V700: should I go from betterscanning holder to scanscience kit?

<p>Hi all,<br>

Just wondering if anyone has any feedback on using the scanscience kit on the Epson V700. Is it a noticeable improvement? Would it be a noticeable improvement relative to the betterscanning (ie, Doug Fisher) holder? I'm currently using the Doug Fisher film holder and I love the ergonomics of it (though I haven't yet compared the results with previous scans done without it). <br>

thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I swear by the scanscience kit, can't comment about DF's kit. These are two 100% crops taken from the middle and side of the frames respectively. </p>

<p>I swear by the Scanscience kit, can't speak to DF's kit. Here are two 1600dpi 100% crops taken from the middle and edge of a 4x5 frame with the stock Epson holder and the Scanscience fluid mount. No sharpening has been applied.<br>

I also really like the Lumina fluid. It lasts a long time (great for slow scans with multisampling) and doesn't leave a residue. Some people have said that the scanscience kit isn't as accurate for height calibartion, but I haven't had a problem finding the precise height with the masks. <br>

<img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/WM_no.jpg" alt="" width="429" height="355" /><br>

<img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/WM_yes.jpg" alt="" width="433" height="343" /><br>

<img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/WM2_no.jpg" alt="" width="429" height="357" /><br>

<img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/WM2_yes.jpg" alt="" width="447" height="347" /></p>

<p>Wow, that's excellent! I may switch from Doug Fisher's, I don't think I'm getting that much better sharpness over the Epson holder.</p>

<p>Thanks Aaron. That is a remarkable difference. I think I'll go for the kit. Did you find that any extras such as a squeegee was required?<br>

As for the Doug Fisher holder, I've found that I can't discern any difference within at least a 1/2 millimetre adjustment. Even within a 1 millimetre adjustment, I find it extremely hard to find any difference. However, as I mentioned above the ergonomics are much superior.</p>

<p>I ordered the turnkey kit a while back (comes with everything you need to fluid scan immediately). Yes, a squeegee of some kind is essential since it pulls any air bubbles out from between the layers. Ordering on their site is a bit clunky. I ended up sending an e-mail confirmation of my entire order to Julio, just to make sure I got everything. I did, and at the time, I had never done any fluid scanning, and found the manual to be very clear. I takes just a bit of practice to get the mylar sheets on evenly, but the whole operation is pretty easy and quick. The main problem I have found is that I live in a dry house, with dogs, and I always end up with some dust on the outside of the scan "sandwich." As you've probably heard, fluid mounting does a good job of concealing dust and scratches on the film itself, but any dust on the outside of the mount will show up. I try to elimiate it as best I can with canned air before putting the plate on my scanner. </p>

<p>Well, I tried the kit today. As the photo shows, there is a noticeable improvement in the smoothing effect. As for the color saturation and sharpness and contrast, I didn't really notice any improvements. Maybe future scans with different slides will show some improvements.<br>

So, was it worth the money? I'm not sure. I'll keep using it, for now anyways (there is the added hassle factor with the wet mount system). To potential buyers, you may want to consider just buying the lumina and the glass slide and the overlays. The film holder and shims, to be honest, is a bit of a joke (even though it's made of fairly good quality cardboard, I've already tossed mine in the garbage). Since I've got the betterscanning.com holder, I just popped the wet mount into there and it works perfectly. No shims to bother with. </p><div></div>

<p>Another slight difference I've noted is that the red and blue shifts have diminished with the wet scans. Often a dark object against a light sky will show a slight blue tinge on one side and a slight red tinge on the other (visible a bit below). <br>

Regarding the image I posted above, I think now that I might have simply scanned the wet image at a suboptimal focus, thereby softening the focus (the images were scanned with different holders at different heights) . The image below is probably a more accurate representation of the difference (both scanned with the betterscanning.com holder with the adjusters rotated exactly one turn out).</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks Evan. Other than the different color casts I can't decide if I see any difference between the last two.</p>

<p>Well, I got some more practice in today. I think I can get a bit more smoothing of the grains. And I'm pretty sure that the optimal height with the Fisher holder is about 1 to 1.5 turns out from level (ie, about 3.5 to 4mm above glass). I don't know what scanscience has been smoking with their assertion that the optimal focus for the v700 is 2mm above the glass.</p><div></div>

<p>Whoops. Wrong image. This is the right one.</p><div></div>

<p>I just realized that the image immediately above compares the wet with a dry image that was scanned a few months ago and thus has had some unsharp masking done. So the smoothing effect attributed to the wet mount is perhaps a bit exaggerated. A better comparison is below (both scans done yesterday and with no refining done afterward). <br>

Some smoothing of the grain clumps is still noticeable (mainly with the background sky). And there's also a slight bit more detail in the dark areas (though perhaps attributable to the fact that the whole wet scan is a bit lighter). On the negative side, there's a bit more of the red and blue fringes with the wet scan (most noticeable near the top of the spire)(is it "chromatic aberration"?). <br>

On the whole, though, I'm not sure that it's anything that could be noticed on the final print. Perhaps the obvious benefits noted by Aaron (above) only apply to large format film, where film flatness is a much bigger problem than with the 645's that I'm dealing with. <br>

So, will I still be wet mounting after a few weeks of trying to squeeze some discernable improvement out of my slides? I don't know. I'd really like to hear from other scanners who have used the system with 645 exposures and the Epson V series.</p><div></div>

<p>Dear all,<br>

this is a first time post for me and apologies if not in the right place! Perhaps Ill start a new thread.... <br>

I'm really interested to get to the bottom of the wet v dry scan, with or without an adjustable film holder debate, until I'd seen this forum I was more or less convinced that wet scanning was the way forward but the results above seem a little unclear....?<br>

I've gone back to shooting film (95% colour) with a Mamiya RZ67 and have a V700 and purchased the Silverfast Ai software (££ ouch!).<br>

Whilst I'm relatively happy with my results I'm keen to get the best I can.<br>

To further complicated matters I've been experimenting with HDRi scans with(out) Multi-exposure on Silverfast alongside some "bracketed" scans of the same negative before merging with PS or PhotoMatrix. <br>

On a site note I've used the V700 to produce a series of flat bed scans of some antique fishing flys with some editing I've produced some very crisp/sharp/detailed images and so have no hesitation to the capabilities of the scanner - really looking for advice to maximise its potential.<br>

Finally living in London I'm slightly hesitant with ordering from either Betterscanning or Scanscience - does anyone have any experience with this? I've spoken with Epson UK today who are prepared to ship the fluid mount tray from the V750 for £95.00 this includes postage and tax -not particularly cheap and rumor has it not as good as Scansciences version?</p>

<p>Help please!</p>

<p>All the very best,</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>I recently got a kit from ScanScience, and although there was a fairly significant mistake in the order, in general I'd say that dealing with them is recommended.<br>

However, in MY CASE (emphasize) which is scanning XPan slides on a Minolta Scan Multi Pro, the results are not exactly jaw-dropping. It is very, very hard to see any improvement over dry scanning, at least over the dry scanning setup and methodology (Silverfast HDR, multisample) I've refined over the years.<br>

...and it is incredibly fiddly to work with.<br>

Of course on a V700 it may be a different story.</p>

<p>I've been using the betterscanning kit, on one of our epson scanners... I think the Epson uses a decent depth of field when scanning film, not a razor thin focal plane. My experience so far with the betterscanning system is that it's not worth the money. The Epson film holders are at a perfect height. Yes they are flimsy and they may not hold the film flat. I haven't seen problems with this...<br>

I do like the ANR glass, but this appears to be non reflective framing glass. Perhaps they are the same.<br>

The adjustable focal height in theory sounds reasonable and great. In reality, I see no difference after running the focal adjustments through a whole battery of adjustments.</p>

<p>I'm disappointed, I think I should look into a Creo scanner instead</p>