Scanning experiment : Canon FS-4000US vs Epson V750 Pro

[roger_smith4]

<blockquote>does anybody know what a frigging "SCANNED <strong>PRINT</strong>" IS?</blockquote>

<p>There are 100% crops as well as full-resolution scans. Why don't you print a few and see how they compare? What have you contributed to this thread?</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Mark what are you hoping to see from the scanned prints. Although prints can be a great equallizer especially when we put prints on the wall and view them from a distance scanning prints will look different again. Should they be scanned at 300ppi and viewed at 100% on screen or should they be scanned at screen resolution so the images appear on screen roughly the same size as the print. I don't dissagree that looking at the prints is the best way to see and compare the results.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6032916">Mark R</a> , May 04, 2010; 01:08 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>does anybody know what a frigging "SCANNED <strong>PRINT</strong>" IS?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wow. Lose the attitude. If you're going to react to people like that, go out and do your own tests. You know how to scan and print, don't you? Or do you expect your hand held while we do all the work for you?</p>

<p>You're on your own.</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>With a small enlargement of say 4x; my 1200dpi Epson 1200U from 10 years will make a tack sharp print.</p>

<p>ie if one scans a 6x7cm negative and makes a 8x10 print; Mark's frigging print will look the same as a scan with my Nikon 9000 at 4000 dpi</p>

<p>With a small enlargement the printer is the limit; not the scanner. </p>

[marco_ristuccia]

<p>If we start talking about printing, a whole new story begins.<br /> We have to talk at least about :</p>

<ul>

<li>Printing resolution (DPI)</li>

<li>Print technology</li>

<li>Paper type</li>

<li>Viewing distance</li>

</ul>

<p>@Mark R. : I'm not sure that going this way we are able to clear our ideas about scanning resolution and scanner's quality...</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Marco; with my color copier of 1996; it printed digital at 600 dpi. With a normal piece of color copier paper for photo usage; the 1200U scanner makes a fine print; even with a 14 year old printer. Thus the printer story is really moot; ie folks are confused about what doesnt matter. Any dumb walmart printer for 80 bucks today makes decent 4x6 inch prints; with this mightly 4x enlargement even out 1200 dpi flatbed works for 35mm.</p>

<p>In printing for the public here I have 30x40" prints from 4x5 negatives down to 1/4 VGA Barbie cam inputs; some are 10 to 15 years old now; a few are almost 20 years. </p>

<p> Often one cannot tell any difference while the lay public thinks it matters. Folks often think that belly button fuzz is a good portion of their weight; but not the 2 Lb Texas beltbuckles.</p>

<p>One tenet with this stuff is often folks worry about the wrong stuff; and ignore the major ones.</p>

<p> A huge portion of dealing with the public is all this doofus stuff.</p>

<p>Prints are a great equalizer; real world examples. If I show folks a 30x40 print from an XYZ input; most folks are off by a factor of 3 to 5. Thus if the print they say is great at distance Y and their guess is it has to be 10 megapixels; it will be a 2 megapixel input. That is with seasons pros; experts in all fields; heads/egos so large their heads barely fit in the front door.</p>

<p>One expert always shot with a RB67 for 24x36 inch court case stuff; and digital to him was crap, Then when we had some 24x36" posters from a 1.3 megapixel camera; he was ticked off that the the shooter stuff was OK at court distances; and a lowly chick at a law firm shot them with a Wlamart P&S. Later we got 3 megapixel inputs for 24x36 and 30x42" court case photos. Mr RB67 jumped to digital with a dumb Canon rebel; and is totally convinced that his 6 megapixel dslr tramples a 6x7 shot. It actually *DID in his case; due to more DOF; more keepers; </p>

[wblynch]

<p>Thanks for this thread.</p>

<p>What's your difference in scanning time between the FS4000 and the V750?</p>

<p>I have the lesser Canon FS2710, which I like quite a lot, and an Epson 4490. My Canon scans a 35mm negative or slide in about 45 seconds. My Epson, at 2400dpi, takes 5 to 7 minutes for the same scan.</p>

<p>I don't use the Epson for 35mm but need it for 127 (46mm) and MF. It's even worse with larger films, taking 24 minutes for a single 40mm x 40mm 127 scan.</p>

<p>If the V750 is appreciably faster I might need to upgrade.</p>