Epson V850 scanning and print size help

[pradheep thavamani]

Can I scan 6x7 negatives for 30x40 print size on V850? If yes how is the quality? Please share your experience

 

[Ces1um]

30x40 inches or cm? What print resolution do you usually use? 300dpi? 125dpi?

 

[pradheep thavamani]

30x40 inches or cm?

Inches

 

[Ces1um]

so your scanner will scan at 6400x9600 dpi and is capable of scanning a film negative all the way up to 8x10". 6400dpi/300dpi = 21 inches 9600/300dpi=32". So at maximum resolution you should be able to print a 21"x32" print (53cmx81cm) using 300dpi for printing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=v850+epson+maximum+scan+size

There are likely some limitations to this calculation but I would think you should be good to go.

 

[jerrybro]

That math doesn't work. 6400dpi optical resolution is about 250 dpmm. Assuming a full resolution scan of a full 60mm X 70mm negative, the resulting image would be 15000 x 17500 dots. Printing at 300 dpi would net a print 50 inches X 58.33 inches. What am I missing?

 

[Eric Rose]

I know nothing about all this math stuff but this is what I have actually done. I have scanned a 4x5 neg at 2400dpi and made a stunningly sharp volour print that is 30x40 inches. I used an Epson 750 Pro.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

so your scanner will scan at 6400x9600 dpi and is capable of scanning a film negative all the way up to 8x10". 6400dpi/300dpi = 21 inches 9600/300dpi=32". So at maximum resolution you should be able to print a 21"x32" print (53cmx81cm) using 300dpi for printing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=v850+epson+maximum+scan+size

There are likely some limitations to this calculation but I would think you should be good to go.

Sorry, V850 will NOT scan at such a resolution. Might as well pencil draw a copy of needed negative. Kidding aside, scanning outside of drum scanning is far below that level. Which is not to say 6x7 won't scan finely enough (on V850) to get 30x40 inches, although it may be stretching it for some critically acclaimed pixel peeping evaluations of the final print. Just duck the critics if they disapprove.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Epson scanning (editted link)

I'm linking above video even though it is not the one I was after There is a guy on the tube who did Joshua Tree on Mamiya RB67 then scanned on an Epson V.... one of those 700-850 (in his own way, taping negative to anti-reflection glass) then printed large but am not sure if that was 30x40 or smaller.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

Epson scanning

I'm linking above video even though it is not the one I was after There is a guy on the tube who did Joshua Tree on Mamiya RB67 then scanned on an Epson V.... one of those 700-850 (in his own way, taping negative to anti-reflection glass) then printed large but am not sure if that was 30x40 or smaller.

OMG! That is the most incredible image of Joshua Tree I've ever seen!

 

[Deleted member 88956]

OMG! That is the most incredible image of Joshua Tree I've ever seen!

Try this one

Then this

And then this (clearly NOT a 30x40 inch print)

Have edited link in my original post too, just to avoid confusion, but thanks for catching it.

 

[removed account4]

Can I scan 6x7 negatives for 30x40 print size on V850? If yes how is the quality? Please share your experience

Hi pradheep thavamani
I don't use the same scanner but one that is ancient by comparison, a perfection4870. I have scanned things smaller than 6x7 had them printed to 4 feet x 6 feet and they came out beautifully.
i'm also not one of those people who says you can't/shouldn't enlarge 35mm bigger than 8x10 ( i have enalrged a fraction of a 35mm negative to be 16x20 ) best thing to do is scan your film and see how you like it and remember perfection doesn't exist.
don't forget to have fun
john

 

[Ces1um]

That math doesn't work. 6400dpi optical resolution is about 250 dpmm. Assuming a full resolution scan of a full 60mm X 70mm negative, the resulting image would be 15000 x 17500 dots. Printing at 300 dpi would net a print 50 inches X 58.33 inches. What am I missing?

You aren't missing anything. My math was off. I was calculating the maximum theoretical printable image, not the actual target film size. I also failed to account for the fact that the 21 was the number of 300dpi images that could be printed from a single 6400 dpi scanned image inch. My bad. Obviously didn't have my coffee that day.

 

[John51]

I've been wondering the same thing. (Epson 4990.)

I'm still learning and have been repeatedly scanning the same 6x6 neg to try out different settings. Best so far is just over 10k x 10k pixels but the focus could be better imo, it looks a lot sharper on the lightbox.

I'm thinking that the best way to evaluate a scan for printing big is to enlarge the screen image and see how much detail is there. When viewing as a 6" x 6" on screen image it would print ok at that size imo. I zoomed until the image is 12" wide on screen and it doesn't look sharp.

I'm hoping that I can get the focus better but I want to get to grips with the rest of the settings first.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I've been wondering the same thing. (Epson 4990.)

I'm still learning and have been repeatedly scanning the same 6x6 neg to try out different settings. Best so far is just over 10k x 10k pixels but the focus could be better imo, it looks a lot sharper on the lightbox.

I'm thinking that the best way to evaluate a scan for printing big is to enlarge the screen image and see how much detail is there. When viewing as a 6" x 6" on screen image it would print ok at that size imo. I zoomed until the image is 12" wide on screen and it doesn't look sharp.

I'm hoping that I can get the focus better but I want to get to grips with the rest of the settings first.

I don't think comparing screen view to actual print makes sense or is indicative of final result. Perhaps with some serious experience for a specific screen/printing process it eventually might produce something predictable, but print is a reflective medium, screen is transmission medium, not even remotely close to be compared.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I know nothing about all this math stuff but this is what I have actually done. I have scanned a 4x5 neg at 2400dpi and made a stunningly sharp volour print that is 30x40 inches. I used an Epson 750 Pro.

I'm with Eric on this one. Bugger the math.

 

[Sirius Glass]

so your scanner will scan at 6400x9600 dpi and is capable of scanning a film negative all the way up to 8x10". 6400dpi/300dpi = 21 inches 9600/300dpi=32". So at maximum resolution you should be able to print a 21"x32" print (53cmx81cm) using 300dpi for printing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=v850+epson+maximum+scan+size

There are likely some limitations to this calculation but I would think you should be good to go.

I cannot get the V850 to scan larger than ~7.7"x~9.7". Please tell me how to get it to do a complete 8"x10" print file page.

 

[Herminus]

Get to know your screen resolution, on my monitor it’s 96 ppi.

Make a copy of your scan and resize it to 96? ppi x the inches you are going to print using lightroom or photoshop for example (don’t save this over your master file!)

Look at your screen at 100% and you see the image real size as the print would be or part of it at least.

How does it look? sharp or soft ? Consider the viewing distance for a print this size.

This should be close enough to evaluate how it would look printed at this size.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Get to know your screen resolution, on my monitor it’s 96 ppi.

Make a copy of your scan and resize it to 96? ppi x the inches you are going to print using lightroom or photoshop for example (don’t save this over your master file!)

Look at your screen at 100% and you see the image real size as the print would be or part of it at least.

How does it look? sharp or soft ? Consider the viewing distance for a print this size.

This should be close enough to evaluate how it would look printed at this size.

None of it works like this. Print is reflective, screen is transmissive.

 

[Herminus]

Reflective or not the detail is going to look about same at the same, thats what Im looking at. How well does the image hold up at that enlargement.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Reflective or not the detail is going to look about same at the same, thats what Im looking at. How well does the image hold up at that enlargement.

I entirely disagree with this. One may be able to learn how to compensate for the huge difference in display characteristics, but they will not even close look same enough. i am purely referring to visual final experience and not whether one can see a difference between two scans on screen when in the end both are meant for wall display. It is what they look like on that wall that matters.

 

[jim10219]

One thing not mentioned is how you intend to process the image. There are programs you can use to interpret missing pixels from an image that will allow you to get larger prints with higher print resolutions that what you could with the unaltered scan. Photoshop CC has a "preserve details 2.0" which works pretty well for this. There are other fractal imagining softwares and plugins that do an even better job. They have their limitations and take some skill to use correctly, but you can often quadruple the photo's maximum print size if everything works out.

 

[MattKing]

I do not know what the V850's actual optical resolution limits are, but I am confident that they are significantly less than 6400 ppi (pixels per inch).
More likely something around 1800-2400 ppi.
So right from the beginning, a scan performed at the setting of 6400 ppi gives results that are about 1/3 from the data derived from the negative, and 2/3 interpolated from the data derived from the negative.
The quality of that interpolation process depends on the quality of the algorithms built into the software. In many cases, the result will be an excellent facsimile of the original data in the negative, but it also may differ from that data, because it is based, inherently, on assumptions.
A better scanner, with higher optical resolution, provides more data to the software, which generally results in more accurate facsimiles.
A measurement of the "quality" of the results, when printed large, will be a highly subjective measurement - and will depend a lot on the talent, knowledge and skills of the people who expose the film, develop the film, use the scanner and digitally process the result for the purpose of preparing a large print. Each stage of the "workflow" requires a significant amount of care and skill, and each stage can serve as a bottleneck to fine results if that stage is not performed properly.
When it comes to the technology, I would say that the Epson V850 is probably capable, but not ideal. The better technologies aren't cheap or easy to access.

 

[Ces1um]

I do not know what the V850's actual optical resolution limits are, but I am confident that they are significantly less than 6400 ppi (pixels per inch).
More likely something around 1800-2400 ppi.
.

epson quotes the specs as below:
https://epson.ca/For-Work/Scanners/...erfection-V850-Pro-Photo-Scanner/p/B11B224201

you'll have to click the "specifications" tab

Optical Resolution:

• Epson Dual Lens System
• 4800 dpi and 6400 dpi

 

[MattKing]

epson quotes the specs as below:
https://epson.ca/For-Work/Scanners/...erfection-V850-Pro-Photo-Scanner/p/B11B224201

you'll have to click the "specifications" tab

Optical Resolution:

• Epson Dual Lens System
• 4800 dpi and 6400 dpi

I guarantee that those numbers are theoretical, not actual.
This site, for example, says that the actual, maximum effective resolution for the predecessor V800 using their standard methodology is 2300 ppi, and the result is the same whether the software is set to 4800 or 6400: https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV800Photo.html
As that report indicates, all the extra glass in a flatbed scanner gets in the way.

 

[Herminus]

I guarantee that those numbers are theoretical, not actual.
This site, for example, says that the actual, maximum effective resolution for the predecessor V800 using their standard methodology is 2300 ppi, and the result is the same whether the software is set to 4800 or 6400: https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV800Photo.html
As that report indicates, all the extra glass in a flatbed scanner gets in the way.

Not only that, the image from the V850 is very soft, I was surprised that I could see as high rez as around 2300dpi by seeing difference in lines in this softness. Reading resolution targets is only half the story. The 5DM3 shot has higher resolution (not much, forgot the numbers) but the image is clear and crisp.

5DM3 with 100mm macro on the right, V850 at 6400dpi on the left.

I printed those out and they look similar on print as on screen.