Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

[Pere Casals]

Its not all matrix transformations (software) but the information in the original matrix that is to be transformed.

http://www.vision-color.com/impulz-training-tutorials/


Peter, it's really important when we make the capture, then information is reduced in a extraordinary way, we have an spectral signal that arraved at each photosite, having a power value for each 1nm bandwidth (to say a interval), that signal has a SPD (spectral power distribution for each photosite) but then information is reduced to 3 numbers R,G and B for a píxel, or to 3 densities in a color film. This is a big loss of information.

For this reason emulating velvia from a portra shot is not easy, and if you make a portrait with Velvia 50 it will be very dificult to make him look like a "person", with PS...

But once color has been reduced to a tri-stimulus reading, say portra, yes... the impact of one scanner or another it can be near exactly matched with a conversion LUT. This is well known, and Hollywod has a big industry working just in it. So scanner has no importance for color, the important thing is your set of color profiles.

I've really been reading a lot about colorimetry (because job), I could be speaking about it during weeks, including organic process of it, I use spectrometer every week... look what that people do http://www.vision-color.com/impulz-training-tutorials/ it's amazing.

Then there is "Perfectly Clear"

[Peter York]

Its an even bigger loss of information with inferior hardware. I have an area on film that is 3 pixels. The high-end flatbed measures [(4,4,4) (4,4,5) (4,4,6)] whereas the Epson measures [(4,4,4) (4,4,4) (4,4,4)]. A LUT ensures that a 4 is a 4 is a 4 across scanners, but it cannot correct for the roughness of measurement in the Epson vs the high-end flatbed. Mashing in post gets you closer, but my eyes see the difference.

[Pere Casals]

Its an even bigger loss of information with inferior hardware. I have an area on film that is 3 pixels. The high-end flatbed measures [(4,4,4) (4,4,5) (4,4,6)] whereas the Epson measures [(4,4,4) (4,4,4) (4,4,4)]. A LUT ensures that a 4 is a 4 is a 4 across scanners, but it cannot correct for the roughness of measurement in the Epson vs the high-end flatbed. Mashing in post gets you closer, but my eyes see the difference.

You can scan 16 bits... until 3.0D V750 has a perfect color discrimination. Color resolution of V700 is way, way better than human eye can see.

Flatbeds have conceptual limitations that are equal for all models, the most evident is that when neg is scanned there is a glass in the middle, a not coated one, thus limiting microcontrast in certain circumstances. From V750 and Up there is not much a difference between models. Epson is cheaper because for them it's a subproduct of printers range, they manufacture hundred millions of scanners that are on the top of printers, and for them the industrialization of a scanner is cheap, also is to mantain a distribution chain that also serves consumer product range. For them a V850 is a plastic with a better sensor.

Creo people etc sell few units and every electronic development is a challenge to pay back. They have to show an edge to make people pay +5000, and sometimes all they can do is some in hardware sharpen and add some color Hype.

This is the crude reality.

These are good machines oriented to a minor Pro market that can pay and pay. But technically a V750 performs near the same, for very underexposed velvia... go to drum service, no faltbed will perform if you want to recover it well.

It will count more postprocess skills, than any advantage from Creo to V750.

Look again what Paul Bohman says, comparing with Imacon: http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Zdeb

In my opinion this is the crude reality.

[Peter York]

[QUOTE=Pere Casals;1342384]You can scan 16 bits... until 3.0D V750 has a perfect color discrimination..QUOTE]

Theoretically. Add in a plastic lens, cheap stepper motor, etc. etc. and reality is different. My eyes see a difference. That is my conclusion, and this is the last post I will make here.

I trust the OP can formulate their own opinion.

[Pere Casals]

Add in a plastic lens, cheap stepper motor, etc. etc

Expensive glasses people wear are also made of polycarbonate, an you can find polycarbonate elements in top notch Nikon lenses.

The stepper is not a limitation, as Vert resolution (related to stepper) of the V750 is 40% better than horizontal, (2900 vs 2300dpi) see http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/ch.../appendixc.htm

My eyes see a difference. That is my conclusion,

This is subjective, I'd liked to bring the discusion to technical facts as Pali did when he posted a scan comparative.

this is the last post I will make here. I trust the OP can formulate their own opinion.

Ok, I also think all is told, and everyone can judge, if he wants to read all that.



Anyway with cash to replace the V750 by something "I say" is equivalent one can buy:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/EBONY-NEW-WI...cAAOxys6dSOHTs

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Voigtlander-...QAAOSwxYxUt670

and 5 boxes of this, for the cambo 8x10:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/FUJIFILM-CUT...UAAMXQC-tTEMlb

[Kirk Gittings]

The stepper is not a limitation, as Vert resolution (related to stepper) of the V750 is 40% better than horizontal, (2900 vs 2300dpi) see

The stepper is a limitation (or was perhaps maybe the software has been reworked) as the length of the scan varied so much between passes that the software could not align the passes correctly in multipass and gave out of register results. And don't tell me about sample variation. I've tried it on 19 machines (where I teach that has 18 plus mine). This has been discussed much in the past. Pull your machine apart and look at the stepper and then compare it to an IQ or such and tell me that is a precision piece of machinery.

[ryanmills]

Dont bother replying to pere he is just trolling, most of what he says is false/made up. The rest is just copy/paste from google. As the original poster the other real photogs have answered my question

[Pere Casals]

Dont bother replying to pere he is just trolling, most of what he says is false/made up. The rest is just copy/paste from google. As the original poster the other real photogs have answered my question

Hello Ryan,

I'm to discuss with you what you would like about this topic, under the light of the technical arguments, and to advance, without personal involving and with the target of all of us improving our knowledge.

How are your pants ? Is it all right ? (just joking)

So if you want we can go, if you wnat to revisit any concept of what was said just "reply with quote" to that post and let's see it, I'm ready for action, are also your pants? (just jocking again

Seriously, let's go, I'm ready for action.

PD: The fact that you are a better photog than me do not makes you right in your statements. This is a technical discussion, baby.

[Pere Casals]

The stepper is a limitation (or was perhaps maybe the software has been reworked) as the length of the scan varied so much between passes that the software could not align the passes correctly in multipass and gave out of register results. And don't tell me about sample variation. I've tried it on 19 machines (where I teach that has 18 plus mine). This has been discussed much in the past. Pull your machine apart and look at the stepper and then compare it to an IQ or such and tell me that is a precision piece of machinery.

Hello Kirk,

Nice to discuss this with you.

I think in practice Multipass usage it's quite rare and not 1 of 1000 scans (to say a number) are made like this because time consumption and because single pass it quite good for any aplplication spaceially from MF and up, and for sheets scanning beyond 2400dpi is rare to me.

Anyway let's analyze it.

For single pass:

The stepper is not a limitation, as Vert resolution (related to stepper) of the V750 is 40% better than horizontal, (2900 vs 2300dpi) see http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/ch.../appendixc.htm

This V res better than H res it can also be observed in the ES Pro, if you look post #64 by Mr. Pali K and see the USAF 1951 target scan posted, it makes clear that at extintion vertical bars are well detected in 3 figures smaller than in the Horizontal bars case.


For multiple pass:

Both in the case of Creo and in the case of V750 the mechanical transmission it cannot repeat 1/3200 of an inch in say 4 inches , this would be 0,008 mm in 100mm, 1/10000 range, precission of that range are possible in "r G1 Mini SCARA robots" have repeatabilities down to 0.005mm. A multipass at lower 1200 dpi perhaps can perform better, I've not measured it and I don't know. I've you have experience with that I'd like to know more details and to know if I'm mistaken.

Anyway when I tested super-resolution that can be obtained from multi-pass, I've did it via PS upon these instructions:

http://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-pr...ith-photoshop/

Because PS auto-align/stitching... in this way mechanical precission is not a factor.


Best regards,

PD: I'm proud to discuss this with you, I'm happy I can discuss technically all that with somebody. Ill be here again in 8 hours, here it's late.

[Jim Andrada]

Just added him to my ignore list. It's easy and it works. Highly recommend doing it.