comparison between Epson V700 and Howtek D4000

[Tyler Boley]

I'm not sure what's being discussed here any more or how much of this is helpful to the topic beyond turf protection. At one point there was mention of "off" color problems with scanning color negs. This is often difficult, and generally a software and/or workflow problem. Other than completely bizarre and unusual color negs, somehow exposed beyond all reason and or cooked to death in processing, the density ranges are well withing the capabilities of all but the lowest end scanners utilizing any of the common technologies. From the mention of "off" color, there was the suggestion that "more" color was needed. What is "more color" in terms of scanning? As mentioned, color negs are not challenging to capture in terms of the film density range (all of the color?), from then on it's a matter of how that data is defined... color management and editing. Per channel capture range ability may be relevant to transparency scanning due to potential density range limitations, and "more color" could be related to per channel level count I suppose, but I doubt that's what going on here.
When discussing comparisons of various hardware and software we are all using, and technical abilities, some kind of more precise language would be helpful. Some of us are supposed to know what we a talking about.
Tyler

[8x10 user]

I'm sorry but this is simply not true. I have no idea how the numbers on the scanner forum were calculated but I have done my own tests with Kodachrome and the supreme pulled more shadow detail... To say that an Eversmart Supreme has a d-max of 3.0 is fraudulent. That is almost 1/10th of the sensitivity required to reach the black point of Kodachrome film. Who knows why Phil gave that value and how it was determined but its just not correct. If you fluid mount, use the newer software, have a fresh bulb in it, have the calibration done correctly, are using a scanner that is in good shape, and have the settings done correctly, then the D-max is much closer to 4.0, if not higher.

You have been saying these things about other scanners for years. You come up with "logical" reasons why you say your scanner is the best but most of the "logic" is full of holes and is clearly marketing hype to me. I'm not saying your scanner sucks but you make a lot of false statements to try to convince people who don't know better, that it is the best thing since sliced bread. It's not the best scanner in world, by every criteria, for every purpose, without any equal. You are trying to over sell your service by putting down other equipment in untrue ways. In my opinion, it is bad business.

Look at the scanner comparison test on this forum, the best scanners for shadow noise performance are the Supreme, the Crosfield, and the ICG. I am let down by the general sharpness on those Supreme scans but it is not my scanner and I did not make the scans... I suspect there was an error in focusing caused by not fluid mounting or it focused on a particle on top of the mylar.

So anyway I am calling you out. Put your money where your mouth is.... How much do you want to wager that the supreme is limited to a D-max of 3.0? We can test this... Buy a couple of these. I'm sending my scanner out for service soon but when it comes back I will do some fluid mounted test scans and show it is indeed higher then 3.0 and much closer to 4.0.

http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlineca...productID=2743

P.S. I have a lot of respect for the kind people at Aztek and I am sorry that I constantly have to debunk myths that are spread about their equipment in comparison to other scanners.

The Scannerforum test was actual more accurate. Certain manufacturers threatened to sue and made them take the numbers off the site...

I would put the Premier's DMax capabilities at the top of the list. They use PMT's and have tuned their electronics to a higher level of performance than any other scanner company todate. This is partially because their development efforts were later, after some of the companies were already hurting. If you look at the comparisons you will see that there is a category for "Quality CCD's" which have DMax values much lower than any of the drums. A CCD is not going to match a PMT unless it is poorly tuned.... there are physics involved, which can't be denied...

[Peter De Smidt]

Theoretical superiority and superiority in practice don't necessarily go together, especially if the theory isn't very good.

For example, consider the sensor size argument. At one time, it was argued that making ccd and cmos sensors with smaller photo sites, i.e. ones with higher resolution but the same light sensing area, would lead to higher noise and less dynamic range. It's physics, don't ya know! Well, current cameras put the lie to that, as they have smaller sensors but less noise and greater dynamic range. For instance, compare the results from a Nikon D200 and D7000. The D7000 has higher resolution, lower noise and greater dynamic range even though it has smaller photo sites.

[Lenny Eiger]

You have been saying these things about other scanners for years. You come up with "logical" reasons why you say your scanner is the best but most of the "logic" is full of holes and is clearly marketing hype to me. I'm not saying your scanner sucks but you make a lot of false statements to try to convince people who don't know better, that it is the best thing since sliced bread. It's not the best scanner in world, by every criteria, for every purpose, without any equal. You are trying to over sell your service by putting down other equipment in untrue ways. In my opinion, it is bad business.

I have no interest in putting down anyone's else's scanners. Many of my comments are directed at the difference between consumer level scanners and professional level ones. I still believe there is a big difference between CCD technology and PMT, and its physics....

look at the scanner comparison test on this forum

I find these quite faulty. The post-processing makes many of the examples invalid. I find it very hard to read anything from the comparisons.

So anyway I am calling you out. Put your money where your mouth is.... How much do you want to wager that the supreme is limited to a D-max of 3.0? We can test this... Buy a couple of these. I'm sending my scanner out for service soon but when it comes back I will do some fluid mounted test scans and show it is indeed higher then 3.0 and much closer to 4.0.

Sorry, not interested. I don't want to go and spend over $100 to satisfy your curiosity. I get much of my information from the folks at Aztek, who have tested all this stuff and their word is good enough for me... I already have a scanner, and there is no reason for them to lie to me so I'll buy another... if you want to go and look up the difference in response between a CCD and PMT on some web site, then by all means do so. Leave me out of it...

I do think the Premier is the top, maybe an ICG can get there as well. But more often that not its meaningless. The main thing is the operator, of course. I see a lot of folks getting great scans from all kinds of equipment. I don't know why this conversation is even worth this amount of typing.....

Lenny

[zhengjdc]

Did another scanning comparison with my Sony A7R IVA with Sigma 105mm MACRO lens. See updates.

IMHO, the MACRO lens beats both drum scanner and V700 and I utilized a special dry mount technique allowing 100% evenness thus can be taken at sharpest aperture at F5.6.

[rawitz]

This is only valid for 135 film. If you scan 120 film or sheet film, the winner changes rapidly to the flatbed scanner.