Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68

Thread: Comparison of Howtek 8000 Resolve to Epson V850

  1. #51
    Steven Ruttenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    2,779

    Re: Comparison of Howtek 8000 Resolve to Epson V850

    Quote Originally Posted by Pali K View Post
    Steven, if I can be of any help with drum scanning and my experience, please feel free to message me and I’ll share my email with you.

    I disagree with so much in this thread but I have learned my lesson to keep my thoughts and opinions to myself on the topic.

    Pali
    I will message you when the scanner arrives. Will be a bit though, just moved. Should get by beginning of summer or sooner. Feel free to message me any advice, etc you may want to share. Always up for learning things the right way. Thank you for the help in advance.

  2. #52
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    New Jersey was NYC
    Posts
    2,580

    Re: Comparison of Howtek 8000 Resolve to Epson V850

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Ruttenberg View Post
    Look at the 100% crops. Aside from magenta cast of Epson scanner, the details are softer than the Howtek. To me it is quite obvious. And for scan resolution it is faster to do a 3200dpi scan than a 6400 and bin to 3200. I find the base images of the Howtek to be much better to start. In the end though as long as you set focus height properly on the V850 and do linear scans it will give great results.
    Steven: What are linear scans?

  3. #53

    Re: Comparison of Howtek 8000 Resolve to Epson V850

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Watson View Post
    Half of what you get from a drum scanner is fluid scanning. I wouldn't give you $0.05 for a dry scanned image from a drum scanner.

    Sadly, like you I wasted a bunch of time when I first got my scanner (ColorGetter 3 Pro) doing exactly what you're doing. And it was a complete waste of my time. No one in their right mind ever drum scans without fluid mounting now that the days of prepress are over. Since the only scans you'll actually use (that is, make prints from) are going to be fluid scans, you'll probably be best served by learning how to make good fluid mounts. And the only way to do that, is practice, practice, practice.

    Make your fluid mounts, then run your resolution tests. It's a more apple-to-apples comparison, and it lets you kill two birds with one stone (not that I condone killing birds).
    I have read that fluid mounting effects the process of drum scanning more than say, DSLR scanning. Something about the way the light interacts with the sensor. I do not own a drum scanner, but I can say that in my tests the improvements that come from fluid mounting for camera scanning are marginal at best. I really saw very little improvement. However on an older dedicated CCD line scanning medium format rig, the fluid mounting made a big difference.

    So it really is a YMMV thing I have to say.

  4. #54
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

    Re: Comparison of Howtek 8000 Resolve to Epson V850

    Quote Originally Posted by sperdynamite View Post
    So it really is a YMMV thing I have to say.
    Agreed!
    “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

  5. #55
    Steven Ruttenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    2,779

    Re: Comparison of Howtek 8000 Resolve to Epson V850

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Klein View Post
    Steven: What are linear scans?
    Linear raw scan. No gamma curve applied, no conversion of neg to pos. It is basically the raw data allowing you to fo whatever you want with your scan since no formula baked into it.

  6. #56
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    New Jersey was NYC
    Posts
    2,580

    Re: Comparison of Howtek 8000 Resolve to Epson V850

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Ruttenberg View Post
    Linear raw scan. No gamma curve applied, no conversion of neg to pos. It is basically the raw data allowing you to fo whatever you want with your scan since no formula baked into it.
    So with the V850, you check No Color Correction?

  7. #57
    Steven Ruttenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    2,779

    Re: Comparison of Howtek 8000 Resolve to Epson V850

    I use Vuescan. It basically will give you wysiwyg. What you see is what you get. I prefer Vuescan ro anything epso has. If you want to try it out download a trial copy. Or if you want t use Epson software got to Colorperfect for how to do it uou have several steps to and need Colorperfect to do so.

    Another thing is your scan will appear dark as no gamma encoding applied. If converting manually you first need to apply a gamma of 2.2. I use Colorperfect and it does a much better job at conversion than manual or otherwise although I can get pretty close manually.

  8. #58
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

    Re: Comparison of Howtek 8000 Resolve to Epson V850

    The superiority of a linear scan for standard photo work is debatable. It certainly wasn't standard practice for high-end scanning during the heyday of film scanning. Steven can correct me, but I believe it's use comes from astro photography. With regular photo scanning, it seems most useful for scanning color negatives. I don't use it for BW scanning or slide scanning.
    “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

  9. #59
    Steven Ruttenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    2,779

    Re: Comparison of Howtek 8000 Resolve to Epson V850

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt View Post
    The superiority of a linear scan for standard photo work is debatable. It certainly wasn't standard practice for high-end scanning during the heyday of film scanning. Steven can correct me, but I believe it's use comes from astro photography. With regular photo scanning, it seems most useful for scanning color negatives. I don't use it for BW scanning or slide scanning.
    It does have its biggest uses in science, but it also has a good use for anything digital including film scanning. I have not really played with it for positive film scans, but for negatives, color and bw I use it.

    Whether scanning film or using a digital camera the data is a collection of electrons representing photons that fill up pixel wells. Once a well fills up it spills into the surrounding wells. When that happens, data is lost. If no gain is applied, sometimes called an offset, then applying one which we do when a plying a gamm a curve blindly will cause a loss of data. Some cameras apply an inherent offset to avoid having values equal zero, such as Nikon. This leads to no actual black values.

    The gamma curve of 2.2 applies an expansion and compression of values to enhance contrast,but in doing so, data can be lost, ie blown out or shoved to zero. Neither is good. On top of this the conversion process then applies a series of adjustments proprietary to a camera maker. For a scanner, the conversion routines attempt to mimic different films. Additionally, we also make adjustments to the scan data to refine it to get what we are after.

    When you save this "final" image you have baked in the formula, ie,you can't undo it,and lose your ability to get back to the raw data without rescanning.

    By scanning the image with nothing "cooked" in,you are free to convert and adjust as many times as you like having made only one scan. It also allows better control over pulling in highlights and darkness. If they are blown out nothing will help though. Same with black, if all zeros, there is no data and cannot be recovered.

    I like to have absolute control over the data so I prefer linear raw scans.

    If someone prefers to do it all at scan time that is perfectly acceptable.

    For astronomy, astrophotography, the same applies for scanning film, but has a unique application for digital capture. The reasons are the same as above,but the explanation and reasons why are much more complex that involves noise reduction and pulling out hidden data gems and maximizing the sensor data capture. All this can also be applied to scans.

    In digital capture of any scene you have three things you are dealing with, sensor read noise ( where captured sensor data is read by the analog to digital converter AD. This is similar to film grain which is random), dark current noise and sensor bias (pattern noise). We also take flat frames to counter sensor dust, vignetting and lense dust. You also have the same things in scans however, while you can take dark frames and possibly bias frames (I need to see if that can be done since bias frames are typically taken at .001sec or faster and I don't know if that can be done on the scanner)

    Typically at least 50 dark frames are taken at the same exposure time as the image, in this case the length of time of scan at chosen dpi. Next a series of 200 or more bias are taken, may or may not be possible on a scanner, easily done on digital camera. Then 200 or more flats.

    All this is done to remove noise and increase the signal to noise ratio by averaging and subtracting these calibration images from a series of actual images that have been averaged together before any debarying is done (this is done whether the sensor is color or monochrome) and any gamma applied, called stretching in the astro world.

    Could this be applied to film scans? Most easily if using a dslr or mirrorless camera, possibly with flatbed scanners not sure for drum,and of course it would be all about your end goal. For film astrophotography it would the way to go. Basically what all those calibration frames do is allow one to characterize the sensor and remove its influence on the final product.

    That was a cliffs note version.

  10. #60
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

    Re: Comparison of Howtek 8000 Resolve to Epson V850

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Ruttenberg View Post

    The gamma curve of 2.2 applies an expansion and compression of values to enhance contrast,but in doing so, data can be lost, ie blown out or shoved to zero.
    "can be lost" doesn't entail that important data is lost. Your statement seems to say that the big danger in applying a gamma to the scan data is that the endpoints shouldn't be clipped. I agree that endpoints shouldn't be clipped, and one can do that without using a linear gamma. Many of us have decades of practice doing so. What I don't want is people new to scanning thinking that they need to jump into having a linear gamma, or getting Vuescan, or.... I've use a lot of scanning applications, and Vuescan is my least favorite, btw. My advice is to get the basics of scanning down. Don't jump in and do a whole bunch of scans. Rather, do a scan and take it to it's completed end use, whether onscreen or a print. Evaluate and try to do better. Once the basics are nailed down, then by all means investigate other options. What I'm saying is do the work, and be careful about magic bullet chasing.
    “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

Similar Threads

  1. comparison between Epson V700 and Howtek D4000
    By zhengjdc in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 25-Feb-2024, 02:11
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13-Dec-2015, 09:31

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
  •