Epson V750

[hjoseph7]

The Epson V750 is not too bad for scanning 35mm film once you crank it up and know what you're doing . I was

scanning film at at 300, 600, 700, DPI and was getting some so-so and sometimes horrific scans. So I decided to

scan at 3200, even 4800 DPI and now I'm getting scans that are good enough for an 8X10 print ! I wouldn't go any

higher though.

[brian_ellis19]

The true optical resolution of this scanner is about 2200 ppi. Anything higher and all you're doing is increasing the file size without gaining any benefit in terms of resolution.

[rainer_t]

Scanning 35mm film at 300dpi can obviously not result in files containing much fine detail ... the resulting file has about 130K pixels (or 0.135 Mpixels). Even if the scanner would be optically perfect, you couldn't even print a decent 4x6 from that.

[jon_shiu]

Hi, please see scantips.com for basic info on scanning.

 

Jon

[hunghang]

you have obviously blown a shite load of money if you bought the V750 to scan negs at 300 dpi.... way more dollars than

sense

[roger_smith4]

An 8x10 from 35mm on a flatbed sounds reasonable if you sharpen a decent amount. Lesser resolutions are for prints.

[digitmstr]

The V750 is a fine scanner...if you know what you are doing. Wet mounting your media will results in even higher quality scans.

[manuel_terra]

hi,

I have one my self.I scan 6x9 slides at 6400 and get 760 GB files.I use 6400 setting because what I know is this scanner has two lenses,one is of higher quality and gets activated only when scanning at 6400 or above.I can always resize but I have 1.5 TB in raid0 exclusively for this archive and use firewire cable and lads of ram.

[rainer_t]

-- "I scan 6x9 slides at 6400 and get 760 GB files"

 

This sounds a bit odd to me ...

 

6 (cm) * 9 (cm) slides are 2.36'' * 3.54''

 

So, 2.36 * 6400 * 3.54 * 6400 = 340 M pixel.

 

If these pixels are stored as 16bit values (which is reasonable), this would be a 680 Mbyte file.

This is a factor of 1000 away from your 760 GB file ... so I believe you will have meant Megabytes rather than Gigabytes.

[david_henderson]

I think Mr Joseph is or was confusing scanning resolution ( the ppi which you choose to scan at) and printing resolution ( the dpi you choose to print at). The difference between the two is enlargement. As you might well want to print at 300dpi and you will certainly want to enlarge a 35mm image, the two numbers are going to need to be very different. For example to print a 35mm image at 10" across at 300dpi you'll need to scan at a little over 2000 ppi. To make a 10x8 print also at 300dpi the long side will need to be cropped to get the proportions right and the scan of the original would need to be just over 2500 ppi.

 

"This sounds a bit odd to me ... " Still does. Megabytes? Megapixels?

[rainer_t]

-- "Still does. Megabytes? Megapixels?"

 

Yes, true ... my assumption was that an uncompressed 16-bit tiff format is used to store the file.

[manuel_terra]

sorry,yes I meant MB, think it is impossible to work in a 760 GB image... at least in PS,and imagine hardware requirements for that.

[manuel_terra]

It creates tiff files,uncompressed i belive.

any one has tips about using this scanner? experience using the spacers? I use it with epson scan software,cant use SF in xp64bit platform,paid extra for the pro version and cant use SF(no drivers for 64bits) any way I think that the pro version has some special lens coating or something...not sure that makes any difference.