d_ross
Registered User
oscroft
Veteran
Hi Gavin,
I've now put two full frame scans on my web site if you want them. Beware though, they're big!
Scan 1 - Colour transparency (Fujichrome 100 ASA), 6400dpi, 48 bit, 26Mb! It's a direct 100% jpg - a TIFF would really have been too big, and examination at full size shows no obvious difference between first-generation jpg and TIFF. There is some unsharp mask apparent, but I don't know how to stop that - Epson Scan seems to apply it even if I tell it not to.
Scan 2 - B&W (Delta 400), 4800dpi, 48 bit, 8Mb. This one is also a 100% jpg, but it was produced using a Mac graphics utility that uses QuickTime jpg which has a better algorithm and produces smaller files for the same quality. Again, there's no obvious difference between this 1st generation jpg and a TIFF. There's no unsharp mask on this one - it doesn't seem to force it on me when I do b&w scans.
I've now put two full frame scans on my web site if you want them. Beware though, they're big!
Scan 1 - Colour transparency (Fujichrome 100 ASA), 6400dpi, 48 bit, 26Mb! It's a direct 100% jpg - a TIFF would really have been too big, and examination at full size shows no obvious difference between first-generation jpg and TIFF. There is some unsharp mask apparent, but I don't know how to stop that - Epson Scan seems to apply it even if I tell it not to.
Scan 2 - B&W (Delta 400), 4800dpi, 48 bit, 8Mb. This one is also a 100% jpg, but it was produced using a Mac graphics utility that uses QuickTime jpg which has a better algorithm and produces smaller files for the same quality. Again, there's no obvious difference between this 1st generation jpg and a TIFF. There's no unsharp mask on this one - it doesn't seem to force it on me when I do b&w scans.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
fdigital said:
Ack! they increased the price a tad.
https://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63060806
gavinlg
Veteran
oscroft said:
Wow I love the photos on your site, I just spent quite a while browsing through them. Aren't the Olympus OMs just absolute gems of cameras! Only thing is, I can't find where you've put those high res scans... could you link me?
thanks again,
Gavin
oscroft
Veteran
Hi Gavin,
It's probably easier if I give you the URLs of the two new V700 scans...
http://homepage.mac.com/oscroft/V700_1.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/oscroft/V700_2.jpg
Hope they're some use.
Very kind, thanks - I'll be putting a lot more photos up there before long, now that I'm getting into gear with the V700. And yes, I do love OM gear
It's probably easier if I give you the URLs of the two new V700 scans...
http://homepage.mac.com/oscroft/V700_1.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/oscroft/V700_2.jpg
Hope they're some use.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
oscroft.. When i scan at 6400 dpi, i see some weird square pixelization. In simple term it looks like anti-aliasing on the monitor inspected with a loupe.Magnified. I don't think it is USM. I also see it on the example images in the review page posted as link above by sbody else.
Indeed the USM filter switches on automatically after every preview scan. Anoying detail, but i got used to switching it off after preview.
I noticed that scanning at 6400 dpi is useless. Really, above about 4000 dpi i see NO details, and many times this pixelization is there, that would not be there if i simply increase the resolution in photoshop.
It's a good scanner with a few quirks.
Indeed the USM filter switches on automatically after every preview scan. Anoying detail, but i got used to switching it off after preview.
I noticed that scanning at 6400 dpi is useless. Really, above about 4000 dpi i see NO details, and many times this pixelization is there, that would not be there if i simply increase the resolution in photoshop.
It's a good scanner with a few quirks.
oscroft
Veteran
Yes, that's exactly what I see - just like anti-aliasing.
What I've tried is to do two scans, one with the "auto" USM still on and one when I switch it off again - they were identical, and both had exactly the same weird square pixelization (hence my assumption that it was USM).
Yes, I think what I need to do is experiment with different resolutions - I don't see the pixelation on 4800dpi b&w images, for example. I guess it'll take a little bit of work to find the best way of using it.
d_ross
Registered User
I was advised that the V700 lenses scanned at either 3200 dpi or 6400 dpi and any other resolution was interpolation in the scanner software, therefore best results will always come from using 3200 or 6400. also, on the bottom of the film holders there is a little clip that holds the holders up of the glass plate, I have found a noticeable increase in sharpness if you point these to the + direction as opposed to the - direction that they come fitted. try a scan done both ways, you will be surprised at the difference!