I keep two Windows Vista machines to run Nikonscan.
I only tried Vuescan early on and conducted this test with Kodak 160VC that it has a specific film profile for. I also used the various modifiers from Vuescan compared to a fully automatic scan from Coolscan+Nikonscan.
Ah, I see. I'm out. It's hard enough for me to keep up with the modern machines!
Yes those presets are pretty useless on Vuescan in my experience. I just aim for a flat scan of the negative and invert for adjustments in Photoshop. I try to have the scanner software do as little as possible.
Full res version of Fuji 100 scanned by Epson V700 and Coolscan 5000 http://www.fototime.com/535A4899F477014/orig.jpg
Probably more important to me is good workflow and color/contrast results in full auto mode. I've scanned tens of thousands of various frames of all types of films with the Coolscan+Nikonscan and only hundreds with the various other scanners. I've never had a bad result from the Coolscan but have encountered many just awful from the others such as this one from Kodak Ektar 100 below.
Yes I understood what you were sharing there. Those presets aren't very useful in my opinion, as you've gone to some trouble to illustrate. Vuescan and other software can make quality color scans, but probably not if you stick to the presets. It does take some practice to achieve an appropriate workflow for your film but the software does allow the user to achieve contrast and appropriate color as a starting point for downstream adjustments.Just to be sure, those are with the specific Kodak 160VC film profile and each modifier.
I don't know what's up with that Noritsu scan, but of course it's awful, contrast and color both. I've never used that scanner or software but I assume it has some control of the output, right?
Sounds like you’ve found your favorite. Enjoy.I have many examples of very poor results from every other scanner+software from just hundreds of tests with none from the Coolscan+Nikonscan.
I have many examples of very poor results from every other scanner+software from just hundreds of tests with none from the Coolscan+Nikonscan.
The 100% crops . . .
A remarkable thing is . . .
If you could post . . .
Regarding the Noritsu vs Coolscan side by side . . .
Please post comparisons and I will as well. TIA.
As I said, the Epsons do a good enough job generally speaking and provide a very good value. If you're happy with it then I would certainly not contest that.
You may have many samples at home, all digital minilab RA-4 prints were mostly made by Frontiers or by Noritsus.
In the Digital minilab era most of the competition was in the automatic image enhancing software, this rised the level of general popular photography to levels never seen before.
I have many scans from Agfa, Frontier and Noritsus. I acknowledge they can provide volumes of scans but I have no results as good as from the Coolscan - in terms of detail, color & contrast, and that's why I ask for your comparisons.
You may have many samples at home, all digital minilab RA-4 prints were mostly made by Frontiers or by Noritsus.
In the Digital minilab era most of the competition was in the automatic image enhancing software, this rised the level of general popular photography to levels never seen before.
This image perfectly illustrates one of my main gripes with the Epsons (and most consumer scanners really, to a lesser degree though)."Real world" test using Fuji 100 color negative and scanned by Epson V700 and Coolscan 5000.
Full res version of Fuji 100 scanned by Epson V700 and Coolscan 5000 http://www.fototime.com/535A4899F477014/orig.jpg
Was Pakon scanner in the game as well?
This image perfectly illustrates one of my main gripes with the Epsons (and most consumer scanners really, to a lesser degree though).
Not only is the resolution much lower, than the actual resolving power of the film, which is expectable and something you could learn to live with.
But what is unacceptable, is the false grain structure known as grain aliasing, especially apparent in the sky on this image.
In the rest of the image, it masquerades as false detail., while less noticeable, still contributes very negatively to the overall feeling of the image.
It's a function of on one hand the sensor being too low resolution, and imposing that low resolution regular matrix, on the irregular grain of the film.
But also on the other hand, the lumps can be attributed to a lesser but still significant degree, to the optics being low resolution, and of generally bad quality.
That often results in detail at the edge of resolving power of some lens types, getting what can be described at boost in contrast. Not in a good way though.
This of course also transfers perfectly to any size of film you throw at the scanner since the grain structure and size is much the same.
So all that wonderful detail and smoothness in your medium format and large format shots is going to get tainted with excessive grain, long before the actual resolution limit of the film is reached.
On top of all of the above, I can't be the only one who see clear artefacts of the scanning action of the sensor in the Epsons in the final image. There are clear, what I can only describe as drag marks on the image, noise and other artifacting seems to get smeared across the frame.
with the Epsons .....
But what is unacceptable, is the false grain structure known as grain aliasing, especially apparent in the sky on this image.
especially apparent in the sky on this image.
Helge, this is totally wrong, you may find other defects in the Epson images but you won't never see aliasing.
First, please review what aliasing is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing
Then consider that the Epson is an optically limited system, as it is a 40k pixels sensor covering 5.9" the sampling outresolves the optics by a 2.2x factor, and in that situation aliasing simply is not possible.
Consider what hapens a in a DSLR incorporating a LPOF, in the V700 case the optics works like a ultra strong LPOF cancelling any aliasing.
if you want we may review the math suggested in the wiki article.
Please review the #132.
At 10x the noise in the Epson scan is not seen at all, and beyond 10x the image is soft anyway because film/optics/etc so that noise is only seen in when pixel peeping at not useful image enlargements, so that noise is totally acceptable.
One question... why do you hate the Epson in that way ?
It may not be aliasing, rather it may be compression artefacting from on-board compression in the scanner hardware or shortcomings in the bit depth of the Analogue Digital Converter - which is then all then dumped into a 16-bit tiff container. You have to remember that the usual test threshold that mattered in the mid-90's was making a 250% enlargement at 175lpi - ie 2.5*350ppi = 875ppi, normally from a well exposed 4x5 transparency of very fine grain. At those specifications, compression artefacting etc would be less noticeable because the file at those settings has very little visible granularity - this is the same reason why Netflix etc can claim to stream 4K, but struggles so badly with grainy film and intensely busy action sequences.
Well Epson claims 48 bit RGB AFAIR. This is probably true, though I'm almost certain it's way overkill for the sensors actual range.
If you can get companding artifacts from that bit depth, you are FUBAR as an engineer.
It doesn't look like that kind of thing either.
As said, it's striations and lumps.
This image perfectly illustrates one of my main gripes with the Epsons (and most consumer scanners really, to a lesser degree though).
Not only is the resolution much lower, than the actual resolving power of the film, which is expectable and something you could learn to live with.
But what is unacceptable, is the false grain structure known as grain aliasing, especially apparent in the sky on this image.
In the rest of the image, it masquerades as false detail., while less noticeable, still contributes very negatively to the overall feeling of the image.
.....
It doesn't at all look like JPEG artifacts (why would you compress the hell out of a scanned image anyway?) and it should be the same for the Coolscan image, unless you used very different compression ratios.Regarding the artifacting in my shot of the Excalibur building, it is likely jpeg/compression artifacting and not intended 1X magnification viewing only. Apologies for not posting this disclaimer.
The lower spec 500 shows the same artifacts. The grain aliasing would be the same for any format.The image you're referencing shows two things that I'd never try with an Epson: scanning 35mm and scanning with the Epson at 6400dpi, both bad ideas with the Epson as far as I have read, so if the point of the image is to show using probably the wrong tool for the job and using it badly, well job done.(No offense intended to Les, I think he's just maxing out the machines and showing us what it looks like)
I agree with your point about most consumer scanners showing this behavior and other problems too eventually if you stress them enough.
My question for the scanner experts follows. Take a medium format image, say 6x6 Provia. Scan it like an adult would, after reading the instructions for both the scanner and software and using appropriate settings for the best quality and resolution for each scanner. (In other words don't hobble your scanner by setting it for 10,000dpi if it can only deliver quality at 2,500.) Print the results using the best printer on the best honest to goodness paper. At what size will the quality gap appear on paper between scanners? Specifically I'm referring to normal viewing distances, with the naked eye. No magnifying, No loupes, no friggin' microscopes, just be normal and look at the print.
My gut tells me that up to 15X15" it doesn't matter what scanner you use for medium format because the prints will all be grainless, sharp, and very nice indeed. But maybe I'm wrong. What do the experts think? Could you see the difference at 5x5"? 10x10? 20x20?
My gut tells me that up to 15X15" it doesn't matter what scanner you use for medium format because the prints will all be grainless, sharp, and very nice indeed. But maybe I'm wrong. What do the experts think? Could you see the difference at 5x5"? 10x10? 20x20?
It also makes sharpening and other image editing very troublesome.
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?