Are the Epson V700 / V750 scanners the "ultimate" machines now?

<p>Are the Epson V700 / V750 scanners the "ultimate" machines now?<br>

I'd be doing 35mm up to 4x5 inch LF film, BW and colour on it.</p>

<p>....Vick</p>

<p>"Ultimate" machines are very expensive drum scanners, but for home use - for 35mm and medium format the best are the Nikon scanners (the 9000 is in theory available but out of stock everywhere...) but for 4x5 the Epsons are what you want.</p>

<p>The resolution numbers they give for flatbeds are... well, lies. Sure, it will spit out a 6400 PPI file, but the optics and sensor limit the real resolution to (according to filmscanner.info test) about 2300 PPI. This means that from 35mm you can get a good 8x12 print, and it goes up from there. The Nikons are a bit more ultimate than that because with 4000 PPI and good slow film you can get unreasonable amounts of detail.</p>

<p>I dont even think its really a 2300 dpi equivilent, but I guess it depends on if you get a good one or not. I recently read its a 1 in 4 chance and I believe it.<br /> I compared a V750 (bought one) to my Howtek 4500.<br /> A drum scan at 2000 dpi resolves right at 40 lp/mm. The V750 even at 4800 dpi then resized to 2000 dpi still could not match it so I find the claims of resolving 46-48 lp/mm suspect. Reading lp/mm is a judgement call anyway.<br /> My V750 showed zero difference between 4800 and 6400 dpi.<br /> My take on the current scanner situation is this.<br /> If you need to scan 4x5 you are basically stuck with either older film scanners like a sprintscan 45 ultra if you can find one, a drum scanner, or just suffer with a softer V750.<br /> That said if you shoot LF and MF and don't resolve over about 35 lp/mm anyway then maybe you dont need anything better than a V750.<br /> If you have a Rollei 6008 then a V750 scan will return about 1/2 of the detail you could get out of a drum scan.<br /> IMO the V750/700 is just not good enough for 35mm.<br /> The best for 35mm is a Nikon 5000 if you can find one for a reasonable price or some of the older 35mm scanners. If you shoot MF too then a Nikon 8000 or 9000.<br /> The latest primefilm 7250 pro3 is a pretty decent 35mm scanner and good for an honest 3600 dpi. Not bad at $420 with rebate, but its no nikon.<br /> If you want to shoot serious large format too you might as well just save up some $ and buy a 4000 dpi drum scanner. I bought mine about 6 years ago for 1G and its still running. Need to have the drum resurfaced though.<br /> If you want to look around at some scan comparisons of mine, go here....<br /> http://www.pbase.com/tammons/scan_comparisons<br /> Here are some 35mm test scans of the PI 7250 pro3<br /> http://www.pbase.com/tammons/pi_7250_pro_3_test_scans</p>

<p>I dont even think its really a 2300 dpi equivilent, but I guess it depends on if you get a good one or not. I recently read its a 1 in 4 chance and I believe it.<br>

I compared a V750 (bought one) to my Howtek 4500.<br>

A drum scan at 2000 dpi resolves right at 40 lp/mm. The V750 even at 4800 dpi then resized to 2000 dpi still could not match it so I find the claims of resolving 46-48 lp/mm suspect. Reading lp/mm is a judgement call anyway.<br>

My V750 showed zero difference between 4800 and 6400 dpi.<br>

My take on the current scanner situation is this.<br>

If you need to scan 4x5 you are basically stuck with either older film scanners like a sprintscan 45 ultra if you can find one, a drum scanner, or just suffer with a softer V750.<br>

That said if you shoot LF and MF and don't resolve over about 35 lp/mm anyway then maybe you dont need anything better than a V750.<br>

If you have a Rollei 6008 then a V750 scan will return about 1/2 of the detail you could get out of a drum scan.<br>

IMO the V750/700 is just not good enough for 35mm.<br>

The best for 35mm is a Nikon 5000 if you can find one for a reasonable price or some of the older 35mm scanners. If you shoot MF too then a Nikon 8000 or 9000.<br>

The latest primefilm 7250 pro3 is a pretty decent scanner and good for an honest 3600 dpi. Not bad at $420 with rebate, but its no nikon.<br>

If you want to shoot serious large format too you might as well just save up some $ and buy a 4000 dpi drum scanner. I bought mine about 6 years ago for 1G and its still running. Need to have the drum resurfaced though.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For me, scanning is as important as a step as shooting. For me, what ever I use must be reliable, just like my cameras.</p>

<p>Technically the best pro-sumer scanners out there are Nikons. However it is quite difficult to buy new ones. No vendor seems to have a supply. When they do, they go fast. Nikon is keeping the enviable end of production quiet. To me, this is going to be sooner than later.</p>

<p>The epson scanners are not bad. Not great, but not bad. The quality from my 4490 is about 1800dpi (real) and I think a V700/750 is supposed to be in the order of 2200 dpi ish. My 4490 was about $150. I didn't see a V700 ($600-700) enough of a value gain. Yes the V700 comes with better holders, but they are not great holders. Everyone replaces those. My 4490 will do 35/120, but to do 4x5 and larger you will need the V700/750 because of a larger light hood. There is the tax.</p>

<p>Here is the kink. Everything breaks! Simple fact of life. If I had to buy a used scanner (supply chain issue), I would get nervous about getting service/parts. Look at the Jobo's and see where that one is going. Those guys are starting to have a heck of a time replacing broken widgets.</p>

<p>If you are like me, shoot film->scan->digital work flow...., missing the scanner step pretty much halts the entire process. I don't consider the used market (or about to be discontinued market) a safe way to go despite the technically superior gear.</p>

<p>In short, the epsons are a reasonable choice for 120 and up. You can make decent scans with 35, but you have to work at it. There are other NEW scanners still made that do 3200+ dpi for 35mm. I get impressive results from my Plustek 7200i, despite the rumors from people whom have never used one. The cost was about half that of the street price of a Nikon 5000 (4000dpi, I think).</p>

 

<p>I agree. A plustek 7200i or PI 7250 pro3 in combination with a Epson V700/750 is about as good as it will get for new equipment, without spending mega bucks. I just wish they would put a better lens on the V750.<br>

Back when I was testing the V750 all I could get out of my scanner was 41lp/mm at 4800 and 6400 dpi, but maybe I did not get a good scanner.<br>

Still that combo is going to cost over 1G and if you shop it like I did and get lucky you might be able to find a drum scanner for less than a used Nikon 9000.<br>

Drum scanning is an entirely different world though. A lot of setup time, a lot of materials, maintenence and slow scanning and its a big machine.<br>

If they break down its costly. If you detroy a drum, bend over.<br>

Also you will probably have to buy some current software for one unless you get lucky and thats expensive too.<br>

For me one type of Ideal all around setup would be a PI 7250 pro 3 (mostly because it will scan an entire roll and has a drive) and that will handle most normal 35mm film, A good V700 for preview, and something like a 5400 - 8000 dpi drum scanner.<br>

8000dpi only because I like to shoot a lot of microfilm.<br>

Then again a Minolta 5400II 35mm scan is as sharp as any drum scan I have done.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>FWIW, my V700 is _extremely_ fussy about film height. Even slightly off, and the results are uninspired. But I have acquired test scan snippets that were very close to the Nikon 9000. The V700 has some color fringing, though. For B&W, with work (and the betterscanning glass holder), it should be very close. I don't know if it would be possible to hold 35mm film and slides flat enough, though. But I haven't put in the work to get a whole MF frame in optimal focus, so this is still theoretical.</p>

 

<p>I think if you wet mount some 35mm microfilm like bluefire on glass on the V750 with tweaked focus height vs the same mounted in the Nikon glass holder you would see a huge difference between the two.<br>

I have looked at all sorts of tests and I have seen those type of comparisons, and my opinion is that they were just bad scans or very soft film.<br>

If you really want to know how sharp a scanner is you need to scan some microfilm.<br>

This is not a Nikon 9000 but it will give you an idea of what I am talking about.<br>

For the best comparisons I have seen a Nikon scanner with good focus, very sharp and flat film is close to equal to a Howtek 4500 drum scanner. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>See my recent post on how to make the stock V700 film holders work to hold film perfectly flat (I made little magnetic widgets that trap the film flat, I suspect this will work with other holders as well). You also need to adjust the height of the holders to an optimal position (mine is the tallest spacer plus 4 sticky note thicknesses).<br>

Once you do all that, you scan at 6400 ppi, do a little noise cleaning, and sharpen/downsize to 3200 ppi. Voila, you get about 3000 lines/inch usable worth of output. It is noticeably better than 2400 ppi scanning.<br>

It is a little work, but I only do that process for pictures I really care about. For medium format, this is really decent. I can make good looking 10x15s from 35mm, with 12x18s a stretch.</p>

<p>I adjusted the heights about a million times and did weeks of testing.<br /> I spent a lot of time testing that scanner and tried all sorts of tuning.<br /> The crops above are 35mm microfilm that was booked and was very flat film.<br /> All three os the scanners were manually focused on the center of the frame. Both the 5400II and the Howtek can be focused manually. The V750 with shims.<br /> I tired several different adjustment heights, glass carrier with kami fluid and adjust height etc etc etc. you name it.<br /> No way you are getting a true optical 3000 dpi. That is 60lp/mm. Maybe 2400-2500 if you have an exceptionally sharp scanner.I shot a USAF test target and got 41.<br /> If you really want to know what it will do without guessing shoot a USAF target with microfilm with a super sharp lens at F5.6 and scan that.<br /> That said the odds of getting a good one are supposedly 1 in 4 so maybe that is the difference.<br /> Maybe you just have an exceptional good scanner and I got a bad one, but the best mine would do no matter what was 41 lp/mm. There was zero difference between 6400 and 4800 with my scanner. If you are seeing a difference between 4800 and 6400 then obviously your lens is better than mine was or tighter tolerances etc.<br /> Post one of your good 3000 dpi crops unsharpened, IE native scan at 6400 dpi. I would like to see it. If I could find one that would do an honest 50-60 lp/mm I would like to have one for preview scans.</p>

<p>Troy, I placed my USAF glass test target directly on the bed of my Epson V500 to measure that scanner at 1270 and 2000 ppi resolution (better resolution of lines running along the scan bed than of lines running across the bed). Do you think making a microfilm test target gives a better test? To make a test target with Bluefire Police flm, would you use the full-range developer or the high contrast (lith) developer?</p>

<p>FWIW, my USAF target V500 scan and results are posted in this thread:<br>

<a href="00UZJA">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00UZJA</a></p>

<p>Back to the original question: Is the V750 the ultimate machine now?<br>

- For 35mm, certainly not.<br>

- For MF, a V750 at 2300 ppi resolution would be enough for pretty large prints, and therefore quite useful, but not ultimate.<br>

- For LF, how much resolution do you want?</p>

<p>Ultimate? I recently visited <a href="http://www.clydebutcher.com/">Clyde Butcher's gallery</a> in Big Cypress Swamp, Florida. He displays large prints... 4x5 feet. They are magnificent, fully detailed, and stand up to very close inspection in gallery lighting. All done with wet darkroom printing. A 12 foot image hangs in Terminal 3 at FLL airport. Now that's LF! Maybe that's the definition of "ultimate." </p>

<p>I have been wrestling with the question of how to approach a hybrid workflow (645 & 6X7 film to digital) for a while now, because of the scanner issue. I have a 35mm Nikon film scanner, so that size film is already covered. I don't want to spring for another Nikon due to both price and potential service issues; most of what I do these days is digital (darkroom is gone) and the MF volume is not enough to warrant the expenditure anyway. The best answer that I can come up with, is to get one of the Epson flatbeds (probably the 700) and use it to contact print and make enlargements/print up whatever size the image will hold up to. If I want to do a larger display print, then take it out for a drum scan, done by someone that knows what they are doing.<br>

One thing that I learned while scanning 35mm film is that the process has a fairly steep learning curve and is quite time consuming; I am not terribly fond of doing it, which has tempered my rush into MF film scanning. One of these days I'll bite the bullet......</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The best answer that I can come up with, is to get one of the Epson flatbeds (probably the 700) ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a good solution, and you may not have to spend even that much. </p>

<p>I own both a V500 and a Nikon 9000. The Epson is good for about a 5X enlargement while the Nikon is good for up to the limits of most film, around 10X. Thus, it is indeed the case that between these two, 8x10 prints from 6x7 scans are indistinguishable.</p>

<p>This discussion reminds me of why most people no longer scan film unless they have to...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This discussion reminds me of why most people no longer scan film unless they have to...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly.</p>

<p>Epsons state of art? OMG no. IMO not worth the time, at least for me I spent a lot of time trying to use one and I only have about 10 scans that I'm keeping. With a Nikon or Minolta I keep about 100x more and spend much less time per image. A Epson is definitely not something I would recommend I'd rather recommend sending the film out to a service like scancafe.com (even over getting a Nikon or Minolta scanner);</p>

<p>It sounds like there are a wide range of experiences out there with the V700. Maybe that in and of itself is scary. But at least for MY copy, with good technique, I get 3200 PPI results that I am happy with. I have printed these at 300 dpi and I like them.<br>

Here is the center section of a picture I developed last night, from medium format 6x6, Tmax 400. I will first post the picture, then 3 identical crops. The first was scanned at 2400 ppi, then upsampled with bicubic to 3200 ppi. The second was scanned straight at 3200 ppi. The third was scanned at 6400 ppi, then bicubic downsampled to 3200 ppi. When you compare them side by side, the texture and detail of the 6400 ppi scan looks much better to me. The only thing done to each was a 100% USM, 1 pixel wide, at the very end.<br>

I know Epson skips scan rows when you don't select 6400 ppi, just because the scan speed increases, no matter how small your crop. Who knows what they do with the pixels on each row. I also know lenses don't go from some resolution to no resolution all of a sudden, so there is some information in the 6400 that isn't in the others. Take control with a 6400 ppi scan and process to taste, then downsample to 3200. It looks good enough to use.</p><div></div>

<p>2400 upsampled to 3200</p><div></div>

<p>3200 ppi straight scan</p><div></div>

<p>6400 ppi scan downsampled to 3200 ppi</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1663928">Richard Karash</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 16, 2010; 10:09 a.m.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Troy, I placed my USAF glass test target directly on the bed of my Epson V500 to measure that scanner at 1270 and 2000 ppi resolution (better resolution of lines running along the scan bed than of lines running across the bed). Do you think making a microfilm test target gives a better test? To make a test target with Bluefire Police flm, would you use the full-range developer or the high contrast (lith) developer?<br>

FWIW, my USAF target V500 scan and results are posted in this thread:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="00UZJA">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00UZJA</a><br>

Back to the original question: Is the V750 the ultimate machine now?<br /> - For 35mm, certainly not.<br /> - For MF, a V750 at 2300 ppi resolution would be enough for pretty large prints, and therefore quite useful, but not ultimate.<br /> - For LF, how much resolution do you want?<br>

"<br>

>>>></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Directly on the bed will not necessarily give you the best results depending on your scanner. The epsons are set up to scan film above the glass surface somewhere around the height of the film holders.<br>

That would give you the lp/mm of the scanner with that medium.<br>

If you want to know what it will do with a particular film then I would suggest you shoot and develop it the way you will shoot it normally and go that route, IE shoot bluefire with a sharp camera and develop it low contrast. I don't think it would matter with an Epson anyway they are so fuzzy.<br>

My V500 is so soft it makes me sick to look at film scans, even microfilm.<br>

The Epson scanners are pretty darn inefficient and you have to scan super sharp film to fully resolve them, IE if you scan a 48lp/mm piece of film with an Epson scanner that will resolve 48lp/mm it wont return a 48lp/mm file. It loses info like about 25% due to lens CA and other scanner issues.<br>

4x5 feet is a 13x enlargement.<br>

My rules are this. I want to resolve 4lp/mm in print. That's good for a 20" view distance. If you are resolving 40 lp/mm (drum scan at 2000 dpi) you can print 10X or with 4x5 almost up to 36" x 40" or so.<br>

Now if you can get that from an Epson scanner it would work fine and in the link, he may be printing more like 2-3lp/mm which is okay just not as sharp in print thus you have to stand back more. Pretty typical these days with people printing D camera images huge<br>

To print 4x5 film at 4x5 feet on a lightjet at 204 dpi you would need a crisp 2600 + drum scan dpi scan or the equivilent.<br>

For LF that becomes more difficult especially with 8x10 film, because you are stopping down a lot more so lens diffraction can become an issue, also film flatness, squareness of the lens to the film plane, lenses are just not that sharp etc etc. All the LF problems that decrease sharpness.<br>

I have taken a few 8x10 photos that were worthy of a 3000 dpi drum scan and more 4x5 images. Most top out at with a 2000 dpi drum scan and its just not worth going beyond that especially if you are scanning 16 bit tiffs. A 4000 dpi 4x5 16 bit tiff is huge. A 4x5 Epson scan at 6400 dpi 16 bit tiff is way too big to deal with for the end results.<br>

A lot of MF has the same issues as LF, lenses just not that sharp, film flatness etc. That said I have a few stunning sharp Rollei 6008 images that are as sharp as 35mm with a 4000 dpi drum scan.<br>

So in general considering if you can get good enough quality out of a V__ scanner to enlarge 8X - 10X, maxed out you are talking 8x12 or maybe 10x15 for 35mm, 22.5" x 22.5" for 6x6 and roughly 36x40 for LF. Still not bad.<br>

That said I never could get any scans as good out of my V750 at any rez that were as crisp and detailed as my drum scanner at 2000 dpi so there are some significant losses going on there.<br>

With a 4000 dpi drum scan of 35mm microfilm you can print to 18"x24"<br>

With a 5400 dpi drum scan as above you can print at 24" x 36"<br>

8000 dpi which is really pushing it you could print at 36" x 48". That is about 85 mp in digital terms.<br>

To me LF photography is more about the experience of shooting LF and all the tedious steps you go through, along with the movements more than just film real estate. It really slows you down and the equipment is heavy and cumbersome.<br>

These days I would rather wander around with a 10oz Nikon 35TI and some bluefire film.<br>

For color photography I would prefer to have a Sony 900 or a Pentax 645D, but right now I cant afford either.<br>

No I do not think the V750/700 is the ultimate machine. They are decent IMO for a 8x - 10X enlargement depending on how sharp the film is and about the only thing available new, they just need a better lens, better film holders and better glass bed</p>

 

<blockquote></blockquote>

 

<p>Well, for one thing, any <em>"ultimate machine"</em> becomes an obsolete <em>old hat</em> down the road... As to scanners, asides from the 2 available Flextight models, there still is (or appears to be) the Coolscan 9000 ED. Very recently I sold my 5000 ED, because "when the price is right"... And <em><strong>right</strong></em> it was. And I still have the above mentioned Epson for various uses, but not for 35mm.<br>

However, soon I will get a brand new Coolscan 9000 for less than what the market estimated the 5000 to be worth. In my opinion there's <strong>a game</strong> being played here. Including on this very website, where certain <em>Players</em> seem to be trying to influence others into believing that the 9000 Ed will no longer be available. With Singapore & other dubious sources being advanced... Meanwhile several vendors offer <strong>USA Coolscan 9000 ED</strong>s <em>brand new</em> in a few stores and on eBay. Granted, for more than the $ 2000,- I am willing to pay... +/- 3 K they're asking, with one down to - 2.5... When I inquired with the vendor about the UPC # and about USA warranty, I got a lame reply of the unit still being <em><strong>in transit</strong></em> with UPS. Obviously someone, somewhere in this country bought a <strong>LOT</strong>... Money being made here. Buyers beware. As often, patience will pay. </p>

<p>I had an Epson V700 for a while and did not know what I was missing until I used a friend's Nikon Super Coolscan LS-8000 ED. If you do shoot 4 x 5, then perhaps the Epson is for you, as the only alternative is a drum scanner.</p>

<p>But for 35mm and medium format, the Epson is so-so at best. I don't know if I would go as far as to say it sucks, but it that is not that far off the mark. I now have my own LS-8000 and it blows the Epson's door clean off the hinges. A side by side 4000 ppi comparison between the two is like night and day.</p>

<p>Hi everyone<br>

I am a UK based professional landscape photographer and I shoot landscapes on film exclusively using a medium format camera namely a Pentax 67II, I make very satisfactory enlargements onto canvas at 50 x 40 inches. My framed prints upto 32 inches long are very crisp and stand unreasonably close scrutiny. My scanner is a Nikon 9000ED and the tranny is kept flat with a glass carrier which is admittedly expensive but gives me the quality I desire. I used to scan my medium format material on a flatbed Epson 3200 and the quality difference both in resolution and recordable dynamic range were acres apart. In the UK the Nikon 9000ED retails new for around £2750 (UKP), glass carrier another £350. That is not peanuts, but scanning is a doddle the results are to my mind stunning and the 9000ED scanners are readily available, I am amazed that they are so difficult to get hold of in the US.<br>

In short I heartily recommend them I would love to have a go with one of the old Imacon or new Hasselblad scanners as I am led to believe there is another jump in quality, however whilst I am happy that the difference in cost between the Epson and Nikon is entirely merited, at £14000 (UKP) for the Hasselblad I would take considerable convincing that the next step up is also a worthwhile investment. <br>

Here is a typical scan from a Velvia transparency with very minor processing and sharpening applied. <a href="http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/largephoto.cgi?ref=145201">http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/largephoto.cgi?ref=145201</a><br>

I hope that helps.</p>

<p>Ian Cameron<br>

www.transientlight.co.uk</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I know of several people buying Coolscans 9000 by the truckload hoping to sell them at a premium.</p>

<p>Their business model seems to be sound and safe. The Coolscans seem to keep their value better than the US dollar.</p>

<p>If it were me, I would place an order with Adorama or J&R and just wait... (Since I already own one it is easy to say though).</p>

<p>There is a problem with discussing scanners as "best" or "not best" without seeing that in the context of what you want to achieve with them. If what you want is to make scans for viewing on screen and small prints from MF then I'd suggest the Nikon 9000 is overkill and unnecessarily expensive. If what you want is to make 30" x 30" prints from a MF film then whilst the Nikon 9000 will do an adequate job there are other scanners that will do better in absolute terms. If you want to make 16" sq prints from MF originals, the Nikon 9000 will perform pretty much as well as anything, but unless you need a lot of these over the course of a few years it might be better not to buy one but to get the work done by a lab and avoid the capital cost. You can draw similar, scaled up or down conclusions about pretty much any scanner, including the V700/750, just so long as we're talking applications and volumes, not quality in an abstract or absolute sense.</p>

<p>I had a Nikon 9000ED and sold it to buy a V700. Not because I seriously think that it makes better scans than the Nikon, but because it does a great job faster on the applications I carry out in decent bulk, like scanning for the web, making CDs of work to send to people, making relatively small files to feed into blurb photo-books and so on. On the other hand i make large prints from relatively few images these days, but they need to be great scans. So I buy in these big scans at a price which makes it easy to justify not owning the scanner myself, and at a quality which means I miss the Nikon not one bit. </p>