Another scanner question

[k__43]

I've a plustek 8200 and a V500 - the V500 is much more comfortable to scan since you can scan 12 shots of 135 at once. With the V700 it's even twice that. With the plustek it's one shot then manual forward then scan then the next and so on
The plustek has the superior results tho.

plustek:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6wuv5Oh3P1rv1qmzo1_1280.jpg
V500:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6wuv5Oh3P1rv1qmzo2_1280.jpg
both scanned at max res and the scaled down. no extra sharpening (I think even scaled down one can see a huge difference, or maybe my V500 is just really bad)

 

[thegman]

Don't get me wrong...I am quite interested in getting back into film if it means I canget better IQ than I currently can achieve using digital. Just not convinced that this would be the case without for example shooting MF film & outsourcing the scanning to a lab? Am I missing something here?

As an adjunct I would like to know what resolution files a flatbed scanner like the Epson V750 produces from 120 film negs and just how much these files have to be downsized before uploading to the web. Ken Rockwell talks about producing MF film scans around 80MP in size but he is using a rather expensive Minolta Multi Pro to produce these files.

I hope I haven't sidetracked this post but these issues can affect specifics such as what scanner to purchase e.g. 35mm film scanner only versus a more versatile flatbed.

It was not that long ago some review sites felt that a good DSLR could outresolve medium format film. Now we have websites such as this one:

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html

Showing *35mm* film out-resolving a full frame DSLR.

It's very difficult to nail down "facts" about resolution, as it depends on so many different factors. I would say that most people would agree that 35mm *can* out resolve full frame digital, and medium format film such as Velvia or Ektar *can* resolve something comparable to 80MP. Erwin Puts also has an example of a very slow 35mm black and white film showing dramatically more resolution than a Leica M9. All these things are *possible* but it does require excellent technique, not just in scanning, but taking the photo in the first place.

In terms of downsized V700 scans, my last scans of a 6x9 negative are 21000x14000 pixels approx. Now obviously this amounts to a huge megapixel count, and you'd need to downsize that by a great deal. However, despite all that size, it's not resolving hundreds of megapixels of detail, you could probably reduce it to 25% of that and not lose any detail. There is not more detail, the detail is just bigger if you see what I mean.

For technical resolution, 35mm needs to be truly at the top of it's game to beat full frame digital, and 90% of time, it won't. Medium format makes it much easier of course, but again you still need to use good technique. Medium format cameras tend to have slower lenses and you'll likely use slower films too, so you have to think a lot about camera shake.

If you're after resolution to beat a decent DSLR, 35mm can do it, but it's not trivial. If you're willing to shoot medium format, you'll find it a lot simpler.

 

[why7]

For the 1 in 100/1 in 1,000/1 in 1,000,000 image for which the Epson is not good enough: Pay for a drum scan.

Wayne

One of the problems is also that here it is really hard to come by a photo studio that would actually have a drum scanner. What they usually do is just scan the negatives on some cheap flatbed and charge a lot for ****ty scans ... Once i took my negatives to one of the more "professional" studios, and based on the scans i thought the negatives were unusable ... Until i made prints. The sad thing is that since they closed down my favourite studio (about 8 years ago), i can hardly find one that would be able to develop pushed colour film. 🙁

Therefore, as i said, i would like a scanner that would enable me to do my own scans that would also be usable for publishing (books and whatnot). i don't have the nerve to deal with studios unless absolutely necessary.

If it would be possible, i'd much prefer making multiple scans at once (V700) - i much rather spend time shooting or in a darkroom than behind a computer ... But judging from the two photos by k__43, i think the plustek would do the job for me. Even if i have to spend more time to make scans.

k__43, which version is your plustek scanner? i see there are three different ones of the 8200, and the price varies quite a lot.

Decisions, decisions ...

Oh, and another (important) question. Do the holders of either V700 or plustek enable one to keep the black frame around the photo? I like it so much ... 🙂

 

[venchka]

Better Scanning Mounting Station allows scanning the full film, sprocket holes & all.

http://www.betterscanning.com/

My Epson medium format holders allow scanning the margin of Hasselblad originals.



And now for something completely different. Scans from my ancient Epson Expression 1680 flatbed scanner prepared for publication in the Leica User's Group Yearbook. Color photos are Kodachrome. B&W is cropped from 4x5. Click each photo for the publication size JPEG.











Lastly. Digital for comparison.




As you can no doubt see with your own eyes, a flatbed scanner is useless for photographic work. I routinely print 13" x 19" and 16" x 20" from all 4 formats that I shoot.

Wayne

 

[Dwig]

...
Oh, and another (important) question. Do the holders of either V700 or plustek enable one to keep the black frame around the photo? I like it so much ... 🙂

Yes, but YMMV.

The v700's 35mm filmstrip carrier reveals a 25mm width of the negative strip. In theory, that would expose 0.5mm of the unexposed edge on either side of a standard 24mm wide image. Since many cameras, particularly RFs with non-retrofocus wide angles, expose a slightly wider than standard image there is no guarantee that your images won't nudge up to the edge of the carrier's opening.

Note, that in order to access the "full" image area when using EpsonScan you have to turn off its automatic "thumbnail" option and manually marquee select the scanning area for each image. This is not a difficult or onerous task.

 

[froyd]

I've a plustek 8200 and a V500 - the V500 is much more comfortable to scan since you can scan 12 shots of 135 at once. With the V700 it's even twice that. With the plustek it's one shot then manual forward then scan then the next and so on
The plustek has the superior results tho.

plustek:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6wuv5Oh3P1rv1qmzo1_1280.jpg
V500:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6wuv5Oh3P1rv1qmzo2_1280.jpg
both scanned at max res and the scaled down. no extra sharpening (I think even scaled down one can see a huge difference, or maybe my V500 is just really bad)

thanks for this, wish I could find more comparisons like it. Very useful to illustrate how the benefits of flatbeds are balanced by inferior scans.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Of course you could buy a V500 for MF and something like a Minolta scan dual for 35mm and still have change from £250.

The V500 is great for 120 but just falls short for 35mm IMHO

The area in red on the left is from a V500 on the right a Minolta Scanner

Link to the actual 100% image:
http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/105193673

 

[k__43]

...
k__43, which version is your plustek scanner? i see there are three different ones of the 8200, and the price varies quite a lot.
..
/quote]

well there is the 8100 without ICE, which is ok when you only scan b/w since ICE doesn't work there anyway.
then there is the 8200 wit the basic version of silverfast and the one with the full version of silverfast and the scan target (slide with color fields to calibrate your scanner for better scan results)

I've the most expensive one (I can't really say why, but I got it much cheaper). The IT8 scan target is useful when you scan slide. Other than that I'd take the cheaper one, since I don't care about silferfast one bit. I use vuescan instead. I only need SF when I need to rescue my 8200 after Vuescan crashed (which almost never happens) or I forgot I can't stop a running scan job in Vuescan (which causes the scanner to hang).

What I do is, I scan the important stuff with the 8200 and the not so important stuff in my V500. I work on a new work flow where I make "contact sheets" in the V500 and only scan the few shots I like in the 8200.

If you use Vuescan like me you can also get the previous model (if you find a good deal) which is identical besides the older version of silferfast!

 

[venchka]

Technobable: It just doesn't matter.

Technobable: It just doesn't matter.

thanks for this, wish I could find more comparisons like it. Very useful to illustrate how the benefits of flatbeds are balanced by inferior scans.

[RANT]
Not. Wake up. Y'all agonize over DPI & PPI and Megapixels & downsizing. For what? The internet? Where 99.99% of the viewers have neither a color calibrated browser nor a calibrated monitor.
Next you agonize over 100% crops viewed again on an uncalibrated monitor at 72 PIXELS/INCH.

Look at the prints man. From a proper viewing distance. Anybody care to guess what the resolution of inkjet paper is? In very real line pairs/milimeter? Anybody? Raise your hand if you know.
As I understand it, the resolving power of paper is in the neighborhood of 6 line pairs/milimeter or less.

Shoot lots of film. Develop it to the best of your abilities. Scan with a scanner that has full factory support backing it up and multiple format support so you won't out grow it. Print to your hearts content. Admire your prints from a proper distance. Show them off to your friends. Anyone who stickes their nose in the print gets a smack on the head. Enjoy!
Stop pixel peeping. It serves no purpose except to drive you crazy.

Aside: I am very pleased to have sold 2 prints in my lifetime. Both were printed from files created with film original negatives. One color. One B&W. One was printed 12" x 18" and the other was printed 16" x 20". Both customers were very pleased with the photos as delivered. Neither asked any of the following questions:
1. Lens.
2. Camera.
3. Exposure.
4. Film. Or if it was even film and not digital.
5. Developer.
6. Scanner.
7. Scanner software/settings.
8. Post scanning software.
9. Printer/settings.
10. Zero technical questions.
It just doesn't matter.
By the way, both images are displayed in my Leica Users Gallery. Bonus style points if you can guess which photos they are.

Furthermore. If your photos suck even a drum scanner won't save them.

[/RANT]

Wayne

 

[froyd]

[RANT]
Not. Wake up. Y'all agonize over DPI & PPI and Megapixels & downsizing. For what? The internet?

Easy.

I print (inkjet) from my scanned files and I can see a difference in the prints from good vs bad scans. But even if mainly viewed images on a screen, I would still want the scanner that gives the best results for my budget.

K_43 post was pretty clear about what the performance difference between Plustek 8200 and the V500. He did us a favor by posting a comparison at a decent size. Bigger would be even better.
Too often recommendations about scanners have as proof point images a few pixels in size.

If you have a 3380x2860 test image you scanned on a v500 I'd love to test it on my printer. If it looks good at arms length, I'll come back to this very thread and vocally preach the glories of flatbed scanning. As I see it, it already has the upper hand in convenience (short of motorized feed 35mm units).

 

[pakeha]

[RANT]
Not. Wake up. Y'all agonize over DPI & PPI and Megapixels & downsizing. For what? The internet? Where 99.99% of the viewers have neither a color calibrated browser nor a calibrated monitor.
Next you agonize over 100% crops viewed again on an uncalibrated monitor at 72 PIXELS/INCH.

Look at the prints man. From a proper viewing distance. Anybody care to guess what the resolution of inkjet paper is? In very real line pairs/milimeter? Anybody? Raise your hand if you know.
As I understand it, the resolving power of paper is in the neighborhood of 6 line pairs/milimeters or less.

Shoot lots of film. Develop it to the best of your abilities. Scan with a scanner that has full factory support backing it up and multiple format support so you won't out grow it. Print to your hearts content. Admire your prints from a proper distance. Show them off to your friends. Anyone who stickes their nose in the print gets a smack on the head. Enjoy!
Stop pixel peeping. It serves no purpose except to drive you crazy.

Aside: I am very pleased to have sold 2 prints in my lifetime. Both were printed from files created with film original negatives. One color. One B&W. One was printed 12" x 18" and the other was printed 16" x 20". Both customers were very pleased with the photos as delivered. Neither asked any of the following questions:
1. Lens.
2. Camera.
3. Exposure.
4. Film. Or if it was even film and not digital.
5. Developer.
6. Scanner.
7. Scanner software/settings.
8. Post scanning software.
9. Printer/settings.
10. Zero technical questions.
It just doesn't matter.
By the way, both images are displayed in my Leica Users Gallery. Bonus style points if you can guess which photos they are.

Furthermore. If your photos suck even a drum scanner won't save them.

[/RANT]

Wayne

oh thank you for this reasoning.
Like the OP i was agonizing over this whole scanning deal, got so sick of it I grabbed the first v300 that came up on auction site.The very first scan confirmed my doubts about all the mystery - there is none for the likes of myself[ probably most actually] who just want to scan negatives for viewing on a crappy laptop screen.
Professionals, sure,its a big deal.

 

[venchka]

Easy.

I print (inkjet) from my scanned files and I can see a difference in the prints from good vs bad scans. But even if mainly viewed images on a screen, I would still want the scanner that gives the best results for my budget.

K_43 post was pretty clear about what the performance difference between Plustek 8200 and the V500. He did us a favor by posting a comparison at a decent size. Bigger would be even better.
Too often recommendations about scanners have as proof point images a few pixels in size.

If you have a 3380x2860 test image you scanned on a v500 I'd love to test it on my printer. If it looks good at arms length, I'll come back to this very thread and vocally preach the glories of flatbed scanning. As I see it, it already has the upper hand in convenience (short of motorized feed 35mm units).

Take your pick of the large images from my Post #25. They are sized to print 10" on the long side without breaking a sweat. Working from the original TIFF files they print larger. I printed all of those on my Canon 5000 before it died. No complaints.
The Epson scanner used dates from 2000-2001. I bought the scanner mainly because it will scan 4 4x5 originals at once. It is also built the old way. Big and all metal. Like a tank. If it ever breaks I'll get an Epson V700.
I have no knowledge of the newer Epson scanners with the exception of the 4990 & V700. Friends of mine own a 4990 & V700. I have seen large prints from both of those scanners. Their prints looked fine.

Wayne

 

[maddoc]

Scanned with film put on scanner glass plate and a second glass-plate (frosted glass) on top to keep the film flat and in position. 3200dpi, auto exposure, minimum level sharpening. down-scaling to 600dpi.

While the - theoretical - resolution of the simpler optical unit is lower, the focus is adjusted exactly to the glass-plate (more or less) so no need to adjust the height. Additional advantage, no hassle with curling 120 film.

 

[venchka]

Thanks for that Gabor.
2 questuons:
Type of glass used on top? Fancy ANR? Or something simpler?
Film emulsion up or down?

Thanks!

Wayne

 

[why7]

Finally received the scanner ... Well, scanners, to be exact. The V600 and Plustek 8200, which still saved me some money compared to the V700.

Already managed to try the plustek, and i'm very happy with it. Seems quite easy to use, and just about good enough for my needs.

I'm posting one of the first scans - the photo was made while i was getting tattoo made. 🙂

Thanks for all the help to everyone!

Cheers,

miha

 

[froyd]

Take your pick of the large images from my Post #25. They are sized to print 10" on the long side without breaking a sweat. Working from the original TIFF files they print larger. I printed all of those on my Canon 5000 before it died. No complaints.
The Epson scanner used dates from 2000-2001. I bought the scanner mainly because it will scan 4 4x5 originals at once. It is also built the old way. Big and all metal. Like a tank. If it ever breaks I'll get an Epson V700.
I have no knowledge of the newer Epson scanners with the exception of the 4990 & V700. Friends of mine own a 4990 & V700. I have seen large prints from both of those scanners. Their prints looked fine.

Wayne

Took me a while, but I took the "Wayne challenge" and I was pleased with the result of the 10" wide print (at 225dpi on an Epson R300). I recant my knocks against flatbeds and I'm a convinced an Epson V-something is in my near future (or else it's sell all my film gear and get an M8). I shoot to print, so scanners are just a passage to the final result, and I'm convinced that an able operator can obtain results that are good enough form my needs. Hopefully it won't be too challenging to become that skilled operator! One very crucial piece of information I picked up reading about Epson flatbeds is that the raw output files, if left untouched by custom settings, are very malleable and can stand a fair deal of input and output sharpening as well as curve adjustments.

Wayne- if you are still following this thread, can you tell me if the resolution of the fish shot from post 25 is the maximum you would say can be extracted with the 4990? You had mentioned 19" prints, from all the 4 formats you shoot, but I was not clear if that was with the discontinued 4990.