Scanning 120mm

[jordan_p._h._stein]

<p>I recently purchased an Epson V600 to scan my black and white negatives. 120mm 6 x 6 cm to be exact. I have scanned with drum scanners, such as the flex tights, but I am curious about dpi. <br>

When scanning 6 x 6 negatives, what is the max dpi I should be scanning? At what point does it become pointless? I do not care about storage space, but I would like to capture as much detail as possible. </p>

<p>Thank you,</p>

<p>Jordan</p>

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

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>The Maximum scan resolution is the Manufacturers stated Optical Resolution for the scanner. Higher resolution is software interpolation. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>It is pretty well understood I believe that the effective maximum resolution of Epson flatbed scanners is less than the figures that Epson quotes. I've seen three reviews of tests of the Epson V600 that quote a maximum effective resolution of between 1500 and 1600 ppi. So if you want your print files at 300ppi for example you're talking about a 5x enlargement or about 30cm (12") square. Certainly at or around that point you'll be noticing a clear advantage from getting scans on a film scanner, in resolution and also in dmax so you'll get better shadow detail in the scans from a film scanner. But its not quite as simple as more pixels means a better scan. For example the Flextights scan MF film at 3200 ppi whereas most film scanners deliver 4000 ppi or close. However I tend to prefer the Flextight scans and indeed people used to say that "not all pixels were created equal" to reflect the fact that its not just about collecting pixels.</p>

<p>How best to achieve maximum resolution from your V600? Maybe someone else can chime in on this since I don't know, and whilst most tests will tell you what the max resolution they achieved is, they often don't say a lot about what they did to achieve it. Clearly if you scan at the maximum resolution the scanner is quoted to deliver you're effectively producing a considerably bloated file that will take longer to make. But at what resolution do you need to scan to make sure you capture all the 1500/1600 ppi you're going to get? I have a V700 and tend to scan at 2400 or 3200 ppi - below its theoretical max- and I don't think I miss a lot. But that's not a scientific conclusion, and its not on V600, so I'm reluctant to pass that over as solid.</p>

<p> </p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I dunno about the technicals. I only scan my film at around 2,000dpi. FWIW I haven't gone to 120 format yet. For 135 format - at a websize I cannot tell the difference side/side to my former Nikon scanner which is now broke. However if I get a 1080 resolution picture on my screen whatever scan dpi that is I dunno. About 2MP isn't it .. There is stuff that the flatbed scanner just doesn't pickup as it is not in focus. </p>

[bernard_lazareff]

<blockquote>

<p>When scanning 6 x 6 negatives, what is the max dpi I should be scanning? At what point does it become pointless? I do not care about storage space, but I would like to capture as much detail as possible.</p>

</blockquote>

<ul>

<li>6400 is over the top</li>

<li>Focusing adjustment is important. Can't give you specific instructions, as I use a V700 with BetterScanning negative carier. Quick-and-dirty: repeat scans of the same area with various height adjustments, saving as jpeg 90% quality; largest file tells you best focus. From your sample image at 6400dpi(!) your focus should not be too far off.</li>

<li>Even more important: USM. I'm not talking about creating artificial sharpness out of a poor image; rather restoring spatial frequencies where the scanner MTF started to drop, but still carries information. Start at 1 pixel radius, 100% amplitude, adjust amplitude for best perceived sharpness. If you see fringes around contours, you went too far, back off.</li>

</ul>

<p>Feedback would be nice</p>

<p> </p>

[baisao]

<p>The BetterScanning negative carrier is almost essential as the Epson carriers are flimsy and imprecise.</p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>Betterscan make a height/focus adjustable carrier for the V600. Like Mr Lazareff I use one with the V700 and scanned and visually compared at various heights vs the Epson supplied holder when I first got it. There was a clear variation and improvement at the optimum focus distance.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>2000-2500dpi. In Vuescan it only gives me 1600 or 3200 to choose from so I select 3200. 6400 is a complete waste of time and disk space.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Aside from the very real datum that scanners, especially flatbed ones, have limitations lower than their supposed ppi ratings, my experience with different high-quality dedicated film scanners suggests that even true optical resolution above 4000 ppi is gilding the lily. At that point you are scanning the grain/texture of the film and you don't get any meaningful additional data above that resolution.</p>

[john_photos]

<p>My experience with the Betterscanning products was a disaster. Careful testing yielded no improvement whatsoever. A complete ripoff of a photo accessory in my view.<br>

The Epson scanners are great proof scanners. Accept their limited capabilities for what they are. Great for web work or maybe an 8 x 10 inch print from 6x6 if you crop to 645 dimensions and use very very fine grained film like Kodak Ektar. Anything beyond this size and your wasting your time as a Nikon/Imacon will blow any Epson out of the water.<br>

If you want results for home scanning purchase a Nikon 9000/Imacon or send your work out to be drum scanned. Drum scanning for your best work is the only way to go in my opinion if you care about maximizing the potential of your medium format negatives. </p>

[govi_padmavijayam]

<p>Hi,<br>

<br /> I shot on a 35mm camera, and scanned the negative on the V600 scanner at 9800. I am pleased with the results. <br /> The size of the scanned jpg is 50 MB.<br>

I've however scanned color 220 film negatives on the V600. It takes forever. I scan them at 12800. It takes upto 40 minutes per negative scan. The size of the color scan is about 250 MB.<br>

Hth,<br>

Regards, Govi</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>IMO the problem with flatbeds is Dmax, not resolution.</p>

[peter_roberts4]

<p>I always scan at 2400dpi...and then downsize to 1600 or 1200dpi.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Oh, dear.</p>

<p><strong>john photos:</strong> There are a number of online, independent tests which visually demonstrate the improvement from the betterscanning holders. I did NOT buy one for my V700, because of a recent price increase, but I did buy ANR glass. Statements such as "use a fine-grained film lke Ektar" are absurd. If the scanner has insufficient resolution, the granularity of the film makes no difference.</p>

<p><strong>Govi Padmavijayam: </strong>Scanning at a higher resolution than 6400 spi on an Epson V600 simply creates bigger files, not better ones. My V700 will scan a 6x6 neg reasonably quickly, even at 6400 spi.</p>

<p>Scans of 120 film from an Epson V700 will make VERY good prints up to about 8x, which would mean a 17x17 print from square format. 24x24 is very possible if you use the improved holder, wet mounting or ANR inserts for the OEM holders (my choice). No, it will not be as good as a Flextight or a drum scanner <em>in the hands of a trained operator</em>. </p>

[jmlphotography]

<p>Here is an excellent discussion of the technical issues involved. There are a number of non-related and "sniping" comments typical of internet threads, but plowing through them al,l I thought, was worth it.<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=96569.20</p>

 

[baisao]

<p>Les is spot on in his comments.</p>

<p>I've seen the difference with the BetterScanning holders with ANR glass compared to Epson holders on the v700: night and day! I've also enlarged 4800 dpi 6x6cm to 20x20" and found the results to be surprisingly good.</p>

<p>Thanks for the link, J LaRocco!</p>

<p> </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Here is a pretty good article on scanning. It's a little wordy(and Dated) so you might have to wait for the next rainy/snowy day to read it. It served me well when I was first getting into scanning.<br>

<br /> <a href="http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints2.html">http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints2.html</a></p>

[john_photos]

<p>Oh my Les, I must not know of what I speak?<br>

My experience with the betterscanning product was negative in that I saw no improvement. Others have had the same experience so its not just my eyes. Not going to belabor this on a public forum with you but our experiences with the product differ. People who read this can make their own judgements. </p>

 

[govi_padmavijayam]

<p>Thanks, Les. I will check out the scan at 6400. Regards, Govi </p>

[diegobuono]

The full resolution of a Flextight is not 3200 dpi; it is dependant from the film format, on a 35mm in portrait orientation it is 8000 dpi.

Even the supposed max scan capability for 6 x 6 film it is not just 3200 but it is more if you create a custom film holder (only virtual, in

fact you can still use the standard holder but disenable auto recogniction of the film holder). On my flextight i have custom (as already

said, just virtual) holder with an aperture of 56 x 56 mm and it allows me to scan at something more than 3600 dpi. I could get even more

if I create a 55 x 55 mm but I prefer to scan the black border too so I limit myself to 56 x 56 mm. Obsiously you can go far beyond if you

scat 6x4,5, even more if you scan "panoramic" pictures like 6x3cm and so on.

[Tony-S]

<p>There's no reason to scan at more than probably 2200 dpi with any flatbed scanner, and for the V600 it's probably limited to about 1800 dpi. Anything greater results in larger files with no improvement in resolution.</p>