Format and scanner question

<p>Hello,<br>

I currently use an RZ, but wanted to add a 4x5 field camera. Can someone tell me if there's much difference between 6x7 scanned on a Nikon 9000 vs 4x5 scanned on an Epson 750?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Terry </p>

<p>one gets a real 4000 dpi scan over that 2 inch width with a Nikon 9000 ; ie 8000 good pixels.</p>

<p>With a 4x5 one might get say a 3.7 inch width at whatever dpi you "believe in" A marketer will say 6400; here I say more like 1500 to 2400; thus about the same as the Nikon 9000</p>

<p>Thus with a flatbed and a 4x5; you really gain nothing but movements; plus you get to use crummy lenses because you have allow pass filter; ie the goober flatbed in the loop. You get to use a lower cost scanner.</p>

<p>You question is loaded. There have been several thousand threads already on flatbeds; with a WIDE range of answers</p>

<p>I can't compare the two, but I do think the 9000 will do much better for a 2-1/4 than the flatbed. What I found was that flatbeds got better with larger film because you can get away scanning at lower dpi(as Kelly has indicated) to get the same huge file, which will always appear sharper than a larger dpi scan. You would probably find that you would be fairly happy with a 4x5 scanned on the v750. You would be happier with a Hasselblad 4x5 scanner but also about 30 times poorer!</p>

<p>I get about 2400 dpi with my Epson, closer to 2800-3000 when I pull out all the tricks, which I don't do with large format. So I scan about 8800 x 11000 pixels for 4x5.<br>

I have also scanned the same emulsion on a Nikon 9000, for sharp pictures taken with my Mamiya 6. About 8800 x 8800 pixels.<br>

Detail on both is about the same. The big difference is the tonality and grain. Much more prevalent grain on the medium format.<br>

I will see if I can whip up a few example crops.</p>

<p>Here is a 2400 dpi crop from a 4x5 scan</p><div></div>

<p>And a 4000 dpi crop from a Nikon 9000 scan of 6x6, same emulsion</p><div></div>

<p>Good gosh, this is getting complicated. I just sold $10,000 worth of Nikon D3 equipment to get away from all this. I'm just going to have drum scans done on whatever I want to print on my Epson 3880. Thanks everyone.</p>

<p>If you are going drum scanning then 4x5 wins all the way ;)</p>

<p>These days used drum scanners are cheap, have a look.</p>

<p>regards</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>I have used my Nikon 9000 to scan Mamiya 7 6x7 negatives and my Microtek 1800f (1800 real DPI) to scan 4x5 negatives, both in black and white, and it's pretty much a wash for basic image quality of the scan. Clearly the 4x5 camera can do things the M7II cannot so in the situations of tilt-shift, and rise-fall the 4x5 is more useful. The M7II obviously wins on portability. But the basic question is what comes off the scanner and there the superiority of the Nikon 9000 clearly minimizes if not totally negates the extra real estate of 4x5 film.<br>

I use neither the 4x5 nor the 6x7 now, they're all sitting in my closet, but have chosen a Nikon system with their tilt-shift lenses and am happier.</p>

<p>I'm curious about this too. I work with a Mamiya 7 kit and scan on my Nikon LS9000. I don't have a 4x5 camera yet, but I do have some 8x10 negatives and access to a v700. Late this week I'll try scanning a 4x5in. section of a larger neg to see how it compares. </p>

<p>I suspect that if you go all out, either wet mounting your 4x5 or at least fiddling with variable-height negative holders, etc., that there will be some edge to the larger film even on the flatbed. But since I've been considering adding a 4x5 camera to my kit, a test seems to be in order.</p>

<p>In practice what I would most likely do is use my epson 4990 to do web and proof scans then get imacon or drum scans of the 4x5 film I want to use for exhibition prints. </p>

<p>Ok here we go. This isn't a scientific test. I can't do a side-by-side test since I don't have a 4x5 camera at my disposal right now. And these are quick and dirty scans. In the case of the Epson it's not my scanner and I don't know the software well.</p>

<p>I scanned a 6x7 neg on Portra 160NC shot with a Mamiya 7II and 80mm lens on my LS 9000with viewscan. I use a custom modified glass carrier that has AN glass above the neg but no glass below, therefore the film is flat but there is nothing between the film and the scanner CCD.</p>

<p>Then I scanned an 8x10 neg on Portra 160NC shot with an Arca F-Metric and an Apo Sironar S 240mm lens on a V700. That scanner isn't mine so I didn't have time to try to optimize the neg carrier height for ideal focus, and I could only use the Epson software which didn't seem to want to get the color anywhere close to correct.</p>

<p>The 6x7 was scanned at 4000dpi. The 8x10 neg was scanned at 2300 dpi and I cropped into the central 4x5in section of the neg for the scan. Both files were in the 570MB range at 16 bit.</p>

<p>The 100 percent crops represent a file that would print to roughly 38x48inches at 240dpi. I've found that viewing a file at around 50% in photoshop is the closest representation of what the file will look like when printed on an epson or lightjet. So both of these files look very good considering they're equal to fairly large prints.</p>

<p>The 6x7 shows much more grain and appears sharper than the 4x5. The 4x5 is much better than I thought on the flatbed. There is not much visible grain, and without further testing I can't tell if it's because the scanner isn't resolving the grain or because the large neg just doesn't show much grain at this enlargement size. The files I'll post are unsharpened but the Epson does benefit from sharpening.</p>

<p>So without more careful testing, which I may do once I get my 4x5, I'd say the large format clearly has a huge advantage in sharpness, grain and the ability to print large. No surprise there. The flatbed clearly can't pull all of the potential out of a 4x5 neg, but it does quite well for all but the most demanding applications.</p>

<div></div>

<p>And the large format:</p><div></div>

<p>I can't really see the eyelashes on the 4x5, while they are very clearly delineated in the 6x7 scan.</p>

<p>There is so much misinformation out there about this sort of thing. I really believe this is to a large degree a result people basing their respective opinions on personal attachments to their equipment and the amount of money they spent in order to obtain it.<br>

A large format (4x5 and bigger) film clearly has superior reproductive capabilities, even when scanned on an Epson flatbed, to 6x6 or 6x7 film scanned on a Nikon film scanner. The overwhelming size of the film will win out every time, providing the photographer knows what he is doing. And yes, I've owned several Nikon 9000s as well as a few flatbeds, including Microtek and Epson.</p><div></div>

<p>F Ph; RE<br>

"A large format (4x5 and bigger) film clearly has superior reproductive capabilities, even when scanned on an Epson flatbed, to 6x6 or 6x7 film scanned on a Nikon film scanner."</p>

<p> Here my first 35mm slide scanner was bought in 1989.</p>

<p>Here my experience is that a 4x5 scanned on a Epson 2450, 3200, v500, v750 flatbed is NOT clearly superior to 6x7cm on my Nikon 9000's.</p>

<p>I would call myself a total BSer if I made that statement ie call it fraud.</p>

<p>****Here I would call it a mixed bag.****</p>

<p>The consumer flatbeds here resolve 1/2 what the Nikon 9000 does; so that 4x increase in film area just makes it a wash.</p>

<p>Thus here at least I would call your usage of the word "superior" to be miss-information ; but that is only based on my scanning film since 1989 and having many dozens of scanners; good and bad.</p>

<p>The *grain* is less with a flatbed 4x5 scan versus a Nikon 9000 scan of a 6x7cm original; IF one enlarges a lot.</p>

 

<p>i just look at the pics. :)</p>

<p>I think the Epson is highly underrated. I've recently been comparing the Epson against an Imacon and a drum scanner and for resolution, the well set up Epson beat a well regarded professional Imacon scan. <br>

If you were using a sharp lens at wider apertures on the large format, you would get better results than the 6x7 Nikon scan. However the Epson scan would have additional unwelcome artefacts such as some colour fringing around highlight areas and a 'glow' about some details. <br>

It seems that not many people have an Epson critically configured or used to the best of it's ability though.. </p>

<p>Hilarious! This is a bit of an old thread, but my two scanners happen to be a Nikon 9000 and an Epson V750, so I wanted to add my penny.<br>

Tim: I have found that 6x7 in a Nikon 9000 is a NIGHTMARE. 6X7 in my Epson V750 is in comparison quite fantastic. and 4x5 inches as well. The problem with the Nikon is that the medium format holder (unlike the excellent 35mm holder) is really bad, film doesn't stay flat. The consequence is uneven focus and there is no cure for that. I know they also produced a (not exactly unexpensive) glass holder (which you have to buy separately) to solve this problem, but I have read here in photonet that occasionally it renders Newton rings. The Epson medium format glassless holder is superior, film rests flat, and I have had extremely pleasing results. Of course, these results will compare unfavourably against any pro drum scan, but for relatively small prints, I have found the Epson's delivery quite impressive.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry! I meant Terry!</p>