rolfe
Well-known
The V700 is horrible for 35mm, okay with reservations for 120 and okay for 4x5.
If you do a lot of 35mm, get a Pakon 135+ and you will be amazed. Setup is a pain in the ass, but once running it is a dream. You do a roll in a little over 30 seconds at 3000x2000 with very high quality pixels. Doing 11x14 is no problem from these scans.
If you do a lot of 35mm, get a Pakon 135+ and you will be amazed. Setup is a pain in the ass, but once running it is a dream. You do a roll in a little over 30 seconds at 3000x2000 with very high quality pixels. Doing 11x14 is no problem from these scans.
bence8810
Well-known
I believe the OP has already ordered the Pakon, which is a good thing.
At the rate they are going now, I might have to buy another one before it's all gone so in case mine goes belly up, i'd have a spare.
Scanning 35mm with the V750 (which I have) was torture. Those flimsy plastic holders etc.
What was said above about the Nikon dedicated 135 scanner is also interesting. If you guys could post a Pakon and a Nikon dedicated scan for comparison, that'd be great!
Although the idea to have 3 scanners is just crazy.
Thanks,
Ben
Last edited:
rolfe
Well-known
You're confusing DPI with PPI. Scanning 300DPI at the print size is roughly the same thing as scanning at the scanner's resolution (2400 or so) at the negative size.
rolfe
Well-known
You are mistaken -- there is nothing limiting the 2400ppi file from being resized appropriately. Assuming we're talking the same scanner, the machine is going to be at its optical limit in either case.
rolfe
Well-known
Again, you are mistaking ppi for dpi. If you check your math, you will see why a 2400 ppi scan of 35mm isn't going to yield more than an 8x12 print at 300 dpi.
rolfe
Well-known
PPI refers to the scanning resolution. It has to do with the optical resolution of the scanner. It has nothing to do with the ultimate output size. Think of it as the input resolution.
DPI refers to the output resolution, based on what output you want at the given display size. For clarity, screens require 72 DPI while quality prints require 300 DPI.
There is no point in scanning at 300 dpi. You want to scan at the highest scanner resolution at the size of the original. That will give you geatest number of options in making outputs at various sizes. Perhaps you need one for the web, one for print, one for small prints, etc. In essence, the original 16 bit scan becomes the negative, for various outputs depending on the usage.
DPI refers to the output resolution, based on what output you want at the given display size. For clarity, screens require 72 DPI while quality prints require 300 DPI.
There is no point in scanning at 300 dpi. You want to scan at the highest scanner resolution at the size of the original. That will give you geatest number of options in making outputs at various sizes. Perhaps you need one for the web, one for print, one for small prints, etc. In essence, the original 16 bit scan becomes the negative, for various outputs depending on the usage.
Pete B
Well-known
rolfe
Well-known
I guess you don't get that the high resolution scans are done at the original size -- 1" x 1 1/2" approximately in the case of 35mm.
I have made my points here and am finished as I have nothing more to add...
I have made my points here and am finished as I have nothing more to add...
bence8810
Well-known
Did the OP receive the Pakon? Would be interesting to hear how it works out for those big prints.
Ben
Ben
Fernando2
Well-known
You obviously miss a lot of points about scanning, despite "scanning from 2000".
That's bad for you.
Just limiting the search to this forum, you can already find so many tests, you could read them for weeks.
So it's in your own interest, that Rolfe and others took the time to explain to you why "scanning at maximum scanner's resolution" is the right thing to do.
But of course you're free to accept the suggestion, or continue to do whatever you think it's the right thing.
Just, please, don't insist trying to persuade us you're right, because that's not the case.
Fernando
That's bad for you.
Just limiting the search to this forum, you can already find so many tests, you could read them for weeks.
So it's in your own interest, that Rolfe and others took the time to explain to you why "scanning at maximum scanner's resolution" is the right thing to do.
But of course you're free to accept the suggestion, or continue to do whatever you think it's the right thing.
Just, please, don't insist trying to persuade us you're right, because that's not the case.
Fernando
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Testing my V850 I scanned at lowish res. and had a file 479KB, at top res it was 59.9MB, took a while 
(from 6x4.5)
On screen and Flickr I can't split them, but zooming in is another matter entirely. I know if I wanted a print which file I would choose.
If I choose top res for all my shots to archive I would soon tire of waiting. I shall scan as appropriate for intended end use ( actually using 2400/3200 files around 2 to 5 MB) but am mindful of the "crud" that accumulates over even a short time in any manipulation of the physical material.
(from 6x4.5)On screen and Flickr I can't split them, but zooming in is another matter entirely. I know if I wanted a print which file I would choose.
If I choose top res for all my shots to archive I would soon tire of waiting. I shall scan as appropriate for intended end use ( actually using 2400/3200 files around 2 to 5 MB) but am mindful of the "crud" that accumulates over even a short time in any manipulation of the physical material.
rjstep3
Established
My twopenny worth!
I too did a lot of testing with my V700, scanning 35mm and 120 at everything from 300 to the maximum allowed.
For viewing on screen with something like irfanview, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference. For most printing purposes, i.e. printing at postcard size, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference either.
It only becomes important when you start to print at A4 or A3 or when you pixel-peep. What I then discovered was surprising: scanning on the V700 at anything beyond 2400 became "fuzzier", less sharp. You'd think that you would get a better image at 3600, but in practice it didn't work out that way (at least for me). TBH, the difference was negligible, and in printing, invisible, but for pixel-peeping it was just about discernible.
To go back to the OP's question: I have both a V700 and an Opticfilm 120. The Plustek is obviously better - as many have said, it will do 35mm better than a flatbed. Having said which, it costs 4 times as much as a V700. Are the scans 4 times as good? I don't think so: they're better, but not that much better. Plus, the V700 has the advantage of handling batch scanning better if you have a lot to get through - just put 4 strips of 6 on the flatbed and let it cook.
I did go through the process of scanning in my entire collection - 000's of images. It has taken years, and I wouldn't have had the patience to do it with a Plustek 120 or a dedicated film scanner that did strips of 6 or 4 at a time, feeding them through one by one. I am now going through the collection again - scanning using the Plustek 120 for those images where I really need the extra quality, but it's marginal. Far more important IMHO is the photographer's basic skill of shooting a shot that is in focus and sharp, which I'm sad to say is something that obviously eluded me all those years ago when I was starting out using cameras!!!
rjstep3
I too did a lot of testing with my V700, scanning 35mm and 120 at everything from 300 to the maximum allowed.
For viewing on screen with something like irfanview, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference. For most printing purposes, i.e. printing at postcard size, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference either.
It only becomes important when you start to print at A4 or A3 or when you pixel-peep. What I then discovered was surprising: scanning on the V700 at anything beyond 2400 became "fuzzier", less sharp. You'd think that you would get a better image at 3600, but in practice it didn't work out that way (at least for me). TBH, the difference was negligible, and in printing, invisible, but for pixel-peeping it was just about discernible.
To go back to the OP's question: I have both a V700 and an Opticfilm 120. The Plustek is obviously better - as many have said, it will do 35mm better than a flatbed. Having said which, it costs 4 times as much as a V700. Are the scans 4 times as good? I don't think so: they're better, but not that much better. Plus, the V700 has the advantage of handling batch scanning better if you have a lot to get through - just put 4 strips of 6 on the flatbed and let it cook.
I did go through the process of scanning in my entire collection - 000's of images. It has taken years, and I wouldn't have had the patience to do it with a Plustek 120 or a dedicated film scanner that did strips of 6 or 4 at a time, feeding them through one by one. I am now going through the collection again - scanning using the Plustek 120 for those images where I really need the extra quality, but it's marginal. Far more important IMHO is the photographer's basic skill of shooting a shot that is in focus and sharp, which I'm sad to say is something that obviously eluded me all those years ago when I was starting out using cameras!!!
rjstep3
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Just for clarity the new V850 holders take three strips of 6, but are more adjustable and rigid and have a clear plastic anti-newton ring insert. So slower on batches because the batch is smaller
f16sunshine
Moderator
I Apologize if this page is the mobile version.
http://99designs.com/designer-blog/2013/02/26/ppi-vs-dpi-whats-the-difference/Ppi vs Dpi explained quite nicely.
http://99designs.com/designer-blog/2013/02/26/ppi-vs-dpi-whats-the-difference/Ppi vs Dpi explained quite nicely.
marameo
Established
It is said that a CCD scanner will work at its best only at max (optical) resolution. True opt res is usually lower then max scan res. Tests has shown the only way to force true opt resolution (around 1600 PPI) is to scan at 2400 PPI or above; anything beyond 2400 become "fuzzier", less sharp, as noted in previus post.
I usually scan at 200 dpi for printing.
Frankd
Established
Maybe I'm missing something, but I tend to agree with Aperture64. If we need a 12x18 print from a 35mm negative then we can scan at 300 dpi to that 12x18 size, as has already been stated by Aperture64. This print will demand a size of 3600x4800 dpi to be done by the scanner. Our final scanned file will be 3600x4800 at 300dpi.--perfect for a good print.
I think at this size we are at the edges of capability of the v700. For instance a 20 x 30 print would demand a 6000x9000 dpi scan at 300 dpi--way beyond the v700. Here we need a drum scan.
For very large prints I usually have my negatives scanned by my printer and he does it on a drum scanner at 300 dpi to print size.
I think at this size we are at the edges of capability of the v700. For instance a 20 x 30 print would demand a 6000x9000 dpi scan at 300 dpi--way beyond the v700. Here we need a drum scan.
For very large prints I usually have my negatives scanned by my printer and he does it on a drum scanner at 300 dpi to print size.
marameo
Established
It can also demand a 4000x6000 scan for a 200 dpi print. In that case the v700 might be capable of that (scanning 35mm film will leave something to be desired, though).
I'd guess the only way to get round it is to do some tests and comparisons.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Testing my V850 I scanned at lowish res. and had a file 479KB, at top res it was 59.9MB, took a while
On screen and Flickr I can't split them
Quoting myself my findings agree, there is a "sweet" point beyond which the gain in quality, if at all, is academic and out of proportion to the file size and time to generate it.
I am finding the flatbed tends to emphasise the dust and muck on the negative in comparison to the Epson 8100 I have. The 8100 does struggle with a contact sheet though