Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,356

    Re: Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    As I noted in my original post, the 2400 dpi was, for me, the best overall compromise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    That's how things worked out for me, but others may find different approaches work better for them, hence the suggestion to make one's own tests, perhaps with these starting points.
    2400 also works for me most of the times for LF, but if a LF negative is really sharp then I scan it at higher dpi, anyway this is more important in 4x5 than in 5x7, IMHO.

    YMMV, of course... it depends on print size, for example.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    The amount of additional resolution beyond 2400 dpi is fairly minimal ................ If the effective resolution isn't on the film, scanning at a higher dpi makes little difference except perhaps in a totally theoretical as opposed to practical way.
    Of course, it depends on how sharp is your shot and how "microcontrasty" textures are, some shots benefit from a higher dpi and some not. Anyway an image requires a x2 effective pixel count (x1.4 linear resolution) to see a real improvement, Image Quality it's very expensive in image size terms.

    At 2400 you get under 2000 effective dpi with the EPSON, but you may reach 2900 in the horizontal axis, if this makes or not a benefit for a particular shot and if that improvement is necessary... it depends...

    When I shot ADOX CMS 20 sheets I easily see the difference, TMX resolves more or less depending on microcontrast, datasheet tells very different resolving power depending on contrast.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    You may also start bumping into Lightroom's file size limit, and Epson Scan sometimes has difficulty saving the file beyond a 5x7 2400 dpi scan, which results in a 340MB or so file size at 2400 dpi.
    With bundled Silverfast, Ps and a SSD disk I've no problem.



    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    The amount of additional resolution beyond 2400 dpi is fairly minimal but the file size is much larger and contrast and tonal quality are somewhat (but visibly) reduced.
    I don't agree with that, tonality is exactly the same, scan a crop at 2400 and at 6400, make images of the same size and compare, if you noticed a difference it had to be an edition effect or scanning settings. Why tonal tonality has to change with dpi ?

    PD: if scanning 16 bits per channel then you do what you want with tonality in the curve edition, of course a problem is is there if scanning or saving the file in 8bits: banding soon happens.




    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    a super-sharp Fujinon 210mm NWS lens, which resolves as good as my CM-W lenses and better than the Sironar N lenses, and noticeably better than any of my Dagor and Protar VII optics that I also tested at the same time.
    In LF lenses there is a sample to sample variation, a Sironar N may be better or worse than a CM-W. Fujis don't usually include shims for the front cell, many Sironars do, if the original shims are lost then the right shimming has to be found.

    NWS or CM-W lenses are not better or worse than Sironar N.

    An old Dagor/Protar should resolve less in a good shot, of course, another thing is when this makes a difference or not.



    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    The scanning at 2400 dpi was good enough to see sharply rendered film grain on this very fine grain film, which suggests little real improvement beyond that 2400 dpi point. Beyond that point, one is creating artifacts, not real data.
    YMMV, but to depict well the film grain structure you need higher efective dpi than the EPSON is able, fortunately grain structure is mostly irrelevant in LF, most of the times. In fact it's really difficult to depict well grain structure in the hybrid processing, nothing like a "through the negative" wet print for a pleasing grain structure (when enlargement vs film nature and processing shows the grain).
    Last edited by Pere Casals; 20-Nov-2019 at 02:37. Reason: PD

  2. #22

    Re: Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

    FWIW, my comments starting this thread resulted from making nearly 150 5x7 test negatives. I tested 34 different LF lenses and chose the sharpest negative of all. In many instances, I retested some of those lenses to be sure that I was getting their best possible on-film performance and discarded any sub-par negatives.

    I'll detail those tests and calibrations not to be argumentative, but rather in the thought that doing individualized systematic testing, given a practical starting point from which to deviate and further test one's own systems, may be useful to some readers on this forum.

    I then made about 100 test scans of that sharpest negative at all resolutions and focus points from 1600 to 6400 dpi. Included in my test targets were three large 21 step wedges plus specific micro-contrast/tonal gradient finely-detailed BW images along with the usual resolution test charts so that I could compare resolution, dynamic range, and tonal gradation in each negative.

    Development was in intermittent agitation XTOL 1:2 on Delta 100 - this provided higher acutance/sharpness negatives. I first tested and found the best negative time and agitation technique for optimum sharpness prior to scanning. Tmax 100 is no longer available in 5x7 over the counter, hence Delta 100 in diluted XTOL as recommended for Delta 100.

    As a practical matter, slight tonal quality improvement was discernible under magnification in the highlight areas of the 2400 dpi finely-detailed BW tests, at least to me after repeated inspection comparing 2400dpi and 3200dpi scans of the same super-sharp negatives.

    Very little if any discernible resolution improvement was noted when scanning the same test negative at 3200 dpi nor 4800 and 6400 dpi after comparable post-processing in Lightroom and secondarily DXO. If there was any additional useful resolution, it was too slight for me to reliably detect under a high-quality 10X magnifier or 1:1 on the calibrated monitor.

    Hence, my conclusion that a 340MB file scanned at 2400 dpi was probably the most practical overall approach balancing all of the various factors. Scanning beyond the effective physical limit of a device and its focus capabilities primarily introduces artifacts. The 2400 dpi scan still gives a 300 dpi native resolution print with crisp detail at a 40"x56" size for 5x7 full-frame printing of 5x7 negatives and 32"x40" for a scanned 4x5 negative. That's basically as large as even a 44" wide digital printer can print. I'm not sure that there is any practical benefit beyond that point for virtually any subject. Diffraction limits at f/32 and smaller, and limited depth of field/focus issues, are likely to be more significant determinants of discernible on-print resolution at very large print sizes.

    While an undergraduate and then graduate student at MIT way back when, I studied some with Minor White, who headed that program until his death. He authored the "New Zone System Manual" with Zakia and emphasized that practical tests and individual calibration, not theory or what others said, were always the ultimate determinant of best photographic practice for any one person and their systems. Theory does help us understand and hopefully can guide us toward a good starting point for our own tests and toward constant improvement in our technique, but in the end individualized calibrations and practical tests are the foundation of Zone System and any similar approaches to careful photographic technique.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,356

    Re: Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

    First, let me reiterate that a 5x7" at 2400dpi should deliver very good results.

    Anyway, IMHO, a 3200dpi scan may deliver a discernible improvement if the negative is sharp.

    There are several see tests around:

    see here C.2 table: https://archivehistory.jeksite.org/c.../appendixc.htm

    https://www.largeformatphotography.i...highlight=pali




    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    . I tested 34 different LF lenses. In many instances, their best possible on-film performance and discarded any sub-par negatives.
    It would be interesting you post what lp/mm you found for the lenses you tested.

    It can be compared with other practical tests made

    http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf
    http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html


    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    Development was in intermittent agitation XTOL 1:2 on Delta 100
    Reportedly (good source) a Delta 100 4x5" negative has 461Mpix effective inside, a 8x10 one 627Mpix, a 5x7 should be beyond 500MPix effective with not much effort. See table https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...ra-comparison/

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	xxxx.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	63.7 KB 
ID:	197645

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    I then made about 100 test scans of that sharpest negative at all resolutions and focus points from 1600 to 6400 dpi.
    You may know that the V850 delivers a different resolving power for the horizontal axis than for the vertical one, many scanners have the same behaviour, including the Hasselblads.

    At 2400 dpi you take from a 5x7" sheet around 150 MPix effective (2000*7*2100*5) from the 500MPix effective available. If scanning 6400 then you would take 233MPix efective (2900*5*2300*7). Don't think that 233 vs 150 is a big improvement in the Image Quality...

    That 6400 scan (16 bits) would be 2.8GBytes, but most of the benefit would be reached by 3200dpi, so a 3200 dpi scan may be worth if the negative is sharp enough and we want to print really big.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    Tmax 100 is no longer available in 5x7
    There is an easy solution, just cut two 5x7 sheets from a 8x10 sheet. You may use an IR night vision device for convenience, but it is also easily done in the dark, one may practice first with lights open using a discarted 8x10 negative.




    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    As a practical matter, slight tonal quality improvement was discernible under magnification in the highlight areas of the 2400 dpi finely-detailed BW tests, at least to me after repeated inspection comparing 2400dpi and 3200dpi scans of the same super-sharp negatives.
    Sorry, but I've scanned quite a lot of T2115 Stouffer wedges and I've never noticed an effect from the dpi on the tonal scale, in fact I developed a C++ crafted tool to speed up film and paper calibrations, you may repeat your tests, if you found a tonal problem then you may have a flaw in the test, perhaps you did not take all the histogram, saved 8 bits, you had some banding... I can tell you that I checked that very well and I'm pretty sure of it. A lower dpi may have lower noise because pixel binning averages several pixels, but if you properly downsample the higher dpi image you have the same noise, no problem in the tonality, for sure.


    https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ation-software




    What makes an improvement is using Multi-Exposure in Silverfast, as it overcomes some of the limitations from the CMOS range, compared with PMTs. This is mostly important for recovering Provia/Velvia extreme shadows.



    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    Scanning beyond the effective physical limit (2400?) of a device and its focus capabilities primarily introduces artifacts
    No! what artifacts?

    The V850 will never introduce artifacts because resolving power is limited by the optics, and not by the sampling. Nyquist-Shannon explains very well when you introduce artifacts, in the V850 case sampling is x2 the optical performance (6400 vs 2900), with the optics working like an strong LPF that prevents any artifact. Other scanners (in what limitation comes from sampling density rather than from optics) may generate artifacts, a V850 not.

    If you have artifacts this should be from compression, etc.



    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    MIT way back when
    I've spent several thousand hours in the OpenCourseWare, mostly in MV and ML.

  4. #24

    Re: Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

    I may have not been adequately clear in my prior posting, and hence may have inadvertently caused some confusion, leading the discussion off the OP topic. My apologies. I will attempt to clarify.

    The very slight apparent highlight degradation that I discussed earlier was not in step wedges where, you are of course correct, there would not be any variation when scanning a solid tone step wedge. I should have been clear that I was discussing tests that included my own composite test target that included a printed high contrast BW landscape image with delicate highlight and deep shadow detail, three large standard step wedges to allow accurate densitometer readings, as well as standard high-contrast ISO 12233-style resolution test targets.

    Where there seemed to be very slight but discernible contrast loss was in the extreme highlight shoulder areas of that BW enlargement portion of my composite test target. 2400 dpi seemed slightly better at retaining extreme highlight detail there than the 3200 dpi images and 3200 dpi did not provide resolution that was discernibly better under a 10X Wista ground glass loupe.

    There may well be very slightly better contrast and highlight tonality at one ultimate scan resolution and arguably slightly better resolution at a different scan rate. This is not so strange when one considers that contrast tends to drop at higher frequencies/resolutions ( MTF curves, etc.). But, really, in these discussions, LF has such a reserve of image quality that these minimal differences, when they occur, are of no practical significance in real-world photography. From a 2400 dpi scan of a 5x7 negative, we’re at a native 300 dpi in a 40"x56" print - that’s literally laser printer quality sharpness and crispness.

    While I generally do not put much credibility in Internet postings, I did find two on-point V850 reviews by respected publications that seem pertinent to others possibly reading this thread later.

    The UK’s respected journal Amateur Photographer’s review of the Epson V850 did a series of tests starting at 3200 dpi through 12800 dpi and reported that each additional increase in apparent dpi slightly but discernibly reduced contrast and crispness.

    ScanDig’s extensive V850 review, which was a very favorable review by the way, noted that their tests indicated that the V850's actual resolution limit was in the approximately 2300 dpi to 2600 dpi range.

    There followed discussion indicating that the ultimate resolution of Epson’s scanners is affected by the scanning software used. Silverfast SE 8 Plus seemed to do about 13% better in their tests than the Epson Scan and VueScan that I used. I may need to get a copy of SE 8.5 Plus.

    Also, it’s worth noting that the film in my tests was scanned using the 5x7 film holder whose construction I detailed in starting this thread. Using the V850's film holder mode automatically engages the V850's high resolution fixed focus lens and thus physically scanned the test films in the center channel at the 6400dpi previously suggested.

    Hence, any lower dpi final output in fact would have been initially sampled at the higher sampling rate you suggest in at least one dimension and then downsized to whatever resolution was set as the output dpi. The other dimension would have the scanner’s step rate as the limiting factor, again as you noted.

    It may well be that the algorithms of different scanning software affect sharpness and contrast in at different rates in the final output. ScanSoft, VueScan, and Epson Scan all work differently and that may well account for the variation.

    With effective resolutions that vary along different axes and that differ from the set output dpi, interpolation is occurring in at least some of those various output dpi modes along with other “artifacts” as I would term them, such as aliasing. It may be that one scanning program does a better job at interpolation than others and that may account for any differences noticed.

    One other point of interest: an uncompressed 16-bit greyscale TIFF made at 2400 dpi from a full-frame 5x7 negative results in a consistent on-disk file size of 335MB to340 MB with both Epson Scan and VueScan. That would seem to be the actual final TIFF file size. Was the smaller size file quoted earlier in this thread the multiplication sum of the total dots on each side rather than the actual file size stored on-disk? Was it compressed or a JPEG, low bit-range, etc.?

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,356

    Re: Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    I may have not been adequately clear in my prior posting, and hence may have inadvertently caused some confusion, leading the discussion off the OP topic. My apologies. I will attempt to clarify.
    Don't worry, we are here to debate, and in my case to learn, every day I learn something in this forum.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    Was the smaller size file quoted earlier in this thread the multiplication sum of the total dots on each side rather than the actual file size stored on-disk? Was it compressed or a JPEG, low bit-range, etc.?
    TIFF format can compress or not, depending on settings, compression is without loss, so the original image is exactly restored, like with ZIP files. JPG compression has an information loss, the restored image has not the same exact values: Wavelets method elimiates information that is less relevant for our eye.

    A non compressed TIFF has the size of the pixel count multiplied by "bytes per pixel", plus a header of variable size that may include many things, including ICC profiles.

    See in Ps Image Size dialog how many pixels you have.




    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    Also, it’s worth noting that the film in my tests was scanned using the 5x7 film holder whose construction I detailed in starting this thread. Using the V850's film holder mode automatically engages the V850's high resolution fixed focus lens and thus physically scanned the test films in the center channel at the 6400dpi previously suggested.


    Of course !!!! You won't find a 3200 vs 2400dpi enhacement with the low res lens !!!!!!!

    We had a bad communication...

    When you try your new 5x7" holder you will find an slight improvement at 3200, if the shot is sharp, as you will find with 4x5".



    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    ScanDig’s extensive V850 review, which was a very favorable review by the way, noted that their tests indicated that the V850's actual resolution limit was in the approximately 2300 dpi to 2600 dpi range.
    "2300 dpi to 2600" is a right value for a "general rating" for the highres lens, but an deep evaluation should consider Hor vs Vert vs Slanted resolution, height precision, MTF... We know for sure that that the V700-V850 products resolve 2900 Hor and 2300 Vert, or at least 2800-2200, the average is 2500 or 2600, and the minimum is 2300 for a vertical patern.

    For an effective calculation I use X*Y*2900*2300, which is paroximately the same than X*Y*2600*2600


    ScanDig should say 2900H, 2300V and 2600 average. Many tests around find similar results, and it nails what I personally found with the glass slide target:

    https://archivehistory.jeksite.org/c.../appendixc.htm
    https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1477975


    Here there is a height vs perrformace study for both axis:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4989733373_1d5cc658b1_b.jpg 
Views:	2 
Size:	102.3 KB 
ID:	197711



    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    2400 dpi seemed slightly better at retaining extreme highlight detail there than the 3200 dpi images and 3200 dpi did not provide resolution that was discernibly better under a 10X Wista ground glass loupe.
    Probably you may have this effect in a situation and the counter in another situation, let me point what IMHO it that can happen.

    Linear sensors have "analog binning" capability, the V850 sensor is 40K RGB pixels (120,000 total) in 6 rgb rows, two for each color. A monster, it takes 5.9" at 2900 effective !

    "analog binning" capability is featured to speed up scanning at lower dpi, in principle you have to make one analog digital conversion for each photosite, and later you have to average several values to downsample to the user requested dpi. "analog binning" allows to average "in sensor" the electrical voltages or several contiguous pixels so for alower dpi count you require only a fraction og the A/D conversions.

    It is undisclosed (until I know) if the V850 used that, but we can bet for it.

    Because of digitizing effects, it is not impossible that find a better texture ina a 2400 native dpi for a particular texture, but also it can happen the counter, it depends on patern vs pixels alignment. A similar effect happens when you scan a USAF 1951 target several times and each pass have an slightly different result.

    Extreme highlights in BW are no SNR challenge for the V850, you have to go to very underexposed Provia/Velvia to have problems.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    The UK’s respected journal Amateur Photographer’s review of the Epson V850 did a series of tests starting at 3200 dpi through 12800 dpi and reported that each additional increase in apparent dpi slightly but discernibly reduced contrast and crispness
    Many people ignore that Image Size dialog in Ps have a Combo control in the bottom, to select resizing algorithm, "Bicubic, ideal for reductions" ha to be selected for crispness.

    Probably that respected journal Amateur P is not aware that each acquisition kind requires a particular post processing, I'm dayly working in MV, many times raw coding convolutions in C++, and my experience is the counter. The better the IQ you have the better you may get a good downsampled image.



    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    Silverfast SE 8 Plus seemed to do about 13% better in their tests than the Epson Scan and VueScan that I used. I may need to get a copy of SE 8.5 Plus.
    You can upgrade your SF license for a fraction of the cost.

    I only use SF SE Plus when I need Multi-Exposure, I get the most raw possible image, and I sharpen manually in Ps or other. Probably SF has better digital sharpenings than ES, but I don't want those. Digital sharpening is important, and those included in scanner software are convenient but not optimal, and they degradate information for a following advanced processing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    From a 2400 dpi scan of a 5x7 negative, we’re at a native 300 dpi in a 40"x56" print - that’s literally laser printer quality sharpness and crispness.
    Of course ! The V850 is a great LF scanner, and 5x7" it's format it makes better, because you still can use the HR lens that takes 5.9", and it exploits most of the sensor width for singkle shot. For 35mm it scans 4 frames in the scan width plus the plastic separators.

  6. #26

    Re: Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

    This thread has been an interesting discussion spanning real world results and theory. Rereading it, I have a few summary thoughts about using the V850 to scan LF film:

    1. Even with an advertised native 6400 dpi resolution, the V850's effective, or at least optimum, resolution setting is lower, likely at 2400 to 3200 dpi range with a 16-bit grey scale TIFF file. A 16-bit TIFF would have an effective 2400dpi resolution of 201.6 +/- MP and an on-disk file size of about 345 MB including TIFF file overhead.

    2. A 16-bit grey scale TIFF should be able to encompass the complete tonal range of a negative with careful exposure and development.

    3. Optimum results are a combination of resolution, proper tonality, and acutance/microcontrast.

    4. Aside from the scanner’s own mechanical stepping limitations, there are multiple analog and analog to digital processes that occur between initially taking the photo and digitally printing the final result. At least some of these steps can degrade the potential image quality inherent in a particular negative but the impact can be minimized at each step by using very sharp optics and very fine grain film like Delta 100 to produce a very high resolution negative, developing carefully in a high acutance developer, and scanning at optimum settings for that image.

    5. Even a 2400 dpi effective resolution is more than adequate for 300 dpi native resolution in print sizes of 32" x 40" for 4x5 negatives and 40"x56" for 5x7 negatives. This is laser-printer sharp images with 4x5 and 5x7 negatives, assuming top-tier film, lenses, and technique.

    6. At this quality level, careful technique when taking photos, including focusing accuracy, physical diffraction limits at very small apertures, and limited depth of field with 3D subjects is probably more determinant of effective resolution and image quality on the final negative and scanned file than marginal differences in scanning resolution and micro-contrast.

    7. Scanning software makes a difference. Although Epson Scan and VueScan are capable of high quality results, Silverfast seems to seems capable of slightly higher ultimate effective resolution, although I cannot comment about the microcontrast and acutance.

    8. An acceptable sharp scan of a 5x7 negative can be made using Epson Scan by laying the negative emulsion side down on the scanning glass with ANR glass properly positioned on top of the negative using the film guide mode.

    9. Somewhat sharper scans are possible using the “film holder mode” and the 5x7 film holder whose construction started this thread.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,356

    Re: Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    This thread has been an interesting discussion spanning real world results and theory. Rereading it, I have a few summary thoughts about using the V850 to scan LF film:

    1. Even with an advertised native 6400 dpi resolution, the V850's effective, or at least optimum, resolution setting is lower, likely at 2400 to 3200 dpi range with a 16-bit grey scale TIFF file.
    The Epson does not reach 3200, it makes 2300 in the vert axis and 2900 in the Horizontal, 2600 effective averaged. This is if scanning at high dpi, 4800 or the like.


    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Kashi View Post
    7. Scanning software makes a difference. Although Epson Scan and VueScan are capable of high quality results, Silverfast seems to seems capable of slightly higher ultimate effective resolution, although I cannot comment about the microcontrast and acutance.
    Regarding resolution, Epson Scan, Vue and SF both do the same, Silverfast SE Plus has multi-exposure for deep velvia shadows. Epson Scan and the "non Plus" SF version lack multi-exposure

  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fairview, OR
    Posts
    547

    Re: Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

    I'm getting lines in my 5x7 and 8x10 scans that look like they are from the LED's that are used in the scanner. Is this due to laying the film directly onto the scanner glass, and would a film holder that holds the neg away from the glass help? I saw that there was some discussion about film holders earlier, but none mentioned this issue.

    Thanks!

  9. #29
    Steven Ruttenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    2,290

    Re: Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

    My take. I did focus and resolution tests and at 6000dpi the scans were much sharper than at 2400dpi which was soft. There was a bit more at 6400. What I do is s a at 6400 and do a 2x2 bin to 3200 using viewscan. I don’t worry about charts, graphs, apparent optical quality vs actual optical quality, etc. I scan at whatever gives me the best file.

    If I worried constantly about charts, graphs, sample images, then nothing gets done. Find out what gives you the file you want and don’t look back.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,356

    Re: Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary L. Quay View Post
    I'm getting lines in my 5x7 and 8x10 scans that look like they are from the LED's that are used in the scanner. Is this due to laying the film directly onto the scanner glass, and would a film holder that holds the neg away from the glass help? I saw that there was some discussion about film holders earlier, but none mentioned this issue.

    Thanks!
    Please post the flawed image and I'll may be able tell you.

    Download last software/driver versions, I had several issues (lines) with software that came with the unit. Some incompatible compression algorithms... etc

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 98
    Last Post: 22-Sep-2019, 12:46
  2. RAW scanning in Silverfast, with with Epson V850
    By rpagliari in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 28-May-2019, 18:54
  3. scanning speed of V700 vs V850 using epson scan
    By Chester McCheeserton in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 1-Apr-2018, 14:50
  4. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 19-Mar-2015, 19:44
  5. Epson v750 scanning bw negatives
    By Paul Redstone in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 30-May-2007, 20:37

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •