Blah blah blah blah blah I've heard it all before about effective pixels. There is always some 'well actually' guy online who has some napkin math to tell you what's wrong with your scanning rig. At some point you do have to use your eyes and decide what's working and what's not. The scans look fantastic, the details are all quite sharp, and you can start to see grain in films like HP5 at the 4x5 size. We're talking about a file large enough for 44" printers without stitching, and you can make your 8 capture pixel shifted file in about 5 seconds. I've yet to see anyone prove that this 'effective pixel' technical jargon has any negative effect in real world scans.
Of course one may not want a 44" sharp print, at the end such a print is viewed from 1m far, and if the viewer does not put his nose on the print he won't see that it's a low quality enlargement.
I'm skeptical about the real benefit the pixel shift may provide, the shitfting mode adds some digital image enhancing and IMHO this is what you see, but if you sharpen in Ps a regular image then you obtain the same, probably the sensor outresolves the lens so...
Last edited by Pere Casals; 30-Oct-2019 at 14:31.
Thanks so much for all of this information! Can you send me that summary to squeeze the best possible results out of an X1 Flextight Imacon Scanner for a 4x5 negative/transparency and 120 film at 6x12/6x17 (if, of course, the X1 Flextight Imacon would even accommodate a 6x17 panoramic negative)? That would be very much appreciated. Also, considering that the X1 Flextight Imacon I have at my disposal is $30 per hour, how long does it take to scan one 4x5 negative or transparency? (I have both negatives and transparencies.) Basically, how many 4x5 scans can I reasonably fit in an hour on the X1 Flextight Imacon?
The Hasselblad Flextight X1 provides a speed of 60 MB / min. So it depends on how you scan, IIRC 5 to 10 4x5" sheets per hour, perhaps some $5 per sheet if you are efficient.
So you may hire the X1 for one hour, compare to result from the V850 (try scan at different dpi 2400-3200, for very dark slides use Multi-Exposure) and decide after sharpening both images in Ps to their best.
The X5 is 5 times faster.
With the V850 if using Multi-Exposure it takes a longer time.
Has anyone here used the "Better Scanner" Wet Mount device with Aztek mounting fluid with an Epson V850 (not the V700 or V800)? How would that setup compare to the X1 Flextight Imacon scanner?
Since, according to Pere, I can only get between 5-10 sheets of 4x5 film scanned in an hour on the X1 Flextight Imacon scanner and have over 80 4x5 negatives/transparencies that I'd like to scan, is it worth it to use the Imacon for $30 per hour? Also, will the X1 Imacon be able to scan my 6x17 negatives?
Also, any opinions on this?: https://www.scanyourentirelife.com/e...r-differences/
The resolutions mentioned in the linked article are all theoretical and has no real world bearing.
My experience is that the v700, v750, v800 and v850 all resolve the same, in optimal circumstances around 2500 dpi (wet mounted, focus optimized and over-scanned) and more often a bit less than that.
Of course, but you require the holder https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...al_Holder.html
V850 can also do it.
The sharpness improvement in the wet mount comes from ensuring the negative is flat, the new V850 holders have an ANR glass and adjustable height
If your film is flat then all it's easy, if not place it the way (up/down) that the ANR keeps it flat.
I found that there is little benefit from wet mounting, if you are able to keep the negative flat with the ANR, but YMMV. Wet mount removes scratches and dust.
Don't hesitate, make your own tests, spend 1/2h or 1h in the X1 and compare with the V850 result. IMHO soon you will realize when it's worth and when not for you. IMHO many times it's not worth because the V850 is a very decent scanner for LF and the X1 won't do more, and of course when you have an unexposed Velvia sheet or wanting to recover detail in very underexposed shadows the X1 will be well worth.
Some sheets may even deserve something superior: a 4000dpi drum scan, as Pali suggested: if it's an important image for you, the image is technically excellent and you want a very large print with top quality.
If you make that side by side it would great you post your results here.
First you have to learn to scan... do that in the V850. Remember that you have to scan 16/bits per channel and save in TIFF format, BMP and jpg only saves 8 bit's per channel. To downsize the image use "bicubic, for reductions" choice in the Ps image size dialog. Make a "pixel level" final sharpening and another one with the ideal radious for the viewing distance. You may deliver to the printer the same pixel count the pinter is to print, or you may deliver an oversized image and let the printer optimize.
With th V850 take all histogram range (auto mode clips)... and use Multi-Exposure when necessary. Once you learned the advanced acanning concepts then go to the X1, it's a great scanner, but you should understand that a Ferrari has the same top speed than a VW in a traffic jam, so you have to build your own criterion about when a X1 or a drum it's necessary or not.
And my guess is that you would find that in most scenarios the v850 scans would be more than enough, especially for color negs and b/w.
I admit I've never scanned with the X1. My experience comes from the Flextight Photo generation. But for color negs I would prefer the epson compared to that one. Always found it hard to get the really linear scans, needed for color negs, with the flextight software. That could have changed in later versions thought.
For really dense slides though, when you need as much dynamic range and color depth as possible, the X1 would perform the best of course.
Yes, there is no doubt that Epson is absolutely proficient in color management, they imposed a dictatorship in the inkjet Pro printing and this was not by chance.
Anyway today we have powerful tools for color management: 3D LUT Creator, with it we easily generate 3D LUTs that can make any kind of conversion between devices, or any adjustment.
No doubt that the X1 is always superior in DMax, but the Epson improves a lot with Multi-Exposure !
Bookmarks