Should I Drum Scan, X1 Flextight Scan, or use the Epson V850 w/Aztek Wet Mount Kit?

[Pere Casals]

And with the six shots you will get effective mp count of about 30 mp per frame, or total of about 180 mp, which should get all the information from a 4X5 color negative film.

We have to discount the loss in the overlaping, not all the frame is used, so total may be a 30% lower,

Tim Parkin mesured effective resolving power of 4x5 provia reaching 387MPix effective, and 461MPix for D100 : https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...ra-comparison/ ,

anyway I fully agree that with six a7r3 shots we get most of the useful information a 4x5" shot has. Those 6 shots are a wise advice, because of very diminishing returns we won't get much a practical enhacement beyond those 6 shots.

[manfrominternet]

How much better is a drum scanned 4x5 negative/transparency compared to one scanned with an Epson v850?

Wouldn’t it be better to scan with a medium format Fujifilm GFX 50r (with a Fujifilm 120mm f/4 Macro lens) or a Sony a7R IV than an Epson v850?

[Pere Casals]

How much better is a drum scanned 4x5 negative/transparency compared to one scanned with an Epson v850?

Wouldn’t it be better to scan with a medium format Fujifilm GFX 50r (with a Fujifilm 120mm f/4 Macro lens) or a Sony a7R IV than an Epson v850?

See this: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1553078


You don't need a GFX or a7r4 to get a better scan than the best drum scanner you can find, you can do it even with a consumer Nikon D3400 and a used $35 enlarger lens, it's all about how many crops you are to stitch, and how much skilled you are.


But think that more scanning resolving power may add nothing to LF image quality when going beyond a certain value.


In this side by side https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-Drum-Scanners the amazing drum and the amazing Creo machines showed an optical perfomence that is much, much better than the Epson V700 case.

But in practice the Epson obtained exactly the same results even if pixel-peeping: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1522566


Why ? Simply the Epson is a able to take all the image quality those negatives have. In a traffic jam both a Ferrari and a VW Bettle have the same top speed, acceleration and down force.


While the Epson is able to take most of the useful image quality a LF negative usually has, it may not depict well the grain structure of some BW films, so if you are to make a 3m print (from an LF negative) and want a nice grain when inspecting the print with the nose on it, then you may need a 5000dpi effective scan that's well beyond what the Epson yields. It's about how many pixels you effectively resolve on a grain. Anyway the Epson resolves better the grain than a Hasselblad X5 for 4x5", while the Hassie is atonishingly good for 35mm it zooms out you to take all the 4" wide sheet with a sensor that has only 8000pix, those 2000 dpi end in 1800 effective.


High res DSLR scanning of LF sheets is quite a mess, you need focus accuracy, expensive gear to have to stitch less crops, and a lot of additional work in the stitching and edition for dust removal. The Epson detects dust/scratches (color film) in the infrared channel, iSRD selectively patches those specific flaws. A manual dusting edition of a DSLR scan is very time consuming and never it will be as good.


One thing is true, while Pro scanners are able to deliver a well digitally optimized image it happens that the Epson scans require some careful edition to get an optimal image, anyway personally I prefer doing that optimization manually from a crude scan with no auto enhacements, if the image it's worth to invest an effort on it.

[Corran]

How much better is a drum scanned 4x5 negative/transparency compared to one scanned with an Epson v850?

A lot, from any metric. Unfortunately the forum scanner troll will rail against this for pages and pages, and most of us are uninterested in listening to his trolling. Just see the other scanner thread currently being trolled.

The Epson is a perfectly usable scanner within its limitations, and higher-end scanners will be better in terms of resolution and/or DMax, since you mentioned transparencies. There's lots written here and elsewhere about it, and as far as digital camera scans are concerned, read what Sandy and Peter have written here and elsewhere and you'll get some good information. I don't do DSLR scanning except for quick inspection scans personally.

I'm off to actually go make photographs, so will NOT be responding anymore to the likely response.

[Sasquatchian]

A lot, from any metric. Unfortunately the forum scanner troll will rail against this for pages and pages, and most of us are uninterested in listening to his trolling. Just see the other scanner thread currently being trolled.

The Epson is a perfectly usable scanner within its limitations, and higher-end scanners will be better in terms of resolution and/or DMax, since you mentioned transparencies. There's lots written here and elsewhere about it, and as far as digital camera scans are concerned, read what Sandy and Peter have written here and elsewhere and you'll get some good information. I don't do DSLR scanning except for quick inspection scans personally.

I'm off to actually go make photographs, so will NOT be responding anymore to the likely response.

Yeah, he's painful to "listen" to in his ignorance, trying as hard as he can to convince himself of his own righteousness. I'm tempted to go out and buy an Epson just to see how it really compares to my hand aligned by Evan Howtek 8000. The ability to resolve detail is only one aspect of a good scan, but the overall dynamic range - both in the shadows and in the highlights, where drum scans shine, and most people forget about that ability to render d-min, but also how are gradients rendered and how is film grain rendered, and of course, there's no possibility of matching aperture to grain in anything but a drum scanner.

[Pere Casals]

but the overall dynamic range - both in the shadows and in the highlights, where drum scans shine, and most people forget about that ability to render d-min

Of course drums have a well higher DMax than the Epson V700, no doubt. But that drum advantage is only seen in the insanely high densities that regular negatives don't have. An Epson work perfect with densities under 3.0D which a density BW and CN film does not usualy contain.


Yes... insanely underexposed Velvia/Provia is a challenge for the Epson, but if you use Multi-Exposure it improves a lot, still a drum may recover more detail, but this is a very particular situation with very particular films. The Epson DR is perfect for BW and CN, for insanely underexposed Velvia a drum is better.

I'm tempted to go out and buy an Epson just to see how it really compares to my hand aligned by Evan Howtek 8000.

Well, I can tell you a bit what you may find in the Howtek 4500 vs V700 comparisson.

"Collaborative Large Format Scanner Comparison": https://www.largeformatphotography.i...an-comparison/


Just download the crops from the Epson and from the Howtek, if you edit each crop to its best you will find this:



In the "Collaborative Large Format Scanner Comparison" the V750 scan was not well made, the crop with shadows shows that not all the "histogram" was taken, but it nearly matches what the Howtek is able.



Anyway, you may also check the "Scanner Comparison 2019" and you will find that the Epson is not "pure crap" like many of you have saying. For LF it's a magnificient machine that in the right hands it delivers top notch scans. In a side by side the Epson result is compared to Scanmate 11000 drum and two Creos. Not more, not less. What about that, man?



If one day you have the 8000 and the V850 probably you will be making 95% of the LF scans with the Epson, simply because in practice only around 5% of the times you may find the effort of mounting in the drum is worth for the benefit you may get. At least this is what happened to some people I know.

[Pere Casals]

A lot, from any metric. Unfortunately the forum scanner troll will rail against this for pages and pages, and most of us are uninterested in listening to his trolling.

Well, you in particular have been trolling quite a lot aganist the Epson, I can point dozens of posts from you stating that the epson was pure crap. You were mistaken, take a look at the "Scanner Comparison 2019" made by Pali and you will find that what you were saying was totally false.

I'm sure it was not lies but ignorance, one day I discovered that you even ignored that to scan a 4x5" with your Cezanne with more than 2000dpi you had to stitch crops, as your 8000 pixel sensor covering 4" only takes that. I you want I link the post showing that. This is your level.

[Sasquatchian]

Oh Pere, maybe you just need to get a good pair of glasses. Your Epson scans, even the "enhanced" versions are pure crap. Your enhancements only accentuate what's shit about that scanner, and, in addition, you completely ignore the horrible gradations produced by the Epson. What a good quality PMT can give you that your Epson never can is that quality of gradation, that is evident even on lower res jpegs posted on the internet. So, while I may buy an Epson as a curiosity as it's a cheap piece of hardware, I can say that the most I'd ever use it for is document scanning, something I've been doing with the Canons lately. But since you apparently don't have access to a good drum scanner - and there are good ones and shit ones as well - or a good DSLR copy station, you're hopelessly married to your mistaken conclusions, much like religious fundamentalists are married to their own delusions.

[Chester McCheeserton]

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1505305

My "Bell" example

[Tin Can]

Boys stop it

Oh Pere, maybe you just need to get a good pair of glasses. Your Epson scans, even the "enhanced" versions are pure crap. Your enhancements only accentuate what's shit about that scanner, and, in addition, you completely ignore the horrible gradations produced by the Epson. What a good quality PMT can give you that your Epson never can is that quality of gradation, that is evident even on lower res jpegs posted on the internet. So, while I may buy an Epson as a curiosity as it's a cheap piece of hardware, I can say that the most I'd ever use it for is document scanning, something I've been doing with the Canons lately. But since you apparently don't have access to a good drum scanner - and there are good ones and shit ones as well - or a good DSLR copy station, you're hopelessly married to your mistaken conclusions, much like religious fundamentalists are married to their own delusions.