I do both. Does anyone know if Microtek has a driver for Scanmaker i900 which works on Windows 11?
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Does the V850 provide a better result scanning 8x10s with the required low-resolution lens or a 4x5 with the high-resolution lens?
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Not really, I have a V700 and a modern V800 (same as V850) and made test with both. IQ and sharpness is the same, because the basic optical and CCD technic is the same. Epson driver and scan software is a bit different, but not really better and faster.
I tested resolution from groundglass and imageholder with 2400 dpi and 4800 dpi with the US-Airforce-Target: the differences are marginal:
Groundglass resolution from 2400dpi scan was 2000 dpi net, from 4800dpi scan was 2200 dpi. Imageholder resolution from 2400dpi was ca. 2200dpi net, from 4800 dpi scan was 2400dpi net. My scans are not sharpend or contrasted.
Many other tests outside confirm my results (within small differences). The construction limit definitly is about 2400dpi.
But 2400 dpi is nearly 50 line-pairs per mm translated to filmphotography. I doubt that many real world LF-filmshots have this resolution!
So answering your question: I mostly do my 8x10 colorfilm scans on groundglass and only sparely on WMFilmholder with later stichting. The only real advantage using the filmholder way is I have the ICC dust removal tools, which only works with color slides and negs, not with BW film.
regards
Rainer
I also have the G4050 on the cheap and recently bought a Canon 9950f (on the cheap) and I am not impressed. I know for sure the G4050 is bad and was hoping that 9950f is better but is not. Did you ever have the chance to compare the G4050 with an Epson scanner (for 5x7/8x10 format) ?
I gave up doing 35mm due to bad scanner but now I am happy again with Canon 5Dmk2 and a cheap diaduplicator.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Sorry for my confusion, but I`m always talking about the same absolute film-resolution not comparing different film size. My comparison of 8x10 film from groundglass-scanning to (wetmounting-)filmholder-scanning so is the same for 4x5 film. Or to compare the filmsizes: 8x10 scanning from groundglass is nearly the 4x absolute resolution as 4x5 scanning from filmholder (2200dpi to 2400 dpi).
regards
Rainer
Quick update to those following this. I purchased a piece of museum glass (2.50mm) and used a .060 shim (cardboard for the test) on both sides of the glass and got great full frame 8x10 negative scans. I used the Betterlight glass I use for 4x5 and measured from a granite base to the surface of the glass as I knew that it was perfectly in focus for my scanner. I then produced shims to move the museum glass to exactly the same plane above the lens. No issues at all and I can wet or dry mount with great clarity. This was much less expensive than any of the other methods (special printed or cut frames, etc) I tried and the entire assembly is less than $50.00.
Bookmarks