DSLR Scanning - Signal / Noise

[interneg]

Pere, you've shown once again that you cannot see what is staring you in the eyes from your own examples. You have repeatedly failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to disprove all the high quality testing that has shown the MTF performance of Epson scanners is unacceptably low compared to high end scanners or modern CMOS sensors used as scanners. If a fragment of what you said was true you would be able to immediately take the negative of that image, scan it following your claimed settings and clearly demonstrate that you can achieve acceptably sharp and clear rendering of HP5+'s granularity. If you cannot or will not, then you are basing your claims on nonsense. There is no debate here, either you own up to the bald facts of the Epson's poor performance, or you show everyone that the Epson can do what you claim - with your own work. Right now.

[Pere Casals]

interneg...

are you accepting the challenge or not... tell me...

with the bw neative you want

[interneg]

The only question Pere, is whether you are going to rescan that negative tomorrow using the system you espouse and show that the granularity in the sky/ clouds can be adequately imaged compared to known examples of HP5+.

Your unwillingness to do so makes it more and more clear to everyone that you are unable to back up your claims with any repeatable evidence whatsoever.

If you simply stopped making hyperinflated claims about the Epson, a lot of the trouble you get yourself into would go away.

[Pere Casals]

The only question Pere, is whether you are going to rescan that negative tomorrow using the system you espouse and show that the granularity in the sky/ clouds can be adequately imaged compared to known examples of HP5+.

Your unwillingness to do so makes it more and more clear to everyone that you are unable to back up your claims with any repeatable evidence whatsoever.

If you simply stopped making hyperinflated claims about the Epson, a lot of the trouble you get yourself into would go away.

Lachlan, the only question is that you cannot challenge the "Scanner Comparison 2019", because it says the truth.

You also negate this side by side: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/160...s-500-scanner/


The only question is that I challenge you to scan the same 4x5" negative in the X1 and in the V850, and compare.

While for MF the X1 is slightly better than the V700, for 4x5" the V700 is better bacause the X1 "zooms out" while the V700 keeps exactly the same performance, I can demonstrate it to you.


You won't accept that challenge because to know it will discredit your position. Send me a negative, man, I'll give you an address by PM.

[interneg]

Pere, you must show everyone that you can adequately image the granularity of HP5+ from your negative on your scanner at the resolutions you claim. No more excuses or timewasting.

If you can't, there's no shame in admitting to it. All it will show is that you have failed to disprove the results of the MTF tests of the Epson scan array.

[Pere Casals]

Pere, you must show everyone

Not at all: "everyone" has seen yet the "Scanner Comparison 2019"

Single one that is still negating that evidence is you, and as you are an artist negating facts and evidences ( take with humor) then my proposition is quite fair: let's scan both me and you the same 4x5" negative, the one you prefer, let's play with a reference media so we'll know the reality.

Why do you refuse taking that X1 vs V850 challenge in 4x5" ? Are you scared ?

Man, let's do it !! we'll get some fun...

[interneg]

Why is it so difficult for you to re-scan your negative?

Either you can adequately image the granularity on it, or you can't.

What is it that you are so desperate to hide?

[Pere Casals]

Why is it so difficult for you to re-scan your negative? Either you can adequately image the granularity on it, or you can't.

What granularity? It is very fine flat grain D100 developed with a very fine grain solvent Xtol developer... First: this is a wrong MF negative to show grain structure depiction. Second: let's use a LF negative as it gives the advantage to the Epson over the X1.

here https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1479178

...for sure you would say that the V700 crop was very bad if it was not exactly matching the Scanmate 11000 drum result.


As you largely lack a technical criterion, then we need an absolute reference negative to compare, proceed with fair play, opinions on a scan of a negative you have not seen are totally useless.

What is it that you are so desperate to hide?

Nothing to hide, just wanting a fair play.

The V700 behaves exactly like the "Scanner Comparison 2019" demonstrates, which is excellent. Then let's see what a X1 does in 4x5" compared.

Now, tell me... Why don't you want to scan the same 4x5" sheet in your X1 and in my V850 ?

it is to be a fair side by side based in a trusted reference... Select the negative you want.


It is LOL that you refuse to play the challenge in fair conditions... are you scared, Lachlan ?

[interneg]

Pere, you've been shown multiple times across multiple forums by multiple people that your claims are wrong and that the Epson cannot adequately image granularity in any way close to what various high end scan systems readily can. Furthermore, your own results disprove your own claims. You have had several days to come up with new evidence from your scanner that shows you can adequately image the granularity of HP5+ beyond what high end CCD/ DSLR/ drum scanning systems can comfortably deliver at around 1000-1200ppi and have failed to do so. Do you actually own an Epson? Or is it yet another case of you having been allowed to watch while someone else scanned your negatives?

[Pere Casals]

Do you actually own an Epson? Or is it yet another case of you having been allowed to watch while someone else scanned your negatives?

I really apreciate your I appreciate your nonchalance

Pere, you've been shown multiple times across multiple forums by multiple people that your claims are wrong and that the Epson cannot adequately image granularity in any way close to what various high end scan systems readily can. Furthermore, your own results disprove your own claims. You have had several days to come up with new evidence from your scanner that shows you can adequately image the granularity of HP5+ beyond what high end CCD/ DSLR/ drum scanning systems can comfortably deliver at around 1000-1200ppi and have failed to do so. Do you actually own an Epson? Or is it yet another case of you having been allowed to watch while someone else scanned your negatives?

Lachlan, let me insist, let's do a fair side by side, you want a dirty discussion and I want a fair comparison. If you have doubts about the "Scanner Comparison 2019" then we can do a real test with the negative you select.

Look, Pali is not a rookie with the scanners, he is way more proficient than me and than you, I'd say that by a far extend, but if you don't agree with his conclusions then let's do that test.

If we are to play with images then we need a 4x5" reference negative and comparing results, this is what it would be useful. You have a PM with my address to send me a 4x5 negative you have scanned with the X1, and we'll compare. Let's go !!!!