bryan_wolf

<p>I'm 95% a film shooter, but I'm not a digital hater. I still think the test is flawed and works to digital's favor in this case. I don't think the issue is with the scan as much as there is a problem with focus or more specifically, DOF. Tim Parkin touches on this here: http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/10/the-perils-of-testing/. I'm pretty shocked with the Acros results as others have mentioned, but really that's the least of this "test's" problems.<br>

Also It should be mentioned that when we talk about the resolution that film can achieve, we also talk about diffraction. When we say that film reaches 100lp/mm plus, that this is at small apertures and with smaller formats, not the f32 and 8x10 that was used. Scanning the 8x10 at 4000 SPI would not really help in this situation, 2540SPI or so with the drum scanner would have been enough to get everything on the film. That's higher than the 7** whatever they used, but we should still keep in mind that largeformat is not medium format.</p>

<p>You can also get this look by using semi/stand development with certain developers. Pyrocat MC can give really high local contrast with dark freckles,very sharp lines, and edge effects by using low agitation and overdeveloping. It's not something that you'd always want, but by using a high contrast film and developing accordingly you can create some interesting effects. You have to watch out for uneven development, so I'd suggest testing before sacrificing an important shot.</p>

<p>I love Legacy Pro/Neopan! It's very versatile. I develop it in both HC-110 and Pyrocat rated at various speeds. I'm not the greatest photog and I've only been doing this for a short time, but you can see a small collection here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8056673@N03/tags/neopan/. I try to list my times and dilutions if it helps. For pushing I like HC-110, but for almost everything else I prefer the sharpness and local contrast of Pyrocat, despite the slight increase in apparent grain. Using Pyrocat as a 2 bath is amazing for roll film, you can shoot practically any scene regardless of contrast and have it come out perfect for scanning.</p>

<p>Have you contacted Aztek? It's my understanding that they handle the Howteks now. If you want to keep the drum scanner, it might be something worth looking into. </p>

<p>You could also look at used pro flatbeds, particularly the Scitex/Creo/Kodak EverSmarts and IqSmarts. An EverSmart Pro II should match or exceed a 9000 and it can scan anything up to 12"x18" at full optical resolution. You can place two or three rolls of film on the bed, set up the scans, then let it do it's thing unattended. Only problem is that Kodak is ending support on all the EverSmarts except the supreme($$$) and the IqSmarts. If you find one in perfect working order with all software and it's calibration slide, this shouldn't really be a problem. They're built like tanks and made to run 24/7.</p>

<p>I have an Eversmart Jazz+ which I'd consider somewhere between an Epson and a Nikon. I paid $1000 for the scanner and a g4 to run it + another $200 for some extra bulbs. I recommended the Pro II or greater because you said you shoot a lot of 35mm, which more often than not needs a higher resolution scan. You could probably pick one up for $2-3000(sold for $30k+ when new) and it would satisfy most of your needs with a single machine. Just don't buy it off e-bay!</p>

<p>I also find it frustrating that the scanner market is so poor. Both Kodak and Fuji made/make very high-end scanners. I've always wondered why some of that technology couldn't trickle down to consumers that want something between an Epson and a drum. Seems it would be in their best interest, but maybe they don't really care if film survives.</p>

<p>Chris,<br>

You've probably already got this sorted, but here are my thoughts.<br>

I own an eversmart Jazz+ scanner so I have some familiarity with the Creos. I think you are seeing a combination of a few things here. The eversmart pro is an 8 bit scanner(output;14 bit internal) so there will likely be some posterization, especially if there are major changes done to the output file rather than in the oxygen scan software.. Also the lower end eversmarts <em>can</em> exhibit noise if pushed too hard. Is that slide under exposed? My scans of velvia can and often do, look like this, if the slide is very dark and oversharpened. <br>

<br />My Opinion is that what you see is definitely not grain, but likely a combination of posterization, noise, and grain aliasing. That said an Eversmart Pro should easily make you a great 20x30 from 4x5. Assuming the optical path is clean, they deliver 95%+ of their advertised resolution and D-range/max.<br /><br />Suggestions. The default sharpening in the eversmart/oxygen software is really really bad. Make sure they leave it off. Scanner noise can be smoothed out by scanning at twice the optical resolution of the scanner then downsampling to your desired output resolution. The eversmart pro has an optical res of 3175 SPI, but it's stepping motor is very precise so scanning at 6350 SPI will also likely get you a very small gain in resolution. Problem is that 4x5 at 6350 SPI is a rediculously big file, even in 8 BIT color.<br>

Hope I've helped.</p>

<p>If you haven't finished yet, something to consider is that consumer flatbeds have a lot of ccd noise in their scans. One huge benefit of scanning at say 4800 and down-sampling to 2400 is that there will be significantly less scanner noise in dense parts of the slide/negative. Vuescan has a built in .tiff size reduction feature that while not as good as bicubic sharper, still works surprisingly well at cleaning up slides and effectively giving you more d-range.</p>

<p>To see the results take a scan at 2400spi into your photo editor and apply a very strong curve so that all the noise is visible in the shadows. Now take a scan at 4800 with 2x size reduction and apply the same curve. What you'll find is that the down-sampled image has far less noise and far better shadow/highlight detail. You may also want to compare this to the multi-sample feature at say 2 or 4x. Most scanners end up blurry when using the mutisample feature because they use 2,3,4,... passes and then try to line them up. Consumer flatbeds are too imprecise to do this effectively, so you end up with very soft scans. However, I've heard that the v700 supports single pass multi-sample which takes multiple samples without moving the lens/ccd, then averages the values, effectively eliminating noise. The results should essentially be the same as scanning at a higher resolution and down-sampling, but it may be faster to scan @2400 with 2x multi-sample than scanning at 4800->2400. You'll have to test it yourself.</p>

<p>I do have to agree with Yoshio with regards to the preciseness of consumer scanners. You may be able to coax 2400 out of a consumer scanner, but there will be no comparison to the same scan at the same dpi on a professional flatbed. Even one that is 8-10 YEARS OLD. There is a reason why a Creo Eversmart weighs 156lbs vs a v700 at 14lbs or so and cost 30x as much new. If you can deal with all the shortcomings of buying these older scanners(repair costs, legacy computers/operating systems, limited support, Size/weight, etc.) they are well worth their hugely discounted prices on the used market and offer great value if performance is your #1 priority. </p>

<p>This for example, should blow the doors off any Epson:<br>

http://cgi.ebay.com/EVERSMART-JAZZ-COMPLETE-EXCELLENT-CONDITION_W0QQitemZ230331635559QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item230331635559&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50</p>

<p>That being said the V700 can pump out some surprisingly good scans if you're willing to play with the files a bit. And since you've already got one, you might as well use it to it fullest. Good luck with all those images! I don't envy you. : )</p>

<p> </p>

I Think you'll get that no problem. Good Luck!

Last I've seen that lens was selling in the $1000-1200 region.

Bijan:

Mine sorta does the

same thing. I would

like to know the

answer as well. It's

very close on mine

with the -1 diopter,

it just looks a

little blurry(the

focusing patch)

vertically.

 

Christopher:

Wish I could help,

I'm looking for the

-2(or -3) myself.

I also got one of these from Trader Jims awhile back and noticed the sound. I think it's the ball bearings on the diaphragm release(I think that's what it's called).

I like mine. I almost exclusively use manual focus lenses... Still no bleeding here and my eyes are rubbish to begin with. ;-)

Ditto everything!

"Not to misunderstand- Unlike the PZ-1p, with the ZX-L you cannot shift from manual to aperture priority using the aperture ring, but you can use it to instantly shift from program."

 

Just wanted to say that this does work for all modes but manual. So if you're in shutter priority, rotate the ring away from "A" and your in instantly in aperture priority. The ZX-L is a nice little camera. I already gave my other thoughts at the other site(Vertex Ninja), so I'll spare you the repeat Scott. Besides, others have already mentioned what's great about this camera far better than I could.