Are the Epson V700 / V750 scanners the "ultimate" machines now?

[troyammons]

<p>After trying out too many scanners and spending a lot of time comparing this and that, what I like to do is scan with whatever scanner/camera/film I am using that will give me a 2 pixel edge max.<br>

3 pixels deep is still workable but 2 is a lot easier to sharpen.<br>

4,5 and more is just way too fuzzy to work with for me.<br>

Most V750 scans I did at 2400 dpi looked pretty decent as long as the film was sharp and usually about a 2-3 pixel edge. That said with a drum scan that same image at 2000 dpi would have a 0 pixel edge, very crisp and clean with more detail.<br>

I did have a few 35mm V750 scans that I did at 2400 dpi and reduced inside Silverfast to 1800 dpi and they looked fantastic. Its just 1800 dpi is a pretty small file.<br>

Big enough for an 8x10 print though.<br>

Here is one of the 35mm scans reduced to 1800 dpi.<br>

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/68475777</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Ian; there are many new Nikon 9000's and Epsons too on ebay.</p>

<p>A NIKON 9000 costs 3000 bucks</p>

<p> An Epson V750 costs 500 to 850 bucks</p>

<p>With many folks originals and applications the Epson is a better bang for the buck; it does not pull out all the details in a sharp original. Folks get different results with flatbeds.</p>

<p>ie one gets more "useable dpi per dollar" with a flatbed. ie dpi/usd :)</p>

<p>in Europe it might be dots or pixels per mm per euro? :) ie dpmm/euro :)</p>

<p>My flatbed results reflect that they are OK; but leave out high end details. </p>

<p>Here I have owned flatbeds for along time; early pro units we had cost 3 grand and only scanned at 800 or 1200 dpi; and were slow too. A modern Epson pulls in about say 2000 to 2400</p>

<p>THAT LAST amount of details costs one more in cost!</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>One might say a modern Epson is a good consumer flatbed; but if you want the best fork out 3 grand for a real film scanner like the Nikon 9000</p>

[troyammons]

<p>I have found that on average a V700/750 will pull about 40 lp/mm with sharp film.<br>

A 4000 dpi drum/nikon glass mounted scan will pull somewhere around 70-75 lp/mm with sharp film or maybe a true 80 lp/mm with something like microfilm..<br>

A 5400 dpi drum or KM5400II scan will pull about 100 + lp/mm but only with microfilm. The KM 5400II is actually resolves a little more detail than my Howtek.<br>

8000 dpi is too expensive but I would like to try some microfilm at 8000 dpi just to see what it would do.<br>

If you are going to print at 4lp/mm its just simple math.</p>

<p> </p>

[PeterKrenek]

<p>Ian, have you ever tried to have your slides scanned using a drum scanner and compared with the 9000? I have my slides scanned by a friend on a Nikon Coolscan 9000 and I am very satisfied with the results. I have a few slides, though, where would consider trying a better scan. As far as the Epson V750 is concerned, I shall do a test next week, comparing to the Coolscan. I was asked by a friend who has the Epson to provide a slide I had scanned on the Coolscan already. I might post the result later.</p>

[steve_larese1]

<p>My Nikon 9000 makes my Mamiya 7s and Leica M6s the best digital cameras out there. I hang on to my 4x5 stuff just so I can scan the 6x9s I take with it. I also save many thousands as I don't have to buy the equivalent digital cameras (like a $7000 M9).<br>

If it wasn't for the 9000, I'd bag it all and be completely digital. I think there is still quite a market for high-quality scanners. I would hope companies that make film would still support good scanners. I researched the V750 ad nauseam and decided it wasn't for me, unfortunately. I pay $20 a pop to have 4x5s drum scanned, when I need them.</p>

[troyammons]

<p>I personally doubt you would see much difference. <br /> Besides the system resolution will be lower than the film rez, so if its velvia you might be at<br /> 70-80 lp/mm. If its average B+W film lower.<br /> Way back I had a soft MF lens and was comparing scanners using that lens and E100G without really realizing that I had a system rez that was somewhat soft.<br /> I guess I was resolving about 40lp/mm. I scanned it with 3 different scanners including a Nikon 8000 and they all looked about the same as for detail.<br /> It took me a while to figure out what happened, but that's when I decided that it was important to know the limits of the equipment and film I was shooting before I started jumping to conclusions.<br /> Most people I have done drum scans for that had also done Nikon 4000 ED scans and whatnot, saw little if any gain in resolution.<br /> Fact is if it is average 35mm film and resolving in the 70s IMO either would look about the same as long as the film is flat in the Nikon.<br /> Here is a 4000 dpi E100G drum scan crop from the center of a Rollei 6008 frame. This is probably one of the sharpest 6x6 images I have ever taken. I don't have even one RZ67 lens that can resolve this sort of detail. Maybe the 65mm floating element lens would. this image would be good for a 36" x 36" enlargement.</p>

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

[david_henderson]

<p>Ian Cameron. If you are interested in what you can get out of your work with an Imacon, then David Hall at Blueskyimages (<a href="http://www.blueskyimages.co.uk">www.blueskyimages.co.uk</a>) offers good scans from an Imacon. Depending on size of scan required, I'm paying between £6.50 and £10/scan and for that you get the scan hand-cleaned in photoshop, so no Ice to soften the image and importantly no hours spent in front of a computer cleaning and cloning. To me, the availability of that means that I don't need and can't justify the ownership of a scanner to support my prints.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>David - my experience with the Epson flatbed is similar to yours - I have a Nikon 5000 for 35mm and I used to have an Epson V700 for MF (Mamiya 645 and Fuji 6x8). I was never happy with the Epson - it took a lot of time and effort to get a reasonable result and even then I was not really happy. Finally I cracked about a year ago and bought an Nikon 9000 ED and the glass holder (about $2400 in the US - although I live in Canada). The Nikon 9000 may not quite get drum scanner results but it is very close and is a massive improvement over the Epson. Even without the quality improvement the time saving aspects of the Nikon make it worth the money.</p>

[dan_max2]

<p>Thank Troy Ammons for excellent comparison scans. You will note that the Howtek was by far the better scanner. However the Howtek was the only fluid scanner (wetmounting) of the lot compared. For one, the focus plane of the drum scanner will be right on and the focal plane of the Nikon or Epson will not, due to film curvature. Additionally fluid scanning enhances the resolution of the scan substantially as it increases contrast and dynamic range. The resolution of the Nikon 9000 and the Epson V750 is greater fluid scanning or wet mounted. With fluid scanning the resolution of the Nikon 9000 is boosted to much beyond 4000 dpi .</p>

[troyammons]

<p>Fluid scanning does not increase the apparent resolution IMO if you are talking comparing wet to dry scans on a drum scanner. <br /> Also I dont think you can really compare the Nikon 9000 to a drum scanner anything unless you use the glass carrier.<br /> Iffy film flatness kills rez. Thats a pretty big issue with the KM 5400II.<br /> How can you boost a film scan past its resolution ??<br /> Wont happen. No magic resolution boost happening when you wet scan. Matter of fact there are more<br /> transparent surfaces for the lens and light to go through.<br /> <br /> IMO if you are using a top scanner with a deep Dmax the big difference between wet and dry scanning, is the reduction of grain, scratches, dust and inperfections. There will be a slight gain in apparent Dmax but very slight. I am talking drum scanners not CCD scanner so much.<br /> I think what you are seeing is On the Nikon when wet scanning is the difference in film flatness, or maybe the CCD acts differently to wet scanning. I know it did absolutly nothing for my V750 as far as its real measurable resolution goes.<br /> Drum scanning is different though since it samples RGB at every pixel location.<br /> As far as drum scanning, I get the sharpest scans when I dry scan the emulsion side. IE I wet mount the back to the drum and the top is dry. I usually only do that for test scans and what not.<br /> The Rollei scan above is a dry scan and so are the microfilm boat crops. Microfilm scans good dry. If only I didi not get newton rings, I would not have to even fluid mount the back with microfilm.<br /> Wet scanning the emulsion side with a piece of acetate is next. Almost as sharp as above, but a less grain/noise with color film.<br /> I think most people wet drum scan the non-emulsion side and that is significantly softer than a dry emulsion scan<br /> I think Microfilm scans better emulsion up and dry.<br /> That said, it usually takes a balance of the right aperture and wet scanning to get a perfect scan ready to print straight off the scanner.<br /> With microfilm 4000 dpi and 6 micron aperture is about perfect, but notice the Howtek was having problems with the horizontal lines on the grate and the KM5400 was still resolving more detail.<br /> With a 2000 dpi wet scan and E100G I open up the aperture one step and it kills almost all of the grain and returns a ready to print file. Very sharp edges and nice color depth. Those make absolutely perfect enlargements from 4x5 film with very little work.<br /> 4000 dpi with E100G is a little more tricky because it is resolving more grain, but its similar. Open up the aperture 1-2 steps and wet scan. There is some grain there but not too bad.<br /> With B+W film, You can scan according to how much grain you want to resolve, IE emulsion side dry the most, emul side down and wet the least, open up the aperture even more and smoother still.<br /> I really hate scanning color negatives. Can be touch and go. Some films work great and are easy to scan and some just give me fits.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>I'm not going to compare my 700 to anything but I will say it gets unfairly "tested" by critics around here who have never owned one or parrot what they've heard from from web chatter. These scanners can make a fine looking 8x12 from 35mm and very nice 11x14's from 645. I use my holders at the lowest height for best focus. (my machine) Two things are critical for the best possible scans. First the emulsion side must be facing up. Second the film needs to be perfectly flat. Curl will quickly kill the limited focus and the holders are to flimsy to sufficiently straighten a curled film. I seem to get my best scans using the 3200 dpi setting no matter what the actual resolution might be. (see test scans below.</p><div></div>

[mjferron]

<p>And here's the 100% crop. I've had less grainy shots look even more impressive. (ps the truck is covered with water droplets if this look a bit strange to you.)</p><div></div>

[clgriffin]

<p>I think I'll have to run some tests. I should have a couple of rolls of 120 in the<br>

fridge.</p>

[troyammons]

<p>That does happen a lot. A lot of people suffer from pride of ownership too.<br>

I personally suffer from the ultimate sharpness bug. Probably why I like microfilm.<br>

Some people I have run into that own a V750 without ever having owned anything better think its the best thing since sliced bread and even compare it to drum scans.<br>

People who have never owned a V750 dis it completely and say its a waste of time. It does fit a certain market and price point just like the plusteks and Pacific Image scanners<br>

Its a decent scanner, its just limited and needs a better lens IMO. <br>

There aren't any reasonably priced scanners that will scane multi formats like it will do and scan reflective media too.<br>

It would be nice if the next one was good for an honest 3200-3600 dpi, IE 60-65 lp/mm or so.<br>

I would be the first in line for sure.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Troy says "Some people I have run into that own a V750 without ever having owned anything better think its the best thing since sliced bread and even compare it to drum scans.<br /> People who have never owned a V750 dis it completely and say its a waste of time."</p>

<p>You about hit it on the head. It's somewhere in between.</p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>I've never used a film scanner because all my work is either large format (4x5 and 8x10) or digital. For my 4x5 and 8x10 b&w negatives the Epson 4990 (the predecessor to the 700/750 series and essentially the same scanner in terms of resolving ability with both being right at a tested 2100 - 2200 ppi) with a UMax holder does an excellent job on prints up to about 16x20. A drum scan will do a little better when printing that size or smaller, mainly by producing a little more detail in the shadows, and a lot better when you get into larger prints.<br>

I have to respectfully disagree with someone who said a 700/750 would do a good job with 35mm and prints up to 8x12. I wasn't even very happy with my 6x7 negatives at 8x12, I never even bothered trying 35mm. But to some extent this is a question of personal standards. What one person finds acceptable another might not. Since I came to digital printing from many years of darkroom work, including a lot of 8x10 contact printing, my standards may be different than some others (not better, just different).<br>

The problem with flat bed scanners for home use is that in my memory there's never been much of a middle ground. You either got a prosumer scanner for $700 -$1,000 or you had to jump up into the $5,000 range for an Imacon or the like. There just hasn't been much in between.<br>

I guess this long answer to your question is that the 700/750 series IMHO is the ultimate in home flat bed scanners for 4x5 and 8x10 film. There has to be something better in film scanners for smaller formats.</p>

<p> </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>35mm scan from v500. The V700 should be a bit better.</p><div></div>

[troyammons]

<p>You got a good V500 then. My V500 is so soft it makes me gag.<br /> I think that is a big part of the Epson film/scan problem, is the unit to unit variation and I am<br /> 100% convinced its mostly the lens. I can understand in that some of the older high end scanners capable of a clean 2000 dpi or so had lenses that cost as much as the rest of the scanner. Not an option on a V500/600 or even a V750. If the V750 had the best focusing lens you could buy with a better glass bed and better tolerances it would probably cost $2000+.<br /> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2107063">Brian Elli</a>s<br /> Here is one of my sharper 35mm V750 scans.<br /> It works for a 8x10 at 200 dpi. There are some other scans of the same piece of film in that section.<br /> I used to have a 4870 and it never cut it for 35mm. The V750 barely works at about 5-6 mp.<br /> Good enough for the internet or a small print.<br /> http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/68475777</p>

<p> </p>

[mjferron]

<p>Brian says "I wasn't even very happy with my 6x7 negatives at 8x12" and "But to some extent this is a question of personal standards"<br>

Rather insulting Brian. I shoot with a 25mp Sony, Leica, Nikon and top lenses and throw in a Mamiya 645 pro tl for fun. I know what good detail looks like. I have good equipment and good technique. I think you have a bum scanner or just don't have a clue as to what you are doing.</p>

[Tony Evans]

<p>I'm lost as to what all the fuss is about. I scan 35mm B&W (Pan F) on a V700 at 6400 , process in CS4 and print at 18x12 on an Epson R2400. Don't know anything about LP/mm but the results are impressive enough for me.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Back to the V750... I'm happy with the sharpness and detail of V500 scans of 6x9 when printed at 12x18. This means the V500 is useful to me (and the V750 would be better) for enjoying my MF shooting. My rule of thumb is V500 is OK for prints up to 6x the film linear dimension.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>For the money, and with proper handling, the Epson's are quite good. Ultimate? That be my old ScanMate with ColorQuartet which I can't really use since the software is ancient. So its kind of moot. My older Imacon's produced better results than the Epson (they are also long gone). The question should really be, what's a good produce, for the money, that you can run with current software on a current OS and what hoops (gel or oil mounting) is required. For the price of a drum off a drum scanner, you could probably purchase several Epson scanners. And they are built for the "average" (non pro scanner) operator. The host software is also important as a great scanner with poor software is a doorstop. At least you can drive the Epson with Lasersoft which no match for high end scanning software is vastly better than the stuff that normally ships with the consumer scanner so keep that in mind too. </p>

<p>Ultimately I'm very happy I capture with a 5DMII these days and only have to deal with scanning a few times a year. I miss that routine about as much as printing in the darkroom <g></p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here is another TriX neg scanned at 2500 ppi</p><div></div>

[petrana_batik]

<p>My V750 and Nikon 5000's are being used for quick reference, and very rarely at full resolution. I'm just wondering why would you want to do that anyway. With so many shot on film, I simply do a 6-10mpixel scan of each image, lightly processed and filtered and then stored in a catalog. When the need for a high reproduction print arrives, off the film goes for a drum scan (which I normally outsource). There's no real sense in storing gigabytes of scans... you have all the information ON FILM, why replicate? (and please, don't tell me it's a backup, my film negs/slides have outlived all my digital equipment).</p>