Dissapointing image quality on Epson v700

[razocaine_07]

I'm currently scanning a lot recently and am becoming frustrated with the poor quality of scans I'm getting from my scanner; particularly on 35mm. I am assuming that this is probably something to do with the curvature of the film and the standard film holders unable to keep it as flat as possible.
I am a relative novice of digital scanning so is there anything i can do to help improve this common issue?

 

[faberryman]

The V700 is a flatbed scanner, has a maximum actual resolution of only 2300, and can't resolve the grain. If you are only scanning 35mm, get a dedicated film scanner, which will give you an actual resolution of 3200-4300, depending on the model.

 

[Ted Baker]

You can get improved results, by

1. Setting the film height accurately as possible, I have a betterscanning holder, I have hear good things about the
DigitaLIZA 35mm Scanning Mask.

2. Appropriate use of USM makes a big difference.

Hope that helps

 

[Les Sarile]

I've not used them but believe there are third party film holders available such as this -> http://www.betterscanning.com/
What exactly is failing in your scans - sharpness, resolution, colors?
I've used a lineup of Epsons and cannot recall flatness/curvature issues with strips of 35mm.

 

[razocaine_07]

I use the scanner for multiple formats so a dedicated scanner isn't really viable for me at the moment. Thanks for the betterscanning links I'll take a look....

Les - its mainly an issue with sharpness, colours are fine and resolution I know has its limits with it being a flatbed. Some of the negs look soft even when I know they are not

 

[jeffreyg]

This is not necessarily the solution to your issue but if your concern is keeping the film flat you could try putting an individual frame in a slide mount (if they are still available) such as the old Kodak ready mounts and use the Epson holder for mounted slides if there is one for the 700. My old 4870 came with one, I don't know about the 700.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[ced]

Why not post an image or even a link to the hi-res data, I have a V600 and 35mm is okay (not fantastic but useable).
Maybe also be sure the emulsion faces the sensor and count on doing usm post scanning.

 

[razocaine_07]

This is not necessarily the solution to your issue but if your concern is keeping the film flat you could try putting an individual frame in a slide mount (if they are still available) such as the old Kodak ready mounts and use the Epson holder for mounted slides if there is one for the 700. My old 4870 came with one, I don't know about the 700.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

I assume you mean cutting out the individual frame?

 

[jeffreyg]

Yes, but you would need a cardboard or plastic slide mount and the Epson slide holder for your scanner. If that helps then you are okay till you go to a dedicated 35mm scanner. I rarely use 35mm but I'll try a mounted slide tonight to see if works better than the film strip holder. I use 120 and 4x5 so my Epson holders have worked quite well. I have made 16x20 prints from scanned Delta 400 120 and HP5 4x5 that are very sharp.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm currently scanning a lot recently and am becoming frustrated with the poor quality of scans I'm getting from my scanner; particularly on 35mm. I am assuming that this is probably something to do with the curvature of the film and the standard film holders unable to keep it as flat as possible.
I am a relative novice of digital scanning so is there anything i can do to help improve this common issue?

The curvature may be an issue. I'm able to get pretty decent quality 35mm scans with the standard carrier. Have you tried adjusting the spacers on your film carrier?
I've toyed with the idea of getting a glassed carrier, but from my experience with glassed negative carries with Leitz Focomat enlargers, I don't want to try to keep clean 6 surfaces and deal with Newton's rings. I've heard glassed carriers offer marginal improvements. As with fluid mounting, I don't want to deal with the toxic mounting fluid.

 

[razocaine_07]

that is a fair point about keeping the glass clean. I may have a play around with the slide mount idea and adjusting the spacers. Then look at other neg carriers if its still an issue

 

[jeffreyg]

As I mentioned, I would try one. I just scanned a 48 year old Ektachrome slide on my 4870 with SilverFast Ai Studio 8 software @ 2400ppi no adjustment. Opened it in Photoshop and after a slight crop enlarged it to 11x13. On the monitor it is quite sharp. I reduced it to 7 inches to make a quick print (no tweaking) which came out very nice. I think some trials on your part should yield decent results of course you need a very good image to start with. This was a slide that was pretty much a snapshot before I was serious about photography.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The native film holders supplied with the Epson scanners are not very good, either in quality or accuracy of positioning, to say nothing of how poorly they hold film in place — and this is the most frustrating part. Some success can be achieved by tweaking the 'feet' of the Epson holders: a couple of people I've known have used 5c pieces to achieve acceptable focus!

Rather than finger-poking at the V700, I would advise investing in the Betterscan holders; they are not necessarily cheap, but they definitely are a step up in quality of engineering over the "afterthought" holders that Epson supplies. If the cost of Betterscan plates is out of the question, take the Epson holder to a framing shop and ask for a piece of cut-to-size non-reflective glass to fit in the film strip channel. This glass can be placed upon the negative instead of the plastic snap-in holders.

 

[shutterfinger]

EpsonScan scans come out SOFT unless you use the unsharp mask feature/adjustment or sharpen in post.
Silverfast SE scans in 16 bit but outputs 8 bit unless you use the 48 bit or 16 bit grayscale HDR which requires other software or plugins to to edit/process.
Vuscan lacks exposure adjustabality to suit me, I wasted my money on their pro version.
Silverfast SE Plus upgrade is $120, AI $$$$.
I have a piece of 8x10 AN glass on ebay order. I will go to an Art supply store and get some Scotch Removable tape (similar to their Magic Transparent tape) in the next few days.
I have a smaller piece of AN glass. Lay the negatives to be scanned on the bed glass, backing side down, lay the AN glass treated side onto the negatives works well but getting the images square is a pain. This is as sharp as adjusting the film holder height.
I wish I had kept my Microtek 8700, loved that glassless negative scanning. Microtek no longer markets in the U.S.

 

[dugrant153]

I've owned and used an Epson V700 for years and while it has it strengths, it also has it's glaring weaknesses.
The 35mm scans are pretty decent but only up to a point. The key to getting really good 35mm scans is to raise or lower the film tray to obtain maximum sharpness. I do this but taping bits of business cards (using thin double sided tape) to the "feet" of the film tray and do test scans until I find the sweet spot.
I did the same for the 120 film tray.

However, even with this adjustment, I found the resolution to be lacking... EVEN if I sharpened the crap out of it. This was especially evident when I started pushing past 8x10 print sizes... And yes, I did sharpen, USM, etc etc. If there's little resolution to begin with, sharpening won't get more resolution (Although it may make an image look like it).

I have since switched to DSLR scanning with a Pentax K01 16MP mirrorless camera and a broken macro lens and an ipad. It's a challenge but the results are much better generally. I still use the Epson V700 for scanning prints/documents and also scanning 645, 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9 film as the results are generally good with that.

Oh yeah, keep the film flat. At one time I added bits of plastic toothpicks to the film trays so that the film, when pressed down, wouldn't bow out of the film tray. This was my weird way of trying to keep it flat.

 

[jim10219]

As others have said, make sure you’re scanning at the correct height. That’s a must. The depth of field on those things is about a millimeter, and the Epson film holders rarely sit at the exact height needed. Also, you have to use an unsharp mask on a scan. Any scan. Even a high end drum scanner requires an unsharp filter to get the best results. Some scanning software does this automatically, so not everyone realizes this fact. And probably most importantly, flatbed scanners are really terrible at 35mm film. They just don’t have the resolution required. None of them do. They’re great for larger formats though. I use mine all the time for 120 film and 4x5.

I’d recommend using a good DSLR, a flat field macro lens, (or an enlarging lens), some macro bellows or extension tubes, and a lightbox for scanning 35mm. That’s what I do. I get much better results and in less time. Often times you can find a cheap manual focus macro lens (which is all you need because autofocus does you no good here) and DIY yourself a light box for under $100. Then it’s just a matter of getting your technique down.

 

[Les Sarile]

Les - its mainly an issue with sharpness, colours are fine and resolution I know has its limits with it being a flatbed. Some of the negs look soft even when I know they are not

How do you know that the negs are not soft, do you have another scan that shows a different result?
I have an 8X/40X loupe/microscope and light table to verify detail and sharpness. At 40X you can verify optically what can be resolved by the Coolscan's 4000dpi.

I used this on one occasion when I was scanning some slides for someone and he was adamant his slides were very sharp as he had viewed them with a projector and that the scans were just poor. Unfortunately most of his slides were just slightly out of focus but is obvious when viewed at such high res or at 40X.

 

[GRHazelton]

I bought the betterscanning.com carrier for 120 film for my V 700. After a good deal of fiddly adjustments the scans are satisfactorily sharp. For 35 mm the anti-Newton's rings glass strips can make a real difference on cupped film. Just put the film in the holder convex side up and put the aNgr strips, "fuzzy" side down on the negatives, then scan. I've had pretty good luck with the stock height adjustment devices, when my big computer is back "on line" I'll try to post an image which yielded a nice 8 x 12 from a 35 mm scan.

 

[Les Sarile]

I've had pretty good luck with the stock height adjustment devices, when my big computer is back "on line" I'll try to post an image which yielded a nice 8 x 12 from a 35 mm scan.

Be great to see the difference between the stock Epson holders compared to the Betterscanning one.

 

[jeffreyg]

I mentioned using a slide mount. With my Epson 4870 the mount sits on the glass in the holder. I measured both a cardboard and plastic slide mount and they were both 1mm so the film was 1mm above the glass. I don't know how that compares to the betterscanning holders but if you want to try a low cost solution try a slide mount.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[jtk]

I mentioned using a slide mount. With my Epson 4870 the mount sits on the glass in the holder. I measured both a cardboard and plastic slide mount and they were both 1mm so the film was 1mm above the glass. I don't know how that compares to the betterscanning holders but if you want to try a low cost solution try a slide mount.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

I bought everything Betterscanning made a few years ago for ancient Epson 3200...with 35mm the most basic holder was a little better sharpness-wise than Epson's basic. I saw no (zero) advantage with anti-newton (which I relied on with my enlarger)...but I saw a distinct sh"carpness advantage with the adjustable holder (which does require fastidious adjustment to get the benefit). The adjustable holder proves sharpness is critical well within 1mm...for example, 1/2 mm either way from perfect is distinctly worse than perfect. Still, nothing came close to my Nikon scanner for prints over letter-size.