scan sharpness

[troyammons]

<p>Oops lost the 1st image. Here is the PI 7250 image.</p>

[troyammons]

<p>Here is the same piece of film scanned with my V500. I have tried, reaising the film holder, glass, on the glass, wet mount etc etc. None of it does any good. I think I just have a lemon. This is 4800 dpi rediced to 3600 dpi to match the 7250 pro 3 scan.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Troy your V500 seems to be quite blured. There must be quite a bit of variation between different V500.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Jamie, the V500 is somewhere in the middle. Way less than a Coolscan V or 5000, but reasonably useful, especially for the price.</p>

<p>I tested the V500 with an Edmund Scientific USAF glass test target. As expected the actual achieved resolution is about 2000 ppi, way less than the quoted "optical" resolution. But, surprisingly this is only achieved in resolving lines in one direction (lines parallel to the scan track); for resolving lines running across the scan track, it's only 1270 ppi. See this thread:<br>

<a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00UZJA">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00UZJA</a></p>

<p>Practically speaking, that means you'll get 2000 x 2000 resolved pixels from a 35mm negative. Less than your DSLR. For 120 film, the story is better. </p>

<p>I get very usable scans of 120 film (6x9) from which I make nice 12x18 inch prints. I doubt with this scanner that you'll be able to scan 35mm to get results better than a DSLR. In other threads, people have said that the V500 gives scans that print OK at 4x the linear dimension of the negative/slide. That sounds about right to me. </p>

<p>Peter, I'm intrigued by your wet-mount. I might give that a try.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Troy I played around with your image a bit. It is still not great but it is somehow improved. It is still not as good as the plustek.</p><div></div>

[robert lee]

<p>I thought about buying a Fisher holder for the V500 but didn't after running a quick test.</p>

<p>Use a stack of the yellow 3M sticky pads to shim up the stock Epson holder to various heights and compare the subsequent scans. If film height actually mattered for the V500, then this (binary) search process should quickly locate the best height offset. Unfortunately, for my V500 at least any height variation within 2mm or so made absolutely no sharpness difference.</p>

<p>The premise of the third party carrier is that it it flattens film curl and keeps the entire scanned film surface at this optimal height. Unlike the V700/V750 (and dedicated film scanners to an even greater extent) the V500 optics have a great deal of DOF. Unfortunately, the resolution isn't particularly high within this range.'</p>

<p>I'm sure the Fisher holder is a good addition for the high end Epsons, but is not particularly useful on the V500.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here is another v500 scan first is the full frame image.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Now if I print the 2400ppi scan at 10 inches wide the face would be some what smaller than this next section I have uploaded. The 8x10 print would not look bad at all.</p><div></div>

[jamie_duivesteyn]

<p>update: After some setting changes I can get acceptable scans from running straight off the glass holding the negative flat with another piece of glass. I can see grain now!</p>

<p>Perhaps id11 and neopan 1600 weren't such a good idea ;)</p><div></div>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Jamie, </p>

<p>ANother important thing to consider is the multipass and multiexposure. The stepper motors in these units are not all the accurate. With multipass, it is rare to get the system to line things up correctly.</p>

<p> </p>

[mattb1]

<p>I second the idea that you can't compare the sharpness of a recent DSLR and a flatbed scanner, no contest the flatbed will be a lot worse. You may be able to get some images to share on the web or print less than 8x10, but only after spending a lot of time and effort on an image. The difference in time and effort compared to a dedicated scanner is like night and day, I could get better prints from a dedicated scanner with no post scan manipulation than most efforts with a flatbed.</p>

<p>IMO I could not suggest that you get another epson, or even say to fix your current one. Stick with your DSLR and learn how to use it, you will be more productive and get better image quality in your prints. Note that the DSLR is a different tool than shooting film, you need to expose the image differently. Your DSLR is more like shooting slide film, you want to get your highlights as bright as possible without blowing them out. IMO there is a lot of craft in DSLR shooting, just as much as scanning film. The difference is that the DSLR will let you focus on image composition rather than spending your time trying to correct flaws in a flatbed.</p>

[troyammons]

<p>Stuart,<br>

I know anything can be improved with sharpening and that does look better but still that does not improve a machines ability to render detail.<br>

Also I look for a 2 pixel soft edge max in whatever I scan/shoot etc due to the fact that when<br>

you go over that amount sharpening just becomes harder and creates more artifacts.<br>

Also over 2 pixels and photos just never look crisp.<br>

BTW I have a Pacific Image 7250 pro 3 not the plustek.<br>

That's the new 7200 dpi scanner that will scan an entire roll of film.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Sorry Troy I read Plustek somewhere here and confused it with your Pacific Image 7250. That Pacific Image scanner looks to be a good deal with the ability to scan a whole role and the scans from it look much better than the V500. I would like one of those myself shame I did not know about it before I bought the V500 however for now I am stuck with the V500.</p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>"IMO I could not suggest that you get another epson, or even say to fix your current one. Stick with your DSLR and learn how to use it, you will be more productive and get better image quality in your prints. Note that the DSLR is a different tool than shooting film, you need to expose the image differently. Your DSLR is more like shooting slide film, you want to get your highlights as bright as possible without blowing them out. IMO there is a lot of craft in DSLR shooting, just as much as scanning film. The difference is that the DSLR will let you focus on image composition rather than spending your time trying to correct flaws in a flatbed."</p>

<p>I don't think the OP is asking about whether his DSLR is better than film. He used the DSLR with a macro lens to digitize the negative and compared that to a V600 scan of the same negative. His full film shot may be a masterpiece but he's just showing how crappy the flatbed scan looks. </p>

[troyammons]

<p>Stuart,<br>

No problem, I just wanted people to realize that image was scanned with a 7250 pro3.<br>

The 7250 pro3 is decent and my copy is certainly sharp enough at 3600 dpi.<br>

That said it does have some issues. Its difficult to batch scan the emulsion side of the film and with this scanner it is significantly sharper scanning the emulsion side.<br>

The software is very simple and nice but a bit flaky. Also WYS is not always what you get. They must use some other color space or its a bug.<br>

Silverfast works better than Cyberview or Vuescan but thats just more $.<br>

If you can find the right combination of film profile and ROC, Cyberview is faster for automated scanning of a roll of 36. Thats a long piece of film.<br>

Its noisy in very dark area, but I am still working on that. Forget severly under exposed slides.<br>

Very thin B+W negatives scan well.<br>

Mine color streaks on one side with slide film. That does not show up with B+W<br>

Still its good enough to pull a 18 mp file from film like this.<br>

I bought it mostly to preview an entire roll before drum scanning but if you dont need more than a sharp 3600dpi/18mp then it will work.<br>

Not bad for $420.</p>

<p> </p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>I have tested filmholder height on my V500... I found no difference in the ranges I tested, from zero "lift" up to a couple of mm. This matches Robert's report (above) and similar comments by others.</p>

<p>I hear that on the V750 film height can make a significant difference in resolution.</p>

[robert lee]

<p>By the way, for those looking for ANR glass to use on flatbeds, <a href="http://myworld.ebay.com/teebain/">this seller on EBay</a> has been pretty good. Keep in mind that to really remove film curl, you'll need two pieces of glass to sandwich the film (but only one has to be ANR.)</p>

<p>I bought the ANR glass, but ended up holding my nose and got the Nikon glass carrier as well. The Nikon was just more convenient to use, but so damned outrageously expensive.</p>

<p>Lastly, it is possible to use the glassless carrier and simply focus stack multiple scans of the same frame. This is worthwhile for that single special exposure. The fewer glass/air/mylar gives slightly sharper scans (for a tremendous amount of more work.)</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The Epson V500 is really not up to the task of scanning negatives. I own a V500 (one of the best copies it seems) and a Coolscan 9000. This is a comparison scan of TMAX 4000 6x7 at 4000dpi. Also shot the same shot with the Canon 40D and upsampled to match.</p>

<p>(The negative was very banged up when I scanned it - This is at no fault of the scanner).</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>This is even digging deeper with a crappy microscope to show that there is even more there than what the Coolscan can fetch at 4000dpi. (the Coolscan is upsampled to match the microscope).</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[troyammons]

<p>The V750 is in an entirely different league and it does benefit from tweaking.<br>

Still the lens is just not good enough for high end film scanning and between that and the glass mine created a significant amount of CA. Also no AF, but it was built for a price point.<br>

If they were to equip it with an AF lens that cost as much as the scanner itself, better glass, better dmax, better software then they would really have something, but probably more like $2000 price tag.<br>

Its still a good scanner and miles ahead of the v500/600.<br>

To me the v750 is about 2x as good as the V500/600, and a real film scanner like a Nikon 5000/9000 is about 2x as good as V750.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Maruo, I really appreciate the real-data examples, here and in other threads. Thanks!</p>

<p>How do we interpret your results, quantitatively? Looks like your Coolscan 9000 is delivering a 10, the V500 and the 40D are about 4.5. What does that mean in terms of PPI?</p>

<p>I do note the V500 resolution is less than half of the Coolscan 9000. That sounds about right. (Coolscan 9000 at 4000 ppi, V500 at < 2000 ppi).</p>

<p>But, before we throw our V500's into the trash bin in disgust, let's consider what one can do with the results they deliver. I'll post an example in a minute.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>So, what can we do with a V500? I think I can scan 6x9 color negative film to produce a good 12x18 inch print. Here's an example... It's a favorite test scene I use, the famous Cheers Pub in Boston. Here's the overall scene, shot with a Mamiya Universal, Mamiya Sekor 100 f/2.8 lens, f/16, probably about 1/60th, on a solid tripod. Scanned on V500, Epson film holder, at 2400 ppi. Processed in Photoshop (more below).<br>

<img src="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<h4>Epson V500 Scan, 6x9 Color Negative, Overall Scene</h4>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Here is a crop 600x600px, actual pixels, of the final processed file. This will be a 2" x 2" square in the 12x18" print. I think this is sharp enough, and it has accurate enough color, though it took some steps to get there. I forgot to mention above, this is Ektar 100. Regulars here know that I have posted examples from this scene in the past; this is a new exposure Feb 2010.</p>

<p>And, I know the OP is asking about B&W, but I think this color negative shows the resolution and contrast that will be relevant in using this scanner for B&W.<br>

<img src="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-Crop1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<h4>2x2" crop from 12x18" image, 600x600 actual pixels, Final Processed file.</h4>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Here is a second crop from the same scene. Same comments as above.<br>

<img src="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-Crop2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<h4>Another 2x2" crop... Same comments as above.</h4>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>You can produce some nice prints with the V500. I may not be the best with fine grain film and detailed lanscapes but it works great with more grainy TriX or Agfa APX. This one is from APX100</p><div></div>