Scanning speed with Epson V750

[marek_fogiel]

I have bought a v750 a couple of months ago, but am only now getting to face the workflow for scanning

my 6x6 film (mainly slides), as I just got hold of the magnificent Doug Fisher's 120 film holder.

 

The holder is a very fine piece of hardware, and finally I have been able to perfom precise tests on the

optimum focussing distance, using the glass plate for getting the best film flatness and moving the focal

plane by adjusting the height screws ( in my case it looks like about 0.9 mm extra extension is working

best, what makes it a 3.4 mm total distance).

 

The problems have started when I set to scanning slides at the resolution of 6400 dpi, intending to

downsize them to 2400-3200 dpi in PS later - my 17" I-Mac took about 25 minutes to produce a straight

48 bit colour scan ( on Epson scan), and when I tried to include the Digital ICE (it works miraculuosly btw),

the time "exploded" to about an hour and a half. Even when I try to scan with ICE at 2400 dpi it still takes

almost a full hour for a single 6x6 frame. I am using 1,5 GB of RAM.

 

Am I mising something in the way I should set up for my scans, or do I have to steal a computer from

NASA in order to make this work in acceptable time intervals???

 

Any ideas are most welcome.

[paul_viapiano]

I think you're trying to scan too much information (along with Digital ICE). Just ask yourself what the scan's final intended purpose is (web, large prints, how large?, etc...)

 

Also, this scanner's maximum optical resolution reportedly is approx 2400dpi, if that. Also, 48-bit scanning isn't necessary unless you're anticipating a lot of intensive Photoshop tweaking or have a difficult image. Try 24-bit, 2400dpi without Digi ICE and see what happens.

 

But to sum up, those times sound about right...

[digitmstr]

I have had my V750 PRO for a week so, I don't know how much your processor, bus speed, etc... are part of the equation.

 

IMO the iMac is not a machine of choice for intense graphic work.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With alot of scanning the CPU requirements are not much. In windows NT4, win2000, and Xp one can peek at task manager, to see the cpu usage during a scan. If its loafing along now with your current scans a NASA computer wont help. With a Mac there is also a way to check CPU usage too. Even win 98/se does too.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I just scan with my older "photoshop dream machines" and then move the files via a LAN to a modern machine for editing and modifying them. This saves time when one has many flatbeds and film scanners being used at the print shop. Scanning at a 6400 dpi setting with a flatbed is just creating BS giant files with little extra real info at all. The stepper is half, maybe quarter stepping along and creating the bog. Its like mowing a yard with a hand held weed eater. The weed eater can have a higher horsepower, but the limit is still the speed at which you walk and the dinky path cut.

[marek_fogiel]

Thanks for your useful hints. I have checked the thing again.

 

First, I have run extensive tests on various resolutions from 1200 to 6400 dpi upsampling

and downsampling to see where the resolution gains would end. I wanted to verify the

idea, according to which the "better" lens of this scanner only activates at 6400 dpi.

 

It does not seem to me that the 6400dpi setting produces any dramatic quality shift.

 

It looks like there is no gain above 3200 dpi, although a 6400 dpi image, sharpened

preliminarily and downsampled to 3200 dpi works out to a slightly better final image, than

a 3200 dpi scan, no matter how much you tweak the unsharp mask later on.

 

So I run again a test on a 6x6 colour transparency in 48 bit mode and at 3200 dpi without

and with the ICE on Epson scan. Here are the results: 2mins 36 secs with no ICE, one hour

and 24 minutes with ICE ! Evidently the problem relates to digital ICE in general, or maybe

in particular on the Epson scan.

 

Has anybody got a better track record with using digital ICE through other software, or

with

some hat trick I am missing?

 

Thanks for help.

[roger_smith4]

That is horrendous. Do you have some sort of diagnostic tool that tells you how much RAM and CPU time your computer is using? (Windows has one built in, don't know about Macs).

 

Have you tried Silverfast?

[eskoi.pohjanpalo]

Of course the same happens with 4990 scanner, ICE works but it is time consuming. My solution is to use about 1-2 minutes for cleaning the scanner surfaces, then removing dust with brush and blow very carefully from my 6x6 slides, again 1-2 minutes. There are still occasionally, not often, dots in scanned pictures, but those are easier and faster to remove with PS than wait for the ICE scanning. Anyone else approached this practical solution?

[upscan]

Hi Mark: In your experiement you set several constants 1) the same software; 2) (6400 dpi) 3) the same computer 4) The same bit depth and finally, against those you tested two variables, A) with ICE and B) without ICE. Now for the results: With ICE the scan time = 25 minutes, Without = 90 minutes, a 3.6 X ratio when ICE is used. As the only variable concerned the use of ICE your conclusions are absolutely correct. The time ratio was due to the use of ICE. Considering the additional and substantial computations needed by ICE the time ratio does not seem unreasonable at all. Although you had what in most cases is adequate RAM, relative to the size of the file it is not. You might reduce the times a bit further by increasing RAM if you are going to run such large files. However the whole excersize comes into question considering that you saw no improvement in resolution above 3200 dpi. (another posting). This also brings into question the a) Epson resolution 6400 dpi claim and b) the merit of the two lens system. Since there is no advantage to running at 6400 dpi, why then bother to find a solution to a problem which is not worth solving? If at least there was something to be gained by solving the 6400 dpi / ICE problem then yes, there would be an incentive but as that is not the case why bother? Run at 3200 dpi and forget about the promised land (6400 dpi, high resolution lens) and run ICE at reduced times. Spending a bundle on RAM might help but is it worth it?. Perhaps for other reasons. In years past, 1.5 GB RAM was lots, no longer now that files have grown in size. When editing in Photoshop at 16 bit colour depth more RAM will not hurt.

 

Having said all this, you do not need to borrow a NASA computer to run ICE at 6400 dpi (even if it was worth doing). There is another technique which does what ICE does, but does it optically instead of digitally, it is called Wet Mounting: It needs no more RAM and requires no digital manipulations. Its advantages go well beyond ICE's realm of dust and scratches: increased color saturation, contrast, grain reduction dynamic rage, better shadow detail etc. On balance, the extra time spent on wet mounting (with practice experienced users get it down to a couple of minutes per slide) pales in comparison with the computational times required by digital techniques during or after the scan. Chek it up on http://www.wetmounting.com. Wet mounting is not a new technique, it is the standard technique with the king of scanners, the drum scanner.

Good luck

[thomas_hardy1]

Questions about the V750 came up about a month ago as to scanning 4x5 film. A recent View Camera magazine had a review of the scanner. Scanning at 6400 taxed the abilities of an iMac. At 4x5 the file size was 4 gb, and takes a long time to scan using a G5.

 

They estimated that the true resolution (at each claimed resolution) is much less than stated by Epson. The review thought that the highest resolution would be good for formats smaller than 4x5, since file size would be smaller and scan time shorter.

 

I guess the question is: what do the scans of Med Format film look like? How do the prints look?

 

Maybe you can post some of the files at different resolutions. I'd like to see some examples.

[a_shah]

I wonder why the ratios between the ICE/non-ICE tests are

- ~3.6 in the first test

- ~33.6 in the second

 

I have just come across this problem and need to find a way to speed up the ICE processing somehow.

 

What I think I have noticed is that the ICE performance varies from time to time on my machine so I am wondering if it is heavily dependent on available memory, etc.

 

Looking at the task manager my PC (2GHz/512MB) uses ~5% CPU when the scanner is scanning and then 100% while (I presume the ICE processing occurs).

 

Would be great to make these operations parallel (useful for batch scanning slides). It would be great if one could store the raw scanner data and ICE post-process overnight...

 

...back to benchmark some more... (BTW is there a site with systematic independent benchmarks of different scanners and modes...)

 

/Arvind

[walter_dufresne]

We've had good luck here using the V750 with old sheet film in both 4x5in and 8x10in size.

When we use Digital Ice, we have the scanner hooked up to our most powerful Mac, because

it seems that Digital Ice uses lots of horsepower from the processors. Digital Ice seems to

gobble up CPU cycles, and you can check with Apple's Activity Monitor application from your

Utilities Folder inside your Application Folder. It looks like not using Digital Ice makes the

V750 scanner quicker and more useable on older Macintoshes.

[ed_oneil]

I just bought the V750 and I cannot scan anything past 2400 dpi. Is this normal? I am trying to scan 4x5 trannies at 6400 set to original size so that I can also take advantage of the lens with better coatings but I get a message stating that the resolution is too high ( see attached). My system is a G5 dual 1.8mHz with 4.5gb Ram and at least 100gb free drive space. A similar message appears with Silverfast 6.5 as well as Epson Scan. What am I doing wrong? The Epson Scan shows the file will be 3 GB. My taget is to scan at 6400 then in PS resize to 11x14 at 300 dpi.Any help would be great ..Epson could not help and said they would cal back in 48 hours.

[timschneider]

This sounds about right (re: scan times) As for the last poster.. I get the same message when attempting to scan 35mm slides in 48bit mode. Have had the v700 for a while, but just now having some time to dig into it

[david_mcshane]

I was disheartened to read that the V750 which I am considering purchasing shares

excrutiatingly long scans when using ICE with Epson's earlier models.

I gave up trying to use ICE on my 4870.

However I use ICE all the time on my Nikon CoolScan 8000 where the slightly longer scan

times are a non issue whether hooked up to a G5 with 4gb of ram a powerbook with 2gb

or an older G4 Tower with 2gb.

So my guess is that the way ICE must be implemented on Flatbeds must account for the

extended times.