4X5 Scans: Epson Vxxx

[JWMster]

I'm agnostic. I hate scanners, and prefer highspeed DSLR scans - at least for a first pass for "what can I do with this image?". But rather than paying for drum scans of those keeper negs, I'm looking at an Epson -especially after some pretty decent comparisons with a Howtek vs. V850. Yet at the price, the V600's specs seem pretty much the same. What am I missing? The idea of waiting for a DLSR with the capabilities to top what I'm already doing with a Nikon D750 means looking at a price point significantly north that might be even less worth the trouble.

1) You can get V600's, V700's and V800's and so on. What's your experience?
2) BetterScanning holders for 4X5: Notice these are not offered for the 800 series machines and wonder whether that's due to Epson's efforts to better resolve focus issues with those models, weak demand, or just disinclination to update designs by the owner/operator (Doug Fisher?)? Maybe I misunderstand this altogether?

Input appreciated. Thanks!

 

[md_photo]

I have the V700 with the stock holders. No issues in scanning 4X5. I really haven't had any focus issues unless I am just not as discerning.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Well for one, I don't think the V600 scans anything larger than 120 film. The upper backlight is only as wide as 120 film, so it cannot fully illuminate the entire 4x5 negative at once. You'll have to make several passes over the negative and stitch them together.

 

[jeffreyg]

Skip

I had an Epson 4870 until a lightning strike took it out and replaced it with the V850Pro which works equally well. I use SilverFast Studio 8Ai software for scanning. I scanned predominately Ilford Delta 400 (2 1/4) and HP5 (4x5). Usually scan at high res and edit and resize in PhotoShop. The largest I can print is on 17x22 but I had several images printed to 5ft and one to 6ft for a recent exhibition. All came out beautifully. All the black and white images on my web sites are from the scanned films mentioned and of course sized + resolution for the web.
For what it's worth that's my experience.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[Les Sarile]

A former colleague's father was a combat photographer in WWII who used 4X5 and he asked me to scan one of his 4X5 b&w film to see how it would look from an Epson V700. This is what I got at 2400 dpi flat on the glass. He thought it was good enough for his purpose so he bought one.

Full 2400dpi -> http://www.fototime.com/5DCEE0B3D75F78C/orig.jpg

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

After using a V600 for ten years, I upgraded last year to a V850 when I started shooting 4x5. The V600 only handles sizes up to medium format. The min Dmax is higher with the V850 at 4.0 vs 3.4 for the V600. There is a comparison of one of my 4x5 BW Tmax 100 shots here. V850 vs Howtek 8000. Maybe that's the one you referred to.
https://www.largeformatphotography....-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

In any case, you can see more scans from both machines that I did on my Flickr page. I don't do printing. So I can tell you if either or neither will fulfill your needs. Good luck on whatever you decide to do and feel free to ask any more questions.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums

 

[JWMster]

Alan: Good shots!
Jeff: Fine work!

Yes, I have no real ambition to go beyond 16 X 20 prints. That'd be fine. With my creaky Nikon LS8000, I've done 35mm out of a Leica that big, and STILL loved the images. Been spending the morning listening to scanner folks and heard the 850 really is much better than the v600, so that's solved. Listened as well to an interview with Epson when they released the v850. Not sure what upgrades they made to the hardware from the v700/v750 though they mention something about the silvering on the mirror, LED lighting and some fine points on the frame holder hardness (rigidity), but otherwise I thought these were fairly similar machines (v7xx and v8xx).

 

[Les Sarile]

Alan: Good shots!
Jeff: Fine work!

Yes, I have no real ambition to go beyond 16 X 20 prints. That'd be fine. With my creaky Nikon LS8000, I've done 35mm out of a Leica that big, and STILL loved the images. Been spending the morning listening to scanner folks and heard the 850 really is much better than the v600, so that's solved. Listened as well to an interview with Epson when they released the v850. Not sure what upgrades they made to the hardware from the v700/v750 though they mention something about the silvering on the mirror, LED lighting and some fine points on the frame holder hardness (rigidity), but otherwise I thought these were fairly similar machines (v7xx and v8xx).

Don't forget the 4990 as well.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Don't forget the 4990 as well.

That's the one I have. Very nice scanner.

 

[JWMster]

How does the 4990 do with printing large? As an older scanner - something like 2007? I see these only on ebay. I'll keep looking though. Thanks!

 

[Les Sarile]

I was really lucky to find a complete 4990 free on a local CL listing. I haven't thoroughly tested it yet but initial observations and reviews seem to indicate it is very good as Epson flatbed scans go.

 

[JWMster]

The inimitable (questionable, too?) Ken Rockwell likes it, too. Old tech. High Dmax.

 

[grat]

I have a v800, and it works fine for 4x5. I find a small amount of sharpening is beneficial.

Peculiar about the betterscanning holder-- He's apparently been doing some work on his website, because it use to specifically list the v800/v850, and in fact, the old page is still there:

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/models/vseries800.html

That's promising, because as far as I know, no one's been able to reach Doug for much of the past year.

The v800/850 stock holders do have 5 height positions, as opposed to the v700/750, which only have two height positions.

 

[JWMster]

Alan:

Thanks for that link. The thread makes a good case - as a youtube or two do as well - that while the Howtek really nails it, the V850 does a great job as well. Good enough for my purposes on the keepers. DSLR scans will probably be the first round. I see that BetterScanning's HeightAdjustable mount works with many scanners, and it might not be a terrible thing to start with a 4990 for $100 or thereabouts as Mod-1. I've sent an email off to Doug at BetterScanning to ask whether the hardware is machine specific or more generic so that if I step into this with a 4990 cheaply, I can use the SAME hardware for an 850 later (when I haven't just spent a ton upgrading other parts of the process). Much as I appreciate that "flat on the glass" is pretty good, a guy who shoots 4X5 is less inclined to be satisfied with minimalism, right?

THanks guys, this has been a good discussion. Very helpful!

 

[Les Sarile]

Yet at the price, the V600's specs seem pretty much the same. What am I missing?

I already had a V700 and out of curiosity bought a V500 because it was so cheap but with similar "specs" like 6400dpi. The results would indicate that Epson must mean that the resulting files will have the same pixel dimensions but not actually detail resolved.

Using a test chart shot on Fuji Velvia, these are results of scanning the same frame of film with the V500 and V700. Red arrows indicate highest detail achieved vertically and horizontally. I didn't use any special holders or shim to achieve "optimal" height just using the provided holders. These are straight up results with no post work. You can enhance contrast and apply sharpening but of course that is not the same as actually achieving more detail.

V500 full res -> http://www.fototime.com/33269E445D10043/orig.jpg

V700 full res -> http://www.fototime.com/11F59FA46FF9497/orig.jpg

With the V500, detail achieved seems to be the same at 2400, 3200 & 4800 and then up a little bit more 6400dpi. The V700 at 2400dpi seems less then the V500 but does progressively achieve more detail as you go up to 6400dpi. I don't have the V600 or V850 but other reviews seem to indicate similar differences of detail achieved as the V500 and V700 correspondingly.

So yes the V500 is significantly cheaper with resulting files containing the same pixel dimensions as the V700 but obviously not the same amount of detail can be achieved.

Testing of the V7XX and V8XX and V600 can be found at https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV800Photo.html & https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html. They conclude that the V600 is about half the resolution of the V8XX and that the V7XX matches the resolution of the V8XX.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I already had a V700 and out of curiosity bought a V500 because it was so cheap but with similar "specs" like 6400dpi. The results would indicate that Epson must mean that the resulting files will have the same pixel dimensions but not actually detail resolved.

Using a test chart shot on Fuji Velvia, these are results of scanning the same frame of film with the V500 and V700. Red arrows indicate highest detail achieved vertically and horizontally. I didn't use any special holders or shim to achieve "optimal" height just using the provided holders. These are straight up results with no post work. You can enhance contrast and apply sharpening but of course that is not the same as actually achieving more detail.

V500 full res -> http://www.fototime.com/33269E445D10043/orig.jpg

V700 full res -> http://www.fototime.com/11F59FA46FF9497/orig.jpg

With the V500, detail achieved seems to be the same at 2400, 3200 & 4800 and then up a little bit more 6400dpi. The V700 at 2400dpi seems less then the V500 but does progressively achieve more detail as you go up to 6400dpi. I don't have the V600 or V850 but other reviews seem to indicate similar differences of detail achieved as the V500 and V700 correspondingly.

So yes the V500 is significantly cheaper with resulting files containing the same pixel dimensions as the V700 but obviously not the same amount of detail can be achieved.

Testing of the V7XX and V8XX and V600 can be found at https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV800Photo.html & https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html. They conclude that the V600 is about half the resolution of the V8XX and that the V7XX matches the resolution of the V8XX.

Based on the test for the v800, what setting the dpi could be used for maximum effective resolution?

 

[Les Sarile]

Based on the test for the v800, what setting the dpi could be used for maximum effective resolution?

I believe you've stated as much that it all depends on what you want to do with the files. If you want to extract all the details that the V850 can achieve - regardless of scan time and filesize, then you use 6400dpi. Otherwise, you set it to a lower dpi that will work for the purpose intended while saving time and drivespace.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

is 6400 just extra bits of blur or more visible resolution?

 

[grat]

Good question. Personally, the "general knowledge" about the Epsons confuses me. Unless the USAF 1951 target is exactly 3mm thick, I fail to see how it could be used in any test to capture the actual resolution of the "high" resolution sensor on the Epson-- because my understanding is that the high resolution is 6400 PPI and fixed focus at a point 3mm above the glass.

Everything from Epson suggests that the high resolution lens only covers the middle portion of the scanning area , and the "low" resolution (4800 PPI) covers the entire glass, but focused at 0mm-- however, it can do an interpolation to produce 9600 PPI. And in theory, you can interpolate to the claimed maximum of 12,800 PPI with the high resolution sensor.

Personally, I scan at 2400 for "normal" use-- this produces nice, large, workable images. I apply mild sharpening via "Frequency Separation", because you can be more selective about how much detail gets sharpened (without sharpening the grain), and generally down-sample to produce images that I post on-line.

If I should reach the point where I'm producing digital prints of any images, then I'll probably re-scan those specific images at a higher resolution-- possibly wet-mounted.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Good question. Personally, the "general knowledge" about the Epsons confuses me. Unless the USAF 1951 target is exactly 3mm thick, I fail to see how it could be used in any test to capture the actual resolution of the "high" resolution sensor on the Epson-- because my understanding is that the high resolution is 6400 PPI and fixed focus at a point 3mm above the glass.

Everything from Epson suggests that the high resolution lens only covers the middle portion of the scanning area , and the "low" resolution (4800 PPI) covers the entire glass, but focused at 0mm-- however, it can do an interpolation to produce 9600 PPI. And in theory, you can interpolate to the claimed maximum of 12,800 PPI with the high resolution sensor.

Personally, I scan at 2400 for "normal" use-- this produces nice, large, workable images. I apply mild sharpening via "Frequency Separation", because you can be more selective about how much detail gets sharpened (without sharpening the grain), and generally down-sample to produce images that I post on-line.

If I should reach the point where I'm producing digital prints of any images, then I'll probably re-scan those specific images at a higher resolution-- possibly wet-mounted.

That's my thinking too. After producing, framing and hanging 30 16x20 medium format shots, and then moving, the Mrs doesn't want all these hanging in the new house. So except for a couple, I haven't been printing. I've been limiting my work to video slide shows shown on my UHDTV. If I want to make a really big print to hang, I could always drum scan. So the 2400 works for me too, especially now that I'm shooting 4x5.

One thing about scanning on the glass platen. I believe the optics of that lens is not as good as the one used to scan film in the holders.

 

[JWMster]

Alan: FWIW, you might want to look into poster hangers so you can hang and change as you want. I did that in the other house. Worked great. Nothing like looking at a large print to know what you want to change. - Skip

 

[grat]

One thing about scanning on the glass platen. I believe the optics of that lens is not as good as the one used to scan film in the holders.

I don't know about the lens, but everything I've read says that it's the 4800 PPI sensor, not the 6400 PPI. I think the lenses are roughly equivalent (although lacking multi-coating on the V800).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

We need a new tv in our living room. I'm looking into those tv's that also display photos so they looks like a photo print.

 

[Les Sarile]

We need a new tv in our living room. I'm looking into those tv's that also display photos so they looks like a photo print.

Does your tv have a compatible port to plug your computer into?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Does your tv have a compatible port to plug your computer into?

The TV in question broke. So we have to replace it. All-new TV's are smart and have USB connector jacks. I play my slide shows with a memory card connected to the TV. But there are new TVs that have screens that display slides so it appears like a framed picture. Because of Covid, I haven't seen any in-person to verify the quality. But they're supposed to be very good. Here's Samsung's.
https://www.samsung.com/us/televisions-home-theater/tvs/the-frame/highlights/