35mm & 120 negs scanned with Epson v750 Pro

EdBray

EdBray

Messages
7,179
Name
Edward Bray
Edit My Images
Yes
I am certainly going to be using more film again in the future now that I have a means of getting really high quality scans at home with my Epson V750 Pro scanner.

This was an image I scanned for my new Albelli book, but when I realised how good it was I rescanned it again at a higher setting, scanned at 4800 dpi with Digital Ice on. No PP at all has been done to the linked image (hence the spots and hair in the background).

The image would have been taken on a Nikon (probably an FE2) with Nikon glass but do not have any details to hand but probably a 105mm lens.

100% crop of original scan No PP

100cropnoPP.jpg


Full frame image

Bridesmaid.jpg


Link to full sized image (very large) No PP, Worth a look just to see what is possible, original image was a 181MB TIFF.
 
Last edited:
Blimey dude, what DPI did you scan it in at? I'm guessing you know that anything above 3600 or 4800 DPI (cant remember which) on that scanner is interpolation, right? I only ask, as 181MB for a tiff of a neg that small is huge!

Either way, looks pretty good! Lovely scanner that... Wish I had one! :D
 
The following is from a review by Imaging-Resource.com:

Optical Resolution: Epson Dual Lens System, 4,800 dpi and 6,400 dpi
Hardware Resolution: 4,800x9,600 dpi, 6,400x9,600 dpi with Micro Step Drive technology

As it happens the scan dpi was 4800 and I used the Digital Ice component to reduce the dust/scratches that were on the negative. No PP was done to it.
 
Its usually above about 2400 dpi that it becomes interpolation despite manufacturers claims that its 'optical'. For anything above that use a proper film scanner or even better get a drum scan as you don't get any extra quality out of a flatbed by scanning above that.

Still that does look quite good.
 
Reala film is my favourite so far (haven't tried Kodak stuff).....the crop can be further enhanced in Photoshop, that's what the digital guys do...from the digital sensors to the end result it's all a fiddle to fool the human eye ;)
 
Musicman said:
Nice.

I'm pretty happy with my V700 too.

Was that using Epson Scan?
Click to expand...

No, I upgraded the Silverfast AI I got with my V750 to AI Studio and used that with Digital Ice on.

I want to try the Silverfast Raw plus IR which is supposed to be even better than Digital Ice, but you have to then buy Silverfast Archive Studio to work on the files which is another $300 so they can stuff that!

I'm just redoing the Hasselblad Negs @ 2400dpi 48 bit colour (with digital ice) to see what they look like at that resolution. Seems to be a good trade off between file size and quality.
 
I find this whole thread jolly interesting as I understand a few things slightly different.

For this very reason (and one or two more...) I am about to reinvent the wheel all by myself...

About these claims that flatbeds are no good beyond 2400 DPI... who tested this, how was it tested and where can I read more?

My (limited) understanding is that drum scanners only really had a reason for existing before A4 flatbeds capable of 2400 + were around...

I have tried reading more on several sites of which some I consider to be trustworthy but often get only opinion and subjectivity...

Can someone please help me out here...

Still making a huge move back to film regardless...would appreciate a few objective short-cuts in my wheel.

Cheers all!(y)(y)(y)
 
Before I bought the V750 I did some googling and read this review amongst others here's another.

The Epson V700 & V750s have an additional high definition lens which is only used when film scanning s162216 seems to think that all flatbed scanners are created equal and therefore 2400dpi is the limit without interpolation, and he is quite rightly welcome to his view (doesn't actually mean it's correct though).

Proof would seem to be in the pudding!
 
s162216 said:
This post by Edtog shows an Epson V700 scan of a 5x4 compared to a drum scan, the difference is quite stunning.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=3553459&postcount=13
Click to expand...

You are not really comparing like for like though! One a fluid mounted 5x4 transparency on a £3000+ drum scanner against a non fluid mounted tranparency on a £400 flatbed scanner. Hmmm! I wonder what will give the best results?

I fully agree that a drum scanner can will make a significant improvement to that scanned by a flatbed. Over the last week I have scanned about 200 MF negatives and about 60 35mm negatives to enable me to have my book made. At £12 a neg that would have cost me over £3000 to have had them drum scanned.

But, and here is the rub, as far as flatbed scanners go, the Epson V750 does an excellent job straight out of the box, and when I get back from HK, I will be purchasing the 'Better Scanning Film Kit' and the fluid set for the fluid mounting kit. I will then spend some time setting the scanner up to get the film set to the correct height and with the slides fluid mounted would hope for even better results than those I am currently getting and am very happy with.
 
Your V750 doesn't resolve any extra detail at 6400dpi, the CCD may be able to achieve that resolution but there are other factors that result in the actual DPI being less than the theoretical DPI.

Resolution
The technical specs promise much, but the V750 is not able to hold those promises completely. That shows in the resolution test: despite its "High Pass Optics" - an optical system improved in comparison to the V700 - the V750 does by far not reach the claimed 6400 dpi. To be precise: the resolution test resulted in identical values to the "little brother". The Scan of the USAF Testcharts showed the horizontal lines of the element 5.3 and the vertical lines of the element 5.5 being just about possible to differentiate. According to this we get a resolution of only about 2300 dpi - that's just 40% of the claimed resolution! The sensor of the V750 is able to get the indicated 6400 pixels per inch, however the "High Pass Optics" system of the scanner does not nearly reach the required quality required for capturing with the full resolution. Regarding this, the Epson V750 is also losing against the high-quality film scanners. There are however many favorable film scanners, which do not offer more or offer even less effective resolution.
Click to expand...

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html

Another discussion on resolution:
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00KtNf

Not trying to rubbish your scanner or anything, just pointing out that manufacturer's claims can be misleading.
 
Point taken from everyone...

Not meaning to warm up the debate any more than necessary but just honestly curious to see real life results...

Which was so nicely delivered by s162216 in the quoted thread, Thanks Ed!!(y)

So, to summarize then, net use and small prints, say, up to A3 at a push the flatbed will be fine.

For large prints the drum IS still king...Yes?
 
Must be honest, I still would like to see a fluid mount tranny on the 750 in a more fair shootout...

Cheers all and have a wonderful weekend!
 
Just a quicky before I add some more images, the cheapest new MF film scanner is just under 5000 Euros.
 
*yawn* whilst everyone is busy arguing about dpi, I'm shooting and scanning on my Epson 4180 at 2400dpi and busy enjoying the photos (y)
 
freecom2 said:
*yawn* whilst everyone is busy arguing about dpi, I'm shooting and scanning on my Epson 4180 at 2400dpi and busy enjoying the photos (y)
Click to expand...

:agree:

with MF just stick it on 2400 dpi and you get a file bigger than 99% of people will ever need, you're not going to kill your computer with files bigger than a dvd
 
raathistle said:
:agree:

with MF just stick it on 2400 dpi and you get a file bigger than 99% of people will ever need, you're not going to kill your computer with files bigger than a dvd
Click to expand...

Very True.

These were all scanned from Hasselblad Negs at 2400 gave files of 181MB for the colour ones and 98MB for the mono one, please be warned the Full Sized Images are very large.

1st from Fuji NHG 400

100% Crop no PP

AI100.jpg


Full Image

AI1024NoPP.jpg


Link to full size image

2nd Fuji Reala

100% Crop no PP

Littlegirl100cropnoPP.jpg


Full image

Bridesmaid1024.jpg


Link to full size image

3rd Ilford FP4+

100% Crop no PP

Bickham100.jpg


Full image

Bickham1024.jpg


Link to full size image
 
I don't think I actually described the film holder I made for scanning on my Epson 3200. It definitely improved my results. I spent quite a bit of time doing multiple scans on tilted metal rulers to work out a good focus height. Ended up about 2.2mm for my scanner. I then got three sheets of 0.75mm black polystyrene (it's not foam, but solid plastic, hobby shops call it plasticard) and cut out a channel suitable for my medium format film in each one and layered them together with plastic glue. I also used the film holder from the scanner as a template to work out where I needed to remove a rectangle for the printer to calibrate itself. As a glass holder I got some acid-etched non-reflective glass from a local framing shop cut to 22x10cm. I then got some 5mm thick black foamboard and cut it to shape over the plasticard with a larger cutout area for the glass holder. Mount the negative with the curl away from the bed of the scanner and then put the glass in place, acid etched side against the negative. It sounds involved, but it only took a few hours, with the longest time being the calibration of focus height (since I did not include a way to change it easily, I wanted it right first time). Total cost was about £11 (18 or 19 dollars).

First scan from it here (shown before - sorry for the repetition!):

20110610104917_scan-110609-0002-edit.jpg


I'm happy with it, and the scans are definitely sharper and more contrasty than with the standard holder. By the way, the shot is from a Pentax 645N with 75mm lens on Fuji Velvia ISO 50 slide film. The holder is for up to 4 shots on a single strip of 120 film. I have a Coolscan scanner for 35mm, so did not include any way to scan 35mm film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top