At risk of being shot down in flames - disadvantages of flatbeds LESS then the V700

[Les Sarile]

BTW, a V7XX - or equivalent 8X10 or larger transparency scanner, can give you a contact scan from 36 frame roll.

Full res version -> 36 frames E6 in film holder

Full res version -> 36 frames C41 on glass

 

[Alan Klein]

Les: Thanks for posting these. Was there a reason you scanned the negatives on the glass rather than in the holder like the chromes?

 

[Les Sarile]

You're welcome Alan.
The reason I laid it directly on the glass is that you can put them closer together as the spacing in the holder cuts off practically half a strip. On the glass, I could have overlapped the sprocket holes to get all of the strips included.

 

[toyotadesigner]

Yu can check my scans with the V600 with 35mm and medium format on my FLickr

Alan, very impressive resolution, crispness and sharpness. Did you work on the images extensively with PS, or just minor adjustments? How long are the scan times for a 6x7?

I'm asking because I do have the Nikon Coolscan LS 5000 and the LS 9000, which I consider to sell together with my 35 mm and MF equipment to completely switch to LF with 4x5 and 6x9 backs.

 

[Aristophanes]

BTW, a V7XX - or equivalent 8X10 or larger transparency scanner, can give you a contact scan from 36 frame roll.

Full res version -> 36 frames E6 in film holder

Full res version -> 36 frames C41 on glass

I am impressed that someone is using film to photograph aircraft at speed!

 

[Alan Klein]

Did you work on the images extensively with PS, or just minor adjustments? How long are the scan times for a 6x7?

I'm asking because I do have the Nikon Coolscan LS 5000 and the LS 9000, which I consider to sell together with my 35 mm and MF equipment to completely switch to LF with 4x5 and 6x9 backs.

Thanks for your comments. The post processing is about the same with film as with digital. The scan take about three minutes for three 6x7's at 2400 dpi and 48 bit color. If you scan with ICE, you can triple that time easily. The V500 and V600 don't scan 4x5's, so you would have to consider the V700 or something else.

Don't expect to get the same clear and sharp scans with a flat bed as you're getting with your Nikon scanners. If you're planning to shoot MF, I would keep the film scanner for that and not depend on a flat bed scanner.

 

[Les Sarile]

I am impressed that someone is using film to photograph aircraft at speed!

I try to do my part in blowing through as much film as I can . . .

 

[toyotadesigner]

Alan, thank you very much for your info! However, several weeks ago I watched this movie with Brian Lanker, talking about his work and promoting the Epson Perfection V 750 M Pro:

Brian Lanker Perfection V750 M Pro Video - YouTube

(Epson has modified this movie and removed the part with the gallery of large format prints)

Now I've seen your images (ok, not printed, not large size, but I can see your scans are superb!), and this made me think: If Brian achieved these fantastic results with a flatbed scanner for his large format prints, where is the big difference to the Nikon LS 9000? OK, to be fair, Brian scanned his best images by wet mounting them.

The Nikon is fantastic, but it needs around 20 minutes to scan a 6x9 @ 4.000 ppi @ 48 bit with ICE (lowest setting in VueScan).

Les, it is an interesting option to be able to pre-scan several image at once. Looks very appealing to me to have 4 slides @ 6x9 pre scanned to evaluate them for final scans.

Hm, tough decision to be made the upcoming weeks...

 

[chuck94022]

Doesn't a DSLR capture fewer bits per pixel than a flatbed? And aren't the pixels bayer interpolated? Does this make a difference? Has anyone done a critical comparison to see if it matters, especially on fine details that are known to get lost from a photo due to bayer interpolation issues, or on soft gradations that perhaps can't be as fully represented with fewer bits?

 

[toyotadesigner]

Doesn't a DSLR capture fewer bits per pixel than a flatbed?

Yes, definitely. Maximum is 12/36 or 14/42 bit, not 16/48 bit

And aren't the pixels bayer interpolated?

Yes.

Does this make a difference?

For your family photo book @ 4x5 inch: No

Otherwise: Yes.

If you don't have the full blown software to process digital files, you'll run into trouble. This means if you don't have the software, you'll need to spend a lot for it.

Highlights will be blown, shadows will be without detail - that's the nature of 35 mm digital cameras until today.

IMHO you can completely switch to a digital camera if you want to follow this path. Except for the perspective correction of a LF system the result would be identical if you just 'copy' slides.

 

[chuck94022]

Exactly my thinking. I've never understood the "just photograph the film with your digicam" argument. Sure perhaps it is easy, if you own a high enough quality digicam to be worthwhile, and you own a high enough quality macro lens, and, and, and... But you still lose, because you introduce a narrower bit width, interpolated path into the process.

If your purpose is archival of a high volume of images, and quickness is the highest priority, perhaps the digicam is fine. Shoot, store, and move on. I don't think that is the goal of the average film photographer on this forum though.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.026818,116.519126

 

[Alan Klein]

I've noticed that my scans of medium format are better than 35mm with the V600. I would think that scans with a flat bed of 4x5 would be that much better because of more real estate. (With a V700 or V750 of course since the V600 doesn't scan LF). Also, the V700/750's seem to have better results than the V600 from what I've seen on the web. So do the Nikons. Maybe you can borrow a 750 to try out and then compare with your Nikons.

 

[Les Sarile]

The Nikon is fantastic, but it needs around 20 minutes to scan a 6x9 @ 4.000 ppi @ 48 bit with ICE (lowest setting in VueScan).

It takes less then 10 minutes to scan 6X7 with my 9000 @4000dpi using Nikonscan with ICE. As I understand it, Vuescan doesn't have access to ICE directly - either due to proprietary or intellectual property issues, and so that may be contributing to unexpectedly long scan times.

The temptation to sell the Coolscans must be very high as they are commanding a premium. Problem is, I wouldn't be satisfied with any other options today in terms of results or workflow.

 

[artobest]

Maybe you can borrow a 750 to try out and then compare with your Nikons.

The V700 is the bare minimum I would accept among flatbeds for scanning 35mm. It just about does a decent job. In fact, I find it very useful for underdeveloped b&w negatives - it can really pull info out from that thin image, much more than my Konica-Minolta, and the resolution isn't an issue with faster films.

 

[hoffy]

Greetings all,

Thought I would dig this one back up again - 10 months later I have finally gotten a scanner. I decided to go with the V700 after all. I have just connected it for the first time about an hour ago and I am doing my first scans.

Now, I must admit, I am totally out to sea here! Everything looks horrible at the moment, but I am sure I will get there!

Cheers

 

[desertfotog]

If you shoot b&w film and scan for prints you still have the negs. Remember, old fashioned Techinicolor movies were shot on three strips of b&w film which will last far longer than your scanned digital images. I find I get more dynamic range from film than this digital stuff. I do both analog and digital but to me analog is the real deal.

 

[Diapositivo]

For your purposes as outlined in post #1, I would say:

B&W, web use: any scanner will go;

Colour, print use: anything less than a dedicated film scanner is not really adequate. Why shooting medium format if one has to print the scans of a flatbed scanner? For that use you should either spend serious money on a serious film scanner, or spend that money in mastering traditional colour printing techniques, and keep your process entirely analogue so that scanner quality is not relevant.

 

[RattyMouse]

Greetings all,

Thought I would dig this one back up again - 10 months later I have finally gotten a scanner. I decided to go with the V700 after all. I have just connected it for the first time about an hour ago and I am doing my first scans.

Now, I must admit, I am totally out to sea here! Everything looks horrible at the moment, but I am sure I will get there!

Cheers

Please keep us up to date on how you improve your scans!

 

[Lightroomzombie]

I have the V600. Easy peasy. inexpensive, fast, great scans, overnight replacement with its 3 year warranty thats included efren you buy directly from Epson. Provide excellent customer service even on Saturday from 7 am to 4! If you would like some screen shots of the actual user interface and samples of bw and color scans send me a message and ill send to you, I have to scan tomorow. Another idea, whatever you decide to go with, is get a factory restored and slap an extra warranty on there so you can be protected.

 

[Felinik]

Yup, v500 will do the job for you.

These are all v500 scans: Dead Link Removed


Cheers,
J.F. Felinik

 

[CGW]

64005 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
This photo, as well as all photos in the set "La Sapienza", is an Apx100 developed in D76.
Who guesses what scanner was it acquired with?

Tell us!

 

[CGW]

For your purposes as outlined in post #1, I would say:

B&W, web use: any scanner will go;

Colour, print use: anything less than a dedicated film scanner is not really adequate. Why shooting medium format if one has to print the scans of a flatbed scanner? For that use you should either spend serious money on a serious film scanner, or spend that money in mastering traditional colour printing techniques, and keep your process entirely analogue so that scanner quality is not relevant.

Better still, use the flatbed for proofs and pay for lab drum scans for professional prints. Hybrid workflow isn't necessarily second best to analog. A darkroom isn't necessary. This is DPUG.

 

[CGW]

El cheapo Epson 3490 Photo crap...
Heavily post-processed.

Not bad!