Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

[Pere Casals]

Part of my point in comparing the Creo with the v750 is that the Epson needs so much additional pieces, options, holders etc etc just to make an acceptable scan.
I think that's why so many people spend a lot of time making mods to it, because the scans out of the box are just ok; not great, but acceptable for many.
When you see what another scanner can do without resorting to a great amount of noodling around, it changes the game significantly.
I can't tell you how fantastic it is to be able to place my film on the scanner bed, and…scan it. That's all I have to do.

And I haven't even mentioned Newton rings.

Of course, the V750 is entry level for a pro who makes money with it in a dayly base. A professional that work for others sure he may seek another kind of tool, I completely agree that it's worth.

For a photographer that is only going to use the scanner 5% of the time for it's personal work, that's different, also this depends on his pocket.

If one wants better image quality there it no other way than negative size, from MF and up... scanner resolution is not a concern !!! Are yo to enlarge a single shot to 4m to be seen at reading distance every week?? If not, one can stay with a 750 and to send a negative from time to time to a last model high end drum.

Do you shot a lot underexposed Velvia? then the V750 comes short, as all other flatbeds.

This is my statement: From MF and up with BW film a V750 scan cannot be even distinguished from high end drum scan by anybody, if the enlargement from MF is less than 1.5m, if it is under 3m for 4x5, and if it is under 6m for 8x10.

Because density reading and resolution are more than required. Anybody doubt about this ?



Later we can talk about color.

Rings... Do you place the emulsion side to the glass ?

Where the rings are?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Pere

Kirk had a good point. A lot of us have been using the Epson scanners for - well a lot of years, and nothing you say is surprising or particularly new information. Most of it has been said before and most Epson users here are very well aware of it. The 750 is my third Epson scanner and I think I get fairly good results from it - it is a good scanner and nobody here thinks otherwise. At the same time a lot of members also have experience with a variety of high-end flatbeds and drum scanners (as well as the Epsons) and find that they're getting better results from them than from the Epson, at a higher price in $ and time. Whether the difference is worth the price difference is of course up to the individual.

[Pere Casals]

Hi Pere

Kirk had a good point. A lot of us have been using the Epson scanners for - well a lot of years, and nothing you say is surprising or particularly new information. Most of it has been said before and most Epson users here are very well aware of it. The 750 is my third Epson scanner and I think I get fairly good results from it - it is a good scanner and nobody here thinks otherwise. At the same time a lot of members also have experience with a variety of high-end flatbeds and drum scanners (as well as the Epsons) and find that they're getting better results from them than from the Epson, at a higher price in $ and time. Whether the difference is worth the price difference is of course up to the individual.

Hi Jim,

I only have a 750 but I've sent sometimes some jobs to an X5, basicly underexposed Velvia, but also I made scan TMax 100 with the X5 to know about.


Conclusion, with say a TMax 100 sheet, 4x5, high dynamic range, or not:

> No grey tone difference, tonalilty etc removed as a factor by IT8 calibration
> Absolutely no difference in sharpness in a 2m enlargement
> Exactly same grain depiction
> A skilled observer cannot tell if the scan was from the X5 or the V750


Important factor:

> How the curve was adjusted, how PS over/under expose tool was used while in 16bits

The skilled observer could say every time who was the guy that processed the file with PS, because the different styles.


"Better results" are always seen after paying $3,000 for a box, I'd like to discuss about true performance, and what I say is that for 4x5-BW-2m enlargement even a X5 makes absolutely no difference to a V750.

In the same way a Ferrari makes no difference to a Toyota Auris in a traffic jam, because both have a capable enough engine, thougt in Indianapolis speedway a big difference would be there...


With 135 we can see the difference in a smaller size. With underexposed velvia we can see it always. But BW LF??? No... not at all.

[ryanmills]

Thank you everyone! I think i agree with almost everyone. The v700 does a decent job, i have and printed and sold work from from it. But in the end it just does not have the detail it should.


Ari, Pali & Jim thanks for your input. Right now the IQSmart2 is looking ideal with 16bit and firewire. But the EverSmart Pro II looks good too. I did hear from Michael at genesis. Costs were a little higher than I expected, its starting to get into the range of drum scanners if I buy direct from them. He did confirm the windows drivers are quite limited. I wont be ready to buy till after I get done with my summer work. I guess i will have to see whats available on here vs genesis then what I can really afford. No matter what I need a better scanner so I might just have to save and wait a little longer.


Pere Casals, honestly I dont think you have as good of a grasp on scanning as you may feel. I have literally scanned 10k+ shots on my epson since buying it. I shoot a lot of film 120, 4x5 and 8x10. The method you are describing for scanning will ultimately clip or force a curve. It can work on a lot of images but I like most people dont have the perfect negative every time or most times. I miss focus, exposure, etc. To get the most out of it you need to really get everything you can out of your negative There is no such thing as "exposure" on a v700, the exposure is fixed on scanner Its nothing but curves and levels. Multi-Exposure gains you nothing you cant do in photoshop with levels and layers. In fact there is no such thing as exposure on film, its just density. To get the most out of an epson you need to scan it as a linear tiff. Basically scanned a positive at 48bits then inverted in photoshop and set your levels in there. I own both Vuescan and Silverfast AI. I found both to be inferior to just scanning as a liner tiff with Epson Scan. You also have to understand the difference between true sharpness and perceived sharpness. I looked at most of your images and I dont really see sharpness or detail that impresses me. In fact i'm getting better results out of my own v700. I dont see the v700 winning any of the scanner tests but honestly the images from the scanner test feel really compressed as well. I would say if you like your v700 by all means keep with it. But I have found nothing to support what you have claimed. You also have to understand were not all printing 8x10s. I am printing 40x60, i have found that the v700 is only good to about 16x20 for my taste on a good negative. None of your view distance argument has any baring what so ever to scans at all. Lastly scanning 8x10 on a v700 is a pain in the ass, scanning it directly on the glass will not get you a good scan. If you think it does your entire argument is invalid.

[bob carnie]

Ryan

Micheal is a first rate vendor , he was extremely helpful when I purchased from him.

Like you I feel one of the posters here is pretty much dead set with the unit they Own and will argue its merits to the dying breath.

I have done lots of testing , Imacon - Aztek - Eversmart Supreme - Epson 10000xl - Fuji Frontier - I own 4 of the five listed so scanning is very important to me and like you have done thousands of scans
and I do make monster prints as well as silver gelatin prints off a Lambda which is very tasking indeed.

I found the Aztek and the Eversmart to be in over 30 photographers viewpoints basically equal- the Imacon close second to them , followed by the Fuji Scanner then the Epson.

I recommend that Micheal to provide you with the Mac system to boot up your scanner. I will say the workflow is old school so it takes awhile to figure out how to maximize these units. the unit
I purchased has a wet mount unit but to date I have not seen the need to use it.

One day I will test this out as well.

Bob

[Pere Casals]

Hi Ryan, I'd like to dicuss this

But in the end (V750) it just does not have the detail it should.

What size do you print your work? Beyond 4m? 10m?

Lets see if a V750 has resolving power in excess for you:

this is a V750 scan: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/

and this is a crop of the 1% of its surface: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/

Please tell me at what enlargement size occurs that detail of the crop can be seen in an enlargement, as we see 6 LPPMM with our eye. You may take calculator and tell me...

I looked at most of your images and I dont really see sharpness or detail that impresses me.

I'm not talking about my skills to make high perceived sharpness photographs, but about the scanner performance.
Presently I'm focussed to use unsharpness to depict volumes https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/ making vision take an effort, I try to learn a bit this style https://www.flickr.com/photos/55873497@N04/ to later develop mine, I'm interested in glasses of the Universal Heliar 36 range...

The method you are describing for scanning will ultimately clip or force a curve.

Any method will do: TV's sRGB have 0 to 255 values per channel, paper may have 1:100, a BW scan 3.0D has 0 to 1000 values, and a velvia scan has some 0-8000 values, dynamic range of the scene is much wider than Monitor or Paper. There is a considerable photographic-artistic effort to reduce Dynamic Range from scene to paper or to monitor in a pictorial way. It's the same to reduce the range more in the negative acquisition or in the post process.

I usually use the PS under/over exposure local tool in the same way burning-dodging is used in the darkroom, befor touchong curves to make fit DR to the output medium, This theory is included in the BTZS one, I think.

To get the most ... tiff. 48bits then inverted in photoshop and set your levels in there.

It's what I do, just that, but inverting in PS or in scan soft it is exactly the same, if value is L it is to make INV = 65535-L , (2^16-1)

Multi-Exposure gains you nothing you cant do in photoshop with levels and layers.

That's incorrect, and this explains why you did not obtain good results with V750, How can you say this ??? They do this to not overflow A/D converter, Digital DSLR use this as HDR, it is a powerful digital tool !!!

Also Arri Alexa cameras use DGA, dual gain amplifier (search for it, interesting) to take advantage of the same concept, to extent DR near to Kodak Vision 3 is able. Alexa has 2 stops advantage in shadows and Vision 3 in lights, for this reason Vision 3 is better for cinematography than Alexa.

You also have to understand the difference between true sharpness and perceived sharpness.

I understant it very well, still I've a lot to learn to master how to obtain it

the images from the scanner test feel really compressed as well.

Don't undertake that test, it's a very good test, anyway V750 was used with low skill, as it looks autoexposure was used, clipping lights and shadows in 3rd sample. The rest is very good information, I know... also it's a shame for some hype scanners.

I am printing 40x60, i have found that the v700 is only good to about 16x20 for my taste on a good negative.

You cannot state for what printing size V750 is good without mentioning the negative size, if V750 is good to print 16x20 with 120 it will be good to print 3x4m with 8x10

None of your view distance argument has any baring what so ever to scans at all.

Human eye sees 6 LPPMM this is 12 dots per milimeter at reading distance, this explains what standard print quality is, and how many perceptual pixels are in the human field of vision, I'd suggest you a reading about that, it is amazing.

Lastly scanning 8x10 on a v700 is a pain in the ass, scanning it directly on the glass will not get you a good scan. If you think it does your entire argument is invalid.

You are well mistaken... this is a 1% surface crop of a 8x10 on glass scan https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/

this certifies completely that the original complete file is suitable for at least 4x5m

It is true that when on glass the negative is not at it's ideal distance and this produces a lack of sharpness, but this is minor in front of the benefits of the size increase.

honestly I dont think you have as good of a grasp on scanning as you may feel.

I know wery well what a V750 is: exactly, and I know what a X5 do: exactly. With a lot of precission. And I know very well when a negative scan for a target output media needs a X5, and if the X5 will make a difference or not, depending on negative size and display size.

I've a technical profile, at job (Machine Vision) I usually have narrow margins between was it is required and what is possible, I constantly meter physical performance of image acquisition with telecentric glass MTF, color theory in all of its complications, spectral responses, a lot in IR, spectrometer in hand, what I mean is that my aproach to scanners is technical, belive me, in my job hype it is not useful, before I rely in a telecentric glass I've calculated how many microns error I'll have when metering the width of a bolt's thread.

For this reason I base my contribution here in cold technical analysis, not in opinions like "better results".

I'm not a professional scanist, nor a professional photographer. I digitize film for free for a friend that's also a true artist (and darkroom mate), using the 750 for what it is extremly good, and a X5 when it makes a difference.

One thing else, I've replaced the illuminator of the 2nd 750 we have by a 4x powerful one, this is near additional 0.5D enhacement, then I make a multi-exposure with the regular illuminator's power and a second one with 4x illuminator, then both go as layers to PS, auto-align, etc.

Now I'm working on c++ code to combine properly the ranges, common HDR soft do not work ok.

Don't think the 4.9 DMax of the Hassy X5 is to work with 4.9 densities, this is just to have a good reading of 3.8 densities (that only velvia has)

With this improvement I plan to go further.

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Pere

I wish you had said earlier that you were using a modified 750 to effectively get an "HDR" type result and not a stock scanner. It would have made some of your comment more understandable.

[Pere Casals]

Hi Pere

I wish you had said earlier that you were using a modified 750 to effectively get an "HDR" type result and not a stock scanner. It would have made some of your comment more understandable.

I was talking of standard V750. The modification I've in course still it is not operative, I'm writting the software that automates the image blending with OpenCV library, it will take me a while, and still i've to print 3D some assemblies to make it reliable A fan to get heat out, without vibrations.

Replacing the 750 illuminator it's easy as there is space enough...

BW film and print film usually have less than 3.0D, with multi-exposure it's OK , Velvia... depends, if strong shadows the V750 do not do it well even with multi-exposure, but no other flatbed can.

Then there is solutions: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...5_Scanner.html

4.9D but it only makes bare 4x5.

this is cheaper

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...1_Scanner.html

But only DMax 4.6D

4.9D X5 is very good for underexposed velvia, the 4.6D X1, I don't know.

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Pere. I have a question. If the Epson line of scanners is equal in performance to the large flatbeds and drum scanners, why were companies paying tens of thousands of dollars for them? There must be a reason.

Re Vision 3, I'd be hard pressed to say that film isn't superior to digital (Alexa) but even the Vision 3 has to be scanned for edit and digital distribution. How do they do that and keep the extended DR?

And the last time I looked the price of a fully optioned Alexa was close to $100,000 (and add another $30,000 to $70,000 if you'd like a lens with your Alexa) so not sure it's relevant to the current discussion.

[ryanmills]

Pere im going to be honest, you make my face hurt. There is just so much wrong information mixed in with completely irrelevant information I can't if figure out your point. Bottom line, the image is not as good from a v700/v750 as a creo. I dont understand the point you are making beyond you telling me im just not using it correctly. More importantly real world tests from actual photographers counter your argument as thou everyone else has no idea how to scan a neg. Honestly, they are far more convincing then you quoting the math on how many bits are in a byte as thou that has relevence. Im not looking to spent $6k on a scanner just so I can say I have one as thou the last 10k scans I have not tried every way possiable. I want images that look there best. The things you are talking about are so far beyond anything relevent. Your going to write drivers to make a v750 multi exposure then hack the hardware? How is that going to solve the fact that the lens is not sharp and has a fixed focus... Unlike yourself I do have a background in software, writing drivers is about the hardest disiplince there is in programing and you're just going to whip one out on the weekend? What in the hell does a 100k digital cincema camera have anything to do with film. DGA is just a version of HDR, you can get it on a mkiii for $95k less. Its not "like film", its trying to add range. Yes i get the concept but the v700 is a fixed exposure. You already tried to say the silverfast could make it multi exposure (it cant, its just two sets of levels blended) then your saying your going to hack the software but your not done, then your saying you have already done it. Quite franky I dont belive any of it. And how it could it even relate to a $600 scanner or how it relates to me as thou im going to do those things I have no idea... I think its better to spend the $6k on scanner than $50k on a computer science and engineering degree.

I feel as thou you are googling terms, copy paste blurbs in an effort to sound intelligent... Your 1% crop? You mean 100% crop? It looks like crap, that is not a good image, its not sharp, you're relying on perceived sharpness, because as we can see in your crop, nothing is sharp... You keep saying its good but really its not, even for a v700. I question the quality of the screen your using to view and edit your photos.

Here is a 100% crop example from my last shoot. Not getting real picky here and not the sharpest shot since I was shooting a 1/15th of a second but still decent. Using a 240mm Rodenstock apo-s with tri-x 320. 8x10 neg scanned correctly (not on the glass like yours) at 1200DPI. The detail is ok, sharpness is there thou slightly missed on the focus. But I have seen work from other photographers with the excat same camera and mine is just not as good. That photographer is using an IQSmart2 and the detail he gets is just better. I asked my question here to see if anyone else had changed to this scanner and seen improved results as well. They had, but you're here arging about how its better to hack the scanner? Honestly just stop, your points are not valid and have nothing to do with my orginal question even if you are the Steve Jobs of scanners.

http://ryanmills.net/zips/img070.jpg
http://ryanmills.net/zips/img070-2.jpg