6 x 6 on Epson 4990 - Not Flat?

<p>I've just started scanning my 6 x 6 negatives on the Epson 4990. I am noticing that the film doesn't lie flat in this provided film holder. The opening in the holder holds a strip of two 6 x 6 negs. But, they "float" above the plate glass and have obvious warps or waves in them. Looking at the holder it is obvious that this design would never keep them flat. Hmmmm?</p>

<p>Is there an alternate holder? Am I doing something wrong?</p>

<p>There are third-party holders with glass. For my part, I put the film directly on the glass, emulsion side down, with a piece of non-reflective (etched) picture frame glass on top. I use a mask made from black mounting board with cutouts for the film and as needed for scanner "calibration". This provides a 1mm space, and with the etched glass, prevents Newton's Rings.</p>

<p>Unless there is a dual or auto focusing provision, the plane of sharpest focus is at the surface of the glass in a flatbed. They are, after all, designed primarily to copy documents.</p>

<p>Hi Edward and Mark;</p>

<p>See if you can follow my comment about Edwards comment of :</p>

<p>"the plane of sharpest focus is at the surface of the glass in a flatbed. They are, after all, designed primarily to copy documents."</p>

<p>With many printed materials such as scanning a fine magazine; the line screen of say National Geographic is about 150 to 170 line screen. A scan at a 600 dpi setting will resolve every dot in the image; with no banding.</p>

<p>Thus if a flatbed can resolve say 1500 to 1800 dpi; the point of best focus *MIGHT* be set (BIASED) above the glass a tad; such that best focus is for scanning negatives; and the DOF is such that it is still good enough for prints and magazines.</p>

<p>I mention this because I have seen this in some of my flatbeds that are "like this"; but are NOT sure if that was the intent; or just sloppy tolerances.</p>

<p>In scanning both sharp contact prints and magazines; both my old Epson 1200U and Epson Perfection 1250 are a massive overkill; and are just 1200 dpi flatbeds. Most all photos only need a 300 to 600 dpi scan; 300 here is most common. In a few rare glossy ultra sharp contact prints I have used above 600 dpi; say 800 or 1200; but the added detail at best is not much; ie slitting hairs.</p>

<p>Thus I wonder if the focus of the scan bar is set *purposely* above the glass with some units; since some of my 2400 and 3200 and 4800 units are like this.</p>

<p>One can place an inclined rough piece of machined bar stock so it slopes from zero to say 1 mm on the glass; to find the best focus. Here I do this on every flatbed; and have done this since the early 1990's.<br>

Ever since flatbeds came out 2 decades ago folks have goofed around with Z heights</p>

<p>There are bound to be manufacturing tolerances in low price flatbed scanners. Those I have tested with an inclined scale, per your description, appear to be focused no more than 0.5mm above the surface and fall off rapidly above 2 mm. There's one exception. I have a mid-range Epson 1600, which has a dual range of 0 and 2 mm, and my data appears to agree with that specification.</p>

<p>For the test (long buried in some dusty archive), I used an engraved Starrett machinist's scale and a piece of 1/4" drill rod to construct a makeshift sine bar jig. </p>

<p>At any rate, the best results I've extracted from my Epson 2450 scanner was with film held as described above - on the glass. That was before I got a Nikon 8000, so further experimentation was pointless. 4x5 film, scanned in this manner, is not as detailed as medium format film on the LS-8000.</p>

<p>As I study the Epson film holder I see that it holds the film off the bed, about half way in the space that lies between the bed and the glass in the lid. Perhaps 1mm or less off the bed. What seems to happen, is that the film bows and warps a bit trying to span the 5 inch length of the holder. It sounds to me like the etched glass directly on the film pressing it to the bed would certainly flatten the film. Easy enough to try. Do you mean ordinary "non-glare" picture frame glass?</p>

<p>The results I am getting seem pretty good. I am just not sure if it can be better.</p>

<p>A second problem I am having is the scans lack contrast. After scanning, I find I am pushing the contrast and putting a moderate "sag" in the curves histogram to get a good toned image. I use VueScan, and I use Bibble 5 for the digital darkroom. I've only shot and scanned my first roll, so, I might be prejudging a bit. I have three new rolls to develop Monday and should be able to scan them Wednesday.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mark, check this film holder by Betterscanning.com:<br>

<a href="http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/models/4990.html">http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/models/4990.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/models/4990.html"></a>It addresses the commonest problems with flatbeds, film flatness and true focus point. I use one with my v750 and the difference is considerable.</p>

<p>The betterscanning holder gets mentioned on every thread about Epson scanners. After about 10 years it gets old; like a kickback is going on.</p>

<p>With most of my scans I just use the stock Epson holders; or my own custom ones. Adjusting the z height is on a early 1990's commerical flatbed's holder; it really is nothing new.</p>

<p>So betterscanning learned this ten years later is amazing; and 20 years later folks always mention that a holder will fix the fair flatbed to be like a real film scanner.</p>

<p>Flatbeds are no the sharpest tool in the woodshop; and never will be.</p>

<p>With any scanner a warped original is an issue.</p>

<p>Finding the best focus point only requires a sloped item; 6" metal scale in a shim; ie a penny or JoBlock.</p>

<p>This is what one did 20 years ago on a commerical flatbed that cost 3 grand; that also had a holder with an adjustable z height too.</p>

<p> With an old commercial scanner; or a high end one today; the glass is removeable; cleanable; replaceable. With time the glass gets crud dud to outgassing of the plastics and the contrast drops. Often folks just by another scanner; just like buying a new car the windshield is cleaner!</p>

<p>Mark; you might want to leave the warped negatives in an envelope and wait</p>

<p>All an epson likes to see is the open rectangle at the start for calibration</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there an alternate holder?<br>

After about 10 years it gets old; like a kickback is going on</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I may be old, shopworn news to <em>you, </em>Kelly, but apparently not to the OP. I mentioned it because I was responding to the original poster's question. You can tell that because I began my paragraph using his name. He asked specifically about alternative holders. I never said it would fix a fair flatbed and make it like a real film scanner. I said there was a considerable difference on my scanner. Like you, I did all the kludgey workarounds, making custom holders, using shims,etc. The BetterScanning product is well made and works out of the box. I like it and I use it and when someone seeks advice on these issues, I recommend it and will continue to do so.</p>

<p>Your insinuation that my helpful reply has some profit motive is both unfounded and uncalled for, and unbecoming a professional of your tenure.</p>

<p>Sometimes a better mousetrap comes along, and it still works after 10 years. I think Better Light holders fall in this category, judging from the many satisfied users on this site.</p>

<p>Kelly, why are you striking out with an exaggerated post that is unfair to both me and Lou? First off, there isn't (and never has been) any kickback to Lou or anyone else. Yes, I am fortunate to have great customers who tell others about my product but they do it on their own - and they post both positive and negative comments. Your 10 and 20 year claims are such an exaggeration. Another exaggeration is your claim my holder gets mentioned in every thread. I wouldn't be surprised if it is mentioned less times than you jump into scanner threads to post basically the same multi-entry rant over and over and over... and then over again. If you want to criticize about things getting old and repeated too much, start with your own posts.</p>

<p>The web site for the alternate holder seemed a bit confusing to me. I wonder if I ask the question this way, if I could hone in on this a bit tighter?<br>

Q: For scanning 120 negatives, WHICH alternate holder will yield the <strong>best</strong> detail using a 4990?</p>

<p>A: Mine. As far as I know, it's the only thing out there that will deliver wet scans on a 4490. <a href="http://myfilmstuff.blogspot.com/2010/04/5-wet-mount.html">http://myfilmstuff.blogspot.com/2010/04/5-wet-mount.html</a> It has the sharpest focus that I have been able to pull yet. It's the fluid that keeps the negs flat and in position and it's the fluid that gives as much clarity as possible.</p>

<p>Here is a sample from this week-end. This is Neopan 400 pushed 3 stops to 3200. It's souped in XTol and came out pretty sharp. The scanner is capable, when given half the chance.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4092/5000733571_15cb091e48_z_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=600247">Doug Fisher</a>: I would be interested if you actually designed a wet scan holder that would fit a 4490 similar to what you have done for the 700/750. I know my tray is not the best but it seems to be the only choice.</p>