1joel1
Well-known
Hey, I thought I was the only one still using an Expression 1680
I've made some 4x5 and 8x10 scans with that scanner that are amazing. Can't imagine a newer scanner would be any better, but the specs on the 750 sure blow away my 1680. Go figure!
Joel
Last edited:
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Yes. I discovered this, but thanks for adding it here.
I managed to start EpsonScan and do a quick test, and guess what....sharper scans. Still nothing like the KM 5400II, but definitely better than what I was getting with Vuescan. I will revisit Vuescan to make sure all the settings are correct, because I do not want to use EpsonScan.
benlees said:
I will keep at it. I'll have some time tonight to work with it.
/
Last edited:
dfoo
Well-known
Those people that say v700 35mm are not soft do those people who actually buy a v700 a disservice for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they buy the v700 based on these comments. Secondly, they wonder after the purchase why the hell the scans are so soft even after hours of playing with the height of the holders.
I'll go ahead and state it. 35mm scans from the v700 are soft if viewed at 100%! They are not grain sharp. If you want grain sharp scans get a different scanner, such as the Coolscan 5000.
Now does the lack of grain sharpness matter? It depends. How big are you going to print? What are you going to use the scans for? What type of film are you scanning?
I'll go ahead and state it. 35mm scans from the v700 are soft if viewed at 100%! They are not grain sharp. If you want grain sharp scans get a different scanner, such as the Coolscan 5000.
Now does the lack of grain sharpness matter? It depends. How big are you going to print? What are you going to use the scans for? What type of film are you scanning?
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
I have both the Nikon 5000 and the V750 with Doug's MF frame holder and A/N glass. With my V750 i have the adjustment screws 2.75 full turns clockwise (that's raised above the scanner glass bed) and i get decent 35mm scans but not as sharp grain wise as the 5000 when i compare side by side. The Epson scans do sharpen up in PP.
I also find the scans from the Nikon much sharper at the edges when using the optional film frame holder (approx £20).
I also find the scans from the Nikon much sharper at the edges when using the optional film frame holder (approx £20).
dfoo
Well-known
I invite you to post a unsharpened direct from the scanner grain sharp 35mm scan from a v700. Preferably 400 ISO black and white.
I've never ever gotten anything remotely close to a grain sharp scan with my v700. I tried everything, and they were never sharp when compared with a Coolscan scan. I was convinced when I first got the scanner was that the problem was mine. However, now I'm convinced that the scanner is simply not that sharp.
venchka
Veteran
Sharpening is a fact of life with any digital image. Scanner or big bucks high dollar camera. Capture sharpening and output sharpening. Gotta have it.
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
That's so wrong I don't know where to begin.
A properly focused, exposed, processed and scanned image needs no sharpening!
You might want more micro contrast; that's what you'll get with sharpening. But you could just use a better lens/film/developer/scanner combination and get the results you want.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Realistically, I'm in Wayne's camp.
Ideally, since post-processing is time-intensive, I strive to be in Ron's camp.
Did I mention I love this place?
Ideally, since post-processing is time-intensive, I strive to be in Ron's camp.
Did I mention I love this place?
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
So, what you're saying Mike, is that I'm right but that it's tough to do.
I know, I know, it's not easy.
I know, I know, it's not easy.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I have been scanning 5x7 transparencies along with 6x7 and 6x6 on my 750. I will get some 100% up...well, I probably won't because I never follow through on that promise but once I got the height adjustment right on the betterscanning holder it's certainly sharp enough. Not razor sharp, I'd say, but you see some scans and still say "wow" as it does capture the sharpness of the negative, IMO.
If I wanted even sharper I'd get a Howtek 3500. But the price for a used one matches the model number (anyone want to go in on one together? Ray, we're both in the bay area..... But for what it can do the 750 is quite impressive to me. Even better since I started wet mounting.
If I wanted even sharper I'd get a Howtek 3500. But the price for a used one matches the model number (anyone want to go in on one together? Ray, we're both in the bay area....
. But for what it can do the 750 is quite impressive to me. Even better since I started wet mounting.
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
kaiyen
local man of mystery
It seems to, yes. Definitely on the 6x7's. The large format is hard to tell because a 5x7 is so huge to begin with. But I intend to wet mount one of the 5x7's that I did dry before and see if I can see a difference.
I seem to get increased sharpness when compared to dry scans on the same exact holder, glass, etc.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I have been scanning 5x7 transparencies along with 6x7 and 6x6 on my 750. I will get some 100% up...well, I probably won't because I never follow through on that promise but once I got the height adjustment right on the betterscanning holder it's certainly sharp enough. Not razor sharp, I'd say, but you see some scans and still say "wow" as it does capture the sharpness of the negative, IMO.
If I wanted even sharper I'd get a Howtek 3500. But the price for a used one matches the model number (anyone want to go in on one together? Ray, we're both in the bay area....
Hah! Well with the Howtek we could make our money back by undercutting local labs. Lot's of local photogs who would line up for good sharp decently priced scans. Lemme think about it...
I did manage a breakthrough last night using Vuescan and the V750. After perusing deeper into google searches and comparing EpsonScan to Vuescan, I came the realization that some of what was causing the oof scans was operator error--me misinterpreting/mis-mapping the Vuescan menus/tabs. I am getting decidedly sharper scans and the scanner (under Vuescan) appears to be operating correctly. I just need to go back and capture the settings that got me there!
Vuescan is great scanning software, but it can get quirky. I found the Guided mode to be very helpful for troubleshooting and for assistance in setting up the software.
Anyway, I hope to post some examples.
/
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Hah! Well with the Howtek we could make our money back by undercutting local labs. Lot's of local photogs who would line up for good sharp decently priced scans. Lemme think about it...
In all, all seriousness, I have considered this. I do run a photography business and have been looking at ways to add value. But my wife would murder me about getting one. I would gladly scan other people's files and even prep them for uber-sized prints at, say, Calypso. Anyway.
Just in case I can get even better scans...what did you do differently? Share, share!
allan
btw - when I'm in LR and go 100% on my 5x7 scans, it's like flying into a worm hole or something. I go from looking at an entire frame to maybe the lower right corner of a window sill. 5x7 is BIG.
dfoo
Well-known
I'm not talking about what the scans look like when resized for web viewing... I'm talking about 100% crops from the scans. The scans from my v700 when viewed at 100% 3200 DPI or above are simply soft. When I view the same scan from a coolscan it is not.
Here are a couple of examples I've posted a few times here. You can follow the flickr link and find links to full resolution versions of the scans.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mnewhook/3251346899/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mnewhook/3251404399/
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I bought a V700 in April and up until this week had only done some very quick tests using 6x6 and 6x9 negs. What I saw initially impressed me — lots to work with in terms of picking up all the tonal range captured on the neg, and a nice rendition of the film's grain (to my eye). A quick curves adjustment, some sharpening, and I was very happy.
This week I've been trying 35mm. My happiness is gone. In fact I had to go back to scanning some MF stuff to remind myself that I didn't waste a lot of money.
I've tried everything. Emulsion down, emulsion up. All the height settings. Different resolution. Every combination. It's crap. With a lot of sharpening you can get something looking half decent, and it may even print reasonably well, but by no means can I consider these to be good 35mm scans. Sized for screen (web) viewing with a quick sharpen and you can be fooled into believing it's a good scan. But out of the scanner it really isn't sharp at all.
Although the MF neg is much larger, I'm still really surprised that there is such a vast difference in quality.
Looks like I'll be saving my pennies for a Coolscan.
This week I've been trying 35mm. My happiness is gone. In fact I had to go back to scanning some MF stuff to remind myself that I didn't waste a lot of money.
I've tried everything. Emulsion down, emulsion up. All the height settings. Different resolution. Every combination. It's crap. With a lot of sharpening you can get something looking half decent, and it may even print reasonably well, but by no means can I consider these to be good 35mm scans. Sized for screen (web) viewing with a quick sharpen and you can be fooled into believing it's a good scan. But out of the scanner it really isn't sharp at all.
Although the MF neg is much larger, I'm still really surprised that there is such a vast difference in quality.
Looks like I'll be saving my pennies for a Coolscan.
Alan Yahnke
Newbie
I use an old MDD dual 1.4mhz G4 Power Mac.
Here is a link to my photos I have scanned and posted. Some are from when I first started using the scanner and are over sharpened.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21981741@N02/sets/72157622976055855/
I shoot digital, 35mm, medium format and 4x5. The link is just the stuff that I used the V750 to scan. I have no first hand experience, but I would guess that the V500 and V600 would work about the same way. Having never used Coolscans or had photos drum scanned I don't know how much different the prints look from them. I do like what this scanner does for the most part. The scans aren't always perfect, but that probably has more to do with my mistakes than the scanner. I think if you buy one and you don't like it, that you should send it back. That is what I would do.
I have read that drum scanning is much better other places as well, so if you need better than this produces, by all means put your money into drum scans or dedicated film scanners. I bought it because of the ability to do the different sized formats and the wet scan capabilities which I haven't used yet, I've actually been pretty amazed with some of the results.
Here is a link to my photos I have scanned and posted. Some are from when I first started using the scanner and are over sharpened.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21981741@N02/sets/72157622976055855/
I shoot digital, 35mm, medium format and 4x5. The link is just the stuff that I used the V750 to scan. I have no first hand experience, but I would guess that the V500 and V600 would work about the same way. Having never used Coolscans or had photos drum scanned I don't know how much different the prints look from them. I do like what this scanner does for the most part. The scans aren't always perfect, but that probably has more to do with my mistakes than the scanner. I think if you buy one and you don't like it, that you should send it back. That is what I would do.
I have read that drum scanning is much better other places as well, so if you need better than this produces, by all means put your money into drum scans or dedicated film scanners. I bought it because of the ability to do the different sized formats and the wet scan capabilities which I haven't used yet, I've actually been pretty amazed with some of the results.
Last edited:
tammons
Established
After doing a lot of reading, and owning and comparing a V750 to a Howtek 4500, Nikon 8000, Microtek 120, KM 5400II and a few others, I can say that.....
My copy of the V750 was just not that sharp and it was disappointing to some degree.
Definitely disappointing for an $800 scanner.
That said I recently read that the real issue with the v700/750/500/600 models is the scanner to scanner quality. This fellow had worked with a lot of Epson scanners and he said that you have a 1 in 4 chance of getting a good one, and now I believe it.
I guess my V750 was below average because at 4800 dpi on a very sharp 35mm piece of film (resolving like 70-80 lp/mm), it still could not resolve what a drum scan could at 2000 dpi native.
2000 dpi native on a drum scanner is about 40 lp/mm, but I have read reports that the v750 was good for 46-48 lp/mm, btu I did not see it.
I assume that the V750's that can resolve 48 lp/mm must be the really good ones.
I think that might explain to some degree why some people say they love the V700/750 and get great scans and why some people find the scans terribly soft.
They all suffer from a great deal of lens CA. At least all of my epsons have and its my opinion that lens quality has a lot to do with the fuzziness of the scanner.
Scan some B+W film in color at 4800 dpi and look at the edges and you will see it.
The V500 I own now is probably the soggiest scanner I have ever owned.
Others that own them think they are great. I think I just got another bad copy.
My copy of the V750 was just not that sharp and it was disappointing to some degree.
Definitely disappointing for an $800 scanner.
That said I recently read that the real issue with the v700/750/500/600 models is the scanner to scanner quality. This fellow had worked with a lot of Epson scanners and he said that you have a 1 in 4 chance of getting a good one, and now I believe it.
I guess my V750 was below average because at 4800 dpi on a very sharp 35mm piece of film (resolving like 70-80 lp/mm), it still could not resolve what a drum scan could at 2000 dpi native.
2000 dpi native on a drum scanner is about 40 lp/mm, but I have read reports that the v750 was good for 46-48 lp/mm, btu I did not see it.
I assume that the V750's that can resolve 48 lp/mm must be the really good ones.
I think that might explain to some degree why some people say they love the V700/750 and get great scans and why some people find the scans terribly soft.
They all suffer from a great deal of lens CA. At least all of my epsons have and its my opinion that lens quality has a lot to do with the fuzziness of the scanner.
Scan some B+W film in color at 4800 dpi and look at the edges and you will see it.
The V500 I own now is probably the soggiest scanner I have ever owned.
Others that own them think they are great. I think I just got another bad copy.