Help With Mamiya 645 Pro and Epson V800 Scanner

[anders_karlstr_m]

If, for some reason, you think the film holder is the problem then you can buy the film holder for the V700/V750 without glass. It will fit the V800/V850. I bought it but have not tried it yet. It should be around 20-30 US dollars I think.

Epson medium format film holder for V700/V750/V800/V850, replacement film holder without glass - ScanDig GmbH

 

Here are some great scanner reviews also.

Detailed test reports and experience reports about film scanners slide scanners: market overview, application in practice

 

The review for the V800 shows that the result is much better with Silverfast software. Actual resolution is 2600ppi with Silverfast and 2300 ppi with the Epson software. I will definitely use Silverfast Ai Studio. Upgrade price is €99 if you have bought the V800.

 

Epson Perfection V800 / V850 - SilverFast 8 Scanner Software

[anders_karlstr_m]

Also the tests show that there is no reason to buy the V850. There is no improvement over the V800.

The V800 with Silverfast Ai Studio (€99 for the upgrade) is a better choice that gives better results. And it is still cheaper than to buy the V850.

[david_henderson]

This one just caught my eye. I have thousands of scanned MF slides (6x6/6x7) using scanners from a V700 flatbed with Betterscan holders, through Coolscan 9000; through to Imacon and true drum scans mainly on Heidelberg. This is where I come out.

 

The Imacon and drum scans give me huge scans that I can use to make very large prints- I've gone to 30" square to get prints that do not rely on viewing distance to seem sharp. So for me the hybrid approach can get me prints that realise the full potential of a MF slide or negative in terms of print size and sharpness.

 

On the other hand the V700 flatbed gets me a file that looks good printed to say 12" square, either as a print or in a Blurb book. For me, a flatbed scan does not give me the full potential of the original film. But of course most of the time I'm scanning is to use a legacy colour slide or b&w neg in a book or on a screen. For which it is completely satisfactory.

 

I can get a bigger, better print from my Canon 5Diii than I can from MF film if using an Epson flatbed. Using a Coolscan or better (Imacon/Drum scan) reverses this conclusion. I can understand the remarks made by the OP in his first post. Whilst its likely that experience and other software might well improve his scans, I would doubt , personally, the ability to get consistently better images this way than from a good dslr/mirrorless camera.

 

Others may feel differently but I feel that it is notably easier and less time consuming to edit and improve a good digital original than it is to edit and improve a scan from MF slides.

[Dave Luttmann]

I use and Epson V700 and the Betterscan holder and fluid mount. After achieving perfect focus, you can pull about 2600ppi of real info from the film. I routinely produce perfectly sharp and detailed 16x20 prints from my RB67 and Provia/Ektar and 40" prints from the same in 4x5. The look is different than digital...and in many ways I prefer the film.

 

When it comes to acutance, digital will easily win. When it comes to absolute detail, the film wins. The Epson V700/750/800/850 are all excellent scanners and in the right hands, can produce excellent results.

[mattstalford]

I just got a working Epson V500 at a garage sale for $25 and it works great on my Windows 10 PC (was able to download and install the Epson driver and software without any issues). So far from my test scans, I'm getting pretty decent results other than them being a tiny bit out of focus in certain areas. I'm using negatives that were scanned by The Darkroom as my reference. I might need to flatten the negatives out to see if that helps.

[wogears]

Matt, FWIW, I got into scanning film a year or so ago with a used Epson 700. These are obsolete devices only in that they don't run with windows 8 or better. I run an old WIndows environment so that I can use the older scanner. There might be some good info in this thread but in my opinion its not that rich in terms of answering the OP's question.

You can run virtually every scanner made on Win 10 or Mac OS whatever using Vuescan.

[c_watson1]

My problem with civilian-grade scanners is technical stagnation. Same old scanners from Epson with marginal advances in film holder design. Big deal.

DSLR scanning sidesteps flatbeds' biggest limitations: speed and the inability to nail focus. My Nikon D7200 and a Micro Nikkor 40/2.8g does me just fine with 120 materials.

[rodeo_joe1]

My problem with civilian-grade scanners is technical stagnation.

That's unlikely to change. The design relies on 3-line CCD sensors that find little other use in these days of 'just good enough' CIS sensors. There's no incentive to put R&D money into an improved sensor, only to sell a slack-handful of film scanners per year. In fact I'm surprised that Epson and Canon between them shift enough film-capable flatbeds to make it worthwhile keeping their production lines open.

 

I too, have shifted away from scanning to digital copying. Much quicker and just as good for 35mm film, IME. But for 120 film? I'm not convinced it's getting the most out of the film. And there's the cropping as well. 645 onto a 3:2 ratio sensor isn't too bad, but 6x6 loses a lot of potential pixels.

 

Maybe someone should reverse the sensor-lens assembly mechanism of a flatbed scanner to move the film instead, and have a copy-stand above the platen? Clunky, but I can't think of a better method without a complete scanner re-design and an extremely expensive and mechanical-precision-demanding solution.

 

None of this would matter without a back catalogue of 120 transparencies or negatives. Because shooting film today, with the deliberate intention of only turning the results into digital files, is just perverse and masochistic IMO.

 

If you want to shoot film; do it properly with an entirely 'wet' workflow. Not some long-winded hybrid abomination.

 

Different 'look'? I don't buy it. You have a digital file as the end product, and there's absolutely nothing that can't be tweaked to match another digital file - provided you give yourself enough bit-depth to start with.

[jamesevidon]

<p>I have recently moved into MF film from Digital and have bought a Mamiya 645 Pro which came with an 80mm f/2.8 N lens.</p>

<p>As I will be going down the hybrid route, I also purchased the Epson V800 scanner and Silverfast AI Studio software.<br>

So far, I am not impressed with the sharpness I am getting from the images after I have scanned them. Compared to my Nikon D3s they are extremely soft.</p>

<p>Now, I am aware that I may have to teach my brain to see film images in a different way, the sharpness may not be as defined as it is digital but having said that I was hoping for something a little better.</p>

<p>I was wondering if anyone has a RAW scan, one that has had no heavy lifting done in post production from a 645 Pro with an 80mm lens which I could see.</p>

 

In your SilverFast choose a format that approximates the width/height ratio and crank the scan psi up to 2400. I have an old Epson 4990 scanner and my scans are very sharp. See uploaded image.

 

[rodeo_joe1]

That was a bit random.

 

"ianbarber was last seen: Feb 27, 2018"

 

The OP started this thread in 2016 and hasn't visited Pnet in over 18 months. So I think any advice to him on the subject is a bit late! And who said he was going to be using Silverfast?

[jamesevidon]

That was a bit random.

 

"ianbarber was last seen: Feb 27, 2018"

 

The OP started this thread in 2016 and hasn't visited Pnet in over 18 months. So I think any advice to him on the subject is a bit late! And who said he was going to be using Silverfast?

 

Ianbarber said he was using SilverFast in his post. ( "..I also purchased the Epson V800 scanner and Silverfast AI Studio software..." ).

[rodeo_joe1]

Still a bit random, replying to a 3 year and 6 month old post.

 

I wonder if the OP has realised yet, that taking film only to turn it into a soft-focus digital file is a tiny bit futile?

[pablo_escobar]

Thank you everyone for resurrecting this thread - I'm not the OP myself, but I am finding your experiences and advice extremely helpful. Lots to take in.

 

Please keep the expert advice coming!

[jamesevidon]

Pablo Escobar said:

"Thank you everyone for resurrecting this thread - I'm not the OP myself, but I am finding your experiences and advice extremely helpful. Lots to take in.

Please keep the expert advice coming!"

 

Now you have the right attitude. If only Rodeo_Joe l1 would be more constructive and realize that threads are not intended to be for the benefit of the OP only, but serves as a resource for the rest of us that may have a similar problem and appreciate the experience of those who went before him or her.