slm
Formerly nextreme
A-h-h, two more well done images! Prints do scan well don't they? Yes, I'm still using the stock film holders. Here's a scan I just did this morning of an old "Woodie" from an auto show this weekend.
Wow ! Awesome shot, and awesome car !
Cheers
wray
Well-known
Thanks! P-s-s-t, don't tell anyone around here but the shot was taken with my OM-2 and 28mm lens. If you like old woodies, here's another one for you ...
martin-f5
Well-known
wray
Well-known
Martin, once again excellent scans! Oh, by the way well done images, too!
Gilo25
Established
Martin nice scan indeed, but can you shed some light on what film was used, how many dpi it was scanned at, how big is the original size of the scanned image, any settings worth noting?
Many thanks
Many thanks
martin-f5
Well-known
film = cheap 400 ASA color Film, maybe Fuji
I scan with 2400 dpi and rescale it to 800 pixel
auto mode in epson software
I scan with 2400 dpi and rescale it to 800 pixel
auto mode in epson software
wayneb
Established
Hey all, enjoying this thread and examples, as I have this scanner. Most of the time I am pretty satisfied with the results from this scanner.
But...sometimes with 35 and 120 I get a slide or negative that looks very sharp and in focus but then when it is scanned is blurry and out of focus looking, even after unsharp mask. This is not really a curled film issue. I can't quite figure out what causes it. I've tried scanning with the holder and flat on the scanner, no holder with the same results. So I'm considering the betterscanner holder, does anyone have any rave reviews of it, as $75 is like half of the price of the scanner itself...
Seems like cars are popular, so here's one that turned out nicely:
But...sometimes with 35 and 120 I get a slide or negative that looks very sharp and in focus but then when it is scanned is blurry and out of focus looking, even after unsharp mask. This is not really a curled film issue. I can't quite figure out what causes it. I've tried scanning with the holder and flat on the scanner, no holder with the same results. So I'm considering the betterscanner holder, does anyone have any rave reviews of it, as $75 is like half of the price of the scanner itself...
Seems like cars are popular, so here's one that turned out nicely:
novum
Well-known
I let a piece of ANR glass, whichI got with my other stuff from betterscanning.com, sit on curly 35mm strips, which shmooshes down the film fairly well on my 4490. Anybody have a better technique? The holder works okay for MF film, but nothing seems to work satisfactorily with 35mm. Perhaps a CoolScan is the ticket?
geppeto
Newbie
Just to add my own experience for those considering buying a V500.
I found the scanner to be over than capable in general. I use a Nikon 9000 rented from a local lab and own a Canon FS4000 dedicated 35mm scanner too. Comparing the results on the same frames I observe the following:
o the 3.4 Dmax has never been a limit. I repeat. 3.4 Dmax is *not* limiting, I have scanned really dense slides and only over a strong light-table can I see more detail in the shadows (and the 9000 of course)
o V500 gives the same resolution as the dedicated Canon film scanner in 35mm for color negatives and chromogenics in general, a bit less resolution in BW films and slides. I have printed from a Portra 160NC in 35mm a well exposed frame at 60cm the long side and the print is totally wonderfull (all the strands of hair are there for those resolution freaks) resolution and tonality wise. The best sharpening method is a 200% at 0.9 radius initially and then a 30% at 2-10 radius depending on the image for me, and works great especially on lower iso films.
o I wonder why none else has noted this, but there is some problem with really saturated areas. I had tonality problems scanning a really red face on a Velvia which was shot under tungsten light, which had scanned perfectly in 9000. Nothing was there apart from a red red area. OK, we have to be sane. There should be no comparison between these scanners. The fact that this comparison itself is done means that V500 performs really well. In any case this was an extreme example, the fault was mine and I didn't expect more from any scanner at this price. Other less saturated slides like Kodak 100G scanned perfectly.
I suggest this scanner to everyone and from my experience you will have the best results with chromogenic films. I suggest the Neopan 400CN and Ilford's XP2 to anyone doing BW work. Leaving the lack of push/pull in darkroom abilities, these films are awesome, noise is simply non-existent, they print wonderfully in darkroom and scan like honey in V500. I just got a print from a portrait shot in 120 format with Neopan 400CN with a mamiya TLR and scanned in the V500 at 80X80 cm and 300dpi (for the printer) and the printed photograph has "that thing". Which means that everything in tonality (which is more important for me) and in resolution is there, so that everyone who looked at the photograph "felt" the person photographed exactly as he was in real life.
Film holders are not horrible (could be better yes) and the scanning software gave me in color negative films where Vuescan was a nightmare to color calibrate immediately useful results. All around I recommend this a lot and I am by no means affiliated to Epson or any of the brands that I mentioned.
I found the scanner to be over than capable in general. I use a Nikon 9000 rented from a local lab and own a Canon FS4000 dedicated 35mm scanner too. Comparing the results on the same frames I observe the following:
o the 3.4 Dmax has never been a limit. I repeat. 3.4 Dmax is *not* limiting, I have scanned really dense slides and only over a strong light-table can I see more detail in the shadows (and the 9000 of course)
o V500 gives the same resolution as the dedicated Canon film scanner in 35mm for color negatives and chromogenics in general, a bit less resolution in BW films and slides. I have printed from a Portra 160NC in 35mm a well exposed frame at 60cm the long side and the print is totally wonderfull (all the strands of hair are there for those resolution freaks) resolution and tonality wise. The best sharpening method is a 200% at 0.9 radius initially and then a 30% at 2-10 radius depending on the image for me, and works great especially on lower iso films.
o I wonder why none else has noted this, but there is some problem with really saturated areas. I had tonality problems scanning a really red face on a Velvia which was shot under tungsten light, which had scanned perfectly in 9000. Nothing was there apart from a red red area. OK, we have to be sane. There should be no comparison between these scanners. The fact that this comparison itself is done means that V500 performs really well. In any case this was an extreme example, the fault was mine and I didn't expect more from any scanner at this price. Other less saturated slides like Kodak 100G scanned perfectly.
I suggest this scanner to everyone and from my experience you will have the best results with chromogenic films. I suggest the Neopan 400CN and Ilford's XP2 to anyone doing BW work. Leaving the lack of push/pull in darkroom abilities, these films are awesome, noise is simply non-existent, they print wonderfully in darkroom and scan like honey in V500. I just got a print from a portrait shot in 120 format with Neopan 400CN with a mamiya TLR and scanned in the V500 at 80X80 cm and 300dpi (for the printer) and the printed photograph has "that thing". Which means that everything in tonality (which is more important for me) and in resolution is there, so that everyone who looked at the photograph "felt" the person photographed exactly as he was in real life.
Film holders are not horrible (could be better yes) and the scanning software gave me in color negative films where Vuescan was a nightmare to color calibrate immediately useful results. All around I recommend this a lot and I am by no means affiliated to Epson or any of the brands that I mentioned.
AzzA
Established
I've been thinking of buying the V500 and this thread has been a very interesting read.
Thanks to all of those who have contributed their experience/information with this scanner.
cheers
Thanks to all of those who have contributed their experience/information with this scanner.
cheers
wallace
Well-known
>>>>I suggest this scanner to everyone and from my experience you will have the best results with chromogenic films. I suggest the Neopan 400CN and Ilford's XP2 to anyone doing BW work. Leaving the lack of push/pull in darkroom abilities, these films are awesome, noise is simply non-existent, they print wonderfully in darkroom and scan like honey in V500. I just got a print from a portrait shot in 120 format with Neopan 400CN with a mamiya TLR and scanned in the V500 at 80X80 cm and 300dpi (for the printer) and the printed photograph has "that thing". Which means that everything in tonality (which is more important for me) and in resolution is there, so that everyone who looked at the photograph "felt" the person photographed exactly as he was in real life.<<<<
I am also thinking of buying the V500, but I love "old" b/w films like Pan-X and APX100 which I soup in Rodinal.
How does the scanner perform with these films (MF most of the time)?
Wallace
I am also thinking of buying the V500, but I love "old" b/w films like Pan-X and APX100 which I soup in Rodinal.
How does the scanner perform with these films (MF most of the time)?
Wallace
tomasis
Well-known
anyone compared v500 to canon 8800F? I noticed canon has led lighting and 100 euros cheaper, hmm. Maybe enough good for preview, web and no prints for 35mm and MF?