Achievable resolution with Epson V700/V750/V800/V850

[Ted Baker]

It may help to remember that with these scanners (epson) there is no way to change the resolution of the device, like with a drum scanner where you can change the aperture. when you choose a different setting the scanner just re samples the data, in much the same way (or the same way) as in other software.
The question is are there better approaches to the re sampling that can be applied to get a better result.

 

[brent8927]

In my experience there is minimal to no noticeable difference between a properly scanned and edited 120 negative with a V700 compared to a 120 Nikon scanner--the bigger difference is you have to edit the Epson scan, but after just a little photoshopping I could not tell the difference between the scans.

I think with 35mm film the difference would be more noticeable, as the Epson is really not meant for that...

Still, the Epson actually does quite a good job. Maybe I just got a good one, but I find it works great and is very quick and efficient.

Unfortunately, I can't say what the maximum possible resolution is. My understanding is all scanners grossly inflate that number anyway...

 

[MattKing]

What software doesn't give you a choice of scanning resolution, except perhaps the top end models that always scan at their maximum resolution? I don't understand the laissez-faire attitude of "let it fall where it may", whatever that even means, but I'm open to learning if that means better scans.

I think we are dealing with two different things here but thinking we are talking about the same thing.
My first response was in reference to a post that may have since been either edited or removed from the thread. Alternatively, I'm wondering if I mistakenly posted in this thread a response to a post in another thread.
I was responding to a post that I thought was a reference to ppi (or more accurately dpi) at the display or printing stage.
I now don't see any such reference in this thread to such a reference, so my two earlier posts are at best, misplaced.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Remember, some scanners will apply their own sharpening without telling you.

Scanning (sampling) is a low pass (blurring) operation, so scanned images always need some sharpening to appear 'normal'.

 

[Les Sarile]

In my experience there is minimal to no noticeable difference between a properly scanned and edited 120 negative with a V700 compared to a 120 Nikon scanner--the bigger difference is you have to edit the Epson scan, but after just a little photoshopping I could not tell the difference between the scans.

My experience is different then yours and I consider myself pretty competent with post tools.
Here are scans from an Epson V500, V7XX and Coolscan of the same frame of 35mm film (Fuji RVP - ISO50) shot using optimal setup with a 4 X 4 arrangement of test charts. The Epson were shot at various resolution settings and I also scanned with and without ICE.

Coolscan full res -> http://www.fototime.com/02BB797801DCA89/orig.jpg

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

Epson V7XX full res -> http://www.fototime.com/11F59FA46FF9497/orig.jpg

When using test targets and shooting under optimal conditions the differences in achievable detail - provided the detail has been captured on the frame of film, is very obvious and cannot be manufactured in post. If you don't use good film, don't take care in taking the shot, don't use good equipment or the target itself doesn't have the detail then the difference may not be so noticeable. Incidentally, no post sharpening were applied to any of these.

My use of these Epsons is not optimized as intended by the OP so I don't know if these could have been improved to equal that of the Coolscan.

I was also curious to compare just how much detail can be resolved by the Coolscan relative to DSLR scanning so I used a Pentax K20D+Autobellows (14.6MP) and Nikon D800+Autobellows (36.3MP) and Coolscan on the same frame of Kodak Techpan shot at ISO25 and processed in Kodak Technidol and got the following results shown below.

• Bottom left shows test target arrangement. Center area bounded in red are shown as 100% crops.
• Above it is 100% crop from Pentax K20D.
• Above that is 100% crop from Coolscan.
• Above that is 100% crop from Nikon D800.
• To the right is an optical magnification (4.5X) that clearly shows real detail not resolved by these methods.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/8372250EA44CB06/orig.jpg

BTW, you'll notice that even though the D800 has more pixels then a 4000dpi Coolscan file, there is very little difference between the two. Of course there is no dust and scratch removal using DSLRs and the Coolscan+Nikonscan ICE is the most effective tool available.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Sandy King describes similar results in this thread:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/flatbed-vs-dedicate-negative-scanner.149711/
The Nikon scanners have now long been out of production.

 

[Ted Baker]

Here are scans from an Epson V500, V7XX

Those are cool, they clearly show an increase in resolution, what they don't show is the effect of different re sampling approaches. i.e. what the net effect is, once the image has been resized and displayed.

 

[brent8927]

My experience is different then yours and I consider myself pretty competent with post tools.
Here are scans from an Epson V500, V7XX and Coolscan of the same frame of 35mm film (Fuji RVP - ISO50) shot using optimal setup with a 4 X 4 arrangement of test charts. The Epson were shot at various resolution settings and I also scanned with and without ICE.

Coolscan full res -> http://www.fototime.com/02BB797801DCA89/orig.jpg

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

Epson V7XX full res -> http://www.fototime.com/11F59FA46FF9497/orig.jpg

When using test targets and shooting under optimal conditions the differences in achievable detail - provided the detail has been captured on the frame of film, is very obvious and cannot be manufactured in post. If you don't use good film, don't take care in taking the shot, don't use good equipment or the target itself doesn't have the detail then the difference may not be so noticeable. Incidentally, no post sharpening were applied to any of these.

My use of these Epsons is not optimized as intended by the OP so I don't know if these could have been improved to equal that of the Coolscan.

I was also curious to compare just how much detail can be resolved by the Coolscan relative to DSLR scanning so I used a Pentax K20D+Autobellows (14.6MP) and Nikon D800+Autobellows (36.3MP) and Coolscan on the same frame of Kodak Techpan shot at ISO25 and processed in Kodak Technidol and got the following results shown below.

• Bottom left shows test target arrangement. Center area bounded in red are shown as 100% crops.
• Above it is 100% crop from Pentax K20D.
• Above that is 100% crop from Coolscan.
• Above that is 100% crop from Nikon D800.
• To the right is an optical magnification (4.5X) that clearly shows real detail not resolved by these methods.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/8372250EA44CB06/orig.jpg

BTW, you'll notice that even though the D800 has more pixels then a 4000dpi Coolscan file, there is very little difference between the two. Of course there is no dust and scratch removal using DSLRs and the Coolscan+Nikonscan ICE is the most effective tool available.

I was referencing the Coolscan 8000/9000 with 120 film compared to the Epson V700--I haven't done any 35mm comparisons. And I was also referring to the comparing the final edited images.

I did thorough testing and found that while the Coolscan gives a nicer scan, the V700 scan "catches up" in post-processing. The scan from the Epson didn't require as much processing (generally minimal to no sharpening required). I could not tell the difference, or if I could, I found the Epson scans to look nicer, both at full-frame and zoomed in. A very thorough online review found the same thing, though unfortunately I don't seem to have bookmarked it.

It seemed like a pretty easy decision for me--either buy a very expensive and dated (ie., no longer reparable) scanner or keep one that can be still be repaired and had brand new (the V800/850 is the updated version), and is a fair amount cheaper. In my opinion, the Epson is far easier to use, and much faster.

I realize many people prefer their 8000/9000 and swear by them, and there are certainly online reviews that support them over the V700 (I believe I've read them all), it's just my experience with a cleaned Coolscan compared against my V700 was that the end result is nearly identical. In the end, I am very happy with the V700, and it helps me produce prints that I am very happy with.

 

[Les Sarile]

Sandy King describes similar results in this thread:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/flatbed-vs-dedicate-negative-scanner.149711/
The Nikon scanners have now long been out of production.

There was a lot of opinions provided in that thread without any supporting evidence. For some reason this is not uncommon.

Over 45K scans on my Coolscans and they scan today exactly as they did when I first acquired them. Still maintaining a Windows Vista computer to run them with Nikonscan. I am going to test the new Nikon D850 for DSLR scanning as it has a built-in algorithm to convert color negatives to a positive image. I am hoping it will do as good as job as the Coolscan+Nikonscan combination.

 

[jeffreyg]

I am using an "ancient 13 or 14 year old" Epson 4870 scanner with SilverFast Studio Ai8 software for 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 and 4x5 negatives and getting excellent results. One option of the program is to do multiple scans of the same negative. They claim it increases the dynamic range and shadow detail. Has anyone found this to be a practical approach? I do two scans occasionally but I haven't noticed much of a difference other than a larger file to start with.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Les Sarile]

Those are cool, they clearly show an increase in resolution, what they don't show is the effect of different re sampling approaches. i.e. what the net effect is, once the image has been resized and displayed.

Detail lost cannot be put back in for further enhancement. I suppose you could draw them in? Just to be sure, you will have to print very large in order to actually see the differences - if that is the final step.

 

[Ted Baker]

Detail lost cannot be put back in for further enhancement. I suppose you could draw them in?

True, but the point IS to not to lose it the first place, i.e. how to minimise it in the re sampling process, different approaches have demonstrable differences. Specifically what is the difference compared with doing it all with a "XYZ" scanner software, or a combination of other software tools.

They claim it increases the dynamic range and shadow detail. Has anyone found this to be a practical approach?

Not seen any difference, and My 2 cents, it doesn't make much sense in the context of the normal contrast negative, that has exposure a couple of stops away from it's ISO speed.

 

[brent8927]

I am using an "ancient 13 or 14 year old" Epson 4870 scanner with SilverFast Studio Ai8 software for 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 and 4x5 negatives and getting excellent results. One option of the program is to do multiple scans of the same negative. They claim it increases the dynamic range and shadow detail. Has anyone found this to be a practical approach? I do two scans occasionally but I haven't noticed much of a difference other than a larger file to start with.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

I personally never have, but would be curious to know if anyone else has seen any differences as I haven't done very thorough studies on this

 

[Les Sarile]

True, but the point IS to not to lose it the first place, i.e. how to minimise it in the re sampling process, different approaches have demonstrable differences.

I would be interested in seeing your examples of this.

 

[Ted Baker]

I would be interested in seeing your examples of this

Have a look in the software you are using, it probably has a limited choice re sampling approaches, so you can try it yourself, "bicubic" being a common one. What we have not established is what the best is for the epson series of scanners, and if makes any measurable difference, that is on my own personal todo list.

Here is a random example from google https://i.ytimg.com/vi/49DtIRS-vkc/maxresdefault.jpg

 

[hsandler]

Is this thread of some help? I did the comparison at optimal height and with usm. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/a-comparison-of-some-flatbeds-and-holders.152191/

 

[sheel]

I use an Epson v800 and can get pretty good results, especially with the Better Scanning mounting solution, anti-newton glass, and VueScan. The first critical step is to calibrate the height of your stand.

My approach was to use the standard Epson mount with adjustable feet to get the optimal height, and then adjusted the BS mount accordingly - I used film grain to help me identify sharpness; might be better to use a target. Further, using wet mounting can help bring clarity as well.

I wrote an article showing the resolution I achieved for a 4x5 negative (not scientific), comparing dry vs. wet straight off the Epson - no post processing - I printed this photo at 32x48" and it's glorious.

While it certainly can't compare in sharpness to my ScanMate 5000 drum, it's pretty damn good considering the process efficiency.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

The method of testing for scanners is not the same as is used by most reviewers, that is why the value is much lower. If you used the ISO method for scanners you would get 6400 dpi, but you wound not be able to see it

It also slightly more complicated because the scanner actually scans at its native resolution all the time, it just re samples the data give a lower resolution. I believe the native optical resolution of the sensor lens combination is 3200dpi, but it uses a technique called pixel shifting to improve the resolution.

It seems reasonable to consider using re sampling algorithm that is optimised for pixel shifting, this is on my list to experiment with.

I did not know about pixel shifting. It sounds like the scanner's version of interpolation. I would imagine just like interpolation, there are bad a good methods. But also, nothing beats the optical pixels of the original scan. I bought my Epson V700 not just for the resolution, but above all, I was impressed by the V700's dynamic range. So it's not all about the highest resolution of the scan for me.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I use an Epson v800 and can get pretty good results, especially with the Better Scanning mounting solution, anti-newton glass, and VueScan. The first critical step is to calibrate the height of your stand.

My approach was to use the standard Epson mount with adjustable feet to get the optimal height, and then adjusted the BS mount accordingly - I used film grain to help me identify sharpness; might be better to use a target. Further, using wet mounting can help bring clarity as well.

I wrote an article showing the resolution I achieved for a 4x5 negative (not scientific), comparing dry vs. wet straight off the Epson - no post processing - I printed this photo at 32x48" and it's glorious.

While it certainly can't compare in sharpness to my ScanMate 5000 drum, it's pretty damn good considering the process efficiency.

What I see is that wet mounting only gives marginal improvement over a dry scan. I'm assuming that the negative is in focus.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I do have an Epson V750 which has a filthy (misty) underside platen -- this needs to be cleaned one day, but I am shortly hitting the tarmac for a pre-Christmas roadie interstate, so it will have to wait -- again...

In the past (distant past) I have scanned at 3000-4000 on the V750 with a final sample to bureau printer of 300, always despatched as unlayered tif files in MAC algorithm. They are good scanners, certainly (especially the V800), but drum scanners (wet or dry -- it is not up to me to decide which method) have the edge when quality exhibition of work is in mind.

The specs on my latest jobsheet for a drum scan are IN4200 OUT300+ColorMatchULTIF12*16 and 10USM. I don't have any specs to hand for what the scan for B&W work is but I don't think it would be the same as for RA4 work.

 

[Alan Johnson]

IMO, what looks like grain when scanning at 2400 dpi is actually the related pixels. I do find the apparent grain gets much smaller scanning at 4800 dpi, and can be sharpened a lot more, Eventually the rather large scan gets sent to be printed at 720ppi , from a 67 negative with borders this is a 95mb file. I'm not sure if this reduction in "grain" size has an effect on the resolution of the scanner but with the 5x enlargements I print Ilford Delta 400 is effectively grain free.

 

[Ted Baker]

I do find the apparent grain gets much smaller scanning at 4800 dpi

Exactly and you are poking at the heart of the issue, which is how to get the best out of the equipment as is.

From this thread, we already have clear examples that show scanning the epson v700,v750,v800,v850 scanners at 6400dpi provides the best resolution, and wet scanning provides yet an additional boost.

But how do you get the best prints...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

But how do you get the best prints...

Not from using "the best scanner".
Not from using "the best printer".
But by making a blood good photograph at the start that will scan and print well, without floss, artifice or arguing about resolutions.
There is no mystery to beautiful prints. It all starts with the photographer's knowledge and understanding of the subject, and his/her ability to best bring it across to film.
At that stage it has nothing at all to do with scanners and printers.

 

[faberryman]

At that stage it has nothing at all to do with scanners and printers.

Yeah, the scanners and printers don't figure in the equation until you start translating the image on film to paper.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I got about 48lppm here which by my maths makes about 2400 dpi. Certainly not the resolution claimed but not bad for the price given its versatility.