According to photo-i, epson v700 reaches dedicated film scanner quality

[yoni_weismuller]

Hi

 

You may already know, there's a review at photo-i of the new epson

v700. As usual, the initial film scans were clearly not as good as

those from dedicated film scanners.

 

However, this model allows the height of the film holder above the

scanner bed to be adjusted. The reviewer says setting the height to

3.5mm seems to deliver a noticeable increase in scan sharpness.

 

Check page 13 of the review:

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_13.htm

 

"I also repeated the Nikon 4000 test scan with the height adjusters

set to 3.5mm and can now say that the Epson V700 has turned in a

better sacn than the dedicated film scanner.."

 

This could be what many hobbyists were expecting. What do you think?

 

regards

[emre]

Vincent is generally very... generous in his reviews.

[mr._smith]

And he also said this on page 12 of his review:

 

"...there is an improvement over the 3200 scanner, but not a great difference when compared to the 4870 scanner..."

[stu dall]

That's the whole point. On discovering Epson's mention of the ability to adjust the film height when scanning; Vincent then established that the resultant scans were much improved, when scanned at the 3.5mm height. At that point, he concluded that they were superior to the dedicated film scanner, and the posted examples clearly show this.

I'm wondering what height my transparencies sit at when using Doug's holder on my 4990.

The big plus for me, when studying Vincent's examples, was the improved shadow detail from the v700 scans, compared to the 4870, which I would presume to be very similar if not identical to my 4990.

I think the review i'm waiting for though, is the V750 in May.

Stu.

[Ed_Ingold]

Les,

 

George Eastman patented paper-backed film in 1884. Prior to that time, large-format dry plates dominated the market, and probably for some time thereafter. Where were you?

 

In more specialized areas, large-format dominated news photography until the late '50s and commercial photography until quite recently (perhaps still does).

[scott_turner]

<p><i>Edward, you kidding me, they used LF for newsprint? LOL</i></p>

 

<p>Ah, they're so young...</p>

 

<p>Les, the 4x5 Graflex Speed Graphic was <b>the</b> quintessential press camera for decades, and is probably the most famous of large format cameras. It was as "mainstream" as it gets. See <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/large-format/speed-graphic">this </a> article here on photo.net, or do a web search on "Graflex Speed Graphic" for more info.</p>

 

<p>Scott</p>

[scott_turner]

<p><i>"I also repeated the Nikon 4000 test scan with the height adjusters set to 3.5mm and can now say that the Epson V700 has turned in a better sacn than the dedicated film scanner.."</i></p>

 

<p>While I'm pleased to see the resolution improvements when Vincent "discovered" the film holder adjustment, I just don't see evidence to support this strong of a claim. In the one example comparing the older Nikon 4000 with the new V700 adjusted scan, the Nikon still shows detail not visible in the V700 (note for example the wires running horizontally through the framework), and there's still nothing which allows us to do much of a comparison of things like dynamic range/shadow noise. I also note some fringing in the transition from light to dark areas in this and other V700 scans. We're also lacking info and examples of things such as depth of field and how well the film holders handle bowed film which will impact center to edge sharpness.</p>

 

<p>I'll be interested to see where else he goes with this review (especially when using SilverFast) and even more interested to see later reviews of the V750, particularly with the full version of SilverFast. Among other things, I expect the coated glass of the V750 may improve some of the issues I see in the Photo-i review shots, and wet-mounting of medium and large format transparencies will take care of any depth of field concerns.</p>

 

<p>I have high hopes for the V750. I'd really like to see Epson produce a clear winner here, as nothing would please me more than to have an affordable top-quality option for large and medium format film scanning.</p>

 

</p>One thing already seems clear, though. This will likely set the standard for flatbed film-scanning.</p>

 

<p>Scott</p>

[scott_turner]

<p><i>I didn't care so much about resolution then I did color accuracy or ability to properly scan dark frames of film. In fact I was even considering using "scanner friendly film" to avoid the problem. Of course now that I have the Coolscan 5K, I know that it was the scanner.</i></p>

 

<p>This is exactly what I was driving at. While the information presented at Photo-i indicates both that the V700 improves on previous flatbeds, and at least <i>approaches</i> a good 4000dpi film scanner in terms of resolution, other factors simply aren't addressed in enough depth to help me determine whether the scanner really rivals a good film scanner for medium and large format work in other important areas. It may (and it would be great if it did), but the claim is simply not supported so far by what's been presented in the review.</p>

 

As to pure resolution, as you work up to medium format larger than 645 and on into large format, reasonable scanner resolution is all that's required. But if I'm tearing my already non-existent hair out trying to get a nice Velvia landscape transparency to scan due to poor real-world (as opposed to marketing numbers) dmax, or am fighting fringing and other optical aberrations on high contrast boundaries or can't get reasonable center-to-edge sharpness, well... I'd rather stick to the relative inconvenience of drum scanning, thanks.<p>

 

<p>In other words, the jury's still out.</p>

 

<p>Scott</p>

[kit_chong]

"I also repeated the Nikon 4000 test scan with the height adjusters set to 3.5mm and can now say that the Epson V700 has turned in a better sacn than the dedicated film scanner.."

 

I looked at page 13 and at the two images; Nikon 4000 scan 4000dpi and New Epson V700 scan at 3.5mm 4000dpi. I did not think the Epson was better than the 4000. The Nikon 4000 has been discontinued and the current version is the Coolscan 5000. But if anyone thinks Epson is better, go knock yourself out with Epson.

[gary m]

I think Emre said it above very well, and nicer than I probably would have.

[dan_b.1]

For those of you who have an 8000 or 9000 Nikon super cool scanner, I am sure that you will confirm that no flat bed scanner even comes close. One thing I like is the ICE and DEE functions. DEE restores detail to shaded areas and of course ICE eliminates dust particles. At 4000 DPI, I regularly scan 35mm and print up to 13 x 19; and with 6 x 6, I can heavily crop and still get amazing prints. I used an Epson 2450 for med. format before the 9000, and while the scans were sharp, they still did not yield the detail or contrast.

[3d-aeropanoramic project]

forget 2450 complete. maybe my film was not at the proper distance, but both tests of 2450 and 4990-film sitting in the glass shows clearly. 2450 is not sharp. colornegative used of ultrasharp shot with special rotapancam on 70mm avicolor n200(grainy) crop printed out 12x/20x respectively. with v750 and wetmounting-i must use scanmax-wetmounting-holder for my extremely long panoramic stripes-we will see how large we can go. with 4990 i expect up to 15x, with v750 up to 20x without loss-if original is razorsharp. i will not repeat how much details i can see resolved. ok-in 4990 grain is a bit blurred- maybe film not on the right position. with v750 we will do a perfect scan. maybe at photokina, maybe earlier.then we will use the best film: agfa avicolor x-100(has no mask-ideal for scanning-only 70mm and above)-also ideal for b+w.that film has also built in uv-filter. its an aerofilm. x-400-version available plus n-400 and n-800 (see my website: http://www.3dpanimages.tk http://www.europanorama.tk

i will then also rescan that aeroshot and show details. i do not yet have wetmounting-kit.