expensive, and require legacy hardware, such as what I use now, a Screen Cezanne, or the iQSmart, Eversmart, and other models.
Jim, a Microtek Scanmake i900 can be found for $70 (and offer under that would be welcomed)
Attachment 185107
This is not by chance... because it's a poor performer compared to a V700, regarding density alone the i900 is clearly well under 3.0D, with no SNR at 3.0D:
Attachment 185108
While the V700 clearly performs way beyond the i900 is able:
(Note that vertical scale is different than in the i900 case)
Attachment 185109
The i900 also has a 6 rows sensor, but having half the pixels than the EPSON.
Sorry, but I see no improvement in the i900...
I hate silverfast! Vuescan has the multiexposure function and it doesn't help. Not fond of Epson Scan software either. I tried silverfast and I pretty much tossed my cookies with it.
Steve, You can't get blood from a turnip. The scanner's mechanical properties limits the end results. The different scanner softwares are just post processing programs that add complexity, aggravation and time to the scan process. I've learned to KISS- keep it simple. I use the furnished Epsonscan with my V600. I scan flat except for black and white point adjustments. I turn everything else off. With that, the scanner covers the full range of the picture in one shot.. I then process with Lightroom. Or ELements. This way, I don;t have to learn a complicated scanner software that';s just duplicating my post processing program. Why bother with Silverfast or VUescan? I only have to scan once. Screwing around with editing during the scan opens you up to having to keep scanning the same picture until you get the results you want. Scan flat, you scan once. Then do all the editing in post processing.
Pere, I haven't seen a multi-exposure picture from anyone that couldn't get the same results with one scan and using the shadow slider in your post processing software on a single scanned shot. The scanner's dMax limits the most you can get out of the shadow areas. You can't get blood from a turnip.
There is a reason, Multi-Exposure feature is in Silverfast SE Plus but not in Epson Scan, not also in the SE not "Plus" version.
IMHO Multi-Exposure mkes a very good job with slides with very dense shadows, I use it only for that.
Alan, in my experience I find multi-exposure benefit consistent with what the say: https://www.silverfast.com/highlight...posure/en.html
My guess is that some pro level scanners make the multi-exposure before moving the sensor to next row, while the Epson does it in two passes. Using ME improves the V850 capability, at least when used with silverfast in particular. Of cpurse not all jobs (by far) require ME.
I just dont like silverfast. If I want to be able to save 48bit files as linear raw tiffs I have to spend lots of dollars to get an upgrade. But the interface is annoying too. The scanner can only do so much and Vuescan does that. I do zero adjusting or conversion at scan stage. So silverfast isn't al that for me. It also wouldn't let me choose my dpi setting at one point. It kept telling me what it wantd for a setting.
Now the epson or at least Vuescan when scanning and ouputting to raw does not seem to allow an increase in or decrease in exposure. I have played with the rgb brightness on the input tab and I get the same output raw file.
At any rate still working on it.
Now if the full version of silverfast allowed for an adjusted raw file I might consider trying it, but adjusting exposure is the only function I really need beyond saving as a linear raw tiff file.
https://www.silverfast.com/showdocu/en.html?docu=1178
https://web.archive.org/web/20180327...html?docu=1178
hmmm, Steven, even with the basic versĦon you can save the 48bit, but with the V850 you even have the Plus version that includes ME and AAOC...
Let me insist, use the software you want but just learn well your bundled version before.
I am following here, lots of informations... I'm new to scanning large format color and B/W negatives.
But, when I scan wihtout ANY color setting, Epson v850 Pro (and others I've seen in the past) produces a bluish uncontrasted positive...
How do I change it to a "normal colors" image?
There should be some presets to clear the orange support color and so on...
Thank you
My theory that the scanner does not decrease or increase the captured exposure is as follows. If it decreases, it would be defeating it's higher dmax setting that allows maximum ability to see through the dark shadows. YOu can't increase it because the manufacturer made the unit to be the brightest it could be so it can get the highest dmax. It's already at the highest brightness strength. Finally, due to the limitations of the film itself (5 and 7 stops for chromes and negatives), the entire range is captured in one scan. There's no point doing a second scan. Finally doing two scans getting the same data does not increase the dMax of the scanner. Multiscan ability to make better scans is just manufacturer's hype.
This nonsense get repeated again again, even when examples are given. The scanner CCD DOES NOT have a dmax limit IF YOU increase the exposure time, it is just like any other camera in that respect. The DMAX limit as stated by the manufacturer is using a simple minimum exposure set by the need to not fill the wells of the sensor when the density of the film is 0.
What actually varies is the amount of noise relative to the true signal, the errors at maximum density are quite substantial. By increasing exposure you can reduce that noise a tiny bit.
However there are still other problem to contend with, 1. quality of the image at these low density ranges within the film and 2. metamerism (i.e. color) errors are also increased. (I think this is an area where an optimised sensor works better, and may explain some of the improvements found in higher end equipment)
Put simple these last two factors mean increasing the exposure can improve the S/N ratio, but there are still other problem to contend with.
If your shooting negatives, you are unlikely to get anywhere near these limits btw.
Following are two samples scanned by Ken Lee on his v750, over a piece of BW film with a density of approx 3.1. One is scanned with zero exposure gain the other with a 30% increase.
The image has had all the values increased by a linear amount to give the save grey value, you can see the difference in noise quite easily? If you can't see this difference then don't bother changing the exposure.
Attachment 185325Attachment 185326
This is a scan of a very dense piece of film (a step from a stoufer wedge), around a density of 3.15 (taken by another member Ken Lee). The exposures of each are different, one is longer than other just like when you change the shutter speed on your camera. (one is 30% longer than the other). A bit like changing from 1/125 of second to 1/90s of a second...
The image is then post processed by very simply giving each a linear increase, such that they both have the same values, a bit like putting pieces of film in an enlarger and adjusting the time from 12 seconds to 10.5 seconds to give the same value. (in my example one was increased 12x and the 10.5x)
So the resultant image should have the same tonal value if you like (about 18% grey), but you can see a difference in the noise.
Hope that makes some sense.
Keep in mind this is towards the limits, i.e. a very dense piece of film, especially for negatives, that is being brought up to middle grey, and these are just improvements that need to be seen in context.
Alan, the linear sensor of a scanner is like the one in a dslr in many senses. In a dslr (when fixed aperture and ISO) you may vary exposure time to have a good capture, and also you can use HDR feature to take two shots and later combining both shots in a single one to deal with an ample dynamic range that surpases the dslr capability.
This is what Silverfast does in a V850 when Multi-Exposure used, it takes 2 scans of the negative, each made with different exposure times. A drum uses a PMT sensor that has way more dynamic range, so it may not need that feature. Also I guess that some expensive flatbeds do not make two passes to obtain two images that are to be combined, but in that case two consecutive exposures of the same row are made before advancing to the following row.
These kind of tricks are common in imaging devices, for example Alexa movie camera uses "DGA", the analog voltage from each pixel feeds two ampliers instead one, working each at different ISO, this extends dynamic range because for the same image acquisition there are also 2 analog to digital converters, so each pixel in a shot is taken at two different ISOs to be later combined in a single reading.
I the case of a cheap V850 the implemented solution is making two passes each with different exposure.
Makes sense now. Thanks
I agree with last couple of posts by Ted and Pere. I have this experience in my scanner as well, V850.
For linear raw output though, I have not found a way to adjust the exposure. I have tried, but I always get same raw output, regardless of setting or software used.
The version I got with scanner allows 48 to 24 bit. If I pick the 48bit only option, it will not let me do anything. That feature is locked till I uograde. And in the end, it cannot provide more than what scanner is capable of.
I will see if they have a trial version, I am always open to new methods if they work.
Download latest version of the V850 drivers and Silverfast. With the V850 I downloaded the web install so I don't know, but with the V750 I had to download the last version from Epson support web because the version in the CD that I installed was not working.
No doubt that your bundled silverfast version has to be able save 16 bits per channel, if you can't then you have to fix that problem.
here in min 5:25 shows it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umXH39GlUkM , that has to work for you !
Thanks. Will give it a try tonight. If you can actually change exposure and such for the final raw file when scanning that would be a plus. We will see. I have bee using Vuescan for like forever. Plus it supports my Nikon Coolscan 4000 which I need for my 1000s of 35mm negatives and slides. Plus, I am getting another 35mm film camera again. If SF can support that it would be of benefit. Still looking for a medium format film camera as well, so might need to upgrade to the 8000 coolscan I think it is called.
I watched that video in the past, thanks for the reminder link.
This is pixel peeping and not an example. Looking at this piece of negative shows and tells nothing. SHow me the results of a real picture that extends from black to white with people, shadows, skies, trees, etc and in color. Then show me how you combined two pictures that made it better than taking one and just using the sliders to get the best result. Combining two shots tends to eliminate noise but does not provide additional resolution or exposure results. Misalignment between the scans due to mechanical limitations of the scanner also makes it difficult to combine two pictures.
Show me a real world result that you did not some silly experiment someone else did with a piece of film with nothing of meaning on it that you can recognize.
Why do you need two scans. If slowing the scanner speed raises the dMax, then just slow it down to begin with. You wouldn't need a second scan because the range of the negative will not clip because the sensor can handle the 5 or 7 stops unlike the ten or twenty stops in the real world that digital cameras have to deal with.
Of course that begs the question. If slowing the speed down raises the dMax, why doesn't the scanner manufacturer just do that in the first place? I would think because their engineers have made a determination that slowing the speed will not get anymore meaningful data. That their sensor maxed out its' dMax at the speed they designed into the scanner.
Finally, combining two scans is problematic from what I've read. The scanner mechanical limitation prevents alignment among the thousands of rows of scanning between two scans.
I would like to see a real-world comparison. With actual pictures taken of people, skies, shadows, trees and in color. Then scan it with Silverfast two scans and with Epson one scan (flat) and do the adjustments of the Epson scan to increase what you can see in the shadows. Then compare both pictures to see if there really is a difference. A few years ago, someone showed that comparison. There was no difference. Maybe you can do better.
I think the larger issue here is not DMax but DRange. Doesn't matter what the exposure of the scanner is, the range of values achievable doesn't change.
This is where the multi-pass scanning comes in. However, as noted, giving "more exposure" raises the noise. I would postulate that there is some advanced issues here with regard to signal-to-noise. Consider for a second that at higher ISOs, digital cameras not only have more noise but also less dynamic range. If the second exposure digging into the shadows also has less DRange, it might not actually pull out any more information.
In my use of multi-pass scanning years ago with various scanners, it almost invariably caused issues with alignment. Not only just basic alignment but also differences in translation of the film line-to-line. These minute issues are not noticeable in single scans but when trying to line up multiple scans it because a big issue. These issues are probably due to less than perfect stepper motors.
Its an example, with an explanation, if you can't see a difference nor understand what has been said, then just simply ignore it.
Anyone can do there own testing just take a piece of exposed leader, adjust the exposure time, the film leader is very dense yet still transparent, but the scanner will still be able to penetrate it. The noise in the image will also be high. You can compare the amount of noise in the image when you adjust the exposure time just like the example given.
You can even trick the scanner to adjust the exposure time by putting a piece of unexposed and developed film over the scanner calibration area.
You can also easily measure at what point the noise level is unacceptable.
This was my first concern when I first heard of the multi-pass technique: are the stepper motors in these consumer level devices really repeatably accurate at the pixel level. I think I remember seeing a rubber toothed belt in the V700 which didn't exactly inspire confidence in that regard. And what exactly are in those deep shadows, if anything, after all. From looking at projected slides, often not much. The dynamic range of transparencies is what it is.
Sometimes the "deep" shadows really contain a lot of information that can readily be seen when viewing negative on light table. However, the scanner, like a dslr has a certain dynamic range and will do its best to get it all in. In the case of raw files, you don't have much say so on that. Using multi-exposure however, does provide that. One image exposed for shadows, one normal then combines them to create a raw file or different file.
I have used it with my V850 and have seen zero alignment issues. And like any other function you have to use it properly. If there are no details to be had, ie, so dark you can barely nake out on light table or just black, it wont work. You have to have something to work with. Crap in crap out.
V850 handles noise with multi-sample and it works quite well and doesn't slow scan down at all. Whereas multi-exposure does because it is two complete passes.