Grain on large format (scanned negative): hp5 plus vs tmax 100

[interneg]

It looks a 2000 dpi scan, perhaps 1800 effective, LF sheets are usually sanned at lower dpi...

If you scan a crop in a drum at max dpi... say 6000 effective...

Grain is more important in MF/35mm, of course...

Any competent scanner with decent MTF response & a precise enough focusing system will show a detectable difference above about 600 ppi - the standard used for manufacturers testing is a 48 micron aperture - 530ppi for all intents & purposes. Assuming that at below maximum resolution high end scanners do not reach stated resolution is wrong, unless you can provide definitive evidence for the specific scanner in question. Generally, they are very close to the specified resolution up to 4-5000ppi where the very high mechanical precision requirements needed to maintain good resolution & contrast are rapidly affected by the quirks of the design, wear & tear etc. We are talking a handful of microns here.

That consumer grade flatbeds seem to give odd 'grain' response has more to do with their very low MTF performance (not that the optical package may be bad - there is a 6e/4g lens in many of the more expensive Epsons) from low precision construction which people attempt to compensate for by excessive sharpening which results in a disgusting mess of somewhat resolved 'graininess' & sensor noise.

[Pere Casals]

That consumer grade flatbeds seem to give odd 'grain' response has more to do with their very low MTF performance (not that the optical package may be bad - there is a 6e/4g lens in many of the more expensive Epsons) from low precision construction which people attempt to compensate for by excessive sharpening which results in a disgusting mess of somewhat resolved 'graininess' & sensor noise.

Interneg, there is another factor...

Ther V700 scan width is 5.9", in the X axis it resolves around 2800dpi effective, which is 2800x5.9 = 16520 effective pixels in a single pass !!!!! A machine has to do a lot of things well to resolve that.

You may know that the V700 scans four 35mm strips in a single pass, plus the borders...

Now imagine that the HR lens covers 4" only, instead 5.9", the V700 would deliver 2800x5.9/4 = 4130 effective dpi !!!! and 4130 effective dpi covering 4" in a single pass !!!!

The V700 is an impressive machine, but it prorizes making four 35mm strips in a single pass... for LF this is not a problem.

[Chester McCheeserton]

You may know that the V700 scans four 35mm strips in a single pass, plus the borders...

Using Epson scan software? With the 35mm film holders? or are you talking about just laying them on the glass.

The v700 is a great scanner, I have one, and a good photographer with a good negative can get great files to make huge prints with it. (at least if it's 4x5 or above)

But side by side, it pales in comparison to a good drum scanner...and I find it frustratingly slow to scan 35mm on it. Thinking of buying a pakon but the analog hipster kids drove the prices too high.

with 35 or 120 a drum scanner will blow the doors off the epson. And any macro digital camera set up.

[Pere Casals]

Using Epson scan software? With the 35mm film holders? or are you talking about just laying them on the glass.

With holders. The V700 sensor sees 5.9" wide, while a dedicated 35mm roll film scanners see 1", so performance of the V700 (2800 - 2300 dpi, depending on axis) is a miracle. Many 35mm shots don't require more resolving power, because handheld shots are not perfect, but if it is tripod shot, with a good lens in the sweet spot... a better scanner gets slightly better results.

______

MF and up it's a different war, the largest the format the V700 shines the more. For MF it's really competent:

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1489423
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1489522

A drum is better, of course, but many times the V700 (an other flatbeds) takes most of what the MF negative has.


And for LF it's a great choice, for 4x5 it outresolves the hasselblad X5 and most drum scans that are made at 2000dpi, a drum 4000 dpi scan is not that cheap, if wanting to drum scan 4000 dpi then its cheaper to shot 5x7 and scanning with the V700. And then V700 it makes 8x10.

Also V700 scans require always an optimization in Ps, while Pro gear serves the files digitally optimized with wise algorithms.


V700 drawbacks are BW grain structure in 35mm format, comming a bit short for 35mm film, and if wanting to recover crazy dense shadows in velvia, but the Multi-Exposure feature in Silverfast helps a lot.


______

The best a drum scan has is post processing, many times a pro drum has (or had) a very skilled proffesional near it, someone knowing how to refine a digital image while preserving quality, and having a sound criterion about how to make an interpretation that will shine in a monitor or on paper. This is what, many times, it makes the difference.