First 120 film scanned - underwhelmed (Epson V700)

<p>No. http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/ProductCategory.do?oid=-16223&UseCookie=yes</p>

<p>One thing to remember scanning medium format with a flatbed scanner is that at 3200 ppi you get a really big print size at the standard 300ppi, like over 25 inches. You can then downsize to a smaller size and get a much sharper print by the downsizing. As others have mentioned, medium format scans on a flatbed always require sharpening, and often, the film isn't as sharp as you would think when viewed at 100% anyway. I have had great results with my older Epson 2450 flatbed film scanner and Vuescan pro. If you look at the dust on the neg often it will be quite sharp even though the image is not, indicating the actual image is not as sharp as you thought, though it rarely matters once downsized and sharpened. </p>

<p>+1</p>

<p>Another thing I used to do is scan at 6400 (full res) and downsize the save in Vuescan. Letting the scanner actually scan at full res gives clearer images when downsized to match the size of a lower res image. Only when scaning 4x5 and above does this make no sense.</p>

<p>@ peter carter: not sure that you gain from scanning at 6400dpi; the V700's optical resolution is about 2500dpi, and scanning at 3200dpi extracts all the available information; that is based on my personal slant-edge MTF tests. Furterhmore, scanning at 6400 increases scan time and file size considerably. Especially if saving in raw tiff in order to profile outside the scanner software.</p>

<p>Says who? I've always gotton much better results than that.</p>

<p>Here is a scan of a reversal frame I took a while ago. It was scanned on a PrimeFilm XA (which scandig thinks the light shines out of it's ass). Click on the picture and it will go up in res. Further down in the comments I show the original scan I did (wet mounted, V700). Click on it and you can blow up the image in the same way. Aside from levels and curves, they are identical.</p>

<p>https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcarter/27236081853/in/dateposted/</p>

<p>ScanDig says the XA is about 4000dpi and the V700 is about the same as you stated.... I think they have ther head up their ass's about one or both. I think both. They certainly love to slam flatbeds.</p>

<p>The reality is if you don't have a quality neg/pos to scan, you are going to get a soft image. If you don't scan to get the most info out of your film, you are not going to get all the resolution. If you don't think what I have suggested works, you are blind.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The reality is if you don't have a quality neg/pos to scan, you are going to get a soft image. If you don't scan to get the most info out of your film, you are not going to get all the resolution. If you don't think what I have suggested works, you are blind.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter apparently you are not aware that one's eyes are better than any optical instrument when it comes to resolution of a scanner. :D</p>

<p>:) I am. Aperently some have not seen what they are talking about. :)</p>

 

<p>This is a 50% screen-shot of a scan from a V700. Film was 4x5 Polaroid Type 55, scan from negative.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Says who?</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you don't think what I have suggested works, you are blind.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You could have made better use of the bandwidth by stating what were for the pictures (and yes they both look sharp) you link to:</p>

<ul>

<li>negative size</li>

<li>dpi (at negative) of files as shown</li>

</ul>

<p> Just to be clear, I also feel the V700 is too often dismissed just because it is a flatbed. But I prefer to argue on a factual basis than to throw around implications re: the disabilities of other party. </p>

<p>It was a 35mm reversal. The Primefilm XA scanned at 5000 dpi with vuescan (max) and the V700 used 6400 (max). The Primefilm XA image was uploaded @ <small id="yui_3_11_0_3_1467290018842_355">4698 x 6917</small> and the V700 was <small id="yui_3_11_0_3_1467290104426_353">3180 x 5052.</small></p>

<p>I normally (as a rule) let Vuescan reduce by half on save (one third on MF) for pratical storage and 13x19 printing. If I have something special to do, I rescan and produce a full size image. The XA image was actually saved to a jpg at %100.</p>

<p>Out of the box, both these scanners were out of focus. This gives the ilusion of low DPI on both units. I took the time to figure it out and got results. The reviewers obviously have their bias and everyone seems to have been convinced that flatbeds are evil. I go a little nuts when people start reciting these errored conclusions as gospel, with no experiance with the units in question.</p>

<p>If you look at this.....</p>

<p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7071/26893018095_b56c716870_b_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>These are scans of the same USAF targets that ScanDig uses to figure out their version of DPI. On the right, is scanned as directed by the manufacture. ScanDig rates this scanner as the second coming and directly compares it to the Nikons. On the left is me scanning the neg upside down (and flipping it digitally). More DPI? Nope, just focus. You can't really trust these reviewers. 10 mins with a scanner does not give them any expertise on the unit. It took a month (back and forth) with the manufacturer (they always insist there is nothing wrong) to actually figure out what was wrong with the unit. When I found out what was actually wrong and knew a workaround, I kept the unit. It's a known evil which is always better than an unknown one.</p>

<p>Soo, the V700 is a fine unit and I would still be using one if mine hadn't had a catastrofic physical falure. I just didn't have the $$ to replace it. In time I will. I am stuck with 35mm in the meantime. Yes, this is an endorcement of the V700.</p>

<p> </p>

Years ago, View Camera Magazine did a very detailed test of resolution, dynamic range, etc with the V700. No matter

how focus was adjusted, they never got more than about 2600ppi. They did recommend scanning at 6400ppi when

possible as they did find minor benefits...but based on what I've done, I agree with the 2600ppi figure. For 110, 35mm,

and MF, I scan at 6400ppi. I then immediatly down sample the MF and 35mm to 3200 ppi and then process.