Size of scanner CCD, in number of elements

[coisasdavida]

A more likely explanation is that it's marketing BS

Very likely.

Of course, the V700 is a cheap scanner, a semi-pro one, not a pro device, so lenses could be better.

Even plastic, they are probably very good and enough for the sensor and so are the mirrors. If they were bad, there would variation among the scanners, but all seems to suffer from the same limitations.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I have been using a V850 for about a year ar and I can say with 100% clarity and hat at 2400 dpi settings the image sucks, period. At 3200 it is better and at 4200 it is excellent. One thing to note is that at 4200 dpi setting the resolution and is no better than my Canon 5DMKIII. Yes, files are large, but then so is 4x5 film.

Regardless of so called testing, so called effective dpi, etc. I know from a practical standpoint what the scanner can produce. Yes, I know many say I don't know what I am talked ng about, will absolutely disagree with me and post countless links to the so called testing, whatever. I am an end user and I know what this scanner does based on actual use. I also chose 4200 dpi not only since it matches my Canon 5DMKIII, it gives 1.79gb size color files and 600mb or so bw files it is a multiple of 300, and ie, 300, 600, 900, 1200, 1500, 1800, 2100, etc which Canon pringers like. Epzons I believe are multiples of 270.

Anyway, the V850 produces images extremely well excellent resolution and detail. If anything, its only shortcoming is with zone1-zone 0. I can see faint details i. These zones on light table I can make out some detIl, but scanner has hard time with it. Yes, I am sure a drum scanner will provide a far superior scan, but you know what? Who cares! As long as the image you scan privixes you with the results you wanted then it is the right scanner for you. If you got 25 grand juet burning a hole in your pocket, a Flextight or drum scnner is well beyond mosts dreams. And not really necessary.

[Pere Casals]

Even plastic, they are probably very good and enough for the sensor and so are the mirrors. If they were bad, there would variation among the scanners, but all seems to suffer from the same limitations.

for industrial applications, I've been using the Linos (Rodenstock) lens type that's inside the Hasselblad X1 (and X5), it's a good choice for linear cameras. That lens alone is more expensive than a full V700...

X1 moves up and down the lens to provide different magnifications, and it's a real challenge to make a lens that works very well in that range of magnifications.

The V700 (series) has two cheap lenses working each at a fixed magnification, so it's easier to make a lens optimized for that job. With the high pixel count, way outresolving the lens, they extract all what the lens can do avoiding variable magnification.

With a high pixel count we have smaller pixels, so we may want a longer exposure time... Well, Vs have drawbacks, but also are exellent performers for most LF photographers, for a significative improvement in sheets we have to go to drums, or to a hassy if we consider velvia extreme densities.

One thing to note is that at 4200 dpi setting the resolution and is no better than my Canon 5DMKIII.

Steven, sorry, but I completely disagree. The MkIII sports hardware 21 Mpix, you are lucky if you obtain 18 MPix true "optical" after lens degradation and discretization effects.

I don't use a 5D but I know very well what a D610 and a D810 do... Even with a V700 a 4x5" blows miles away what a MkIII resolves.

An scan from 4x5" in a V700 has a resolving power worth of 4x5x2300x2300, this is 105MPix optical performance, so you enlarge x2 larger or x4 more print surface for the same quality.

If you obtain similar performance than with the MkIII then you should review your hybrid processing. The DSLRs have internal optimization algorithms to make images look sharp, if you want to compare "perceived" sharpness then you should apply similar processing to the scanned image in Ps or other dedicated size blowing algorithms. What's about resolving power there is no doubt, we may debate if it's 105Mpix, or 90 or 143, but we compare that to 18 or less.

And always, with a drum we can take from 200 to 400 MPix (optical) from a 4x5, if one needs that...

[coisasdavida]

Epson V700 CCD board rear view

[Steven Ruttenberg]

So the 5DMKIII has an effective pixel of 5760 x 3840. The sensor size is approximate 1.417 in x 0.944 in (36 mm x 24 mm) This then gives 4064 pixels per inch effective on the sensor both long and short side. I use 4200 due to Canon printing requirements preferring things in multiples of 300. So, If I were to scan the 4x5 with my 5DMKIII and then scan at my settings I have the same sensor resolution. I agree that a 4x5 will blow away the 5DMKIII. I was referring to what the sensor records digitally. Now the size of the pixel on a V850 vs 5DMKIII are different, pitch is different, etc however, I was simply referring to scanning at the same pixel density if you will of the 5DMKIII. And by doing this I get a large file that is quite nice in detail compared to scanning at lower settings. I started out at 2400dpi the recommended settings from every site on the planet and then compared to 3200 and 4200 and I can say that the 3200 and 4200 are way better than at 2400.

As for internal algorithms and sharpening that is if you save as jpg. I save the raw data only and there is no additional processing to that data as I have that turned off in the camera (I need to check this though again). When I bring the raw file into PS or LR, I do not use sharpening. I apply sharpening as last step with things like high pass, etc.

Science, pixel peeping, number crunching, etc aside, I am just saying that I get the results I want and would not have a problem making prints as large as I want. And I have made some large panoramas from my 4x5 scans and printing up to 32x40 presents no challenges and I could go larger still if I wanted to, but paper is way to expensive and I don't have a wall large enough. Something else to remember to is that just because we have large numbers of pixels does not mean we get super detailed super sharp images. There are examples out there where a sensor with much lower resolution yields a much sharper, more detailed image than a sensor with more pixels of the same image. It is all in how those pixels are used and the type of pixels used and there arrangement.

Not wanting another scanner debate, we have had enough of those and they get quite spirited. I just know what I get and it works. And from time to time, it is fun to have a brief discussion of the topic.

Thanks for your input Pere. I am going to check out my resolving power of my 5DMKIII here soon and will post those up alongside the results from my scanner. If I find something from my scanner tests that are contrary to what I am seeing, I will certainly point that out as well.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

This is?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The size of the pixel pitch on the Canon 5DMKIII is 6.22um (2.44882E-4 in) or 4096 ppi. For the Epson, it is 1.5625E-4 in or 6400 ppi (3.96875um, approximately 4um) effective ppi. This by conventional wisdom would say that the Epson should be better in resolution than the Canon so long as the capability of the pixel and supporting hardware/software is capable to do so. If, I knew what the lens optics were, I could determine its optical resolution, capability and inherent error (but ray tracing is a pain in the butt). The Canon lenses are such that the sensors have finally caught up to the lens capability and in some instances surpassed and so Canon has now started coming out with newer MKII lenses and in some cases a MKIII (1.4 extender). As you pointed out, it is the total combination in the system that will yield a final true capability. But we should not be hamstrung on only using 1/2 or less of the mechanical capability of a system.

Sometimes testing by pixel peepers do not tell the whole story and are not stringent. In the end, if you get the image you want in detail, etc from a scan of your negative then that is all that counts.

[Pere Casals]

I am going to check out my resolving power of my 5DMKIII

Steven, it is very useful you do those tests on your own at least once in a lifetime because it is a pretty nice way to learn.

With a prime lens you will get some 16MPix with the 5D Mk3. This is DXO rating that in general I find pretty accurate:




Then if do the same with a TMX 45 sheet shot with a good lens (Say Sironar N 150) at f/16 you will obtain around 450Mp seen with a microscope, and around 140 in the V700 scan, at least 100 I guess.

There are many ways to degradate a LF image in the hybrid processing. For example size reduction it's something critical...

In the path from negative to the print, as an exercise you may try to optimize every step to conserve the native IQ as much as possible.

[coisasdavida]

This is?

Epson V700 CCD board rear view, I was unable to identify anything as to give a clue of which sensor the V700 actually uses.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Steven, it is very useful you do those tests on your own at least once in a lifetime because it is a pretty nice way to learn.

With a prime lens you will get some 16MPix with the 5D Mk3. This is DXO rating that in general I find pretty accurate:




Then if do the same with a TMX 45 sheet shot with a good lens (Say Sironar N 150) at f/16 you will obtain around 450Mp seen with a microscope, and around 140 in the V700 scan, at least 100 I guess.

There are many ways to degradate a LF image in the hybrid processing. For example size reduction it's something critical...

In the path from negative to the print, as an exercise you may try to optimize every step to conserve the native IQ as much as possible.

I agree.