Please check these scans and give me an opinion on sharpness.

[Keith]

In an effort to try and get the best out of my V700 I've been altering the scanning height with the reversable adjusters in the holders. There's only two settings ... plus or minus and the difference is fairly minor.

The first two scans of the same negative are straight out of the scanner ... one at the minus setting and the other at the plus setting ... no sharpening or any other adjustments have been made. The second two pics are crops of the first two images. They're in no particular order ... only I know which is which but I want you to pick what you think is sharpest.

I'm damned if I can see much difference to be honest but my eyes ain't what they used to be! 😛

 

[hipsterdufus]

If I had to make a judgment, I would say the top one has a slight edge. It seems the dots that form the "R" in his last name are more apparent in the top one. However, it's REALLY close. So close, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

 

[mfogiel]

To me the second one looks better, as it appears to have some more contrast. However, the way to do it, is to make several adjustments both ways, and see them side by side. BTW, I would apply sharpening, as V700 scans without sharpening are way too soft anyway.

 

[Keith]

To me the second one looks better, as it appears to have some more contrast. However, the way to do it, is to make several adjustments both ways, and see them side by side. BTW, I would apply sharpening, as V700 scans without sharpening are way too soft anyway.

I'm trying to establish a base line to make further adjustments ... if one scan can be concluded to be sharper than the other I'll know which direction to keep going in by either packing the spacers up with masking tape layer at a time or or trimming a spare set of spacers down to gain a little more sharpness hopefully.

I realise the V700 scans need a fair amount of sharpening but that's not what this is about. 🙂

 

[wgerrard]

Keith, take this for what it's worth. My eyes have seen better days, too.

Of the first two shots, the smaller text ("Contemporary Australian...") is darker in the first image but easier to read in the second. For that matter, the entire first image is darker than the second.

I'd guess that the first crop is from the first image.

But they are very, very nearly identical. It's quite possible that the subtle differences I see are due to lighting here, etc.

 

[paulfish4570]

Second big pic is sharpest; first detail pic is sharpest ...

 

[januaryman]

This is like one of those devilish tests at the optician's. "Which is clearer, A... or B... (pause) A...... or B......?"

If I was forced to choose, I think that A, the first one, is a bit clearer. Barely. On my monitor.

 

[gavinlg]

I'd say the second one may be a tiny hair sharper, but they're so close.

 

[JayGannon]

I'd say the second one may be a tiny hair sharper, but they're so close.

Same here. 2nd looks just a hair sharper on a big montor.

 

[flip]

never discount that those reviewing this test may be looking at the image on different positions of their screens, which also has an impact.

 

[JayGannon]

never discount that those reviewing this test may be looking at the image on different positions of their screens, which also has an impact.

Very true.
for reference 2nd looks sharper to me on a Panasonic 50" Pro Plasma and my Dell 30" viewing screen. Both calibrated in a calibrated room. Perks of the job =)

 

[flip]

The only way I can fairly compare images on my screen is to have them side by side. Changes in vertical position - even on a good screen - impact on perception.

 

[Keith]

What I'm suspecting here is that the Epson is at the limit of it's resolution somewhere between these two heights ... hence very little difference!

A little larger maybe?

 

[palec]

Keith, there is also another setting 0 with removed +/- tabs.

 

[Ezzie]

Second big pic is sharpest; first detail pic is sharpest ...

That would be my WAG too.

 

[maddoc]

Keith, there is also another setting 0 with removed +/- tabs.

... that and also the ideal height might well be between the possible settings and worse, different over the whole scanning area (very slightly tilted scan unit ....)

 

[Keith]

Keith, there is also another setting 0 with removed +/- tabs.

Yes you're right of course ... with the spacers removed totally you get the lowest setting but I think I tried that ages ago and wasn't too impressed. I think the V700 has definite limitations with 35mm negatives ... maybe a Nikon is in my future at some stage.

Damned expensive in OZ though! 😱

 

[Keith]

... that and also the ideal height might well be between the possible settings and worse, different over the whole scanning area (very slightly tilted scan unit ....)

The holder is a bit of a vague contraption Gabor ... very flimsy and hard to imagine it would be totaly consistent over it's full area.

By the way I also think the second scan is the sharpest by the smallest margin ... that was at maximum height.

 

[maddoc]

The holder is a bit of a vague contraption Gabor ... very flimsy and hard to imagine it would be totaly consistent over it's full area.

By the way I also think the second scan is the sharpest by the smallest margin ... that was at maximum height.

Keith, I know the V700 🙂 ... used it exclusively for more than 3 years for both, 135 and 120. I have added the Nikon LS4000ED last year, less because of the quality of the scans (the grain of BW films is quite visible using the Coolscan4000ED) but more for the convenience to be able to scan one complete roll of 135-36 in one go with less dust (huge difference !) and less hassle with the film holders....

 

[Keith]

Keith, I know the V700 🙂 ... used it exclusively for more than 3 years for both, 135 and 120. I have added the Nikon LS4000ED last year, less because of the quality of the scans (the grain of BW films is quite visible using the Coolscan4000ED) but more for the convenience to be able to scan one complete roll of 135-36 in one go with less dust (huge difference !) and less hassle with the film holders....

I've had mine for a couple of years now and really can't fault it with MF but just lately I'm looking more closely at the 135mm scans and not seeing what I want ... I'm probabaly expecting too much! 😛

Does the top of the range Nikon also have a tendency to show the grain Gabor? I think it's the 9000 or 8000 or something like that ... they're still available new here in OZ but expensive!