Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

[Pere Casals]

Only if the X5 operator is clueless & does things that enable the test to be skewed to suit your pre-existing agendas.

I don't sell scanners nor scanning services, my only agenda is separating true performance from hype. Others here have commercial interests, not me.

In my experience as a printer, a 4x5 scanned on an X5 at 2040ppi (the max optical resolution available for 4x5) with appropriate settings will happily blow a v700 scan out of the water, no matter the 'resolution'.

Specs are here, I viewed it a lot of times. http://www.hasselblad.com/scanners/flextight-x5

X5 will blow the V700 with dense film specially if you use Epson Scan software or bare Silverfast SE, using SE Plus (V750/850 included) version allows multiexposure and multisampling and then V700 improves a lot. Then in some cases the X5 will blow Epson, Creo etc just in the same way.

There is a lot more to the quality of a scanner than the manufacturer's claimed Dmax & resolution. Anyway, a high contrast resolution target is only part of the story when it comes to the performance of a scanner.

More to the point, the X5 is essentially a CCD flatbed, just with a different film holder/ feed mechanism.

Yes, there is stray light in the optic system, a drum has none, al flatbeds have some, and X5 has much less stray light because Flextight system, thus aproaching to drums, even the manufacturer rates it al 4.9D it won't work well at such a density, but note the film with more density we normally have is Velvia/Provia at 3.8DMax

iQSmart/ Cezanne/ etc scanners are all far better than an Epson in just about every metric that matters.

I don't think so, it may be a slight difference. No difference in color / grey tonality, at the end sRGB triangle is the limitation, Velvia has beautiful colors that are not in the sRGB or AdobeRGB space.

IMHO it's far better a new V850 and having a budget for drum service for the shots that any flatbed can deal with.

Given the choice between going to 8x10 & getting a high end flatbed or drum scanner, I'd always get the best possible scanner.

No, not at all. It depends on the job. Not at least for Velvia deep shadows. Look my post #124.

X5 and drums deliver higher microcontrast quality because lower stray light that cannot be later well corrected by soft. Some BW shots deserve a Drum/X5, for other it is irrelevant.


About comparing V750 vs high end solution I full agree with what Paul Bohman says here, and with his working method:

http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Zdeb

Look... $1000 in a new V850 and the rest in the pocket !!! If the scan result is not good just improve your skills, because it's not the scanner.

[Pere Casals]

Jim, you gave good advice!

Dear Peter,

In the flatbed range from V750 and up it's much more the scanist and the post process skills than the hardware, until you go to high end drum/x5 segment, that it is another league.

You said about Gospel and I pointed you Post #35.

If you have no arguments you may go to personal atack, like Ari and Ryan.

I've dozens of posts on this topic, just quote something really wrong or ridiculus, this is the way you can discredit me. Are you able?

Look Post #30.

Best Regards.

[Kirk Gittings]

If you are including post processing in assessing how good a scanner can do you are not comparing scanners. Any post you apply to one scanner can be applied to another making the results just that much "better".

As I said near the beginning of this thread, your tone is insulting. It hasn't changed. You invite hostility. It appears you prefer to argue more than making images. Live with the atmosphere you have created or change.

[Pere Casals]

If you are including post processing in assessing how good a scanner can do you are not comparing scanners. Any post you apply to one scanner can be applied to another making the results just that much "better".

As I said near the beginning of this thread, your tone is insulting. It hasn't changed. You invite hostility. It appears you prefer to argue more than making images. Live with the atmosphere you have created or change.

Hello Kirk,

Thanks for your calmed tone.

I just try to separate scanner from processing, not to mix it:


Comparing to a DSLR one can save RAWs and process that later or one can adjust the DSLR to make it deliver a result: Auto WB, Sharpen, picture control vivid, portrait etc...

With scanners it hapens the same, some models do apply sharpenning in hardware or in the driver, I showed that in post #90, also some models have "adaptative contrast", etc and color enhancing capabilities.



My position is that the scanner has to deliver a result as raw a possible to the PC, to be later processed with powerful software tools. This include LUTs,profiles, and custom sharpenning. For this reason I say that post process skills are so important, much more than scanner capability of auto-adjusting images. (Yes... this invite hostility... )

V750 is a scanner that delivers very raw results, for this reason I say that by improving post process skills one can get same results than with a more expensive device that pre-cooks the image to justify its price. (also this invite hostility... )

Best scanner operators I know may adjust multi-sample and multi-exposure but never will allow the scanner to sharpen or to enhance color.

With PS we can do sharpen with a lot of choices, and each escene, or even each part of the scene needs a specific sharpenning technique, for example algorithm applied to eyes is different to the one applied to the chick. Even "Perfectly Clear" software do that, but not the scanner, so if the scanner does it then it can limit what you can do later with PS.


About tone

I invite hostility because I defend opinions that don't like to high rank experts and they cannot rebate that with technical facts. But I'm not hostile at all.

Here there are very good photographers (much better than me) that feel insulted if smebody challenge what they think. There are "ranks". What it is true is that I've replied with insulting tone to insulting tone.

So what I'd like is a contructive technical discussion, with more technical replies and less personal attacks to know from facts. If you read my posts you'll see that I always tried to go to technical discussion, but sometimes I answered viscerally to personal attacks.


Not easy here, but I want to discuss in these terms:





Best Regards.

[DennisD]

I am just an innocent bystander following this thread In hopes of learning more about the OP's original topic.

IMHO the exchanges have become unproductive confrontational, fed by one sticky individual who keeps stoking the fire.
The thread is really accomplishing nothing at this point and would be better off closed.

[Jim Andrada]

There's a lot of good information in the thread itself and rational dialogue should be encouraged. But there should be some mechanism to shut down individuals who abuse the forum and post overly argumentative comments.

[Pere Casals]

There's a lot of good information in the thread itself and rational dialogue should be encouraged. But there should be some mechanism to shut down individuals who abuse the forum and post overly argumentative comments.

Jim, I repeat, just quote a technical statement I made you don't agree and let's discuss it politely in technical terms.

Please don't argue I'm making noise, just point where you think I'm mistaken. We are talking about digital data and technical image quality, so it should be an objective way to discuss it, beyond subjective opinions.

Please, quote where I'm technically mistaken. Let's start by my "overly argumentative comments", please quote first one...

[Pere Casals]

I am just an innocent bystander following this thread In hopes of learning more about the OP's original topic.

IMHO the exchanges have become unproductive confrontational, fed by one sticky individual who keeps stoking the fire.
The thread is really accomplishing nothing at this point and would be better off closed.

Everything is said, but not debated. It is not a discussion about aesthetics but about digital image technical quality. I don't keep stoking the fire, just I hold a strong position, in a sticky way, true. And I'm open to discuss it politely in technical terms.

The issue is important, because if properly debated it can conclude in what LF conditions (Negative size, print size, Velvia , BW) a $1000 scanner performs like a $5000 scanner or not.

My position is that for usual 1200dpi 8x10" LF scans with 3.0DMax films there is no difference for 2m prints, and the important thing is post-process, bicubic resize, etc. I'd like to discuss it technically, beyond opinions.

If nobody can sustain a technical analysis of the topic, for me it can be closed, because opinions are well known yet.

[rdenney]

We're done here. OP, let me know if you didn't get your answer.

Enough has been said so that readers can form their own conclusions.

This as been like a dog chewing on a bone--a bone the other dogs did their chewing on years ago. I don't like closing threads because of the discovery that the chewing was still going on after the bone was consumed.

For the record, movie cameras and small formats are not appropriate topics here. Please limit discussion of same as much as possible.

Also, remember that the burden of proof is on the challenger of the dominant paradigm. The dominant paradigm has usually become such based on long experience by top experts. If the evidence presented is not persuasive, there is nothing else to say, and no need to say it.

As for me, I trust my V750 to a 4X enlargement, and getting that takes a lot of work. Telling me I'm not working hard enough to get the results one easily gets with higher-end equipment will be unpersuasive. But that's all the bigger I can print anyway.

Rick "let's go make some photographs" Denney