Howtek 8000 Drum vs. Epson V850 flatbed scanners

Good pudding, Peter

Thanks, Randy.

This should be the official theme song of any scanner thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2HH7J-Sx80

been there

done that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt

Thanks, Randy.

This should be the official theme song of any scanner thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2HH7J-Sx80

---

Well, the epson file allows some additional sharpening to show the grain better. This is a x22 enlargement, it looks a but gritty at x20 but the shatpening is optimized for x8:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a9638214_b.jpg


A x8 enlargement on the monitor would be this, I doubt the drum would show any difference at x8, which would be a 1m print:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a9638214_n.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pere Casals

Of course, a Pro machine like a Howtek delivers very well digitally optimized images, there is no much room to sharpen the original image. The drums start sharpening in the taking of each row, with a linear convolution to compensate the motion blur of the high speed rotating PMT.

Instead the Epson always require a refined 16bits/channel edition to get a perfect result.


Given that Silverfast with Negafix is that superior for CN, the Epson is becoming a must have for LF :)

Absolutely, no difference for x8 or x10 enlargements. Just a proficient scanning/edition required with the Epson. Those statemens saying that the Epson was good for x2 or x4 were totally wrong or in some cases a plain lie.

Hey, guys... Reputation of those cheapo epsons is skyrocketing, not working that bad compared to drums :)


LF Conclusion: Epson is better than drums for CN film because superior color inversion. For BW the drum may be noticeable better beyond x10 enlargement for grain depiction, Anyway we don't have much Image Quality beyond x10 from a LF negative, as in practice LF shots are usually resolving 30 to 60 lp/mm in the best focus plane.

---

1. Why is the Epson better for color inversion than drums? Would I be better off shooting chrome color rather than negative color? (PS I'm currently loaded with Velvia 50 in 4x5. Maybe we can experiment later with those as well.)
2. Why do we care about grain with the drum when I'm shooting Tmax 100? Is there grain worth capturing? Why bother if you're shooting Tmax. If I wanted grain, I'd shoot Tri-X. No?

What settings and program did you adjust the unsharpened Howtek and the Epson?

It's very striking that no one has attempted to do anything with the section of image showing the planks - which along with the larger areas of smooth tonality is where most viewers will really see the differences in optical performance (signal: noise behaviour & its impact on sharp fine detail imaging in lower contrast areas) in an actual print, as opposed to the high contrast hard edged details on the ends of the pieces of wood. Suggests that most 'image analysis' on here is firmly stuck somewhere before 1952 and will result in prints that would be easy to pick out the drum scan from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Klein

1. Why is the Epson better for color inversion than drums?

---

First, Epson has a legion of color scientists, they are not leading the Pro inkjet market by chance, so they know how to handle color.

Second, Negafix in Silverfast is amazing, it has dedicated color inversions for each particular negative Brand/film mapping the scanned colors to a suposedly very good RA-4 interpretation.

Of course we can edit color with advanced tools like 3D LUT creator, but departing to a very, very well made inversion like Negafix saves a lot of color edition. This is particularly important for portraiture, with landscapes we always can be more "creative", but with portraits we have to nail de job.

Nick Carver explains it here in min 22:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9d8BukUgzI&t=1674s

Some people try to discredit Craver, but no doubt his color management is sound, even Fuji has highlighted him: https://www.ishootfujifilm.com/spotlight/nick-carver

Attachment 204915

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Klein

Would I be better off shooting chrome color rather than negative color? (PS I'm currently loaded with Velvia 50 in 4x5. Maybe we can experiment later with those as well.)

---

Slides record a narrower dynamic range than Color negative film, slides are designed for projection so they have to show a similar contrast than in the scene. Color negative film has a lower Contrast Index (BW has 0.62 ISO) so it records more stops.

So no doubt than slides are less flexible and require a more accurate metering and/or graded ND filters

Anyway Velvia (etc) has an impressive spectral response for landscape that later cannot be well imitated with CN or digital. The Epson with multi-exposure scans slides very well, if you compare the scanned image to the real slide you'll see it's faithful, beyond the limitations in the monitor than won't show what the slide has because color spaces are not matching and monitor's static contrast is lower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Klein

2. Why do we care about grain with the drum when I'm shooting Tmax 100? Is there grain worth capturing? Why bother if you're shooting Tmax. If I wanted grain, I'd shoot Tri-X. No?

---

I agree with you... To me grain depiction has little importance in LF, and if using TMX even less importance. But the way an scanner records grains may have importance for MF and 35mm, many argue that the Epson does not depict well grain, but if image is well processed then you will match the drum result at least for x8 prints, if not x10 or x12.


Some years ago I followed how Sebastião Salgado (Amazonas team) managed grain for Genesis, it was quite challenging... they had to match optic TXP prints from 645 format with digital DSLR shots. The exhibited prints from digital shots had fake artificial grain added and then they digitally printed the images in Delta 100 8x10" negatives with an LVT film recorder, four images per sheet, finally they optically printed those negatives with an enlarger in the darkroom, instead printing the digital image (incorporating the fake grain) with a Lambda on silver paper.

A sound grain management may be challenging... so it may be interesting what the Epson is able to do with it. No doubt that a drum scanning at 8000 will deliver a more natural grain, the question is if this is noticed by x8 or by x14. IMO it depends on the particular film and on edition skills.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/afnwforcza...ning.jpg?raw=1
Howtek no sharpening

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2euvco88jj...rp_3.jpg?raw=1
Howtek Sharpening Method 3

Cheers Peter, it's pretty obvious that the Howtek (and any high end scanner really) severely outperforms the Epson where it's going to matter visually in a print at pretty much any size, especially with the current generation of print heads.

I should however have said that the real challenge would be to try and match the same sector of the Epson scan to the non-sharpened Howtek, but as you and I know, that's going to be a waste of effort and energy to essentially re-answer a question to which the answer is 'no'.