Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

[ryanmills]

I have been scanning 4x5 with a v700 for years now And I was happy with it. Since going up to 8x10 this year the jerry-rigging is annoying and I just don't feel like I'm getting the sharpness and detail I should. I have not found any 8x10 drum scanners that are in my price range. I know a really good 8x10 shooter than loves his Creo and im looking at an IQSmart2. I'm not worried about the older drivers and software. I edit on a windows machine and from the looks of it I could get it working with XP and firewire. However on paper other than the bed size they read like they are simialr in quaility. I feel like it should give a higher quaility scan but has anyone made this change and have any thoughts good or bad? Given the cost i'm not sure if the IQSmart2 is a step up over the v700 or if I need to go up to something like the 3 or just wait till I can get a drum scanner?

[bob carnie]

I am using the Eversmart Supreme and very happy with this unit

[sanking]

I have been scanning 4x5 with a v700 for years now And I was happy with it. Since going up to 8x10 this year the jerry-rigging is annoying and I just don't feel like I'm getting the sharpness and detail I should. I have not found any 8x10 drum scanners that are in my price range. I know a really good 8x10 shooter than loves his Creo and im looking at an IQSmart2. I'm not worried about the older drivers and software. I edit on a windows machine and from the looks of it I could get it working with XP and firewire. However on paper other than the bed size they read like they are simialr in quaility. I feel like it should give a higher quaility scan but has anyone made this change and have any thoughts good or bad? Given the cost i'm not sure if the IQSmart2 is a step up over the v700 or if I need to go up to something like the 3 or just wait till I can get a drum scanner?

Make sure that the software of the IQSmart2 allows 16 bit saves. If so, the IQSmart2 would give you a considerable bump in scan quality to the Epson V700. Another good choice would be an Eversmart, but to get 16 bit capability you need an Eversmart Pro II or higher model.

An obvious downside to these machines compared to the V700 is size and weight.

Sandy

[ryanmills]

Make sure that the software of the IQSmart2 allows 16 bit saves. If so, the IQSmart2 would give you a considerable bump in scan quality to the Epson V700. Another good choice would be an Eversmart, but to get 16 bit capability you need an Eversmart Pro II or higher model.

An obvious downside to these machines compared to the V700 is size and weight.

Sandy

16 bit saves is the one area thats very murky. I have to be able to scan 16 bit "raw". I have seen people having issues with saving in DT depending on versions and OS's. Thou im not sure what the advantage is to DT over tiff. It sounded as thou they were very similar. I hope it allows a larger file size. Right now im hitting the size limits with tiffs and im only scanning at 1200 dpi.

[B.S.Kumar]

AFAIK, oXYgen for Windows is a "lite" version, and is difficult to find. The regular CDs do not contain this software. I posted a compatibility chart some time ago.

Kumar

[Pali K]

Ryan,

I don't own this scanner but an Eversmart Pro that is running on an old mac machine. I also have the Epson v700 and a very high-end drum scanner (Scanmate 11000). I am almost certain that you will be extremely happy with the IQSmart2 if it's anything like my Eversmart Pro. I mentioned my drum scanner because I made some comparison scans with the Eversmart Pro and the drum scanner and found the Eversmart to hold up extremely well with the drum scanner. Keep in mind that my Evertsmart Pro cannot save Raw or 16 bit but it still easily puts my Epson scans to shame.

If you are interested, you can see my test scans in this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...-Scanner-Users

Regards,

Pali

[Jim Andrada]

The IQsmart 2 won't support Digital Transparency (or maybe the software won't support it on the IQsmart 2) but the IQsmart 3 will support it. I bought an IQsmart 2 to replace my 750 but haven't installed it yet - in fact the seller is holding it for me for a while until I finish some mods to my workspace to accommodate it. (Scanner size and weight vs available desktop space and a recent back injury) so I can't give any experience based reply quite yet. Ari Tapiero just upgraded to an Eversmart Pro and he told me he's amazed at the improvement vs the Epson. He may chime in here one of these days. He's scanning mostly 8 x 10 I believe. Michael Streeter at Genesis can probably answer any question you may have about the Creo/Kodak units. He's extremely helpful about this stuff.

[Ari]

Jim's 100% right, the Creo is a huge upgrade over any Epson. Yes, the software is old, and you may find yourself using an old computer, but the trade-off is worth it.
What you get are perfectly sharp scans and if you keep things simple when making pre-scan adjustments, you'll have a fantastic file to work with.
The best part for me is there's no more fussing with holders, height adjustments, tape, or scanning fluid. Just lay the film on the bed and scan.
Heaven!

[Jim Andrada]

The glass in the IQsmart is ANR (anti Newton Rings). I think there's also a non-ANR glass available for wet mounting but not 100% sure.

[Pere Casals]

I have been scanning 4x5 with a v700 for years now And I was happy with it.

You have something strange there.

I use a V750 that's near exactly the same than the V700

From 8x10 V700 scans you have lots of resolution to fill entire walls with edged sharpness. As a format is smaller you need much better scanners... but for 8x10 any pitfall from the V700 would be divided by 2 or by 4, compared with same the pitfall in 4x5.


(I supose you save the scanned file in TIFF format that allows uncompressed and 16 bits... )

Perhaps your problem is in the image size reduction, those algorithms can play very, very dirty, I was not aware of it and I had the same problem when I scanned my first 8x10 negatives (HP5+)

I supose you use Photoshop... What algorithm do you use for image size reduction ??

The Image Size dialog (Alt+Ctrl+Q) has a combo box at the bottom, you can select one of 5 algorithms for resize. By default it is selected "By aproximation", and this is a very bad one for reductions !!! specially for film !!! IMHO

Then you can also select Bilinear, and three types of "Bicubic" interpolation. You have a Bicubic Soft [ imagon flavour : ) ] , then you have a Bicubic ideal to enlarge, and then the good one "Bicubic Optimal for Reductions". This is the good one, I think.

Beyond this I had next problems to scan 8x10, first was newton rings because film is in contact with glass, this was mostly solved by placing the emulsion down, the grains, I think, work like ANR glass.

Also it happens that the negative is not at the correct height because it lays on the glass instead of being elevated by holder, but this has very minor importance in a 8x10, perhaps it has some for large prints from 135.

If you use a wet mounting that would lay the sheet at the precise height you'll see if there is a change, I think nothing for 8x10.

I see no remote way to exploit the hundreds of "perceptual" mega-pixels a V700 can extract from a 8x10, from a drum perhaps you can extract 800 preceptual MPix and from a V700 perhaps it will be 400 perceptual MPix, but a 4k Monitor has 8 Mpix, a very large print can take more, but to take 400... At the end you are going to manage smaller file sizes.

About DMax, BW film is no challenge for any flatbed.


Suggestion: With the V700 make an scan of a 8x10 with a number dpi (2400 perhaps, or 1200), save it TIFF uncompressed 16 Bit. Then make the same negative scanned by a Drum from a lab with same dpi, TIFF uncompressed 16 bit. Then perform image reduction of both with the same software and same settings.



Also there is this : http://www.largeformatphotography.in...to-newton-ring!

Regards.

PD: I've seen your work... superb !!!