MF scanner comparision

[bobw06]

Has anyone had any first hand experience comparing the new Epson V700

flat bed scanner to the quality of the Nikon 9000? I know NOT to ask

if the Epson is equal to, but how close to good quality it is. I am

looking at 120 6x6 scans to be printed uo to 20x20 inch. Thank you.

[Ed_Ingold]

I have a Nikon LS-8000, and get excellent 24x24 prints from fine-grained film such as Reala. NPH400 and other relatively grainy films become too grainy for landscapes at 16x20, IMO. The largest print I would make from 6x6 using an Epson 2450 flatbed is 11x14, and that would suffer next to a 35mm scan in the Nikon or a D1x image.

 

The problem with your question is that anyone who owns an LS-8000/9000 has no reason to use a V700 (or any flatbed) to scan medium format film. Conversely, anyone who uses a flatbed film scanner probably has no idea of what a film scanner can produce, and lives in "the best of all possible worlds" in the sense of Voltaire. Commercial reviews are unreliable because there are axes to grind and advertisers to please. Have you ever seen anything panned in a review?

[ulrik]

Look at this page: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/

20 x 20 inch should not be a problem according to the results of this test (and maybe a little experimenting to get the best out of this scanner).

 

Ulrik

[bernard_frank]

No offense, Edward, but "the best of all possible worlds" was first coined by Leibniz, then

satirised by Voltaire. But you knew that, of course.

[mikeseb]

Bob:

 

At the risk of piling on, my experience with my LS 8000 parallels Edward's. I'm not sure there's much difference between the 8000 and 9000 except for scan speed (someone correct me here) so the same should apply. I have made 16/17 inch wide prints (max for my printer)from Tri-X and HP-5 that were beautiful without objectionable grain.

 

Edward, there are a few spots where products are panned in reviews--Luminous Landscape comes to mind-- but as you say this happens infrequently where the sites have heavy commercial sponsorship.

 

As an aside, I wonder how much better a drum scanner would be than the dedicated film scanner? Worth the considerably higher cost?

[calebcondit]

I just purchased the epson scanner and have done some very large digital prints...its amazing and very fast, and if you buy it even just the epson software is enough control to get a good scan. I do all my work in photoshop. And at the current price with no tax or shipping fees from epson right now, its a good buy and gives great scans

[calebcondit]

I forgot to say- I was using a friends dedicated scanner that he purchased 2 years ago that was supposed to be top of the line and the epson wins in speed, usability and quality

[Ed_Ingold]

You are correct, Bernard. Leibnitz did indeed write an apology justifying the great Lisbon earthquake of 1753 as "the best of all possible worlds". Among other things, per Leibnitz, the earthquake created employment for thousands of workmen to rebuild the city (and carry away the dead). I prefer the Voltaire treatment in "Candide", including the parody of Leibnitz as the all-knowing Doctor.

 

The non-literary parallel is this: Those with film scanners have usually tried using the cheaper, flatbed scanners, and can rightfully assess which "world" is better, if not "perfect." Those who use flatbed scanners have seldom had the benefit of this comparison, and simply state that they are delighted with their results. At least "Candide" had an happy ending (more or less).

[ilkka_nissila]

Let the price be your rough guide to scanner quality and usefulness.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I have an Epson 4990 which many reviewers claimed rivaled a dedicated film scanner. It's pretty good for $500. But I'd swap it for a Nikon 9000 in a heartbeat (or until my budget/wife allows).

 

Robert

[ilkka_nissila]

I also had a 4990 which I sold for $100. I was delighted to get some money back.

[anthony barbatto]

I'm glad I found this thread as I've just started doing research on this scanner.

 

For those of you that have this, when you scan 120/220, is it possible to scan the film border with the print?

 

Thanks,

-Anthony

[sandeep_singh_brar]

I'm waiting for the reviews of the new Epson v750 to start appearing. This is the bigger brother of the v700 with coated optics, better reflective mirror and the wet mount system. Initial tests of the v700 look very promising, this could be the first generation of flatbeds to actually match or beat the Coolscan.

[wes_baker1]

Not everyone who scans with a flatbed is a disgraceful philistine. There are those of us who shoot several different formats of film. As far as I know, aside from flatbeds, the only scanners capable of handling 4X5 or 8X10 sheet film cost many thousands of dollars. So it's resonable for some of us to continue to investigate the latest flatbeds, in the hopes that one will come along that can do an adequate job with the materials we use.

 

It looks to me like the Epson V700 and V750 have the potential to do an adequate job with medium format. Not the best possible solution, but perhaps good enough for those of us who don't depend on the very best possible quality scans to make a living.

 

It seems to me that the only real way to know is to look at the results of a scan from each instrument, using the same negative or transparency. Most comments that aren't linked to that kind of data are just attitude, in my opinion. At least the photo-i review has a few direct comparisons. Even if you want to discount the comments of the reviewer, the results tell you a thing or two about what the Epson can do.

[pete_andrews10]

Epson seem to keep rather quiet about this little beast:

 

http://www.epson.co.uk/products/scanners/F-3200.htm

 

It retails for about the same price as the V750, and on paper, the 3200 dpi resolution doesn't look as impressive, but review results look far sharper, albeit needing a bit of juggling with the film position.

 

Try reading between the lines of this review:

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Epson_F3200/page-1.htm

 

Maybe one day Epson will fit one decent lens to their flatbeds, and not mess about with fitting two obviously mediocre ones. I'm also not very impressed with an implementation of Digital ICE that removes image detail along with the dust!

[alistair o]

Looking at this very detailed review (http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_13.htm) gives me reason to be optimistic that the V700 is at least the equal of the Coolscan 9000. It reports a superior quality scan to the Coolscan 4000 which in turn gives a similar result to the 9000, only it is limited to 35mm. And of course the V700 can scan LF. The V750 is yet to be released and is reputed to be even better. Sounds like progress to me.

[joename]

I have a LS-9000 and use Vuescan. The vast majority of scans are b/w

film that I develop. I would recommend that with scanning b/w film.

XTOL IMHO is the developer that works best for me. I've not tried

them all, but I've tried quite a few.

 

Another poster asked if you can scan the film rebates (border) with

120 film and the LS-9000 - No. Even with the glass tray, the widest

film that will fit into it is 2.25". I don't know the comparison to

epson flatbed scanners, but depending on the film quality, I've

printed 24x24 with no compromise of quality due to grain. At prints

that large, EVERYTHING comes into play - lens quality, pressure plate

flatness, scanning image flatness - every little issue will be

magnified.

[mikeseb]

Joseph:

 

I use the LS8000 and Nikon Scan. I see you use the 9000 with VueScan.

 

I have VueScan but find it extremely cumbersome to use, and extremely poorly documented. I am no dunce, but I've never been able to get the hang of batch scanning multiple images from a 4-image strip of my 645 negatives/slides. I like Nikon Scan's relatively simple workflow: thumbnails-->preview-->curves adjustment etc-->single or batch final output scan.

 

I'd like to learn to use VueScan to hedge against the possibility that Nikon may stop developing NS further (IntelMac/Universal Binary upgrades coming?)Have you found a good reference source for using VueScan, or do you have any other advice?

 

Please feel free to contact me off forum if you wish. I hope this post is close enough to the original post to not be a shameless hi-jack! :)

[custom film holders for fl]

>>Epson seem to keep rather quiet about this little beast<<

<p>

The F3200 was more of a repackaging and marketing exercise than a true movement forward in flatbed technology. Hopefully, the V series isn't taking the same approach.

<p>

Let's hope the V series is a significant advancement. It better be if the v750 is almost twice the cost of a 4990 :) From what has been shown on photo-i, it may be expecting a bit much to hope the V series will match a 9000. My understanding is that the images on photo-i have had post processing (photo-i is upfront about this).

<p> Doug<p>

<a href="http://www.betterscanning.com">Dougs holder designs for scanning 120/220 medium format film with flatbeds</a>

[calebcondit]

after seeing some responses, I see I should clarify. I used to scan constantly on a dedicated minolta scanner (scan multi II) which retails over a thousand dollars. The results (and ease of use) are better with the epson v-700. You can load 2 mf negative strips at a time and the scan program auto locates the image. YOu can use ICE or not (or just use an anti-static gun) and you'll have a great image. I have compared the two images on the two scanners and see a huge difference between the two in color rendition, clarity and so forth. And the 2 lenses aren't mediocre.

[paul.droluk]

There's way more to consider than just resolution. What differentiates the quality of scans is

more a matter of Dmax, noise and accurate color reproduction. My aging but marvelous

Polaroid SS120 will outperform any Epson flatbed when it comes to pulling details out of the

shadows and highlights in the high contrast "magic light" landscape transparencies that I

make... a good drumscan will of course be even better. The axiom "you get what you pay for"

holds true for scanners, as it does for most everything.

[pete_andrews10]

Caleb: I see some very obvious colour fringing on the i-photo scans, which is where my jibe at Epson's lenses came from. It also seems obvious, judging from the i-photo site, that the sharpness of the V-700 is only marginally better than its predecessors, and that ain't saying much.

 

A scanner that's truly resolving 6400dpi, or 4800dpi for that matter, should clearly be resolving the grain or dye structure of the image - no question. But none of the Epson scanners I've seen so far come even close to resolving that level of detail. Conclusion: If the sensor resolution really is 6400dpi, then it must be the lens that's losing that detail. And if the lens only really resolves about 2400dpi (which appears to be the case), then why the heck are we paying just for false resolution and overbloated scans?

 

USM can cover a multitude of sins! And more pixels ain't the same as more resolution.

 

Show me a scan of a 3 micron line/space resolution plate (only about 4800dpi) in which the grid lines are clearly resolved, and I'll buy that scanner in a shot.

[james_symington1]

Bob,

 

In spite of what some people here have said with careful use you can do pretty well with a 4990. At normal viewing distances and on prints of A3 size (approx 17x12) the results can be very very good. Viewed at 100% on a monitor there is a clear advantage to the 9000 as you would expect. How do I know this? I have both scanners.

 

Printed at 20x20 you will see degradation with the Epson 4990 (I don't know about the V700)which would be much less the case with the 9000. But at A3 you have to look twice to see the difference. That is the plain reality of it.

[mattb1]

Don't waste your time on an Epson. They are way better at marketing than making scanners. I would say a 11x14 from an Epson is pushing it, and would have to be viewed at maybe arms length and no where near a good photo. Can good art be made with Epsons? Sure, but at a cost of a lot of time, effort, and frustration. But, its not guaranteed most likely you will end up less than 100% satisfied with the prints. Save your money for a while and buy a real film scanner, used ones can be found and it doesn't have to be a Nikon to be good.

 

I-photo is entertaining reading, definitely NOT the definitive resource on photography.

[james_symington1]

Hmmm - I think that opinion isn't too balanced. Sure the 9000 is better but with a little attention you can get excellent results from the Epson 4990 - at the intended printing size - and I imagine even better from the V700/V750. If you don't have $2000, or regrettably GBP 2200 here in the UK, to spend on an LS9000 you can do well out of a flatbed. I say again, at A3 and maybe slightly bigger you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference. If that is not your experience of the 4990 then you either had a bad unit or you were doing something wrong.