hathi
Newbie
Thanks!
Maybe I'm confused by the vocabulary and probably inaccurate in my quoting numbers. By proof scan, I meant a scan which is done for each frame at a moderate resolution and fie size. I guess this is for monitor viewing. Then if there is something I want out of a particular frame, like a big crop or other manipulation, one could go back and take a higher resolution and bitrate version.
I've been following the example linkd out below, so i guess 2000 would be higher than I've used before. What is a reasonable resolution for a first scan of the whole roll? 1333 dpi?
http://photo.net/learn/film/scanning/vuescan-black-white
froyd
Veteran
charjohncarter
Veteran
Yes, (take the lift lid off/out and then locate the 4 screws that separate the glass section [that on mine is a lighter gray] with the rest of the body) 15 minutes start to finish. No stickers and the screws are not proprietary screws. They are right off Home Depot's self (but you re-use the originals).
I use Windex sprayed on an old tee shirt to wipe it clean.
gavinlg
Veteran
Yeah... we pay about double for cars here compared to the US.
Also the line doesn't always go away if you just wipe the glass. Eventually you have to actually open it up to clean it.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I just bought the V500 today. After upgrading the OS in my iMac from Leopard to Snow Leopard, the computer simply didn't acknowledge my old HP4570c scanner. I uninstalled and reinstalled the software, checked for loose cables and everything to no avail. Must admit, however, that I was kinda hoping to "need" a new scanner... 
The main reason I picked this one was the MF negative holder. Odd... but now that I have sold all my MF gear I find that I have a scanner to digitalize my old slides... Such is life.
If anything bad happens I'll report/post it here!
The main reason I picked this one was the MF negative holder. Odd... but now that I have sold all my MF gear I find that I have a scanner to digitalize my old slides... Such is life. If anything bad happens I'll report/post it here!
Chris Bail
Regular Guy
I scanned this 6x7 neg to make an 18" x 24" print with my V500 for the main subject. I've always been happy with the scanner.
Most of my 6x7 negs are scanned with the V500
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blueone33/tags/pentax6x7/
Miss ILL # F-14 by Chris Bail, on Flickr
Most of my 6x7 negs are scanned with the V500
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blueone33/tags/pentax6x7/
Miss ILL # F-14 by Chris Bail, on Flickr
raid
Dad Photographer
I have been advised to get instead the V700.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
I had problems with my old Epson 4990. The plastic parts would out-gas and fog the inside of the glass. Epson cleaned it for me once, but I never liked the results that I got with the scanner anyway. So now I use it as an office scanner and I scan film with my Nikon 9000 ED. I'll take a Nikon scanner any day over an Epson - particularly now that it's clear that they've never solved a long-standing problem.
wblynch
Well-known
Yeah a $3,000 scanner is usually a bit better than a $600 scanner. Usually.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Dear Raid, I could have told you that.
However, I have some misgivings about the presumed quality of expensive gear. It's not the tool, but the craftsman who gets the job done.
Take care!
However, I have some misgivings about the presumed quality of expensive gear. It's not the tool, but the craftsman who gets the job done.
Take care!
venchka
Veteran
scottsa
Member
I presently have a Colscan LS-9000 and the big brother to the Epson V500, the V750 and I'm reasonably pleased with the results. It becomes a rodeo with bad originals, but that's nothing new.
I have owned and/or worked with a lot of different scanners since 1988, yes, that is not a typo and I shudder when typing it. Medical imaging scanners, drum scanners of various sizes, freestanding flatbed scanners, all manner of desktop scanners, even police scanners! The picture quality from the last one can be, well if you use it wrong, arresting. ;-)
I can generally support the positive thing others say, though there are some caveats.
Given two things:
- A good negative or transparency
- Extra time
With the above, the equipment can produce respectably similar results using the flatbed and the dedicated film scanner.
Given the following extra options:
- A good, fast(er) computer with lots of space
- Fluid mounting accessories (and using them).
- Previously focus-calibrated flatbed.
These latter two options raise the bar and bring the results closer on screen. The differences are radically diminished when printed and are virtually imperceptible to the untrained eye. Here's a full-res (well, matching res) crop from a V700/V750 and a Coolscan LS-9000
There is a cost, there still isn't a free ride:
Using the same negative, the same computer (faster allows more for 'tricks' in a given time-frame) and fluid-mounting, it takes me approximately four times longer to scan with the flatbed to achieve these results.
The basics involve: oversampling by pixel-count and bit-depth (16-bits per colour), multiple tone-curves, multiple unsharp-masking applications and finally down-sampling is thrown in the middle.
Optically, the flatbed is inferior to the dedicated film scanner. The advertised high-resolution, beyond the actual resolution, of flatbeds is a function of overlapping sample areas.
The workflow entails restoring some of the subject contrast, then an application of large aperture (radius) unsharp-masking (there is direct relationship of edge-contrast and sample-rate a.k.a. resolution), a reapplication at a smaller aperture, a subsequent reduction in size (sub-sampling of the image in pixel-count and bit-depth), then final subjective adjustments and sharpening.
Variables to be attentive include the film grain, and how much you wish to reproduce, magnification ratio, and similar. These affect how many pixels render grain and therefore detail which in turn affects how much to oversample, the radius or aperture of unsharp-masking and how much to sub-sample mid-way.
Ultimately, this has the effect of 'tightening' the definition of grain by enhancing its edge-contrast without clobbering the subject detail-contrast (those elements are/should-be too large for the sharpening to directly touch in the first half of the process). The second half of the workflow is pretty much normal.
Of course, you don't have to follow this workflow -- I only do it for film that doesn't fit in my CS9000 (almost as good as a drum for most, good, film).
If you are not striving for large magnification and maximum information, let alone time considerations, there are easier and faster ways of getting acceptable results.
I have owned and/or worked with a lot of different scanners since 1988, yes, that is not a typo and I shudder when typing it. Medical imaging scanners, drum scanners of various sizes, freestanding flatbed scanners, all manner of desktop scanners, even police scanners! The picture quality from the last one can be, well if you use it wrong, arresting. ;-)
I can generally support the positive thing others say, though there are some caveats.
Given two things:
- A good negative or transparency
- Extra time
With the above, the equipment can produce respectably similar results using the flatbed and the dedicated film scanner.
Given the following extra options:
- A good, fast(er) computer with lots of space
- Fluid mounting accessories (and using them).
- Previously focus-calibrated flatbed.
These latter two options raise the bar and bring the results closer on screen. The differences are radically diminished when printed and are virtually imperceptible to the untrained eye. Here's a full-res (well, matching res) crop from a V700/V750 and a Coolscan LS-9000
There is a cost, there still isn't a free ride:
Using the same negative, the same computer (faster allows more for 'tricks' in a given time-frame) and fluid-mounting, it takes me approximately four times longer to scan with the flatbed to achieve these results.
The basics involve: oversampling by pixel-count and bit-depth (16-bits per colour), multiple tone-curves, multiple unsharp-masking applications and finally down-sampling is thrown in the middle.
Optically, the flatbed is inferior to the dedicated film scanner. The advertised high-resolution, beyond the actual resolution, of flatbeds is a function of overlapping sample areas.
The workflow entails restoring some of the subject contrast, then an application of large aperture (radius) unsharp-masking (there is direct relationship of edge-contrast and sample-rate a.k.a. resolution), a reapplication at a smaller aperture, a subsequent reduction in size (sub-sampling of the image in pixel-count and bit-depth), then final subjective adjustments and sharpening.
Variables to be attentive include the film grain, and how much you wish to reproduce, magnification ratio, and similar. These affect how many pixels render grain and therefore detail which in turn affects how much to oversample, the radius or aperture of unsharp-masking and how much to sub-sample mid-way.
Ultimately, this has the effect of 'tightening' the definition of grain by enhancing its edge-contrast without clobbering the subject detail-contrast (those elements are/should-be too large for the sharpening to directly touch in the first half of the process). The second half of the workflow is pretty much normal.
Of course, you don't have to follow this workflow -- I only do it for film that doesn't fit in my CS9000 (almost as good as a drum for most, good, film).
If you are not striving for large magnification and maximum information, let alone time considerations, there are easier and faster ways of getting acceptable results.
Argenticien
Dave
Scott, I'd be keen to see your workflow if you have it documented anywhere -- like what resolutions you're scanning at, the sequencing of USM and resizing etc. -- if you're willing to share. I am essentially new to this, having done a bit of scanning for school/work almost as early as you started, but then having been away from it for about 15 years until recently, and it's a more complex world now.
--Dave
jordanatkins
Established
I see alot of complaining about 35mm scanning from the v500, but I also see a lot of people talking of scanning only at 2,400 DPI. Any reason you're not using the 6,000 DPI setting so you can take advantage of ~24 megapixel files? You should be able to print posters with that resolution.
Also, getting a good scan just takes a little histogram tweaking in the epson software. The scans usually come out very flat if you let the software do it's thing, but if you set your black, white and middle gray points correctly for the input in each scan they look great. I also set the final output scale to 8 for black, and 244 for white when printing, since printers still can't print information beyond those levels.
I bought the v500 when it was first introduced ($500 at the time!) but I haven't regretted it one bit. At this point I'd like a scanner that could scan more negs at a time, but otherwise I have no complaints.
Also, getting a good scan just takes a little histogram tweaking in the epson software. The scans usually come out very flat if you let the software do it's thing, but if you set your black, white and middle gray points correctly for the input in each scan they look great. I also set the final output scale to 8 for black, and 244 for white when printing, since printers still can't print information beyond those levels.
I bought the v500 when it was first introduced ($500 at the time!) but I haven't regretted it one bit. At this point I'd like a scanner that could scan more negs at a time, but otherwise I have no complaints.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
it makes no sense to scan at 6000 dpi because you will only get BIGGER files, not more detailed ones.
jordanatkins
Established
How so? There is plenty of information in 35mm negatives, more than 20 megapixels worth. I think it would be advantageous to scan large and shrink down for printing. Especially if you later decide that you want to print bigger.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
There may be plenty more information in the film, just the flatbed is unable to extract any detail. The scanner native resolution with standard holder is about 2000
So if you scan at 2400 and up res the detail will be about the same (or possibly better) as scanning at 6000.
These flatbeds are good, but not so good they can extract detail at 6000dpi
Saying that I have a V500 and find it fine for 120 and passable for 35mm. I have had the purple line issue which is caused by dust in the calibration area( at the centre of the glass where the 'notch' is in the film holder) cured it easily with a screen wipe.
If you don't over sharpen it can give a reasonable 'analogue' look
Film explorer
Member
You can adjust the black and white histograms to include all 35mm negative information. Then readjust in PS or whatever later. I've never had this complaint about the V500.
Sunny day outside, no artificial light inside:
Wow - I love this photo. Any chance you could divulge your secret with the developer, time and temperature etc
I know this might be a bit cheeky, but that is the look that I am trying to achieve!
Thankyou
jordanatkins
Established
Thanks for that, I didn't realize that the scanners were just interpolating information above 2,000 dpi, especially since one of the selling points of the v500 was it's 6,400 dpi capability. When I got the scanner, I figured the 12,800 setting was the one to avoid for that reason, not anything higher than 2,000. Hmm.
Anyways, personally I haven't had a single problem with lines showing up in my scans, and it's probably because I'm super anal about dust. I wipe down the scanner's windows before each use, and blow the dust off the windows with canned air every time I open the lid.
I don't use digital ICE because I've found it causes strange artifacts in some cases, it's ruined a few people's faces in my scans, lol.
Dana B.
Well-known
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I've been using the V500 for several years and have never figured out how to "correctly" set the black, white and middle gray points for each scan. Simply moving them to each end of the histogram results in a horrible scan. Please explain, thanks.