Should I Drum Scan, X1 Flextight Scan, or use the Epson V850 w/Aztek Wet Mount Kit?

[Chester McCheeserton]

An interesting thread, to be sure.

1. Those of you that are stitching - how are you combining the shots on the computer, Photoshop? Do you ever look back at the seams and see imperfections?

2. FWIW, back in December I got an nikon ES-1 slide copying adapter and rigged it up with a film era 55mm micro nikkor and the proper extension tubes/adapters to my A7r3 to shoot a few old 35mm slides. (never messed with pixel shifting) Realizing that my film flatness is likely not as good as with many of the setups described here, what I found after inspecting the results were that even stopped down to F8 the corners of my images fell apart at the grain structure level in a very similar way that 35mm print enlargements often do...(all 4 corners, evenly, and significantly)

As someone used to the quality of 4000 dpi drum scans from 35mm, Sandy's final comment on post 109 seems to echo my results....I think film flatness and straightforwardness/simplicity of process may still give high end film scanners an advantage for those seeking the ultimate quality...

3. sperdynamite or someone else who has used it – Can you elaborate at all on this MK-1 film holder? I just looked at the site, but can't get a clear sense of how it functions....does it show the clear edge of the negative around 35mm ie true full frame?? (I see now it does - but how does the grain structure in your corners look?) seems like maybe not to make sense to me to fiddle with pixel shift and stitching if all 4 corners of your frame, (regardless of format) are a little weak?

[Pere Casals]

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1505305

This is a 35mm frame made with TechPan, in that situation the Epson is inferior to the Imacon, of course. The imacon resolves +6000dpi effective in 35mm and the Epson 2900 or 2300 depending on the axis.

But go 4x5" and the Epson is still resolving 2900-2300 and the imacon will resolve only 1800-1650, as with its 8000 pixels sensor it has to cover 4".


So yes The imacon is better than the Epson for 35mm, but this is a Large Format forum, man !!!

Also the Epson scan it has not been well optimized. Use trusted side by side comparisons like the one Pali made and not forged tests from people with commercial interests.

Oh Pere, maybe you just need to get a good pair of glasses. Your Epson scans, even the "enhanced" versions are pure crap. Your enhancements only accentuate what's shit about that scanner, and, in addition, you completely ignore the horrible gradations produced by the Epson. What a good quality PMT can give you that your Epson never can is that quality of gradation, that is evident even on lower res jpegs posted on the internet. So, while I may buy an Epson as a curiosity as it's a cheap piece of hardware, I can say that the most I'd ever use it for is document scanning, something I've been doing with the Canons lately. But since you apparently don't have access to a good drum scanner - and there are good ones and shit ones as well - or a good DSLR copy station, you're hopelessly married to your mistaken conclusions, much like religious fundamentalists are married to their own delusions.

Use your glasses for pixel peeping and tell me what difference you find in the V700 vs Scanmate 11000 drum: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1505196


It has to be painful, but this is a Fact

[Chester McCheeserton]

No Buddy, as I told you before this a 5x7 negative that I shot, processed, and scanned myself.

[Pere Casals]

No Buddy, as I told you before this a 5x7 negative that I shot, processed, and scanned myself.

LOL.

For 5x7" the Imacon is even more infame regarding resolving power. For 5x7" it scans 8000/5 = 1600 dpi hardware yielding 1400dpi effective in the horizontal axis and 1200 in the vertical one. In 5x7" the Imacon takes a beating from the Epson 700 that resolves 2900 dpi effective in the Horizontal axis.

Your information is false. If it is not a forged lie then you don't know how to scan with the Epson.

Even in the case the 5x7" is scanned on the Epson bed instead in a suitable holder the Epson is way better than the Imacon in 5x7".

[Chester McCheeserton]

Pere, I'm going to leave you under the bridge with your epson and keep walking. Happy Memorial Day weekend. I'll let others judge for themselves...

[sanking]

As someone used to the quality of 4000 dpi drum scans from 35mm, Sandy's final comment on post 109 seems to echo my results....I think film flatness and straightforwardness/simplicity of process may still give high end film scanners an advantage for those seeking the ultimate quality...

Most of the scanning I do has been of B&W film, medium format through 12X20.

Best scanners I have used for B&W scanning were drum scanners, Howtek 4000 and Howtek 7500. I also used an Eversmart Pro for several years, and it was a superb scanner. But the scans with drum scanners scans I have done at 2000-2400 ppi ware quite a bit better than any I have done with flatbeds, even better than with the Eversmart at higher resolution. Just a bit of "je ne sais quoi" with the transition of tonal values, hard to explain but important to overall tonal qualiteis. I still own and use a Howtek 7500, and will probably do so as long as it continues to operate. Just can not let it go. Hell, my wife helped me haul this thing up a flight of stairs on a dolly to my studio, friend who saw the stairs suggested we should be in the Drum Scanners Hall of Fame for that feat.

I also own and use an Epson V700. Does a pretty good job with 5X7 B&W film, but even at highest resolution scans with it do not come close to drum scanner quality, or even to quality of the Eversmart Pro at 3200 ppi. But some people like the scans with the V700 as the inability of this scanner to resolve grain makes some prints look smoother, and some people are really into smooth as it is a nice print quality with some images.

Enter the new generation of scanning with high resolution pixel shifting cameras. Quality with 5X7' film ONE SHOT using 16 shot pixel shifting is about on par with best protocol with the Epson V700 and V800. A bit better in fact because it just "resolves" the grain of a film like T-Max 400. And this technology will be getting increasingly better and less expensive.

Sandy

[Chester McCheeserton]

I also own and use an Epson V700. Does a pretty good job with 5X7 B&W film, but even at highest resolution scans with it do not come close to drum scanner quality, or even to quality of the Eversmart Pro at 3200 ppi. But some people like the scans with the V700 as the inability of this scanner to resolve grain makes some prints look smoother, and some people are really into smooth as it is a nice print quality with some images.

Enter the new generation of scanning with high resolution pixel shifting cameras. Quality with 5X7' film ONE SHOT using 16 shot pixel shifting is about on par with best protocol with the Epson V700 and V800. A bit better in fact because it just "resolves" the grain of a film like T-Max 400. And this technology will be getting increasingly better and less expensive.

Sandy

Interesting – Yes when I said 'high end' I wasn't thinking epson flatbeds....I can see replacing my v700 with a copystand rig similar to those described earlier in the thread, just not for a color neg with sky that I know is going to be printed 5 feet on the short side...which the howtek/aztek still seems king to me also...I did make a few prints a couple months ago for the first time from creo scans from 4x5 and 8x10 color neg and I agree they are better then epson and certainly good enough but maybe not quite as good as drum.

Curious though - do you see a difference in the corners in the grain structure as I described above when you do your one - shot pixel shift with the A7r4?

[Pere Casals]

Howtek 4000 and Howtek 7500. I also used an Eversmart Pro for several years, and it was a superb scanner. But the scans with drum scanners scans I have done at 2000-2400 ppi ware quite a bit better than any I have done with flatbeds, even better than with the Eversmart at higher resolution. Just a bit of "je ne sais quoi" with the transition of tonal values, hard to explain but important to overall tonal qualiteis. I still own and use a Howtek 7500, and will probably do so as long as it continues to operate. Just can not let it go.

I also own and use an Epson V700. Does a pretty good job with 5X7 B&W film, but even at highest resolution scans with it do not come close to drum scanner quality, or even to quality of the Eversmart Pro at 3200 ppi. But some people like the scans with the V700 as the inability of this scanner to resolve grain makes some prints look smoother, and some people are really into smooth as it is a nice print quality with some images.

Enter the new generation of scanning with high resolution pixel shifting cameras. Quality with 5X7' film ONE SHOT using 16 shot pixel shifting is about on par with best protocol with the Epson V700 and V800. A bit better in fact because it just "resolves" the grain of a film like T-Max 400. And this technology will be getting increasingly better and less expensive.

Sandy

Sandy, have you the way to make a V700 5x7" scan in holder ? Or are you scanning 5x7 on bed with the low resolution lens?

I ask this because the V700 covers 5.9" with the "Super-Resolution" lens and it can scan 5x7 with it, but if you don't have a suitable solution for it then you are scanning with the low resolution lens.


______


Second, would you make a side by side of the V700 vs DSLR "1 shot shifted" vs drum? This would be quite interesting...

If you don't have a 5x7" holder then you may do it in 4x5".

It is not necessary it is an exhautive test like that made by Pali K, just comparing a 16bits/ch 6400dpi V700 scan vs the DSLR vs the drum. You may have a surprise like Pali had when making a serious side by side.

Probably the V700 will take most of the Image quality of the LF negative, but for sure the drum is to resolve better the grain than the V700, but it would be interesting to see how good the V700 scanned grain can be after a refined edition, and at what enlargement a difference is seen, because usually we have very little grain in LF prints, in fact many LF shooters cite grain absence as a great feature.


Anyway with total probability the V700 will show better defined grain than the DSLR, and it would be interesting to see how the Epson rivals the Drum grain after scanning 16Bits/ch 6400 and sharpening optimally (we require 16bits/ch for a good sharpening).

Of course the V700 requires film flatness to shine. The new 4x5 ANR glass holders ensure that, and have adjustable height.


It also would be quite interesting if you can scan a 1951 glass slide with the DSLR shifted, this has been done many times with the drum and the V700, but we don't know what resolves the DSLR shot with a good lens.
(https://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-USAF-G...cAAOxymiVRAhWE)

We know that a DSLR scan may reach even 10k dpi effective, but this is with stitching and using an smart setup.

[Pere Casals]

Pere, I'm going to leave you under the bridge with your epson and keep walking. Happy Memorial Day weekend. I'll let others judge for themselves...

Chester, sorry, but you are posting an infame V700 scan compared to a very good scan made with a machine resolving just the half. Your side by side is technically unacceptable. Do a fair side by side...

[sanking]

Interesting – Yes when I said 'high end' I wasn't thinking epson flatbeds....I can see replacing my v700 with a copystand rig similar to those described earlier in the thread, just not for a color neg with sky that I know is going to be printed 5 feet on the short side...which the howtek/aztek still seems king to me also...I did make a few prints a couple months ago for the first time from creo scans from 4x5 and 8x10 color neg and I agree they are better then epson and certainly good enough but maybe not quite as good as drum.

Curious though - do you see a difference in the corners in the grain structure as I described above when you do your one - shot pixel shift with the A7r4?

I did not see that this problem, but I did test a number of good lenses designed for about 1:2 - 1:4 and results were a bit unequal. I actually tested a 55mm Micro Nikkor in some earlier work and it gave very good results in copying 5X7 film with one shot, but a couple of old Apo lenses I own were even better. And the modern Sigma 70 mm f/4 DG Art is about as good as any I have tested for this work, though I hate the focus by wire procedure.
mo
For 1:1 I use, say 35mm film to FF digital, I use a 70 mm F/4 Apo Rodagon 1:1 lens pulled from an old Leafscan 45. Seems very sharp over the entire frame.

Sandy