rjstep3
Established
I've had the Epson v700 for a few years, and have never been really pleased with it - the scans always seem blurred and out of focus. I was beginning to think something was wrong with my Mamiya 7!!
I did an experiment to test. Here are two parts of a photo scanned at 3200dpi and the parts cut from the scan at 100%.
Picture 1 shows a typical (for me) scan using MF film in a film holder, either Epson's or betterscanning's. I have tried all the heights, it makes no difference. You can see how blurred it is, not very pretty at all. Prints are sort of ok, but on screen it is terrible.
Now look at picture 2: for this I used the betterscanning film holder at default height, but scanned as if for the film guide. You can see instantly how much more detail there is - just look at the reeds in the foreground, you can see texture on the sheep's wool, it's just better. (Ignore the blotches please).
Neither shot has had any sort of post applied to it - absolutely vanilla in both cases.
I know this was a handheld shot, and reducing the images down to upload here is not putting them in the best light - but after a couple of years or so of dissatisfaction with the scans of my v700, is there in fact something wrong with it?
Any light you can throw on this would be appreciated - it's out of warranty, but do I get another one, or go for the Opticfilm 120?
thanks
rjstep3
I did an experiment to test. Here are two parts of a photo scanned at 3200dpi and the parts cut from the scan at 100%.
Picture 1 shows a typical (for me) scan using MF film in a film holder, either Epson's or betterscanning's. I have tried all the heights, it makes no difference. You can see how blurred it is, not very pretty at all. Prints are sort of ok, but on screen it is terrible.
Now look at picture 2: for this I used the betterscanning film holder at default height, but scanned as if for the film guide. You can see instantly how much more detail there is - just look at the reeds in the foreground, you can see texture on the sheep's wool, it's just better. (Ignore the blotches please).
Neither shot has had any sort of post applied to it - absolutely vanilla in both cases.
I know this was a handheld shot, and reducing the images down to upload here is not putting them in the best light - but after a couple of years or so of dissatisfaction with the scans of my v700, is there in fact something wrong with it?
Any light you can throw on this would be appreciated - it's out of warranty, but do I get another one, or go for the Opticfilm 120?
thanks
rjstep3
Attachments
hanskerensky
Well-known
Picture 2 is indeed a lot better. But i fail to understand what you did with the filmholder. When you write that the Betterscanning holder was on its default height but you scanned for the filmguide what does this mean ? Is there a focus mechanism in the V700 ? Or did you put the film on a different height inside the holder ?
rjstep3
Established
OK - with the v700, there are two ways of scanning: either on the glass when one light, focused on the glass, does the scan (that's when you put your film in a film guide directly on the glass), or you put your film in a plastic film holder which holds the film several millimetres above the glass, and another light focused at about the height of the film in the film holder does the scan.
There is no way to focus with either light - both lights depend on depth of field to get the film in focus.
The point is that the light which should be focused on the glass should not be focused on the film holder - the film holder should be a few millimetres out of focus. However, the light for scanning film in the film holder should be much better - it should be focused on the film holder.
In other words, the scans I have attached should be the other way around in terms of quality.
Seeing these two pictures makes me think that both lights are out of focus.
It is hard to explain in words - if someone with a V700 sees this, they will know exactly what I mean.
rjstep3
There is no way to focus with either light - both lights depend on depth of field to get the film in focus.
The point is that the light which should be focused on the glass should not be focused on the film holder - the film holder should be a few millimetres out of focus. However, the light for scanning film in the film holder should be much better - it should be focused on the film holder.
In other words, the scans I have attached should be the other way around in terms of quality.
Seeing these two pictures makes me think that both lights are out of focus.
It is hard to explain in words - if someone with a V700 sees this, they will know exactly what I mean.
rjstep3
gshybrid
Well-known
You should be able to get much better scans than what you're showing... are you using Epson Scan, VueScan or SilverFast? I have a V750 and got fair results with VueScan using Betterscanning holders with ANR glass... that said, recently I purchased a Microtek 120tf and the results are noticeably better.
Athiril
Established
The default film holders are often just slightly outside or right on the edge of the DoF, but not in the sweet spot of the scanner focus.
rjstep3.. you've fallen for the fraudulent advertising and reviews of flatbed scanners as being professional quality film scanners... they are not. What they are is tools of convenience. Esp for formats like 617 and 8x10 which would be otherwise annoying difficult to get digitised.
Of course there are ways to optimise the results out of it, but ultimately it's futile struggle if you wish to get the detail that is on the neg or pos. Though it is others an improvement and something is better than nothing at all.
Basically, no there is nothing wrong with your V700.
Ultimately, it still is a flatbed scanner that uses a micro lens array that will be extremely limited by diffraction due to the lens' tiny physical size. The optical resolution is not 6400 dpi as advertised by Epson, that is actually fraud. The sensor resolution may be 6400 dpi, but the optical system does not resolve that, and is simply incapable by the nature of it's design to resolve anything close (or even decent) compared to what camera lenses, films, and enlarger lenses are capable of resolving.
The Imacon Flextight 949 etc is actually similar to a flatbed.. it also uses a line sensor.. the differences is that it moves the film rather than the sensor to scan. And it has a single lens (an enlarger lens that is f/8 wide open) to project the image on the sensor. The lens supports a lot more resolution.
If you were able to remove the pinhole lens array (cheaper flatbeds just use a pinhole array over the sensor) from a flatbed scanner and put it under an enlarger and disable the reflective lamp and have it scan you could get great results even with a 1200 dpi scanner found at an op shop for $2.
Tried it once though, and I couldn't get it to scan after disabling the lamp, it self-calibrates to white with the lamp turned on.. you'd need to selective disable it once it got to the glass and started sending image data to the computer.
I'll try it again one day as it's not impossible to get it to work. http://forum.raymond.cc/hardware/18550-wow-amazing-130-megapixel-scancam.html
It comes down to the optical system. This kind of thing makes me angry, because even the cheapest of lenses would be pretty decent for film scanning.
That said you don't need all your shots in high detail, or any, if you're only posting online. The detail will be still on the original film, and that can be digitised at a later date in higher quality when the time comes you have a need for the high detail, such as a large print, or for whatever reason. Though I understand the desire to see what your camera system is capable of and being satisifed with it when you do see with a high quality copy.
rjstep3.. you've fallen for the fraudulent advertising and reviews of flatbed scanners as being professional quality film scanners... they are not. What they are is tools of convenience. Esp for formats like 617 and 8x10 which would be otherwise annoying difficult to get digitised.
Of course there are ways to optimise the results out of it, but ultimately it's futile struggle if you wish to get the detail that is on the neg or pos. Though it is others an improvement and something is better than nothing at all.
Basically, no there is nothing wrong with your V700.
Ultimately, it still is a flatbed scanner that uses a micro lens array that will be extremely limited by diffraction due to the lens' tiny physical size. The optical resolution is not 6400 dpi as advertised by Epson, that is actually fraud. The sensor resolution may be 6400 dpi, but the optical system does not resolve that, and is simply incapable by the nature of it's design to resolve anything close (or even decent) compared to what camera lenses, films, and enlarger lenses are capable of resolving.
The Imacon Flextight 949 etc is actually similar to a flatbed.. it also uses a line sensor.. the differences is that it moves the film rather than the sensor to scan. And it has a single lens (an enlarger lens that is f/8 wide open) to project the image on the sensor. The lens supports a lot more resolution.
If you were able to remove the pinhole lens array (cheaper flatbeds just use a pinhole array over the sensor) from a flatbed scanner and put it under an enlarger and disable the reflective lamp and have it scan you could get great results even with a 1200 dpi scanner found at an op shop for $2.
Tried it once though, and I couldn't get it to scan after disabling the lamp, it self-calibrates to white with the lamp turned on.. you'd need to selective disable it once it got to the glass and started sending image data to the computer.
I'll try it again one day as it's not impossible to get it to work. http://forum.raymond.cc/hardware/18550-wow-amazing-130-megapixel-scancam.html
It comes down to the optical system. This kind of thing makes me angry, because even the cheapest of lenses would be pretty decent for film scanning.
That said you don't need all your shots in high detail, or any, if you're only posting online. The detail will be still on the original film, and that can be digitised at a later date in higher quality when the time comes you have a need for the high detail, such as a large print, or for whatever reason. Though I understand the desire to see what your camera system is capable of and being satisifed with it when you do see with a high quality copy.
rjstep3
Established
These were taken with Epson Scan, which is easy to use.
So you think there is something wrong with it?
rjstep3
rjstep3
Established
But the Epson 4490 is an older scanner and was never supposed to be big-time like the V700. But your V700 scan shows the same symptoms of being blurred compared to the others.
Actually, online is not where I want to post them, I really like to print them out and hold them - as you say, see what the camera is capable of!
On this occasion I was using the betterscanning holders with ANR glass, so just can't understand why it is so blurred.
rjstep3
Dayrell bishop
Well-known
I think there must be something wrong with it, as most of my posts are from an old epson 3200 or just recently from a v700 all with epson scan and standard film holders.
rjstep3
Established
Thanks for confirming my views - I appreciate that a flatbed is not going to pull up tree trunks in the photo world, but I had heard all the great reviews and frankly it is no better, and perhaps worse, than the 3320 I also used to have.
rjstep3
thegman
Veteran
When I had my V700, I was a little disappointed with the results. Then I got the BetterScanning ANR glass, and it was transformed. For me, it's not the holders, it's the glass that made the difference. Holds the film perfectly flat and in focus.
Also, I scanned at the highest possible resolution then downsized to the size I wanted, it made a slight, but noticeable difference.
Finally, at this sort of resolution, any amount camera shake is noticeable. If you're not using a tripod then you could try that. I've noticed a big difference when I do, even at very high shutter speeds.
Also, I scanned at the highest possible resolution then downsized to the size I wanted, it made a slight, but noticeable difference.
Finally, at this sort of resolution, any amount camera shake is noticeable. If you're not using a tripod then you could try that. I've noticed a big difference when I do, even at very high shutter speeds.
rjstep3
Established
In this case I was using the betterscanning holder with ANR glass.
The real problem for me is why the scan using the setting for the film area guide but using the holder is so much better than the other one.
rjstep3
thegman
Veteran
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'film guide' however, I know the V700 has two lenses, which it selects depending on what it is scanning. Perhaps whatever you did encouraged it to use the better lens for the job? Just guessing.
rjstep3
Established
There are indeed two lenses: one for when you use the "film area guide", which is simply a stencil to keep the material you are scanning within the right area. The lens focuses on the glass.
The other lens focuses just above the glass - hence why you put the film in a holder.
The point is that I put the film in a holder, but scanned as if the film were flat on the glass. It should have been out of focus but it was in fact a better scan.
rjstep3
thegman
Veteran
I see, well I'd be guessing if I had an answer for that. Maybe the other lens has more tolerance for focus, i.e. has more depth of field? But I really am guessing now.
If you're happy with the scans though, I'd just accept it and keep doing what you're doing.
Dayrell bishop
Well-known
I only scan at 2400dpi as that is reconed to be all you can get from a v700 and you dont get bloated files, it seemes to work for me.
louisb
Well-known
rjestp3
I would argue that the fact that you can improve on your scans by playing around with a betterscan holder suggests that there is nothing really wrong with your V700 but there could be a problem with your scanning technique.
And you could also be scanning negatives which are not sharp in themselves.
Here is to the top right hand side of a scan of a 6x6 Portra 400 negative taken on a Hasselblad SWC (which of course cannot be focussed). It is taken from a scan of 3447x3400 pixels produced on a V700 using the betterscan holder with no height adjustment and ANR glass.
Firstly, I know the negative to be 100% sharp. I know this because I have other negatives from the same roll which are not sharp (all photographs on that roll were taken handheld, hence the variation in sharpness). I always believe you will recognise sharp when you see it and it is obvious.
Secondly, I cannot strongly recommend enough that you use Vuescan and that you also obtain a copy of the 'Vuescan Bible' and follow the workflow suggested in the book (I keep my copy on my Kindle so I can easily go back and forth to the relevant sections to remind myself when I forget).
I was getting good scans before using a betterscan holder and ANR glass but since using the steps recommmended in the Vuescan bible quality has improved again.
A lot of people jump on the band wagon of trashing flatbeds and the Epson in particular but my opinion is that the person scanning has as much influence as the scanner if you are at least starting with a decent piece of equipment like the V700.
LouisB
I would argue that the fact that you can improve on your scans by playing around with a betterscan holder suggests that there is nothing really wrong with your V700 but there could be a problem with your scanning technique.
And you could also be scanning negatives which are not sharp in themselves.
Here is to the top right hand side of a scan of a 6x6 Portra 400 negative taken on a Hasselblad SWC (which of course cannot be focussed). It is taken from a scan of 3447x3400 pixels produced on a V700 using the betterscan holder with no height adjustment and ANR glass.
Firstly, I know the negative to be 100% sharp. I know this because I have other negatives from the same roll which are not sharp (all photographs on that roll were taken handheld, hence the variation in sharpness). I always believe you will recognise sharp when you see it and it is obvious.
Secondly, I cannot strongly recommend enough that you use Vuescan and that you also obtain a copy of the 'Vuescan Bible' and follow the workflow suggested in the book (I keep my copy on my Kindle so I can easily go back and forth to the relevant sections to remind myself when I forget).
I was getting good scans before using a betterscan holder and ANR glass but since using the steps recommmended in the Vuescan bible quality has improved again.
A lot of people jump on the band wagon of trashing flatbeds and the Epson in particular but my opinion is that the person scanning has as much influence as the scanner if you are at least starting with a decent piece of equipment like the V700.
LouisB
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Wow. Further proof that one gets what one pays for.
rjstep3
Established
Thanks - but my question is about the comparison of the two scans. I admit that the original scan is handheld, I concede that I have a flatbed - but the point is that the scan is poor compared with one which should be worse. The one I did all wrong actually turns out better.
Point taken about VueScan - I have the book you mention, and will go back to it. No harm not trying.
rjstep3
srtiwari
Daktari
I own a V700, and discovered that in my case, the scans were sharpest when laid on the glass - the point of focus on my machine happened to be ath the glass. I would try that, preferably by also putting a flat ANR glass on it.
Athiril
Established
Yes at those resolutions camera shake might be noticeable, but the difference between tripod and hand held photography is not. Tripod vs hand held comes into play at some point past 100 lp/mm, and that's at low SS, not high.
To drive the point home, here is a hand held comparison. Epson 4490 vs Frontier Scanner.
Shot on an AE-1 with 28mm lens, on Lucky 200 film. Film that's not particularly any good (some may some absolute ****) vs other films. Shutter speed was 1/60th iirc.
If you want to see what the camera system is capable of, at least in terms of fine detail. You simply cannot do that with a flatbed. That is simply not to say that you can't get acceptable results that you like with it, but it won't come close to matching your camera system capabilities. Your Mamiya 7 is regarded to have some of the finest lenses. I know my 180mm C for my RB67 hit over 100 lp/mm. CoolScans hit up to 75-80 lp/mm, and that is usually enough for to satisfy purposes.
Filmscanner.info were able to test the V700/V750 at up to 2300 dpi (others usually peak at 1600 dpi, some others only 1200). I find this a very generous figure, but I am quite critical.
A flatbed could achieve very high detail if one was made deeper to house an actual lens and make some room for working distances.
To drive the point home, here is a hand held comparison. Epson 4490 vs Frontier Scanner.
Shot on an AE-1 with 28mm lens, on Lucky 200 film. Film that's not particularly any good (some may some absolute ****) vs other films. Shutter speed was 1/60th iirc.
If you want to see what the camera system is capable of, at least in terms of fine detail. You simply cannot do that with a flatbed. That is simply not to say that you can't get acceptable results that you like with it, but it won't come close to matching your camera system capabilities. Your Mamiya 7 is regarded to have some of the finest lenses. I know my 180mm C for my RB67 hit over 100 lp/mm. CoolScans hit up to 75-80 lp/mm, and that is usually enough for to satisfy purposes.
Filmscanner.info were able to test the V700/V750 at up to 2300 dpi (others usually peak at 1600 dpi, some others only 1200). I find this a very generous figure, but I am quite critical.
A flatbed could achieve very high detail if one was made deeper to house an actual lens and make some room for working distances.