V500 vs V700/750 comparisons

Mahoneyd187

Mahoneyd187

Messages
2,604
Name
Danny
Edit My Images
No
Hey all,

Does anyone have a negative scanned with both a V500 and a V700 or V750 to compare?

Just from looking on flickr the scans from a V700 look much sharper than V500, but it's obviously impossible to compare as everyone uses different workflows.

Any help appreciated, I don't have the money burning a hole in my pocket but will invest if it's a decent improvement.

THANKS! :)

Dan
 
I wouldn't be surprised if workflow didn't make the biggest difference at normal Flickr image sizes. When I compare the shots I've scanned when I first got my V500 to those I've scanned more recently there's a huge improvement that's come with practice and technique.
 
Alastair said:
I wouldn't be surprised if workflow didn't make the biggest difference at normal Flickr image sizes. When I compare the shots I've scanned when I first got my V500 to those I've scanned more recently there's a huge improvement that's come with practice and technique.
Click to expand...

I've been checking the large versions of each image, but yes that still applies of course, that's my thought behind this thread, to get the same person, with the same negative, same workflow, but different scanners.

I'm really not happy that my scanning is coming out well, even after trying various techniques. I use vuescan at the moment. Need to eliminate other factors, like the scanner, software etc, to narrow down whether it's my issue. And obviously I don't want to spunk £500 on a scanner just to test it for an afternoon, to then realise it was me all along.
 
Danny, scan some negs and then post the negs to me and I'll scan on a V750 then we can compare.

Mart
 
Marvin d martian said:
Danny, scan some negs and then post the negs to me and I'll scan on a V750 then we can compare.

Mart
Click to expand...

Game on!

What software do you use though?
 
Silverfast, that came with the V750. I'll just let it do its thing and not change anything and you can compare. BTW scan at 2400dpi as its usually the best setting, bigger is not always better.
Mart
 
Awesome, I'll get something scanned this week then give you a PM to sort :) Top man thanks Mart
 
To make a fair comparison, I'll dig out a MF camera run a roll through it and let you scan as a comparison. That ways its both ways.

Mart
 
I have a V700 with Vuescan if would be interested in getting a neg scanned with that setup as well.
 
zeroeseight said:
I have a V700 with Vuescan if would be interested in getting a neg scanned with that setup as well.
Click to expand...

That would be brilliant too thanks alot!

What settings do you use for scanning vuescan in black and white? Would be best to both use the same techniques I assume
 
I could also join in with my canoscan 9000f but I think the terrible results would probably just depress me!
 
I scan as raw at 3200 dpi, 48 bit and do adjustments in photoshop. So I could just send you the raw scan. And you can compare with your own raw. I do have the Pro version though, the standard version doesn't save to raw.
 
Last edited:
zeroeseight said:
I scan as raw at 3200 dpi and do adjustments in photoshop. So I could just send you the raw scan. And you can compare with your own raw. I do have the Pro version though, the standard version doesn't save to raw.
Click to expand...

I mean as in Input settings etc. Do you scan as a 16bit grayscale black and white negative and so on...

I only have standard...lame deals
 
Is this the travelling neg thread...:LOL:


To send one neg around a network of different scanners would be an awesome idea.
Standardize a scan or several scans in principle, taking in to consideration that this is the interwebz and daft hi-rezes are unnecessary, and that could make an interesting comparison thread..:)
 
It would be an interesting exercise anyway to see the different interpretations of the neg, kind of like the old printers art articles they used to do in black and white mag before it went all rubbish

I'd offer you a scan on a 700 as well Danny but I suspect you've got enough volunteers by now though. You should get a wet print done as well to see the comparison, that would be quit interesting to see :)
 
raathistle said:
It would be an interesting exercise anyway to see the different interpretations of the neg, kind of like the old printers art articles they used to do in black and white mag before it went all rubbish

I'd offer you a scan on a 700 as well Danny but I suspect you've got enough volunteers by now though. You should get a wet print done as well to see the comparison, that would be quit interesting to see :)
Click to expand...

:D awesome idea....stand up now whoever fancies wet printing the neg!! :D lol
 
I would actually be happy to join in too. It will help me decide what to do with my scanner. Perhaps have a test 135 and also a 120 too. Could well be a useful thing!
 
Sorted.

I have a lingerie shoot on 28th January.

Does anybody mind working with a neg with that subject matter? Dont laugh, some may object. And also please be aware that the neg scans must not be posted outside of this forum :)

I have Tri-x in 120 and hp5 in 35mm, so I'm happy to provide both?
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Sorted.

I have a lingerie shoot on 28th January.

Does anybody mind working with a neg with that subject matter? Dont laugh, some may object. And also please be aware that the neg scans must not be posted outside of this forum :)

I have Tri-x in 120 and hp5 in 35mm, so I'm happy to provide both?
Click to expand...

Might take some explaining to the wife but sounds fine to me!
 
Well I don't want anybody putting themselves in an awkward situation, I'm more than happy to prove an email stating the purpose of the exercise
 
umm

this film needs to be smooth, especially the 35mm, I dunno if that will impact on the nature of the shoot.

if its grainy, peeps tend to chuck out their principles along with global sharpening and use selective to minimise the rubble..:D
 
Fair enough, either way I also have acros, and portra 160 in 120. I don't mind doing one of each and buying some more film?

Acros 100 120 and 35mm
Tri x at 400-800 in 120, hp5 in 35mm
Portra 160 120 and 35mm

All both 120 and 35mm. Everyone happy to scan 6x negatives?
 
Danny these are the settings I use. But they won't be applicable for standard as I use raw. So it probably makes sense for me to copy your settings.



If slide/negative then 48 bit





I'll be happy to scan whatever.
 
I wouldn't mind coming in on this, to get an idea of how good/bad my Epson 4870 is.
I'm hoping it's not far off the new toys

Rich
 
Hi Danny, i'll offer to do some B&W wet prints for you if you want? Only a couple of issues though, i wont be able to get them done until the end of january when i finish my uni exams. The other issue is that some thieving git has nicked the 6x7 holder for the enlarger so i can only do it as 6x6. If thats ok for you then im happy to print them up :)
 
robhooley167 said:
Hi Danny, i'll offer to do some B&W wet prints for you if you want? Only a couple of issues though, i wont be able to get them done until the end of january when i finish my uni exams. The other issue is that some thieving git has nicked the 6x7 holder for the enlarger so i can only do it as 6x6. If thats ok for you then im happy to print them up :)
Click to expand...

Hi Rob,

Wow thanks Rob that'd be great! If you can only print 6x6 does that mean you have to cut the 6x7 neg into 6x6?
 
zeroeseight said:
Danny these are the settings I use. But they won't be applicable for standard as I use raw. So it probably makes sense for me to copy your settings.



If slide/negative then 48 bit





I'll be happy to scan whatever.
Click to expand...

The standard one can scan and save as TIFF, which is what I do. Feel free to scan raw and then save as TIFF in PS? It won't have an effect on quality, TIFF with no compression that is.
 
No i wouldn't have to cut the neg down, i would just have 5mm from each edge hanging over the neg holder in the enlarger. So your negs will be unscathed :)
 
Scanned using Epson v750 and Silverfast 4800 DPI.
Sharping settings at Auto.

Let me know if you are still interested so I can rescan it with your settings.


A link to 50% resize (5449 x 5515) from original (10899x11030):
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6056/7025712251_dbb2eff472_o_d.jpg

7025712251_526c63f9a6_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not sure about resurrecting this ancient thread, but the TP software did suggest it! The original thread seems to have morphed into the start of the failed scan comparison thread, but my question is back to the original point.

I have an order in for a V500, for my nascent venture into 120, and also for the large box of 6*9 negs and slides from my Dad's box of treasures. I had decided that I didn't need to spend the extra on a V700 as I wasn't expecting to go for LF for sometime (and if I do, I could sell the V500). And a V700 is more than double a V7500...

But we have recently had these issues about density of transparencies, particularly Velvia. Now, I don't understand the technical details, but I did notice that the V500 has a Dmax of 3.4 while the V700 has a Dmax of 4.0. Does that mean that the V700 would be significantly better at digging out that shadow detail in transparencies than the V500? Sufficiently better as in worth an extra £200 or so?

I guess the other option is to use the V500, then send my most favourite transparencies to someone with a drum scanner (we'll be in trouble with the mods if we debate some of the possible responses to that!). But that's a similar approach to my current plan for >A4 printing; I'm awaiting my first test A3 prints from Peak with eager anticipation!

EDIT: my question, if it's not obvious is: does anyone think I should cancel my V500 order for a V700 under the cirumstances described?
 
Last edited:
While I haven't done any in depth testing, I owned a V600 previously to my V700 and scanning slide made pretty much no difference at all. The question isn't just about DMax though; it's also very much about backlight brightness. You can have all the DMax under the sun in terms of the sensor, but if the backlight isn't bright enough, it wont make a difference. In other words, the DMax of a scanner is defined by the noise floor of the sensor setting the lower exposure limit, the saturation intensity of the sensor setting the upper limit, all truncated by the brightness of the backlight and the optical density of the film. As such, I personally don't think there will be a noticeable difference between the scanners. If it turns out that detailed testing reveals there is a difference, I would wager that it won't be a £200 difference. I got the V700 because the V600 wouldn't scan 5x4.

If you want drum scans done, talk to the Hooleymeister.
 
Last edited:
Excellent! Off to Argos now!

(BTW Argos (and the rainforest company) are cheaper than most evilbay listings, and adding postage onto others makes the saving not worthwhile against a new one with warranty.)
 
A lot of Dmax figures quoted are for marketing reasons anyway (exactly like the ultra high DPI sensors that in the end don't give you the quoted DPI due to optics in the scanning path limiting the resolution) as their simply based on the theoretical specification rather than what the product can actually give (exactly like how quoted MTF figures for lenses are 99% of the time these days based on computer modelling rather than actually testing the finished lens).
 
As a side note, I am planning on building a custom back light for my scanner. Given that my initial assumption is that the backlight on these scanners is not up to scratch for the denser films, a variable but ultimately brighter backlight may allow for better use of the "stated" DMax of 4.0.

I should note though, that I have not considered the difference the DMax has on less dense films, only on dense films like Velvia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top