V750 Pro vs. 9000ED ..samples here

[bwcolor]

The Nikon image was scanned at 4000dpi. The Epson at 3600dpi. Both were resized in PS to 4000xtwosomething. I cropped in Aperture 3 to provide 100% images. Both have slight sharpening of same amt in Aperture. Not sure why, but even though both scanned 16bit B&W in VueScan, the Nikon is a much larger JPEG when exported from Aperture.

I purchased this scanner a year ago, but never used it because it was so dirty. I finally took it in and the replaced everything, so I have been use to the Nikon. The V-750 seems abysmal and this is after finding the best insert height.

Is this the quality to be expected from the Epson?

Epson:

Nikon:

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Medium format or 35mm?

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[bwcolor]

35mm Neopan 400 @ 320 .. xtol/rodinal mix. Both downsized in PS2. I save all my 35mm as 4000 x TwoSomething or TwoSomething x 4000. Obviously, if I get this kind of quality with the Epson, I'll rethink the saved size.

 

[david.elliott]

I think you must have something funky going on with the epson. I get sharper 35mm scans with my v500 than what you have shown there. Maybe you dont actually have the best insert height.

Nikon looks impressive though. 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

1. The Nikon is a several times more expensive dedicated film scanner. Do you really expect to perform on the same level as the Epson??
2. No, that is pretty bad for the Epson. I use the V700 "cheaper" version and get better scans on 35mm, although can't compare directly to your image since i've never scanned your neg.

 

[Pherdinand]

and 3. Of course the Nikon is a much larger JPEG. JPEG compresses the parts where there is hardly any detail. The Nikon has much more small details e.g. the grain structure so it cannot be compressed by the jpeg engine.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Ok, 4000 px for 35mm equals some 6200 px for MF.

This is what I got out of a negative taken with an old Rolleicord scanned with the V700 with an original picture size of approx. 6200 x 6200 px:

Full picture:

Crop:

I assume something may be improved with your V750.

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[maddoc]

I have both, V700 and Nikon Coolscan 4000ED (also had an Coolscan V ED before) and the difference when scanning 135 film is visible but not to that degree as in your samples. I would assume that there is something wrong with your Epson scan ...

100ACROS / 90mm Summicron

100% crop (Epson GT-X900 / V700, 4800dpi)

100 % crop Coolscan 4000ED (4000dpi)

 

[Pherdinand]

if i remember correctly this crop is scanned at 3200 dpi with my epson v700. film is fp4 125 dev in, probably, rodinal.

 

[mfogiel]

I am among the first to say that CS 9000 outclasses the V750, but since I have them both, I know that the actual difference is not so big. In any case, your Nikon scan is grain sharp, while the Epson one is not, and will never be, no matter how precisely you focus and how much you crank up the resolution. The Epson scans come out very soft, and in order to start making them being comparable to Nikon scans, must be heavily sharpened.

 

[35mmdelux]

I have a V750 that I use when I have nothing else to do. Previously I had an Epson cheapo that worked just fine for sharing on the web. Everything else is overkill.

 

[bwcolor]

No, I have the correct height and I suspected that the Epson was not up to spec. I recognize that the Epson may only be 2000 - 2400 pix/inch, but this degradation is much more than expected. I knew the Nikon would be better, but not this much. They just replaced both the illumination and scanning units. Perhaps, I have something set wrong in software. I tried all three scanning height options to find the best.

The original scan was saved by VueScan as a full size TIFF. The difference was evident with the TIFF. I would be open to any suggestions as to possible error in setting up VueScan.

 

[250swb]

bwcolor, its baffling that your Epson is so bad. My previous scanner was a Minolta Multi Pro, roughly similar to your Nikon. I sold it thinking I'd scanned everything I needed to scan, only to have a go with film again recently. So I got a V700 because I needed a new office scanner, and the first thing I did was set out to discover how bad it was, after reading many comments. To my great surprise I can't see any significant difference in a negative scan from the Multi Pro compared to the V700, using either the bundled SilverFast or Vuescan.

Are you sure you are using the neg holders correctly, it needs the correct mask to bring up the proper scanning lens? Have you played with the height adjustable feet on the neg holders? The Epson will make a softer scan, but the difference is in the contrast, easily adjustable in post processing, it shouldn't be so much softer in terms of detail though, as your tests imply.

 

[dfoo]

The epson simply isn't very sharp when compared with Nikon film scanners. I don't find your results surprising and they mirror my own tests. Epson scans also have a tendency to blow out the highlights much more than the Nikon scans.

 

[david.elliott]

No, I have the correct height and I suspected that the Epson was not up to spec. I recognize that the Epson may only be 2000 - 2400 pix/inch, but this degradation is much more than expected. I knew the Nikon would be better, but not this much. They just replaced both the illumination and scanning units. Perhaps, I have something set wrong in software. I tried all three scanning height options to find the best.

The original scan was saved by VueScan as a full size TIFF. The difference was evident with the TIFF. I would be open to any suggestions as to possible error in setting up VueScan.

I doubt it is a vuescan setting that is off. But, to check, try doing the same scan with the epson software.

 

[bwcolor]

Are you sure you are using the neg holders correctly, it needs the correct mask to bring up the proper scanning lens? Have you played with the height adjustable feet on the neg holders? The Epson will make a softer scan, but the difference is in the contrast, easily adjustable in post processing, it shouldn't be so much softer in terms of detail though, as your tests imply.

Negative holder correct and height correct. I doubt that 3200 pix/inch would be selectable without the high resolution lens in play. This option goes away when selecting a document scan. I did scan about one-hundred 35mm a year ago, but didn't like the debris, which was under the glass. They were sharper then.

 

[david.elliott]

Do your vuescan settings match the ones shown on these pages?
http://benneh.net/blog/index.php/2008/04/21/better-colour-neg-scanning-with-vuescan/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157608204093047/

 

[pagpow]

Thanks for this thread. I'm eagerly looking forward to a resolution (no pun intended) of the conflicting views about appropriate expectations from an Epson as I have one waiting to be put into service. It was bought after reading many reviews on the web and concluding that it was routinely capable of the higher end results shown here, even if not exactly comparable to the Nikon.

 

[dyao]

I get similarly soft scans with my V500...

 

[bwcolor]

Do your vuescan settings match the ones shown on these pages?
http://benneh.net/blog/index.php/2008/04/21/better-colour-neg-scanning-with-vuescan/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157608204093047/

This hasn't much to do with resolution, but it is and has been what I routine do to lock exposure.

This roll was taken to test the functioning of an M3 that I just picked up. Here is the full photo for some perspective regarding resolution above:

This evening I scanned some Ektar images from a trip to Disneyland and they are much better than the thread starter. I would say 80% of quality of my Nikon scans. This is more like what I would expect. Workflow was the same, except for white balance added for color image.