Using a holder the scanner reads the patch and scans with reference to it ( the plane the film lies on above the glass)Look on the back of your negative carrier. There should be a patch of white material (a calibration patch) that the scanner tries to reference.
You could mock up a template with black construction paper with a bit of white tape in the same position, but depending on how the tape reads, it may give you wonky results.
With the older Epson flatbeds, all you have to do is keep the top inch of the scanner glass clear. That's what I do with the 4990 and have no problems.
Some people on this forum disagrees with this statement. I agree wholeheartedly and have been scanning both with holders and flat on the glass for many yearsThe Epson software has a setting to scan the negative laying flat on the screen. So the scanner either focuses on the height of the holder or directly on the glass.
Maybe the 4990 scanner doesn't but the 4990Photo does. If you want proof I will put together both glass scan and holder scan and you won't be able to tell the difference
I have been using an Epson 4990 photo for over 20 years
Maybe the 4990 scanner doesn't but the 4990Photo does.
Take a look. It may be focus or it may be depth of field.
I have a Epson V700.
Well, the 1640xl had a setting in software to adjust focus - and that scanner was from 2001. The proof of that is freely available on Epson's site here.
Or it might be that you are scanning at 300dpi where humans can't possible tell the difference? Grab a resolution target or a negative with lots of fine detail and scan at 4800dpi to see the difference.
We are talking about 4990. V700 has two lenses. 4990 has only one and it's position is fixed.
Yes, thank you for correcting me. I should've stated "lesser than V700 Epson scanners".
I am scanning at a low dpi (300 to 800) as that is all one needs to produce fine images for either here (internet) or produce prints up tp 13"x17" (most printers).
That's not a very kind way of formulating a response when talking to people who seem to be perfectly aware of real world resolution requirements, limits of hardware and technical possibilities.You would be naive to think
Nice, same here - it's a great piece of kit! Still use it very often.
The 4990 Pro retailed with IT8 calibration targets and some additional software; I think the SilverFast version included in the bundle was one of those items. The hardware is/was exactly the same.
The 4990 has no hardware provision for focus adjustments. There's no extra lens, no focus servo etc. It's a fixed-focus device. Open it up and check for yourself. Yes, I did that when cleaning it, out of curiosity, many years ago.
Also:
Same 35mm B&W negative scanned with film holder (left) and straight on the glass (right). scanned at 3200dpi and downsampled to 1600dpi. 100% crop from comparison image.
The only difference in processing was that the left one was scanned with the Film Holder setting selected and the right with the Film Area Guide. Contrast & curve settings were left alone between scans. Contrast was adjusted in GIMP after scanning with an identical adjustment for both images.
There's a bigger version here, but WordPress has downscaled it a bit. Still, the lack of acutance in the fine detail in the treetops is very apparent in the glass-level scan, even in this dramatically down-rezzed version.
Really, this scanner doesn't adjust focus - because it physically can't do this.
That may work fine for 4x5 and 8x10 negatives, but for 35mm 800dpi scans don't cut it for even smallish prints. Scanning those at e.g. 1600dpi using the film holder will produce adequate scans for moderately sized prints. Straight on the glass, it's going to remain a severely compromised situation. That's why the difference matters on the 4990.
That's not a very kind way of formulating a response when talking to people who seem to be perfectly aware of real world resolution requirements, limits of hardware and technical possibilities.
I have very little experience with 35mm.
I used the word naive not in a derogatory way
Why people here are scanning at 4800dpi I have no idea other than that is overkill. If one is producing images for human consumption (Internet images and /or smaller format prints) why produce an image beyond a human's grasp.
A lot of consumer flatbeds (all?) benefit from scanning at a higher nominal resolution (to reach the highest effective resolution possible). So, if you want absolutely the best possible results, you scan at higher nominal resolution and downsample later, you scan at optimum hight...
It can make a slight (but noticeable) difference when you need to scan 35mm and you only have a consumer flatbed scanner available to you. If you only need 300-800dpi from your scanner it's something you will never notice, though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?