Some scanner's manufacturers publish the size of their scanners CCDs, so we know for sure how much resolution we can achieve with these units, for example, I have a PFU DL-2400p with 10500 elements in its CCD. Published are also these ones: the Cezanne has 8000 elements, the Pakon has 2000 elements and the Minolta 5400 has 5340 elements.
The most used linear CCD was for some time a 10200 elements one. Would anyone know if that is what's inside an Artixscan F1 or an Epson V700?
My stuff for sale is here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r7owuacla...Ac74wBbEIUWrUa
V700 has 40800 pix (for each R,G,B colors) in the sensor.Originally Posted by coisasdavida
But an interesting parameter is actual pixels per inch (dpi), and this depends on the lens than projects the film image on the sensor. The V700 has two different lenses (no zoom), the one that covers all the bed allows 4800 dpi, and the high res lens covering 5.9" width allows 4800 dpi.
The Cezane has only 8000 pix, but it has a zoom optics that allows to spread those 8000 pix in an small negative or in the entire bed.
The Hasselblad X1 and X5 also sports 8k pix only, but it also has a fine lens inside (Linos/Rodenstock) to zoom.
Then we also have the effective resolving power, the V700 allows worth 2300 effective dpi in one axis and some 2800 in the other when selecting (automatic) the lens that covers 5.9" width.
You can review this web site to get information about those intrinsics: https://www.filmscanner.info/en/Epso...V800Photo.html
Sorry, but is nothing on the link to support this information. I used a search tool and nothing.
How did you get this info?
My stuff for sale is here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r7owuacla...Ac74wBbEIUWrUa
see page 155 of the manual: https://files.support.epson.com/pdf/prv7ph/prv7phug.pdf
section: scanner specifications
the 56160pix is in the movement axis, so determined by the stepper motor, 40800pix is what the linear sensor takes with one shot in the transverse axis.
Sorry, those are not the specs of the sensor, if they were it would read way more clear than that.
That is a similar way that Microtek describes their F1/M1 scanner, relating to the choice of dpi in the interface.
This is not a positive information about the actual sensor.
I'm almost sure the V700 has a NEC sensor of 10,200 elements and the rest is only software.
My stuff for sale is here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r7owuacla...Ac74wBbEIUWrUa
That's wrong, if it was the case it would not be possible that the V700 would scan a 8x10 sheet with 4800dpi (hardware).
This scan was made with a V750, that has the same sensor than the V700:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/
When the V700 scans at 9600dpi then it's interpolation. But at 5600dpi (5.9" scan width) or 4800dpi (full bed wide scan) there is absolutely no interpolation, it's the native hardware resolution, I'm completely sure, if you read well the manual you will find that.
Another thing it's the effective resolving power... that involves lens performance.
The only mention of a 40800 sensor in the web is about a rgb sensor with 3x 13600 pixel lines.
https://www.google.com.br/search?q="40800"+pixel+linear+sensor
My stuff for sale is here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r7owuacla...Ac74wBbEIUWrUa
There are other sensors...
You also have, for example TCD2964BFG, Toshiba : 21360 elements × 6 line, this is 128,160 photosites, or 42720 R-G-B sites
https://www.glynshop.com/erp/owweb/D...TCD2964BFG.pdf
You may know that both in Area Scan sensors/cameras or linear sensors not always all pixels are used, so you have to search parts with higher than 40800 rgb pix to find matching possibilities.
There are several reasons for a device may not be using all available pixels, but a crop, we can discuss on that.
Last edited by Pere Casals; 1-Nov-2018 at 05:39. Reason: link fixed
If so, then that should be easy to test with a high resolution target. I doubt very much that the system gives 4800 true dpi. The reply might be made that that's the sensor is that large, but the lens is poor. Why use a higher resolution sensor, which would no doubt be more expensive than a lower resolution part, when the system is limited to about half that because of the lens? That seems...unlikely. A more likely explanation is that it's marketing BS, just as Epson's dmax specs are.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
The V700 delivers 2300-2400 effective dpi in one of the axis, and 2600 to 2800 in the other, from the 6400 hardware DPI (if scanning under 5.9" width). This is not a lot for roll film, but's really good for sheets. Owning a V850 and a Plustek 8xxx (or 120) covers most needs of a multiformat film shooter. An optimal tandem.
Of course, the V700 is a cheap scanner, a semi-pro one, not a pro device, so lenses could be better.
The lenses (there are two, only one is used at a time) are made of plastic, anyway it has a sound design, being a consumer device, and this allows great performance, in special for 8x10 it's hard to beat. You know, the Cezanne delivers 1000dpi hardware for 8x10, 800 effective if not scanning strips and stitching in PS... while the V700 delivers 2000dpi effective with the low res lens for 8x10.
For 4x5" a V700 outresolves a Hasselblad X5 that delivers 1800 effective DPI in that format, while the cheap V700 delivers at least 2400 effective (when scanning at 4800 with the high res lens). Of course for high velvia densities the X5 is way better, but when using multiexposure in the V700/...850 we have really good results with velvia if no extreme densities are important.
It is also true that with the Epson the image comes less digitally optimized than with a pro scanner, so there is some work to do in Ps.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks