maddoc
... likes film again.
^^ if I would have the money for one ... immediately !! 
From my understanding, the 8000 and 9000 have a different light source, more diffuse compared with the 4000 / 5000 / V, and thus should show less of the silver grain.
I think it is best to ask Marek (mfogiel) or Chris (chriscrawford) about this, though.
From my understanding, the 8000 and 9000 have a different light source, more diffuse compared with the 4000 / 5000 / V, and thus should show less of the silver grain. I think it is best to ask Marek (mfogiel) or Chris (chriscrawford) about this, though.
MichaelW
Established
Can't see any significant difference in those scans. One thing I've found with the V700 is that I get better results scanning emulsion down. That's the opposite of what the manual suggests, but have a look at which side the scanning head is on. Film flatness will also play a big part in sharpness. Those better scanning holders sound interesting.
corot
Member
FWIW, I can not discern any difference between the two. I made the comparison by superimposing them "stereoscopically" by which even the smallest differences jump up at you - but nothing did.
Could you subtract one image from the other in Photoshop or similar? Whatever remains should tell you if there is any real difference and, if so, which one is sharper.
Could you subtract one image from the other in Photoshop or similar? Whatever remains should tell you if there is any real difference and, if so, which one is sharper.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I also scan emulsion side down and I'm about to order some ANR inserts from Doug at Better Scanning. It would probably be a better idea to continue with the adjustments once I have the inserts and actually know the film is being held totally flat. The neg I scanned had no curl or bow so it should have been a fairly good indication.
I just checked the price of the LS 9000 ED in OZ ... $4700.00
Not really an option at this stage!
ampguy
Veteran
Keith, they both look out of focus, It appears you might be focusing about 2" in front of the sign.
DougFord
on the good foot
'thirded'
(viewing conditions - aging eyes peering through a pair of dirty reading glasses at a 7 year old LCD)
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I also scan emulsion side down and I'm about to order some ANR inserts from Doug at Better Scanning. It would probably be a better idea to continue with the adjustments once I have the inserts and actually know the film is being held totally flat. The neg I scanned had no curl or bow so it should have been a fairly good indication.
I just checked the price of the LS 9000 ED in OZ ... $4700.00
I think the test08 looks sharper. There also seems to be a slight density shift between the two close-ups with the test08 image getting a little brighter/contrastier.
I can recommend the BetterScanning ANR glass and carrier. It helps (and it looks like you might be having some curl issues (upper right corner-ish)). Btw, I had to wait a couple of weeks for mine, but I think that was because he needed to fabricate the carrier.
/
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well ... shot with an OM-2 and 28mm f2 lens at f5.6 ... I'm impressed you came to that conclusion!
Haigh
Gary Haigh
I plump for the second one as awhisker sharper than the first, but I'd be happy with either scan.
Haigh
Gary Haigh
Sorry, that should have read " a whisker".
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Which amazingly relates to the setting the scanner came with!
Oh well .... I had to know!
250swb
Well-known
Keith, its difficult choosing because I think the very slight difference in contrast is confusing, but if I had to plump for one or other the bottom is sharper.
But its the contrast of the scanner that can mask its underlying qualities, so I wouldn't give up on 35mm. Think of it like a cold cathode enlarger light source, it gives a much lower contrast overall, so it doesn't pick out grain in as harsh a way as a condenser enlarger ( the equivalent of a dedicated film scanner) does. So you are looking at the actual image rather than the reflected light off a significant thickness of grain in the emulsion.
This is what often makes people think their dedicated scanner is sharper, they are just looking at the sharp grain structure through the thickness of the emulsion. If one could diffuse the light on a dedicated film scanner you'd see a very, very similar image to the V700. In fact a diffuser made of opalescent plastic was available for the Minolta MultiPro to knock down its harsh grain enhancing light source. So the underlying structure of the image should be very close to a film scanner, its just that your're not going to get the grain delineated like a dedicated scanner. I've now sold my MultiPro, and it was a great scanner, but the best I could get from that is very close indeed (close enough not to worry) to the best I can get from my V700 using the same 35mm negative as comparison.
Steve
But its the contrast of the scanner that can mask its underlying qualities, so I wouldn't give up on 35mm. Think of it like a cold cathode enlarger light source, it gives a much lower contrast overall, so it doesn't pick out grain in as harsh a way as a condenser enlarger ( the equivalent of a dedicated film scanner) does. So you are looking at the actual image rather than the reflected light off a significant thickness of grain in the emulsion.
This is what often makes people think their dedicated scanner is sharper, they are just looking at the sharp grain structure through the thickness of the emulsion. If one could diffuse the light on a dedicated film scanner you'd see a very, very similar image to the V700. In fact a diffuser made of opalescent plastic was available for the Minolta MultiPro to knock down its harsh grain enhancing light source. So the underlying structure of the image should be very close to a film scanner, its just that your're not going to get the grain delineated like a dedicated scanner. I've now sold my MultiPro, and it was a great scanner, but the best I could get from that is very close indeed (close enough not to worry) to the best I can get from my V700 using the same 35mm negative as comparison.
Steve
Peter R
Established
When the difference is this difficult to see, surely it's time to flip a coin, pick one and consider it done. That's a pretty good scanner imho.
Krosya
Konicaze
How can you tell? :bang:
Keith:
I too think that they are pretty close with second photo (largest detail) being a slightly sharper.
I too have this scanner and at one time tried to play with different adjustments. It gave me a headache and I gave up - I use it for MF film and flatbed scans only, never for 35mm and it seems Ok. Always wanted to try those "BetterScanning holders" but never got around to it.