Even the "low-res" lens should hit 2400 PPI, so printing at 300 DPI, you get 8x enlargement. 600 DPI, 4x enlargement.
Even the "low-res" lens should hit 2400 PPI, so printing at 300 DPI, you get 8x enlargement. 600 DPI, 4x enlargement.
I have scanned on a V700 at a max of 2400 DPI, and have gotten a Provia image as large as 220MB. I haven't tried enlargement but I have a feeling that shouldn't be an issue.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Curious if anyone has actually scanned a smaller format like a 4x5 on the platen glass vs. using the 4x5 film holder and compared the difference?
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Please define "not as good"-- it's a terribly vague term. There's a lot of FUD and misunderstanding about the Epson scanners, and vague terms don't help.
Some technical bits:
There are two lenses. According to Epson, they are capable of 4800 and 6400 PPI, respectively.
https://epson.com/For-Work/Scanners/...specifications
The 4800 PPI lens is the one that most people test with the USAF 1951 target, because as far as I know, the target won't mount on a negative holder-- it's going to sit on the glass. This is the same lens that you'll use for 8x10.
Most tests show that you can get 2600 PPI reliably out of that combination. A small amount of sharpening in post should compensate (mostly) for the usual softness associated with consumer flatbed scanners-- so my statement that you can easily get 2400 PPI out of an 8x10 is based on some measure of fact.
The high resolution lens, which is rated at 6400 PPI, because of it's fixed-focus, only works with negatives suspended approximately 3mm above the glass-- there is apparently some variation in the scanners as they ship from the factory, so you can compensate a bit with the negative holders, particularly with the v800 series holders, as they have 5 adjustable positions for each corner of the negative.
Epson also states the maximum area for a negative in a film holder is 5.9" x 9.74", implying the high resolution lens has slightly less coverage than the low resolution lens (8x10" for transparencies, 8.5x11.7" for reflective).
To my knowledge, no one has done reproducible tests to determine the resolution capability of the second lens.
To add to grat’s knowledgeable response, comparing is tricky because with the holder the adjustment of the height can make quite a difference, and also the film won’t be as flat as it can be on the glass when pressed down by an ANR glass.
I’ve said this before but based on my own investigations (which are not that scientific as to be publishable in a journal, lol, but FWIW), I don’t see more than maybe a ~10% improvement in resolution (before applying any sharpening) when using the high res lens, and that’s after spending a lot of time adjusting the height and with film that is very flat (depends on the type of film). I’ve also noted that over time the height adjustment changes so I need to readjust (might be temperature or just simply that handling the holder over time creates shifts in the adjustments, I can’t tell). But when using the glass all that goes away, and by pressing the film with another glass you ensure it’s flatness.
To me it’s a no brainer for scanning 4x5. And did I mention I can scan 2 in one go? The flow simplification is quite remarkable, and to me whether my 4x5 achieves 130 Mpixels or 145 Mpixels of resolution is not that important. If it were, for that few prints that I really want to squeeze the last bit out of, I would send them to get drum scanned.
Now that I have an entire winter to experiment, I am going to try again 2 pieces of 8X10 AN Glass sandwiching 8X10 / 5X7 film and fooling my V700 into both modes.
Today I scanned MF Roll Film for the first time in 7 years, no glass and the film was bowed...
Amazing results!
Tin Can
Bookmarks