charjohncarter
Veteran
Fernando2, Thanks for answering. I've watched your groups video a few more times, it is very easy to follow.
Lancelot365
Member
yup, also the plustek has some bugs (especially vertical banding in blue sky area, I have returned my scanner due to this reason). I highly recommend V850 over OF120 if you mainly shoot medium and large format. If combine with Nikon VED or 4000ED (which is around 400-500 USD on ebay), you could get more than decent results for all formats and the combination is still cheaper than OF120....
Kamph
Established
When did you buy your OP120?
It shouldn't be anywhere near as soft as in your pics. My copy easily resolves the grain on Ektar 100. I think you might have had one with focus issues. Many on the Plustek 120 thread has compared their OP120 against their Nikons and found that the Plustek was equal or better than the Nikon.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
My experience is more limited than Fernando2's, but what I've seen is consistent with his statements. The V700 is fine if used within its limits (probably around 2400 dpi). Also be aware that it won't dig detail out of dense areas of slides. That's why I bought a Nikon CS 9000.
Lancelot365
Member
I bought it this Sep. Anyway I have returned it because of the banding problem. Plustek engineer cant figure out a way to solve the problem (they said it's software but this problem varies from machine to machine, I dont think it's software). You can take a look at the discussion at flickr OF120 group.
Plustek OF120 might be good, but too buggy. If Nikon continue to service their 8000/9000ED I would not have chosen OF120.
8000/9000ED also suffers from the banding problem in the dark area. This problem is well known and can be solved by using just one line ccd though. These scanners also seem to be fragile. My 8000ED broke down some times ago.
To strike a balance between availability/robustness and image quality, I'd say V700/V750/V800/V850 series is a good choice. Not to mention the cheaper price. For 135 film, the resolution might be short. Adding a dedicated 135 scanner like VED/4000ED only costs about 400-500 USD and these 135 scanners are much more robust than their bigger brothers 8000/9000ED.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
First, I'll respect the advice of Fernando and others who have tested this: Scan at absurdly high nominal resolution and then down-sample to what you think is the best the scanner is actually resolving.
2nd, I have measured lesser scanners like the V500 at 1300 x 2000 ppi (look for my post here), so I think it's a reasonable notion that the V750 would resolve 2500 or perhaps 3000 ppi.
I'm done some film vs. digital comparisons. Both can give excellent images. Film has a higher ultimate resolution (if your scanner can see it), digital nice high MTF at low to moderate spacial frequencies and then it just suddenly falls apart completely at a certain point. Here's a Sony technical article which explains this nicely..
2nd, I have measured lesser scanners like the V500 at 1300 x 2000 ppi (look for my post here), so I think it's a reasonable notion that the V750 would resolve 2500 or perhaps 3000 ppi.
I'm done some film vs. digital comparisons. Both can give excellent images. Film has a higher ultimate resolution (if your scanner can see it), digital nice high MTF at low to moderate spacial frequencies and then it just suddenly falls apart completely at a certain point. Here's a Sony technical article which explains this nicely..
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Tomb test Epson V850 scanner test Hasselblad 6x4.5 by Man with Red Eyes, on Flickr
This is an early scan from the V850, early as in I'm still learning and experimenting.
For UK readers, it obviously varies over markets, the wet scanning attachment is not in the box and the EpsonUK web site is singularly uninformative. An e-mail to support resulted in the free on request wet scanning bit being "in the post".
I have no experience with the earlier version film holders but those supplied now seem robust, well made and easy to adjust over a range that clearly included both sides of best.
More work to do but happy so far.
H1, 80mm HC, Ilford Delta100.
Original is 4.2MB jpeg and on Flickr as that for peeping.
greggan
Stefan L
A Epson V850 pro review.
This is a very nice scanner but is it worth an upgrade for V700/V750 owners?
http://www.stockholmviews.com/epson_v850/
This is a very nice scanner but is it worth an upgrade for V700/V750 owners?
http://www.stockholmviews.com/epson_v850/
Dektol Dan
Well-known
It's What You Want It For
It's What You Want It For
The Epson is just fine for most uses. Personally I view 95% of all photography on a monitor.
You must remember that beginning with 4990, Epson came out with the split two pass sensor. Flatbeds are limited to 1200 DPI. This made for the interpolated 2200 DPI that is the reasonable limit if focusing is well managed. The V700 introduced the two lens system that made 2400 DPI possible with the inconvenience of very long scan times and enormous files. It really was only meant for 35mm. I'm talking real DPI not the imagined 6400 DPI which I suppose is the setting for 2400 DPI with the second lens.
At 2400 DPI grain of faster films is just barely visible. For an ISO 50 transparency the film always wins over the flatbed scanner.
Essentially, multiple passes get you to about the same place. But then what is your purpose?
Top scan is 2400 DPI from a V700 from a Kodachrome 35mmm slide.
The bottom from a Minolta Dimage film scanner from a Porta negative at 2800 DPI. The grain is apparent, that's not pixelation. There is pixelation on the Epson scan if enlarged a bit, but then for my purpose, who cares?
The differences really become an issue beginning with medium format. Where most feel that that is where the flatbed comes into its stride, I think the opposite.
Here is a medium format 2800 DPI scan of Velvia from the Minolta:
It's What You Want It For
The Epson is just fine for most uses. Personally I view 95% of all photography on a monitor.
You must remember that beginning with 4990, Epson came out with the split two pass sensor. Flatbeds are limited to 1200 DPI. This made for the interpolated 2200 DPI that is the reasonable limit if focusing is well managed. The V700 introduced the two lens system that made 2400 DPI possible with the inconvenience of very long scan times and enormous files. It really was only meant for 35mm. I'm talking real DPI not the imagined 6400 DPI which I suppose is the setting for 2400 DPI with the second lens.
At 2400 DPI grain of faster films is just barely visible. For an ISO 50 transparency the film always wins over the flatbed scanner.
Essentially, multiple passes get you to about the same place. But then what is your purpose?
Top scan is 2400 DPI from a V700 from a Kodachrome 35mmm slide.
The bottom from a Minolta Dimage film scanner from a Porta negative at 2800 DPI. The grain is apparent, that's not pixelation. There is pixelation on the Epson scan if enlarged a bit, but then for my purpose, who cares?
The differences really become an issue beginning with medium format. Where most feel that that is where the flatbed comes into its stride, I think the opposite.
Here is a medium format 2800 DPI scan of Velvia from the Minolta:
DNG
Film Friendly
I use 2400 for the maximum DPI for 4x5 negs.. no need for any more with the V700...
The 190-200mb 16bit BW TIFFS sharpen up nicely in PSCC, with plenty of fine detail. The 8600x10823 PP original is available for download
1945 Germany-Bumbed House-Mucheh Gladback-001-F2 by 1921-2010: Photographic Archive: By Peter Arbib, on Flickr
For 35mm I use 3200dpi
1958, Sunset and Larrabee, Hollywood, CA
BTW, the Liqueur Store/Melody Room (building) is the only building that survived the many Sunset Bvld Renovation projects today
1958 Muir Woods and W Hollywood CA by 1921-2010: Photographic Archive: By Peter Arbib, on Flickr
The 190-200mb 16bit BW TIFFS sharpen up nicely in PSCC, with plenty of fine detail. The 8600x10823 PP original is available for download
1945 Germany-Bumbed House-Mucheh Gladback-001-F2 by 1921-2010: Photographic Archive: By Peter Arbib, on Flickr
For 35mm I use 3200dpi
1958, Sunset and Larrabee, Hollywood, CA
BTW, the Liqueur Store/Melody Room (building) is the only building that survived the many Sunset Bvld Renovation projects today
1958 Muir Woods and W Hollywood CA by 1921-2010: Photographic Archive: By Peter Arbib, on Flickr
bjolester
Well-known
Today I found a very interesting article about film resolution and megapixels written by Tim Parkin. I would not have needed to start this thread if I already had read Parkin's article:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
Beemermark
Veteran
Scanning 6x9 on my V750 I find that the final output is maximized at 2400. Waste of my time to scan any higher, the final resolution is undetectable. 24x30 inch prints look gorgeous.