From Youtube: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson (Via Nick Carver)

Lachlan Young · Feb 16, 2020

138S said:
Lachlan, you are totally wrong, For MF and up the V700 / V850 is a solid scanner that in the right hands it delivers practical results that totally match drums and high end flatbeds, specially for MF and up. There are some jobs, (say 5%) in what a drum provides an slight advantage, but not much.

If you want I can provide smoking gun type evidence about that, and many examples of clearly forged side by sides throwing lies about the V700 because it was a hard competition for scanning services and pre-press gear dealers.

The V700 it is not a Pro scanner, a Pro scanner operator scanning all day long wants another thing, but at home it can deliver totally Pro resuts with some effort.

Do you want to see the evidences ?

There is no 'evidence' to show because it can only be fake. I can say this on the basis of having dealt with dozens of randomly selected V700/750/800/850 scanner outputs - none of which, no matter how much sharpening you applied, got even vaguely close to a high end scan once over 800-1000ppi. All that happened was that the noise got worse. The format didn't matter, they were all lacking in fundamental quality. Exactly how many high-end scans have you made (as opposed to fiddling around with web-res files)?

138S · Feb 16, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
There is no 'evidence' to show because it can only be fake.

OK, let's go...

Is this extensive test a Fake ?

https://www.largeformatphotography....Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners

Pali K is both an honest guy and an extremly skilled scanner operator, while also having a near divine gift in the art of color management. He made this test to show Drum and Creo advantage over the Epson, but when exploiting V700 capabilities to their potential matching results were found, I guess he was disapointed because expecting a lower V700 performance, but these are the REAL results:

After a 2.5pix 50% sharpening the EPSON result matches Creos and the drum:

Top Left: EPSON V700

Top Right and botton left: Creo high end flatbed

Bottom Left: ScanMate 11000 drum

Any doubt ? Were is it the FAKE?

Full 6x7cm image:

Lachlan Young · Feb 16, 2020

138S said:
OK, let's go...

Is this extensive test a Fake ?

https://www.largeformatphotography....Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners

Pali K is both an honest guy and an extremly skilled scanner operator, while also having a near divine gift in the art of color management. He made this test to show Drum and Creo advantage over the Epson, but when exploiting V700 capabilities to their potential matching results were found, I guess he was disapointed because expecting a lower V700 performance, but these are the REAL results:

After a 2.5pix 50% sharpening the EPSON result matches Creos and the drum:

Top Left: EPSON V700

Top Right and botton left: Creo high end flatbed

Bottom Left: ScanMate 11000 drum

Any doubt ? Were is it the FAKE?

Full 6x7cm image:

View attachment 240168

So, exactly how many times have you personally operated a high end scanner?

Your 'comparison' is so bad as to fall under Pauli's 'so bad it's not even wrong' dismissal. You clearly don't know what you are looking for in terms of optical performance and are choosing an area that hides the poor performance of the Epson in smooth tone low contrast areas in favour of busy (noise hiding) high contrast edges. As for your sharpening 'prescription', it's profoundly ineffective at sorting out the mush that Epson turns fine detail into. 1000-1200ppi is about the hard limit of useful resolution for the Epson sensor/ optical package, no matter how much you might huff and puff and wave your hands.

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 16, 2020

If Epson intended to upgrade their V800, V850 scanners, why haven't they done so in many years. Also, why haven't they upgraded their Epsonscan software rather than surrender it's capability to Silverfast that they include in the hardware package when they sell their scanners?

138S · Feb 16, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
exactly how many times have you personally operated a high end scanner?

Lachlan Young said:
So, exactly how many times have you personally operated a high end scanner?

Your 'comparison' is so bad as to fall under Pauli's 'so bad it's not even wrong' dismissal. You clearly don't know what you are looking for in terms of optical performance and are choosing an area that hides the poor performance of the Epson in smooth tone low contrast areas in favour of busy (noise hiding) high contrast edges. As for your sharpening 'prescription', it's profoundly ineffective at sorting out the mush that Epson turns fine detail into. 1000-1200ppi is about the hard limit of useful resolution for the Epson sensor/ optical package, no matter how much you might huff and puff and wave your hands.

I operated zero times a high end scanner, but I paid a lot for scanner services of high end scanners. Later I learned how to match with the Epson V750 and V850 the same result than when paying for an expensive scanning service.

Look, a drum or a Creo are way better scanners than an Epson V700, but many times we obtain the same result simply because the Epson is outresolving what the film medium has or because at our print size the Epson delivers more image quality than our eye can see.

We can debate the nuances of every machine and of every film, but please understand that the Epson is not "crap", it is a solid device than in the right hands will match what a drum does for 95% of the jobs, like in that test made by Pali.

It is true that some people are not able to obtain perfectly Pro results from the Epson, me I'm able, if you aren't but you want to learn how to do it then please ask by PM, I'd be happy to guide you to learn a suitable workflow.

Grim Tuesday · Feb 16, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
There is no 'evidence' to show because it can only be fake. I can say this on the basis of having dealt with dozens of randomly selected V700/750/800/850 scanner outputs - none of which, no matter how much sharpening you applied, got even vaguely close to a high end scan once over 800-1000ppi. All that happened was that the noise got worse. The format didn't matter, they were all lacking in fundamental quality. Exactly how many high-end scans have you made (as opposed to fiddling around with web-res files)?

I have a V700 and I created this scan with it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/132764966@N03/48477618741/in/dateposted-public/

It is not a fake; I made it myself.

I also have a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED and I would propose that this result is quite close to the Nikon. My main problem with the Epson is severe inconsistency. Some of my scans turn out great, some turn out terrible. I think it is an issue with the focus plane and the film holders. And I never know if the issue is the scan or the underlying negative. If I could consistently get results like the scan I posted, I would sell the Nikon in a heartbeat. Alternatively, on the Nikon every scan is good.

138S · Feb 16, 2020

Grim Tuesday said:
I think it is an issue with the focus plane and the film holders.

Well processed film (pro labs) usually it is not much curled. If you want to scan curled film with the Epson then you may get the new holders that have ANR glass and adjustable height.

Also you may keep curled film inside big books for a certain time, this may flatten film.

The Epson does not sport an auto-focus feature, so one has to ensure film flatness in a way or other, if one is not able or not wanting to make the effort then better using another scanner. Fortunately new holders solve well that problem easily without wet mounting

Using ANR glass is an additional opportunity to get dust, so using a (cheap) HEPA purifier in the room it's even more important.

mark · Feb 16, 2020

Ste_S said:
+1 @Helge toxic posts are embarrassing.

I’m thinking someone pissed on his grod.

Decent thread otherwise.

138S · Feb 16, 2020

Alan Edward Klein said:
If Epson intended to upgrade their V800, V850 scanners, why haven't they done so in many years. Also, why haven't they upgraded their Epsonscan software rather than surrender it's capability to Silverfast that they include in the hardware package when they sell their scanners?

The V800 vs V700 enhacement solved the most important practical problems the V700 had. Now illumination is better, not pre-heat delays, calibrations are not necessary as LEDs don't fade, and no need to replace to lamp. The other enhacement is holders, now thanks to ANR glass we can always keep the film in focus without having to buy custom holders.

My view is that manufacturers feel uncertainty in the film usage trend, today's film flourishment is a surprise for them, starting by Kodak and Fuji, in theory film had to totally disapear some 10 years ago, so IMO investments in new products are limited because they ignore if this is a passing trend or a solid market opportunity for the long term.

Also, under the usual programmed obsolescence theory, best bet for Epson may be selling as many V850 they can before releasing an enhanced model, absolutely, I ignore if this is their strategy, but we all have seen that strategy at work in other HP and Epson products.

Of course, I cannot say if they plan or not an upgrade, what I say is that this upgrade is feasible beause the V850 electronics design is very, very old, and manufacturing costs can be reduced a lot while increasing performance. IMO it all depends on the sells forecast.

Lachlan Young · Feb 16, 2020

138S said:
I operated zero times a high end scanner, but I paid a lot for scanner services of high end scanners. Later I learned how to match with the Epson V750 and V850 the same result than when paying for an expensive scanning service.

Right, that was what we needed to know - and if you really genuinely couldn't see a difference, then either the originals were seriously deficient in sharpness, the scan resolution was very low or the higher end scanner was poorly run/ maintained.

138S said:
but many times we obtain the same result simply because the Epson is outresolving what the film medium has or because at our print size the Epson delivers more image quality than our eye can see.

Only if you print in the 1-2x reproduction scale off 5x7 and up. And even then, a better scanner will let you extract more from a negative.

138S said:
It is true that some people are not able to obtain perfectly Pro results from the Epson, me I'm able, if you aren't but you want to learn how to do it then please ask by PM, I'd be happy to guide you to learn a suitable workflow.

How about disclosing them here, where we all can see them? I know from thousands of hours experience where the hard limits of Epson files are - and where the limitations of higher end scans are too.

Grim Tuesday said:
I also have a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED and I would propose that this result is quite close to the Nikon. My main problem with the Epson is severe inconsistency. Some of my scans turn out great, some turn out terrible.

It only seems perceptually sort-of close because there are a large number of extremely high contrast edges in the area you focused on. If you look at the grain rendering you see the difference much faster - and it is those lower contrast areas where the Epson falls apart. The grain looks 'wooly' and noisy/ aliased where it should have a sharper definition. It's not really about film flatness as much as it's about the MTF of the optical system. The 'bad' scans on the Epson are likely higher in the level of required contrast resolution and consequently fall below a key performance point of the Epson. Sharpening won't help with that, but it'll make everything noisier. The somewhat better performance of the Coolscan is what makes it seem more consistently good across a wider range of contrast reproduction. It still isn't spectacular however & I've seen and made plenty of scans on higher end kit which whilst notionally lower in pixel per inch count seem noticeably better overall, because of the higher MTF and lower noise floor/ smoother illumination.

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 16, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
...

How about disclosing them here, where we all can see them? I know from thousands of hours experience where the hard limits of Epson files are - and where the limitations of higher end scans are too.

...

Lachlan: Can you provide your solutions to get the best from Vxxx Epson flat beds? I have a V600. I recently bought a 4x5 LF camera and need a larger scanner for the 4x5 film. So any input and suggestions would help in what I buy. Thanks. Alan.

138S · Feb 17, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
How about disclosing them here, where we all can see them? I know from thousands of hours experience where the hard limits of Epson files are - and where the limitations of higher end scans are too.

No problem, with next workflow you will obtain (for MF and up) results that will match 95% of the times (at least) what can be obtained by a drum or highend flatbed, only (say) 5% of the times you'll get an slightly better result from a drum.

1) Ensure film flatness with the new ANR glass holders or by producing flat negatives. Use a (cheap) HEPA air purifier always (drying, hadling, scanning, enlarger...)

2) Check focus, adjust height in the new ANR hodels or hack the older holders to nail focus.

3) Realize that with the Epson you use 3 image resolutions: a) scanning resolution, b) edition resolution c) release resolution.

4) Scan at the higher resolution possible while it icreases quality, if your edition dpi is 3200 then scan at 4800, or 6400, today computers are fast, SSD or M.2 disks are amazingly fast, and PCs have many Gb of RAM, so take full advantage of that.

5) Scan 16 bits per channel, take all histogram, don't allow the automatic setting crop the Dynamic Range to deliver a final image if the image has to be edited Professionally. Use Multi-Exposure when necessary (if important ultra deep shadows have to be recovered in Velvia/Provia)

6) Save the scan in TIFF format, jpg and bmp will loss the 16 bits depth

7) In PS then make a mild sharpening with no overshot. Reduce image size to the edition size by selecting "bicubic, ideal for reduction" in the Combo control at the bottom of the Image Size dialog. Save that "RAW COPY" for achival

8) Edit all in 16 bits/channel, adjust curves, learn to use layers for a proficient edition, etc and use 3D LUT Creator or equivalent for color management. Use Soft Proofing and test prints to speed up optimization.

9) Make advanced sharpening, with different local intensities and strengths depending on gray level Save an "EDITED COPY" for achival, conserving layers, etc.... probably in PSD format.

10) Reduce image size to the release size, it can be exactly the pixel count in the printer, in the internet image size, in the TV/monitor or in the projector, for total control you issue a pixel for each pixel in the destination device.

11) Make a Pixel Level sharpening, again avoiding any overshot. Save a "RELEASED COPY"

12) Make a Presentation sharpening, calculating radius from image size and from viewing distance. Usially Convert to 8bits/channel and jpg (or what required required). Save a "DEVICE OPTIMIZED COPY".

_________

Note that a Pro scanner may deliver directly the edition dpi image, because Pro scaners usually optimize digitally very well the image before delivery, in some Pro scanners the internally made sharpening cannot be enterely disabled, this is not the case of the Epson, best is to take the image as Raw as possible and optimizing the image manually with advanced tools.

A Pro scanning service wants a high degree of automation in the optimization to save manpower, an artist may prefer doing the optimization manually for total control.

_________

Lachlan, I can tell you for sure that with a proficient usage the V850 delivers totally Pro results, like that Side by Sude made by Pali K suggests.

Sure that a drum is a better scanner, but this only makes a difference in certain cases: what really counts is the skills one has for an optimal workflow and a refined aesthetic criterion in the edition.

Digital workflow is not about pixel peeping, it's about skills.

Lachlan Young said:
I know from thousands of hours experience where the hard limits of Epson files are - and where the limitations of higher end scans are too.

Clearly, you don't know how to optimally use an V700, probably the limitations are in your capabilities, not in the machine.

See again the crops scanned in that side by side, that operator knows how to extract Pro results from the V700, me also I know how to do it.

Don't you know how to do it ? Take a sample negative and I'll guide you step by step, I only need an AnyDesk connection.

First we'll check your focus with a USAF 1951 glass slide, if it delivers 2900H 2300V then we'll proceed with the workflow.

Bob Carnie · Feb 17, 2020

138S said:
I operated zero times a high end scanner, but I paid a lot for scanner services of high end scanners. Later I learned how to match with the Epson V750 and V850 the same result than when paying for an expensive scanning service.

Look, a drum or a Creo are way better scanners than an Epson V700, but many times we obtain the same result simply because the Epson is outresolving what the film medium has or because at our print size the Epson delivers more image quality than our eye can see.

We can debate the nuances of every machine and of every film, but please understand that the Epson is not "crap", it is a solid device than in the right hands will match what a drum does for 95% of the jobs, like in that test made by Pali.

It is true that some people are not able to obtain perfectly Pro results from the Epson, me I'm able, if you aren't but you want to learn how to do it then please ask by PM, I'd be happy to guide you to learn a suitable workflow.

I owned and operated the following scanners

Epson 10000xl
Fuji Frontier
Imocan
Creo Eversmart Supreme

I have used all four extensively over the last 15 years.

my conclusion... Epson - good for web , small print purposes
Fuji - good for small prints to medium prints
Imocan- good for large prints
Creo- good for large prints

I have tested many Drum Scanners by operators with decent reputations... they are all good for large prints.

I will also state that scanners are only as good as the operators and for each price range there is a scanner to fit the need.

Lachlan Young · Feb 17, 2020

Alan Edward Klein said:
Lachlan: Can you provide your solutions to get the best from Vxxx Epson flat beds? I have a V600. I recently bought a 4x5 LF camera and need a larger scanner for the 4x5 film. So any input and suggestions would help in what I buy. Thanks. Alan.

It's really a question of how big you want to print. And how much money you want to spend. And whether doing battle with obsolete Apples is your idea of fun. The rest is essentially about getting the scanner to deliver the best possible focus & preventing the scanner software inverting/ clipping negatives for you (Photoshop etc are drastically better at this). The core techniques of colour inversion etc are pretty universal, so if you upgrade equipment, they don't change significantly.

138S said:
No problem, with next workflow you will obtain (for MF and up) results that will match 95% of the times (at least) what can be obtained by a drum or highend flatbed, only (say) 5% of the times you'll get an slightly better result from a drum.

1) Ensure film flatness with the new ANR glass holders or by producing flat negatives. Use a (cheap) HEPA air purifier always (drying, hadling, scanning, enlarger...)

2) Check focus, adjust height in the new ANR hodels or hack the older holders to nail focus.

3) Realize that with the Epson you use 3 image resolutions: a) scanning resolution, b) edition resolution c) release resolution.

4) Scan at the higher resolution possible while it icreases quality, if your edition dpi is 3200 then scan at 4800, or 6400, today computers are fast, SSD or M.2 disks are amazingly fast, and PCs have many Gb of RAM, so take full advantage of that.

5) Scan 16 bits per channel, take all histogram, don't allow the automatic setting crop the Dynamic Range to deliver a final image if the image has to be edited Professionally. Use Multi-Exposure when necessary (if important ultra deep shadows have to be recovered in Velvia/Provia)

6) Save the scan in TIFF format, jpg and bmp will loss the 16 bits depth

7) In PS then make a mild sharpening with no overshot. Reduce image size to the edition size by selecting "bicubic, ideal for reduction" in the Combo control at the bottom of the Image Size dialog. Save that "RAW COPY" for achival

8) Edit all in 16 bits/channel, adjust curves, learn to use layers for a proficient edition, etc and use 3D LUT Creator or equivalent for color management. Use Soft Proofing and test prints to speed up optimization.

9) Make advanced sharpening, with different local intensities and strengths depending on gray level Save an "EDITED COPY" for achival, conserving layers, etc.... probably in PSD format.

10) Reduce image size to the release size, it can be exactly the pixel count in the printer, in the internet image size, in the TV/monitor or in the projector, for total control you issue a pixel for each pixel in the destination device.

11) Make a Pixel Level sharpening, again avoiding any overshot. Save a "RELEASED COPY"

12) Make a Presentation sharpening, calculating radius from image size and from viewing distance. Usially Convert to 8bits/channel and jpg (or what required required). Save a "DEVICE OPTIMIZED COPY".

_________

Note that a Pro scanner may deliver directly the edition dpi image, because Pro scaners usually optimize digitally very well the image before delivery, in some Pro scanners the internally made sharpening cannot be enterely disabled, this is not the case of the Epson, best is to take the image as Raw as possible and optimizing the image manually with advanced tools.

A Pro scanning service wants a high degree of automation in the optimization to save manpower, an artist may prefer doing the optimization manually for total control.

_________

Lachlan, I can tell you for sure that with a proficient usage the V850 delivers totally Pro results, like that Side by Sude made by Pali K suggests.

Sure that a drum is a better scanner, but this only makes a difference in certain cases: what really counts is the skills one has for an optimal workflow and a refined aesthetic criterion in the edition.

Digital workflow is not about pixel peeping, it's about skills.

Clearly, you don't know how to optimally use an V700, probably the limitations are in your capabilities, not in the machine.

See again the crops scanned in that side by side, that operator knows how to extract Pro results from the V700, me also I know how to do it.

Don't you know how to do it ? Take a sample negative and I'll guide you step by step, I only need an AnyDesk connection.

First we'll check your focus with a USAF 1951 glass slide, if it delivers 2900H 2300V then we'll proceed with the workflow.

Here's something to consider before condescending further: what about if I have used essentially those techniques (but with better inversion, sharpening and de-noising approaches) on Epsons with and without AF and the results were in all cases still noticeably worse than a high end scanner? 'Resolution' doesn't matter one jot if the MTF performance is circling the drain.

Bob Carnie said:
I owned and operated the following scanners

Epson 10000xl
Fuji Frontier
Imocan
Creo Eversmart Supreme

I have used all four extensively over the last 15 years.

my conclusion... Epson - good for web , small print purposes
Fuji - good for small prints to medium prints
Imocan- good for large prints
Creo- good for large prints

I have tested many Drum Scanners by operators with decent reputations... they are all good for large prints.

I will also state that scanners are only as good as the operators and for each price range there is a scanner to fit the need.

That's essentially what I've found too. But apparently some Epsons cause weird religious devotions far beyond their abilities...

warden · Feb 17, 2020

Bob Carnie said:
my conclusion... Epson - good for web , small print purposes
Fuji - good for small prints to medium prints
Imocan- good for large prints
Creo- good for large prints

Thanks Bob. Can you give us an idea of what you consider a small print? Or large? Thanks.

Helge · Feb 17, 2020

BradS said:
Your behavior in this thread has mostly been toxic to put it politely. This reply from you is yet another example of that toxic behavior.
I suppose that you can keep it up see and hope people shy away from your bullying but, I'd suggest that you just tone it down and try to get along with others.

In this thread, for example, you could have simply stated that you did not like the guy’s style and went on with an explanation of how his methods could be better - or whatever. This would have been a more powerful and useful approach than spewing copious quantities of invective.

You still didn't explain what exactly you mean by "toxic"?
I have a feeling it's another word for "I just don't like what you are saying" or "I disagree strongly". Am I mistaken?

I guess I would understand a bit better if I had a history on this board for being generally aggressive and bad tempered?

Since when did it become not socially acceptable, or even wrong to criticize another persons style and attitude, especially when it's on such blatant display in many videos?
His whole approach is in question here. Not just the results, with which they strongly are connected at the hip.
If I say I don't like his style, I have to give some reasons as to why, for it not to just be another quick, empty ad hominem attack. Right?

Need I point out that he also dealt out some heavy jabs of his own, towards Aztek who are more or less defenseless in this. And could have their business seriously impacted by his words.
I don't mean this as an whataboutism, but rather as an example of that sometimes there is no polite or "powerful" as you say, roundabout way of saying these things.

When did you get the feeling you where in an authoritative position to lecture others on how to behave BTW?

Now disband the group hug in the waggon fort around Mr. Carver guys, this is getting stupid.
I have a strong notion that your "toxic" entails and instills much the same emotions in the person who applies that stamp to others, that it purports to critique and illuminate.

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 17, 2020

Carver is a nice guy who's adding to the enjoyment of using film for everyone. He's a self-learner and doing a pretty good job I think. I've watched a lot of his videos and they're enjoyable and knowledgeable. Some of you guys are awful tough on him though and his beliefs. Give the guy a break.

BradS · Feb 17, 2020

Helge said:
You still didn't explain what exactly you mean by "toxic"?
I have a feeling it's another word for "I just don't like what you are saying" or "I disagree strongly". Am I mistaken?

I guess I would understand a bit better if I had a history on this board for being generally aggressive and bad tempered?

Since when did it become not socially acceptable, or even wrong to criticize another persons style and attitude, especially when it's on such blatant display in many videos?
His whole approach is in question here. Not just the results, with which they strongly are connected at the hip.
If I say I don't like his style, I have to give some reasons as to why, for it not to just be another quick, empty ad hominem attack. Right?

Need I point out that he also dealt out some heavy jabs of his own, towards Aztek who are more or less defenseless in this. And could have their business seriously impacted by his words.
I don't mean this as an whataboutism, but rather as an example of that sometimes there is no polite or "powerful" as you say, roundabout way of saying these things.

When did you get the feeling you where in an authoritative position to lecture others on how to behave BTW?

Now disband the group hug in the waggon fort around Mr. Carver guys, this is getting stupid.
I have a strong notion that your "toxic" entails and instills much the same emotions in the person who applies that stamp to others, that it purports to critique and illuminate.

Welcome, narcissist, to the ignore list. Goodbye.

Helge · Feb 17, 2020

BradS said:
Welcome, narcissist, to the ignore list. Goodbye.

So "narcisist" and "toxic"? Could you be anymore topical and generically PC‽
I won't even ignore you.

Bob Carnie · Feb 17, 2020

jawarden said:
Thanks Bob. Can you give us an idea of what you consider a small print? Or large? Thanks.

I believe 16 x 20 to be on small and over 20 x 24 large.. Inches.

138S · Feb 17, 2020

Bob Carnie said:
Epson 10000xl

my conclusion... Epson - good for web , small print purposes

Bob, first the 10000xl you tried has a well lower effective dpi than the V850, as the 10000xl is prioritizes A3 performance.

Second, it is true that the V850 are good for small prints from 35mm, but for MF and up it is perfect for very large prints, from a 8x10" LF sheet the V850 delivers 300MPix effective scans that deliver perfect 3m high prints.

Lachlan Young · Feb 17, 2020

Bob Carnie said:
I believe 16 x 20 to be on small and over 20 x 24 large.. Inches.

I'd tend to say the Epsons are ok-ish to maybe 2-2.5x the original neg size and the Frontier to 11x17/16x20. Especially on the current Canon print head. Maybe I'm just being super critical, but the Epson output just doesn't look as good overall, especially if alongside scans from higher end machines.

138S · Feb 17, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
Here's something to consider before condescending further: what about if I have used essentially those techniques (but with better inversion, sharpening and de-noising approaches) on Epsons with and without AF and the results were in all cases still noticeably worse than a high end scanner? 'Resolution' doesn't matter one jot if the MTF performance is circling the drain.

You can walk in circles of you want, but Post #77 (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...on-via-nick-carver.172770/page-4#post-2253104) is an smoking gun type evidence.

Arent you able to to get those results with an V700? No problem, spend a fortune in a X1 and try to have no breakdown in the machine. Me I'm able to get to get those results.

You are not alone, other people are not able to get those perfet results. Me also I'm not alone, other people is able to get perfect results from an V850, speaking about MF and up.

Lachlan Young · Feb 17, 2020

138S said:
from a 8x10" LF sheet the V850 delivers 300MPix effective scans that deliver perfect 3m high prints.

So, you've had exactly how many high end scans made off 8x10? I think you have a profoundly different understanding of 'perfect' from everyone who is disagreeing with you.

138S · Feb 17, 2020

Lachlan Young said:
I'd tend to say the Epsons are ok-ish to maybe 2-2.5x

LOL, you are saying that you only can make a 70mm print from a 35mm negative This is absolutely false.

From Youtube: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson (Via Nick Carver)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency