A scanner comparison

[david_goldenberg1]

Hi,

<p>

There have been numerous postings on this forum and others asking whether or not a flatbed scanner is an

acceptable substitute for a film scanner, particularly for medium format film. When I recently started using a

Mamiya 7, I read many of these discussions and decided to give the Epson V500 a try. Previously, I had used 35

mm and have used a Nikon Coolscan V to scan the negatives. After getting the V500, I did a some comparisons,

using the same black and white 35 mm negative in both scanners. I thought that the results might be of interest

to others.

 

<p>

The negative I used for this test was, in my judgement, very sharp. It was made with a Leitz 50 mm Summicron DR

lens (highly regarded for its high resolution, if modest contrast) on Ilford Delta 100 and developed in Geoff

Crawley's FX-37. Using the Coolscan V, I have found that this film developer combination gives excellent scans:

To my eye they are not improved by either sharpening or the use of grain-reduction software (e.g. NeatImage).

<p>

Using each scanner, I scanned the negative at 2400 dpi, and small portions of the images are shown below:

<p>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/8202134" alt="">

<p>

The images above are about 135 x 190 pixels, or about 1.4 x 2 mm on the original negative. The region in the

upper right is a portion of a door made of horizontal slats, which are just resolvable in the Nikon scan. By

counting pixels, I estimate that the lines in the image are separated by about 0.03 mm on the negative,

corresponding to about 30 lpm, which I think is a pretty respectable real-world resolution, with lens, film and

scanner all taken into account.

<p>

The image from the Epson V500 (center) is clearly much less sharp than the one from the Nikon (right). But,

after applying an unsharp mask, the V500 image comes pretty close! Apparently, there is enough high-frequency

information in the scan to allow sharpening without obvious artifact. On the other hand, the finest features in

the Nikon scan (such as the door slats) are not resolved in sharpened image.

<p>

If the Nikon and Epson (with sharpening) scans are printed at 300 dpi and a magnification of 5 X, it is very hard

to say which is better. At 8 X magnification, the Epson scan is noticibly softer.

<p>

In the realm of medium format photography, these results suggest that the Epson V500 can come very close to the

Nikon scanners for prints up to 8"x10" or maybe 11"x14" (with 6x7 cm negatives).

<p>

I also tried adjusting the distance from the scanner glass to the negative (by adding spacers or placing the

negative directly against the glass), but I couldn't really see much difference. Also, I find that the plastic

Epson negative holder is pretty easy to use, and I don't see an urgent need to get o "better scanning" holder,

though they do look very nice.

<p>

Obviously, your mileage may very, and I will be interested to hear other comments.

<p>

David

[david_goldenberg1]

Oops,

The image didn't make it into the post. Here is the link:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/8202134

[gt1]

Nice post.

 

I'd recommend the betterscanning holders, especially for 35mm. I can't get my film flat in the Epson holder, but it's trivial with the betterscanning holders.

[mike_earussi1]

Followed your link but still no photo.

[Ed_Ingold]

<i>In the realm of medium format photography, these results suggest that the Epson V500 can come very close to the Nikon scanners for prints up to 8"x10" or maybe 11"x14" (with 6x7 cm negatives). </i>

<p>

I'm inclined to agree with this statement. Indeed, if your largest print is 11x14 inches, there are a number of options that will work equally well, including a 6MP DSLR or a 35mm Nikon scan. It should not require any extraordinary effort to do this from a 6x7 negative. To others, medium format is all about big, sharp prints. With the Nikon scanner, you would have no problem making a 30x40 inch print from any reasonably fine-grained film.

<p>

If you decide to make larger prints in the future and still have the original film, all you need is a better scan.

[mark liddell]

<i><p>In the realm of medium format photography, these results suggest that the Epson V500 can come very close to the Nikon scanners for prints up to 8"x10" or maybe 11"x14" (with 6x7 cm negatives). </i></p>

<p>This matches my experiences also.</p>

<p>If you are going to scan MF with an epson flatbed you might as well just buy a 12MP dslr for the same money and get comparible quality. 6x7 scanned on a good scanner is a different story all together.

[janne_moren]

What would a good scanner for MF be? I'm sort of in the market for one. The Coolscan 9000 is out of my price range; also I'm leery of buying something at that kind of price from a company that is quitting the business and may not be all that forthcoming about repairs in a few years. Ideally I'd want an Epson scanner due to the good drivers and general support.

[Ed_Ingold]

A Nikon LS-9000 (and glass holder) is about the cheapest way to get sharp prints larger than 11x14 inches from medium format film. I have not even been satisfied scanning 4x5 film on a flatbed - less than medium format quality on my LS-8000*. The alternatives are even more expensive, including various Imacon scanners, a Scitex flatbed or perhaps an used drum scanner. If you pursue the Epson route, then you might consider spending $50-$100 for an occasional drum scan. That adds up to the cost of an LS-9000 pretty quickly if you are seriously into medium format.

 

Nikon has a good history of supporting older products, including scanners. Other than dust, there isn't much that seems to go wrong with their scanners, and dust is preventable. Scanner sales are off due to the rapid decline of film and film services. If Nikon supports their scanners for another 10 years (not an unreasonable assumption), you might be sending your film to India or China for processing (I still get vacuum tubes made in China, 15 years after the last plant closed in the US).

 

* I draw the line on spending $18K for an Imacon which scans 4x5 when the same money for a 31MP MF back would give equivalent results with much less effort. Without justification, I will do neither.

[david_goldenberg1]

Here is another attempt to post the image.

 

A final point that I meant to make in my original post is that the medium format negative scanned with the Epson beats the 35 mm negative scanned with the Nikon, hands down in my opinion. I've not done direct comparisons with the same subject, but it is pretty obvious to me that the final rendering of detail and texture is much clearer in the prints from the larger negative. This, of course, is what people have said about medium format for years. The differences are clear in 8x10, and even 5x7, prints.

 

It may well be true, as Mark Liddell says, that a 12 mp DSLR would do about as well at these print sizes, but I like film! If I were trying to make a living at photography, though, I'm sure that I would go with the DSLR.

 

David<div></div>

[squareframe]

David,

 

based on your image submission, it seems quite clear to me that the Coolscan V scan is far and away the best scan. the Epson V500 scans are rather dismal at best.

 

best of luck ...

 

dt

[gt1]

I have an Epson V700 and my results scanning 6x7 at 6400dpi are quite pleasing on prints up to 24"x30". I don't

know if the V500 has dual lens scanning for higher resolutions or what the max resolution is but I'm getting much

better results than above. <p>

 

In fact, I printed the following 35mm image at 12"x18" to send to the subject, and it looks great:<p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/2998860850_813e25e533_o.jpg">

[sfcole]

Daniel,

As to the above comparison, just remember that the V500 images only look dismal in comparison because it's a very

small crop.

 

I use a V500 for 6x6, and for smaller prints, one simply can't look at the photo and say it's not sharp. I've also compared

the same negs from the V500 to those from a 9000. With judicious sharpening, you can get really close. The question is,

is the image from the 9000 worth the extra $1800???

 

My V500 scans of Mamiya 6 negs are bitingly sharp for smaller prints--there's just nothing left to see. Shadow detail may

be another matter for some users.

 

My solution is to use the V500 to edit--if the photo turns out to be sharp and well-exposed, is a subject that demands

absolute resolution of every detail (remember, not every subject needs it), and I need to make a very large print, then I

can send out the neg to have someone else scan it on a better machine. For me, that turns out to be a very small

number or negatives.

[jesus_freak]

David,

 

Excellent post! When comparing a 35mm Coolscan V scan to a Epson 120 scan, what scanning resolution do you start to see the medium format advantage? I'm debating whether to jump into the medium format game, albeit on a tight budget.

[robert lee]

"... Epson beats the 35 mm negative scanned with the Nikon, hands down in my opinion. "

 

Sure, to a first order. Here's a comparison I did a few years ago:

http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00MkgS. The flatbed was an Epson 4490, which

supposedly was the precursor to the V500 - same optics but different light source.

 

What I've found is that 6x7 area on the Epson and 135 on a Nikon both yields about 20MP. Shooting fast, old

style emulsions like Tri-X or HP-5 is a net loss for the 135 because the media itself doesn't resolve enough.

50% MTF for Tri-X on 135, for example, yields just about 8MP.

 

However, medium speed modern emulsions, e.g., Acros and 100 TMAX, are something else altogether. A 6x7 scanned

on the Epson and 135 on the Nikon are substantially similar. The scanning equipment becomes the main constraint

on quality.

 

By the way, this is why I'm just heads over heels over 135 format TMY2 in Xtol 1:1. Image resolution and

tonality is close to what can be had with 6x7 digitized on a consumer flatbed. It's a good combination to

explore for those without access to a Nikon 8000/9000 for MF.

[squareframe]

are we looking at the same thread? David Goldenberg posted three images, ostensibly the same, scanned on two different scanners. the Coolscan V scan is far superior. just look at the brick detail in the background. no amount of sharpening is going to make that Epson scan approach the Coolscan V. there just isn't the resolution or data there to work with. in fact, to my estimation, the Epson 500 + USB scan is unacceptable.

 

I am purchasing an Epson V700 this week, and am confident it will do a fine job with my 6x6 and 4x5 negatives.

 

daniel taylor

[seandepuydt]

David, having used the V500 for awhile, I agree with your post. For less than 200 dollars, the scanner is a bargain. Having drum scanned 6x7 negs to compare, I can tell you that this little scanner is well worth the money. - Sean

[robert lee]

"are we looking at the same thread? ... just look at the brick detail in the background. no amount of sharpening is going to make that Epson scan approach the Coolscan V."

 

Oops, I cut out too much in quoting David Goldenberg. It should have been "... medium format negative scanned with the Epson beats the 35 mm negative scanned with the Nikon, hands down in my opinion."

[janne_moren]

I'm probably looking at a V700 after the new year. I still think there's a gaping void in the market here for MF, between the V700 on one end and the (soon to disappear) Coolscan 9000 on the other. Seems to be plenty of mid-level options for 135 format, but for MF it is all but missing. This is a shame especially as cheap MF format cameras have become popular, and a resurging interest in older MF gear.

[benny_spinoza]

Janne....what is your source of information regarding discontinuance of the Coolscan 9000. There is no mention of this at the Nikon site. Do you have information that Nikon is getting out of the scanner business?

[johnmarkpainter]

David,

 

Thanks for posting this thread....regardless of the Crop/Sharpening, the images aren't even close to comparable.

This is exactly what I have found.

I compared my Epson 4870, Coolscan V and a Coolscan 8000.

 

FOCUS is the main issue with the Epsons. Even with the focus properly compensated, the image is still soft.

The Coolscan V had an edgy look and consistently overexposed.

The 8000 stayed on the conservative side of the exposure with maximum detail.

[david_goldenberg1]

All,

Thanks for the interesting discussion. Obviously, what is "acceptable" varies a lot from person to person. But, just to put my original images in perspective: If you are looking at these small crops on a screen with 100 dpi resolution, each of them will be about 1.4"x2", which is an enlargement of about 24x. The entire 35 mm frame would be enlarged to 24" x 36", and a 6cm x 7 cm frame would be enlarged to about 56" x 66". (Sorry about the mix of units, but we Americans seem to still mix negative and print dimensions up this way!) Presumably, if the picture had any interesting content, you would be looking at it from some distance away!

 

For another perspective, try printing these images at 300 dpi, and look at them from 10 inches away.

From that distance, I'm not sure that you would say that the sharpened epson scan is obviously better than the Nikon, except that it might look a little oversharpened.

 

If there is any point that I would make from all of this, it is just that someone, like Jesus, shouldn't be discouraged from trying medium format because he or she only has a flat bed scanner available. I am just getting started with MF after many years of working to get the last bit of detail from 35 mm, and I am very excited by the difference.

 

David

[david_goldenberg1]

Sorry, I meant to say in the second paragraph:

For another perspective, try printing these images at 300 dpi, and look at them from 10 inches away. From that distance, I'm not sure that you would say that the sharpened epson scan is obviously *inferior to" the Nikon, except that it might look a little oversharpened.

[janne_moren]

Benny, the word is (sorry for the expression) that Nikon is getting out of the scanner business altogether.

[janne_moren]

Edit: I can't seem to find the link again, and I can't for the life of me remember what site I saw it on. It could turn out to be just a rumor of course. If it is I'd be delighted; that gives hope that they could come out with a lower-level scanner for MF film at some point. Anyway, resolution is not the only reason to use MF film, as things like grain will be much less pronounced given the same size scan.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

My experience has been that a medium format scan on a consumer flatbed is about the same as a 35mm scan on a decent film scanner. So why bother with medium format if you're not planning to use a good scanner?