flat-bed transparency scanners for 4x5

<p>Hi, I'm interested in a flat-bed scanner that handle 4x5 transparencies. The intended output would be prints ranging from 8x10 to 16 x 20. The one I've been looking at is the Epson Perfectio n V700 Photo. Any thoughts on that scanner in particular, or other recommendations? <br>

I'd like to keep things under $800 if I can.<br>

Thanks for any input.<br>

Andy</p>

<p>For your budget, the V700 is about as good as you'll find. It'll do fine for the output sizes you've indicated with 4x5.</p>

<p>Used an Epson 3200 for several years now with good results. Now that I am shooting 5x7 I am looking for a flat bed scanner for the larger negs. I lay the 5x7s on the bed with the emulsion up and it catches 4.7 x7 without any mask and get good results. I can't remember what I paid for it but it's been a good one. Thousands of scans and yet good, knock on wood!</p>

<p>I have a V700 for scanning 4x5. True resolution is something like 1200 - 1600 dpi. Excellent prints up to 16x20 are possible. The included Silverfast software is a bit clunky but no other scanning software I have used is any better. The glass tends to collect dust on the inside after a few years. Go for it.</p>

<p>I use an old Epson 2450 scanner. The film holder is crap, but I tape the neg to the glass and get very sharp scans. Cost was less than $100 and resolution is 2450, which will give you a huge file. It does a much better job w/ 4x5 than I ever expected. Very good for that, pretty good for 6x6, forget about it for 35mm. But I have a Minolta Scan Dual III for the miniature negs.</p>

<p>Scanners vary from Unit to unit; serial number to serial number.<br>

That is why Steve says an Epson 2450 is sharpest on its glass and its film holders are crap. Here we get excellent results with our Epson 2450; it works excelllent with its stock film holder; the best focus is where the stock holder for OUR unit.<br>

<br /> Thus one of two our Epson 2450's is our best flatbed; better or equal to out 3200; 4800 dpi Epsons; or V500 or V700. A scan with a newer unit does not pull out any more real info; with our units.<br>

WE have Epson 600, 1200, 1600, 2400, 3200, 4800 and 6400 dpi units; the higher units jsut add more bloaded files. The Epson one 2450 here that works real well is an early 2450 unit; maybe it was built better; maybe we just got lucky.</p>

<p>Modern flatbeds pull out alot of the info in an original; but NOT the entire can of detail. Thus the a drum scan or high end film scanner will pull out more detail. Thus your super rare 50 line pair per mm 4x5 original be butched abit with a flatbed; ie low passed. It is like your system has a poorer enlarging lens; or you original is only an average to fair 25 to 32 line pair on the original.<br>

<br /> Some flatbeds and users work better with getting more details with fliud mounting to gain sometimes more details; IF your unit has a better focus on the glass.</p>

<p>Here the old Epson 2450 is used for customers "just average" 35mm originals; and 35mm stuff that has mold; massive dirt; crap than may damage our better real 2700 and 4000 dpi real film scanners. Here is a 35mm scan of a 1960's sharp 35mm tri-x negative. A real film scan pulls out more details. The Argus A2 has a more detail in its knurled aluminum wind wind knob; the shutter speeds and exposure matrix are more defined. With our Epson 2450 it does pull out the bulk of many originals; but it rolls off and trucates the high frequency info; ie super fine details are lost.<br>

<br /> Whether this loss of info matters depends on what the scan is for; the viewing distance; subject matter. Alot of photography with LF and scanning is about fine great tones; a drum scan is often not required. <br /> Folks experiences with flatbed vary widely<br /> What folks used flatbed scans for varies widely. `</p>

<p>Here is a 35mm scan with our Epson 2450; with stock holder; stock software:</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-244.jpg?t=1243700596" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-189.jpg?t=1243699750" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-190.jpg?t=1243699809" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andy;<br>

<br /> Here with out many Epsons I have found making a sharp 16x20 " print from a 4x5" original is a slam dunk; easy; trivial job. One has only about a 4x enlargment; say 4.5 with a slight crop.<br /> If ones criteria is 6 line pairs on a print; that is 24 to 27 line pairs on the 4x5 original; in the range of a modern flatbed.</p>

<p>If ones criteria is 7; it is 28 to 32; 32 bumping up against a flatbeds "mushy" limit that folk will ALWAYS squabble about.<br>

<br /> For a wall poster that is viewed at a few feet away; one can get away with greater enlargements. A flatbed like an Epson is a vast overkill for a billboard.</p>

<p>For an 8x10 print; one has only abit over a 2x enlargement from a 4x5 original; even our old Epson 1200U 1200 dpi unit will do this with ease; a ten year old transparency scan unit.</p>

<p>Here is another 4x5 scan; ancient speed graphic shot; 127mm F4.7 Ektar; Epson 240 scan; stock film holder; stock goober Epson software; computer that scanned this had win2000; PPro CPU; 200Mhz; 512 megs of ram built in 1996. Now of the gear is quote modern; and one gets details with ease.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson4x5/tripods-491.jpg?t=1243701580" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson4x5/tripods-493.jpg?t=1243701654" alt="" width="540" height="424" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson4x5/tripods-494.jpg?t=1243701707" alt="" width="504" height="557" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson4x5/tripods-492.jpg?t=1243701769" alt="" width="432" height="358" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here are some scans of 6x6cm /120 negatives with our 10 year old Epson 1200U scanner/transparency unit; a unit that is "only" a 1200 dpi class scanner. It clearly does not pull out entire cigar/pickle; but still works for many applications; web to billboards.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/kowa%206/tripods-489.jpg?t=1243702270" alt="" width="540" height="542" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/kowa%206/tripods-490.jpg?t=1243702568" alt="" width="498" height="460" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/biker/tripods-498.jpg?t=1243702779" alt="" width="510" height="544" /></p>

<p>My vote is for the epson 2450 for short money !</p>

<p>Hey, thanks for all of the input everyone. Appreciate the time. Big help.<br>

Andy</p>

<p>Hi, Andy! (And anyone else who's interested.)<br>

I've posted a full-resolution JPEG of a 4x5 scan (at 2400 dpi) from a Delta 100 negative souped in Rodinal 1:50, so you can see what the Epson V750 Pro can do.<br>

It's had a bit of a contrast bump with curves, and some fairly aggressive Smart Sharpen/Unsharp Masking for output, so it might look a little "too" crispy up close. But it should print just fine.<br>

The file, which you can get <a href="http://www.presquevu.com/elvis2.jpg">here</a> , is about 3.8 megabytes.</p>

<p>I started with an Epson 2450, and finally gradutated to the V750. The V750 does have some more resolution than the 2450, maybe 50-100% more. But what mostly drove me to the V750 was speed, the 2450 is excruciatingly slow when you're sending a lot of data, very slow USB interface. I don't remember if the 2450 is only USB 1.0, or it is just as slow as USB 1.0, even though USB 2.0.<br>

I paid the extra for the V750 over the V700 to get the non-crippled version of SilverFast, which I find very good software.<br>

For optimal results (sharpness) from either scanner, get a LF filmholder from http://www.betterscanning.com.</p>

 

<p>another vote for the Epson V700, using it for 6x17's and it does a mighty fine job - faster then my Imacon</p>

<p>Henrik</p>

<p>V700 all the way here too. First thing I did was some MF scans (6x6, nice up to 14" square prints). It's been great ever since, including quite a lot of LF work - I think I've got a 20x16" print off it somewhere too.</p>

<p><a title="Raw by spodzone, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/spodzone/sets/72157600014660561/" title="Raw by spodzone, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2007/2215301334_9b73bc5741_m.jpg" alt="Raw" width="240" height="240" /> </a></p>

<p>I use an old Epson 2450 that I bought for $100. Does a fantastic job w/ 4x5, OK w/ 120 and forget-about-it w/ 35mm. Scanning in at 2450 PPI, a 4x5 gives a file that will print 40"x50" w/ 220 DPI at the printer. This is after cropping to clean up where the film holder marks are. That's well over 3'x4'. Do a little interpolation and you can get 4'x5'. I gave up on the flimsy film holders and just tape the neg to the scanner's glass. Sharp as a tack scans.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi again. I just posted improperly about an Epson 3250. I meant the Epson 2450. I purchased one on Ebay to scan 4x5 transparencies, but it arrived without the film holders. I found old threads about the film holders being crap, and that people had taped the transparency directly to the glass. Will the scanner recognize the media without the film holder? If so, where does one tape the transparency? Any help would be appreciated. Luke</p>