marameo
Established
I see that some labs suggest Imacon 848 for "Professional Print" and the Hasselblad X5 for "Fine Art Print". Now, I am wondering..does that really matter? Is the X5 really best suited for Fine art Printing from a medium format color negative film (6x7)? Some of those labs charge 10 USD for a 65Mb scan with the Imacon 848 and 25 USD for a 65Mb scan with the X5 for a 8x20" print from the scan. Do you think I can get a good 16x20" Giclèè print from MF film scanned with the V600?!?! (I let others edit and print the file I scan). Thanks
marameo
Established
The optcal resulution of the V600 is said to be 9600 PPI. Yet, if I am printing 400x500mm from a 56x69.5mm MF film I get 7.14x magnification.
Scanner ppi = M * Print DPI , that is 2142 PPI (7.14x300). I think the V600 should be capable of handling that resolution.
A MF negative size is about 2,20x2,74" If I scan that a 2142 PPI I shoud get a 4712x5869 pixel resolution file.
On Adobe RGB - 16bit, a file like that is supposed to be 158Mb...how can they scan in a 65Mb file?!
Scanner ppi = M * Print DPI , that is 2142 PPI (7.14x300). I think the V600 should be capable of handling that resolution.
A MF negative size is about 2,20x2,74" If I scan that a 2142 PPI I shoud get a 4712x5869 pixel resolution file.
On Adobe RGB - 16bit, a file like that is supposed to be 158Mb...how can they scan in a 65Mb file?!
x-ray
Veteran
I own an 848 and am familiar with the X5. The only difference is the X5 scans faster. The tech at Hasselblad said the 848 has slightly better dynamic range. Both use the same optical system an CCD I believe. There is no difference in image quality.
I previously had a. Fuji Lanovia Quattro which was $45k. I've had thousands of transparencies drum scanned by high end prepress houses for ads and publications. Drum scans may be a tiny bit better but not by much. The Lanovia and Imacon are very comparable. The big difference is the Lanovia would scan 14x17 film 5000 ppi true optical resution and scanned very fast. It was designed for high production and top quality.
I have a V750 epson and it's nice but not in the same class not even close. Manufactures fudge numbers quite often.
I previously had a. Fuji Lanovia Quattro which was $45k. I've had thousands of transparencies drum scanned by high end prepress houses for ads and publications. Drum scans may be a tiny bit better but not by much. The Lanovia and Imacon are very comparable. The big difference is the Lanovia would scan 14x17 film 5000 ppi true optical resution and scanned very fast. It was designed for high production and top quality.
I have a V750 epson and it's nice but not in the same class not even close. Manufactures fudge numbers quite often.
VF101
Established
According to filmscanner.info the optical resolution is 1560dpi. And about 1350dpi according to the tests of a german computer magazine.
thegman
Veteran
Well, I think when a company says 'this is for x' and 'that is for y', then it's more about marketing than anything else.
I think you could probably get a more than acceptable 16x20" print from a 6x7 negative scanned on a V600. But it also depends on your own personal standards, and of course other matters...
Is your negative a handheld shot in low light on Delta 3200? Or is it Ektar 100 on a tripod?
A 6x7 negative/slide can hold a huge amount of detail, but whether your shot has capitalised on that is anyone's guess.
A landscape in the Ansel Adam's style might benefit from low/no grain, but a street shot, maybe not so much.
All things being equal though, I think a V600 is capable of a decent scan of a 6x7 negative, probably good enough for your size of print.
mfogiel
Veteran
The problem with the flatbeds, apart the true optical resolution and film flatness, is the colour fidelity and the Dmax. I would suggest to scan at least with a Nikon CS 9000 on a double pass in the glass holder. You will get a correct and sharp edge to edge scan of about 4000ppi real resolution. If I recall a 48Bit scan from 6x7 amounts to about a 1GB file.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I have measured my V500; it's 1270 ppi in one direction and higher, 2000 ppi in the other direction.
I'm happy with the sharpness of prints at 6x the linear dimensions of the negative.
For me, that's a print up to 18" wide from a 2x3" negative. From a 645 or 6x6 negative, that would be 12" wide. A 16x20 print from 645 would be a greater enlargement. From 6x9 it wouldn't be that different from the prints I'm happy with.
Here's a thread with the specifics including links to a printable sample at 12x18" of this image:
The Cheers Pub, V500 scan, 6x9 Ektar, shot with Mamiya Press 100 f/2.8 lens
And, here's a link to a file prepared for 12x18" scanned on a V500 from a 6x9 negative.
I'm happy with the sharpness of prints at 6x the linear dimensions of the negative.
For me, that's a print up to 18" wide from a 2x3" negative. From a 645 or 6x6 negative, that would be 12" wide. A 16x20 print from 645 would be a greater enlargement. From 6x9 it wouldn't be that different from the prints I'm happy with.
Here's a thread with the specifics including links to a printable sample at 12x18" of this image:
The Cheers Pub, V500 scan, 6x9 Ektar, shot with Mamiya Press 100 f/2.8 lens
And, here's a link to a file prepared for 12x18" scanned on a V500 from a 6x9 negative.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
p.s. Mine was with the V500. Your V600 may be just a bit better. A V750 will be better.
Ranchu
Veteran
Color accuracy is better with my v500 (very good) than my coolscan v ed. Coolscan has purple blues. I would suggest that Epson knows a lot more about color and color handling than Nikon. Dmax is 3.4 with the v500, plenty for negatives but maybe not slides. Coolscan has 4.0.
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't think it matters much whether you get scans from the 848 or the X5 but both are definitely better than the V600. Even on a screen I can easily see the difference between scans from an X5 and those from a V700 so I image it will also make a difference in smaller prints. At $10/scan I would just let the lab do it (especially since you're letting them edit and print it anyways).
marameo
Established
What do you mean by "one direction" and "other direction"?
It's Portra 800 so grain is the added bonus. It's a portrait shot under fluorescent lighitng. I might convert it to b&w also.
Yet, I don't understand why pay double as much for a X5 scan and how is it possible for a 65Mb scan to hold the resolution for a 16x20" print
majid
Fazal Majid
The 9600dpi quoted is probably the increment the stepping motor in the scanner can theoretically yield once transmitted through whatever arrangement of gears drives the scan head. Needless to say, it is a completely bogus measure. The other resolution will normally be the pitch of the linear CCD (or heaven help us a CIS).
In reality the limiting factor is the optics between the platen and the sensor. In cheap scanners, it is usually an array of pinholes, because otherwise you would need an enlarger-class lens that will focus a flat original against a 8" wide linear sensor a mere inch or so away (that's a , and that is no small feat, that's a 150 degree FOV, equivalent to a 4mm lens in 35mm equivalents).
The V750 has a real lens (2 in fact, one for flat art, one for negatives/slides), but obviously they are not in the same class as an Imacon or a Coolscan, let alone a drum scanner. The V600 doesn't have a proper lens at all (they say "the scanner features Epson's superior Matrix CCD Micro Lens technology", in other words at best a single element micro lens of questionable fabrication accuracy, sitting directly in front a sensor pixel.
I doubt any consumer grade flatbed scanner can achieve much better than 1200dpi resolution. You need a prepress scanner like a Fuji Lanovia/Quattro, CreoScitex (Kodak) or equivalent to do better.
marameo
Established
How about the Brown FS120? Is it between the flatbed and the Imacon?
x-ray
Veteran
The Imacon / Hasselblad scanners use a Rodenstock apo process lens and the Fuji had 4 apo process lenses. Scanning was single pass with the Fuji at all resolutions. The Creo / Kodachrome machines scan multiple passes and stitch together the strips. Both work just fine.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
Or a Plustek 120
Fernando2
Well-known
Actually, the V700/750 can do about 45-50 line pairs/mm on the worst axis, and about 60 lp/mm on the best axis.
This is like 2400x3000 ppi; but with quite low microcontrast and quite some chromatic aberrations.
From my own review:
This is like 2400x3000 ppi; but with quite low microcontrast and quite some chromatic aberrations.
From my own review:
Fernando2
Well-known
Needless to say, proper filmscanners do much better.
Nikon Coolscan 8000 and 9000, side by side (again, from my own reviews).
CLICK TO ENLARGE.
Nikon Coolscan 8000 and 9000, side by side (again, from my own reviews).
CLICK TO ENLARGE.
Fernando2
Well-known
Dainippon-Screen 1030AI drum scanner (in need for a new motor+encoder, actually):
