V700 sample scans VS. KM Multi Pro . . . .

Go here to see how the V700 compares to the Multi Pro on "real world" negs.

 

http://www.shutterflower.com/V700.htm

OK, now redo this with Doug Fisher variable height holder after having found the best

height for your V700 and you'll see the resolution gap with the Minolta will come down to

almost nothing. Once you get that holder, try scanning at 6400, sharpen a bit and then

downsample to 3200 using the bilinear algorithm for B&W and bicubic sharper for slides.

 

Regarding dynamic range and colours, the V750 will outclass both thanks to the included

profiling kit and SilverFast Ai.

 

For me the difference between those Epson and dedicated film scanners is in productivity.

As you said the film scanners are faster.

George, once again you prove, through pixel peeping, that the a film scanner beats an Epson flatbed. Taken further though, with proper post scanning processing and sharpening technique (and not a heck of a lot at that) Epson flatbeds more than hold their own in the final product most people care about rather than intensely peeping at each and every pixel: a print.

 

I'd bet if someone made both into prints, again, with applying good and proper technique for print print preparation, then framed them, hung them on a wall, and people viewed them at typical viewing distance, the difference would be negligible and oftentimes not even evident.

 

Of course, once again, we'll have a thread where those who spent their thousands on their film scanners adamantly defending them and saying they are SO much better it's ridiculous (and pixel peeping will indeed "prove" it) but bottom line is there are lots of people who spend a fraction of the money making amazing prints from their Epson flatbed scans----scans that are easily (again with proper technique) upwards of 90-99% as good as a film scanner result if in the end what is important to you is the print and the display of the print---not what the pixels look like when viewed 100% on your monitor.

The whole point of using medium format is the sharpness and resolution, not to mention the smoothness of gradations. The Shutterflower comparison is based on images of questionable technical quality, reduced resolution and 400% crops. The street scene is hand-held - which alone will negate any advantage of medium format over 35mm. As dumbed-down as all that, the Konica scanner still shines. If "good enough" is your goal, you can spend a lot less money and get a point-and-shoot.

The great scanner comparison would also benefit from some normalizing of the scans. Especially getting black and white point and color balance roughly consistent, as this really affects the apparent sharpness of an image (washed out images look unsharp).

 

That said, I appreciate the effort and some data is better than no data.

thanks for the criticism. Especially Mr. Buy a P&S. SHarp thinking there. I shoot MF to have the large negs in case I ever want to print large. For my own purposes (13x19 is the largest I will ever print at home), there is no noticeable gain.

 

My studies on the V700 are mostly working towards figuring if the V700 will produce enough resolution to print up to 13x19 on an Epson R2400 at its maximum printing resolution. I know fully that the dedicated scanner will beat the V700 down any day on TESTS (if you actually read my review you'd have noticed this confession).

 

Point is : at 13x19 on an R2400, there is no useful gain to scanning with the Konica Minolta over the Epson. If you're taking your images and having them printed optically by a lab from your scans, sure, the extra resolution might be useful . . . but only if you have perfect negs, which very few people have.

 

If I want to get a killer sharp print from a negative or slide, I'm not going to scan it myself anyway - I'm going to have it printed by a lab. For home printing on an R2400 or other high end consumer printer, the V700 is 100% capable.

and about the scanner comparison : rules were that no image modification or tuning was allowed. Only scans straight from the scanner. Hence the variation.

One other minor point...Minolta's defunct and Sony surely won't provide service for long, when their shareholders quantify the realities. But to the extent that dinosaur comparisons like this are relevant, the Polaroid should also be considered.

The Polaroid is not better. I used to own the Microtek 120tf, which the same scanner as the

Polaroid and at 13x19 from MF, there is nothing between it and an Epson 4990. At 100% on

screen, there is almost nothing between a 2400ppi scan from the Polaroid and the same from

the Epson if one used a glass holder with both scanners.

Each scanner should be tested in the mode, including resolution, that makes the best of its capabilities. My chief complaint of "test" of the sort you published is that they are dumbed down to the extent the real differences (or similarities) are obscured. You should also start with first-rate material, taken with a tripod and great care.

 

In order to make a valid comparison, it is useful to publish a 100% panel (pixel = pixel) alongside a reduced copy of the original with an outline showing the source of the crop. This shows the results in an objective manner, on any screen. If you resample, you no longer see the "best" that the scanner can produce, even if you you do this in order to "normalize" scans from two different sources.

 

I don't find that scans "out of the box" are particularly objective. You simply default to whatever settings are in the scanner or software, and their relationship to the film being scanned. I don't think adjustments like color balance, white/black points and contrast are misleading (unless you attempt to mislead). You might draw the line at using USM sharpening, or at least declare your actions and use an appropriate amount of USM to bring out the best in each example.

 

I tend to agree that the differences might be small in a 13x19 inch print. Nonetheless, starting from a sharp negative, the difference is readily observable (e.g., 250 vs 360+ ppi at the print size). While a flatbed might be "good enough" to meet your needs, provided the print size is small enough. All well and good if you are just starting out. However, I would not advise anyone to sell a film scanner in favor of a flatbed. Scanning is a costly, time-consuming activity. It makes sense plan a little further ahead.

OK< then from now on, I'll keep my stuff to myself.

No, don't do that.

 

Straight from the scanner with software as a variable really limits the usefulness of the comparison. Do a raw scan and then post-proccess them in a consistent manner if you want the scans to be useful. Look at the Luminous Landscape comparison of Velvia and MF backs for a good way to do it.

'Look at the Luminous Landscape comparison of Velvia and MF backs for a good way to do

it.'

 

This is hilarious. The guy consistently downsize film scans to some print size, usually

13x19 and then declares digital to be better. He has the honesty do say that for larger

prints his 6x7 camera (which he sold since) comes out better.

 

George's comparison is valid, if only in his own context. I personnaly arrived at the same

conclusion between a Microtek 120tf and an Epson 4990 with a glass holder (not with

Epson's crappy holder).

 

For realistic print sizes (I can't do more than 12x18) a dedicated film scanner is not useful

anymore. For pixel peeping, the film scanners rule.

Have been reading with great interest the scanner debates on this and other sites as I prepare to go digital with my LF habit.

 

At this point, clear as mud.

 

But could one of you humor a newbie by explaining the purpose of "downsampling"? Why throw resolution away?

With the 4990 and the V750 I have seen that you get slightly better scans by scanning at

maximum resolution and then downsampling to what I need.

 

Why doing that? Because scanning a 6x9 at 6400ppi produces a huge file that will bog down

the computer once loaded in PhotoShop. I generally downsample to bring the shorter side to

4000 pixels (from about 14500).