I doubt that very much. Even if the resolution potential is there in the sensor, the optics ain't. But we've been there before...
I doubt that very much. Even if the resolution potential is there in the sensor, the optics ain't. But we've been there before...Well, now that we can exactly match the crops in the monitor you argue that the print would be different...
I never had a poblem to print nicely those images that look nice in the monitor, you should review your workflow.
OK, I concede that there are nuances, but the Epson makes a close match to the X5 for MF, no doubt.
The funny thing happens in 4x5", while the Epson keeps exactly the same performance than for MF in the X5 case 4x5" performance is the half than in MF. Weren't you aware ?
I guess that after paying a lot for an X1 realizing that a "cheapo" Epson does the same... it has to be has to be quite irritating
Well, now that we can exactly match the crops in the monitor you argue that the print would be different...
I never had a poblem to print nicely those images that look nice in the monitor, you should review your workflow.
OK, I concede that there are nuances, but the Epson makes a close match to the X5 for MF, no doubt.
The funny thing happens in 4x5", while the Epson keeps exactly the same performance than for MF in the X5 case 4x5" performance is the half than in MF. Weren't you aware ?
I guess that after paying a lot for an X1 realizing that a "cheapo" Epson does the same... it has to be has to be quite irritating
The Flextight scan is just way to contrasty. Even though you can see the that there is extra detail, it's very hard to bring forward because there simply isn't the tonality.
Did the author bork it on purpose?
That's besides the point (but why not stick to B&W for simplicity?). The thing is, he used a coarse, grainy film, with the completely wrong settings on the Flextight.And it also can be stressed less, with Portra, Ektar, Fuji 160Pro images would match totally, because negative color films have been re-engineered to be easier to scan.
That's besides the point (but why not stick to B&W for simplicity?). The thing is, he used a coarse, grainy film, with the completely wrong settings on the Flextight.
Whether that was on purpose or not is interesting, but that doesn't change the fact that the test is completely botched and useless. So let's stop talking about it.
At best, it shows a lack of knowledge/ experience about how to run the machine well - at worst, outright malfeasance.
"https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...on-via-nick-carver.172770/page-4#post-2253293"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.
The Flextight scan is just way too contrasty. Even though you can see the that there is extra detail, it's very hard to bring forward because there simply isn't the tonality.
Did the author bork it on purpose?
No "bork"... simply he used the curve he liked, both the Epson and the Flextight have exceding DR to deal with negative film, there is no debate about that, also both are IT8 calibrated machines so same color.
The question is that with both scanners an skilled operator will do the same excellent job for 10x prints, with some slight nuances beyond 10x. But beyond 10x film capture usually fails itself.
But the truth is that for MF at 10x enlargement the Epson and the Flextight X5 delivers exactly the same result:
No "bork"... simply he used the curve he liked, both the Epson and the Flextight have exceding DR to deal with negative film, there is no debate about that, also both are IT8 calibrated machines so same color.
The question is that with both scanners an skilled operator will do the same excellent job for 10x prints, with some slight nuances beyond 10x. But beyond 10x film capture usually fails itself.
The tonality is the same between the two shots
Your lack of knowledge or experience
Again, your lack of knowledge or experience
Evidence 1
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...on-via-nick-carver.172770/page-8#post-2255081
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...on-via-nick-carver.172770/page-7#post-2255045
Evidence 2
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...on-via-nick-carver.172770/page-6#post-2254109
Evidence 3
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...on-via-nick-carver.172770/page-5#post-2253761
Evidence 4
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...on-via-nick-carver.172770/page-4#post-2253104
Evidence 5
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...on-via-nick-carver.172770/page-8#post-2255078
Facts. One has to lie a lot to discredit those fair evidences.
More Sealioning. If you had real, useful, new evidence, you'd show it. Instead you repetitively link to discredited or easily distorted results. Why don't you show some of the low contrast areas from that (out of date) comparative scanner test? It's because it tells the horrid truth about the Epson and your abilities, isn't it?
You have no response to actual real-world results because you cannot easily distort them to your agenda.
I'm one of those able to get excellent results with the Epson that please me a lot. In special I made a moster lightjet print of this image, the bell shows like if it was in a 6m high print...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/32535835184/
Well you've shown us how badly your Epson is rendering the grain of HP5+. Compare to the examples I posted earlier. A high end flatbed, CMOS pixel shift or drum scan should be easily able to render the granularity much better than the example you give. Your example looks like a bad up-res of a 1200-1500ppi scan.
A 8x10" (xtol) enlarged to 2m don't show grain (weren't you aware ?)
The print looks like the size you see in the monitor, but much sharper (because of monitor resolution):
View attachment 240723
You might get an OK 20x24" from that file. But at 2m across you'll definitely see all the flaws in your scan very clearly. Especially the poor detail rendering and grain weirdness. If you're not, it's because you have no good comparators to check against.
Some of these posts crack me up. If you make a photo and people are focusing on your scan technique, you made a bad photo.
For those who think Mr. Carver prepared a bad test, they should post their own test on YouTube and try to get 50,000 people to watch it. I'm glad people take the (considerable) time to produce these free videos for our entertainment. It ain't easy.
If you have put in the effort to take a great photo, and resolution and detail is on your mind, then naturally that's what you want.
Resolution has for some reason become kind of a slightly dirty word. Something cheap. Kind of something you are not to be entirely proud of talking about or mentioning,
The fact that the Epson defenders are desperately yelping about (empty) megapixels and ignoring the MTF results (which define the limitations of their files far more so than the resolution test slides they get themselves worked up into a fetishistic lather over) tells you that they lack basic aesthetic understanding of the clear differences in the end results. And then there's the problem with excessive sharpening acting to reduce the information capacity of a file by raising noise to the point it obscures fine detail.
Again, your lack of knowledge or experience
This is not about the Flextight.Then we may talk about hype, and the irritating fact that an amateur with an Epson can deliver those matching results.
Though they are still orders of magnitude better overall than the Epsons.
for the same money as an Epson or free if you happen to have DSLR, and a copystand/enlarger.
The Creo Scitex Eversmart Supreme resolves 5700 DPI, https://www.largeformatphotography....rum-Scanners&p=1478451&viewfull=1#post1478451
Contrary to the Flextight it delivers the same performance for sheets as it automaticly stitches crops. Well, this is twice the Effective DPI of the Epson !!!!! Not orders of magnitude but yes... twice the linear resolution and x4 more efective pixels.
but... the Epson matched the same result... do you know why ?
The Supreme is like a Ferrari in a traffic jam, many pixels but limiting factor is image quality in the negative.
Use TMX if you want, in practice film capture won't record much beyond 50Cycles/mm and at that frequency detail is usually of very low quality. It is true that TMX can record 200lp/mm in a lab shot, but in real photography you don't have microtextures with 10 stops contrast to get that yield.
Contrary to lenses film MTF depends on contrast on exposure, and practical pictorial situations have textures at relatively low contrast that yield a way lower performance that (amazingly) matches near exactly the V700 performance.
If the higher resolving power lens of the Epson covered 60mm instead 149.9mm then the V700 performance would be 7250dpi effective (2900*150/60) but Epson preferred to place four 35mm film strips or two 120 strips in the holder, and also relaxing focus accuracy requirements.
Why more resolution if photofilm is limiting IQ anyway?
Well... it can be useful to depict better grain structure of classic cubic films, but this is a double-edged weapon: some wants diffuser enlargers and some wants condenser enlargers, so not resolving well grain is worse or better depending on our taste.
In practice the Epson resolves what film can record, for this reason in that side by side...
View attachment 240804
...magnificient Creos and the Scanmate drum are not able to show an enhacement over the Epson, much better scanners than the Epson but the Epson is able to take almost all that's in the medium.
Specially those that we shot MF we are fortunate to have the Epsons, we have a relatively cheap machine new, with warranty and relatively cheap official service, LED illumination, perfect conversions, Silverfast bundled, ANR holders, infrarred ICE for dust and scratches, drivers for modern computers...
...it makes from 35mm to 8x10" ...lightweight and small
Sure a Professional scanning all day long (if it exists today) wants another machine, but at home the Epson allows Pro quality scans without sending negatives around, single drawback is that it does not resolve well grain structure of classic films for prints beyond 10x, showing a softer structure, but for what's the captured image it works perfect.
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?