What scanned dpi is needed for R2400 13x19 quality prints?

I have this amazing film scanner - Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro - and

am unsure as to whether I need all the power given that I'm not going to be

printing larger than 13x19. Right now, I could go to 17 inches on the short

side of a 645 frame and still have grain sharp prints.

 

Question is, would I obtain useable scans to print to 13x19 with the Epson

V700? The math makes it look so, but I know that 3200dpi on a flatbed (this is

really the effective performance of the V700) and 3200 on the Multi Pro are two

very VERY different things.

 

I am considering an Epson R2400 to use with the Multi Pro, but I could save

myself $1000 by selling the Multi Pro and buying an Epson V700 instead.

 

there is so little on the V700 as to make impossible real decisions based on

research.

 

hmm???

I'm also just thinking that I should sell this scanner since it is currently on a credit card. . .

 

so I want to make myself feel better by hearing that there IS hope in flatbed world.

 

I really doubt that there is, based on what I have read.

George,

 

See my findings on this thread just below yours:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H0N2&tag=

 

The V700 is likely to perform better than the 4990 and at 13X19, particularly for b&w, I would say you would not be able to see much difference at all. Less so for slide film where you are probably better advised to hang onto the Minolta.

 

Depends how fussy you are too. Do you sell these prints?

I have seen tests of the V700 that show visible grain in the scan, which leads me to think that the V700 is capable of grain res scans. I actually don't believe that it is true, but that is what the reviews have shown.

 

Your 4990 scan is clearly not grain level resolution, since no grain pattern is visible at all.

 

Of course, I'm shooting relatively course ISO 400 or 200 B&W . . .

 

shoot.

 

I'm probably going to be a very very bad person and buy an Epson R2400 to make sense of my Minolta. Very bad indeed.

 

I don't sell my work often, but I do occasionally. I'm picky just because it's my nature to be so.

 

If image quality weren't my top concern, I'd trade in my Bronica RF645 for an M6 + lens, and my Multi Pro for a 5400II. But, I want my 645 negs, and I want to make the most of them.

The answer is quite simple math.

 

Let's assume you don't print borderless, making your largest print 12x18 inches. Since to

print at that size you'll need to crop you 645 neg, you end up with 37.3x56mm of actual

scanning area, or 1.5x2.25".

 

A 12x18" print needs 240dpi to look good under close examination. 360dpi would be

better but 99% of people need a loupe to see the difference, so I personally use 240dpi at

that size.

 

Therefore, you need 2880x4320 pixels.

 

2880 / 1.5" = 1920dpi scanning resolution, make that 2000 and you're fine.

 

Now, if you want to really extract the last drop from a V700 or V750, do your scan at

6400dpi and downsize to 2000dpi in PhotoShop with the Bilinear method for B&W negs

and Bicubic Sharper for slides. Bilinear will downsize the B&W grain much better than

Bicubic.

"A 12x18" print needs 240dpi to look good under close examination. 360dpi would be better but 99% of people need a loupe to see the difference, so I personally use 240dpi at that size"

 

For most prints I'd agree, although the interim position of 300dpi would be the preferred quality choice for many users. However, there's a small number of shots which absolutely need 360dpi with the Epson R2400. You'll very occasionally find a "moire" type effect with some patterns at 240dpi or 300dpi using the R2400, and for these (admittedly rare) occasions 360dpi is the best solution.

I don't know George....just wanted to say, if anybody ever does do a decent review on the Epson 750, make sure it gets posted here on Photo net. The literature indicates if ANY (consumer) flatbed will give quality scans, this is the one. I personally have my doubts also, having used a flatbed for my medium format negatives also........and then there is <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=164478"><u>this</u></a>. Should be interesting to read the review in View Camera

>>there is so little on the V700 as to make impossible real decisions based on research. <<

<p>

Have you had a chance to look at the review at www.photo-i.co.uk for the 750? He does a comparison with the Nikon 9000. You can see the relative difference between the two scanners. The difference between the V series and the Minolta should be about the same.

<p>

I haven't seen it posted here for a while, so I will post this link again. It is from a French magazine but the pictures are pretty self explanatory:

<p>

http://www.galerie-photo.com/test-scanner-epson-v700-versus-4990.html

<p>

Also, you have to remember the 4990 images are scanned at the standard film height. They have not tested to adjust to see if they can achieve better focus by determining the optimal film height. There is a good chance the 4990 scans could be improved with a little testing and shimming.

<p>

The German C't magazine also did a V Series test although I don't have any link to the article.

<p> Doug<p>

<a href="http://www.betterscanning.com">New film holder designs for Epson, Agfa and Microtek</a>

The Photo-i review does not compare the V750 and LS-9000 in a way that can possibly show any difference. Rather than 100% crops of the same image, large scale images are reduced to web quality. At the other extreme, 300% crops are used to show visible pixelation, which inexperienced people confuse with lack of resolution. In other words, the comparison is dumbed-down as to avoid making any true comparison. the same thing occurs in every review I've seen of the 4990 as well. Give me a break!

 

James Symmington's comparison (q.v.) is much closer to reality, and corresponds to my observations. I'd say "Keep the Multi-Pro" and ignore the hype over the V750. Otherwise you are wasting your time with medium format film.

"2880 / 1.5" = 1920dpi scanning resolution, make that 2000 and you're fine."

 

If that math is right (haven't checked) you need 2000dpi of actual resolution- previous posts here indicated that decent flatbeds were getting even less than that, regardless of the box specs. I'd be more hopeful about getting higher real resolution from a dedicated film scanner. I'd keep it myself, and send out large prints for printing until you can afford the 2400, too.

Right now, I can scan Velvia or Neopan 100 Acros and the grain is very very well defined - like 3-5 pixels across at 4800dpi and still very obvious and sharp at 3200dpi. The KM Multi Pro is amazing that way.

 

My issue is, at 13x19 on an R2400, is the resolution difference between the Multi Pro and the V700 going to make sense of the extra $1000 cost difference? That is where my problem lies. I can save myself $1000, OR I can have the best scanner on the planet for under $10000 and no real means of printing its output. I'm not going to spend $40 for some lab to wrestle with my scans for 13x19 prints. It is actually alot cheaper to have them go direct from the neg than from my scan.

Maybe I should trade in my Multi Pro and my Bronica RF645 for a Leica M7, Nokton, and a Minolta 5400 II. Anyone want to trade?

>>is the resolution difference between the Multi Pro and the V700 going to make sense of the extra $1000 cost difference? That is where my problem lies.<<

<p>

That is a very tough question and the reason you aren't getting a bunch of direct answers is that it depends on_your_definition of what is acceptable/worth the difference :) I would say keep the Minolta until you have actually worked with a V series scanner and know for sure it will meet your needs. The Minolta is the "sure thing" for both your medium format and 35 mm.

<p>

Just one person's opinion...

<p> Doug<p>

<a href="http://www.betterscanning.com">BetterScanning.com</a>

Why would you exchange a better dedicated film scanner scanner for a flatbed that is good enough.

 

As good as the V700 may be, a dedicated mf film scanner is the top choice. Better scans always produce better prints, even on the R2400.

I acquired a V700 recently because I wanted to scan Medium and Large format negs/slides without spending too much money. I also own a R2400. I scanned several of my B/W medium format negs (Ilford Delta 100, Delta 400, TMX and TMY) at 2400 dpi because I think that this is quite sufficient for the work I do. I have also been told that this resolution is really good for this scanner and that this scanner (like all flatbed scanners) is definitely not recommended for small format. That's not a problem for me since I also own a Minolta 5400 film scanner.

 

For some prints at 13x19, you could slightly distinguish the grain with ISO 400 films. Nothing with ISO 100 films were the pictures are tack sharp. As with all flatbed scanner, you pretty need to sharp the scans. Obviously this scanner, because it is a flatbed scanner, cannot compete with a film scanner but its performance are sufficient when considering the price. It will also allow me to scan my large format negs. I have read that the V750 performances are not so different. The V750 is apparently especially interesting for it software bundle (Silverfast software).

 

I have not yet tested the V700 with color negs.

Having seen a demo scan on the V700 at 'Focus on Imaging' (and just read a review of the

V750 in

this weeks British Journal of Photography) I'd keep hold of the Minolta if I were you!

AH!

 

I sold the Minolta.

 

I bought the V700.

 

I am actually quite happy with it. I scanned some test negs - just real world shots (no targets), and the V700 holds its own. In fact, the B&W scans are noticeably better. Same resolution (grain sharp), but the grain is smoother. On E6, the V700 is softer and it has a slightly narrow dynamic range, but for my purposes it is still more than enough.

 

Since all I do is B&W anyway these days, and the occasional C41, the V700 will be 100% perfect. Printing to 13x19 will be totally reasonable, and I just saved myself $1000. Search rangefinderforum.com for V700 and see in the "pass around scanner test" how well the V700 performs on real world negs as compared to the Minolta.

 

I think some of you may be surprised.