Help! Plustek 35mm vs Epson 6x6 v600 resolution

[sixby45]

Hi everyone,

I have a question I haven't seen addressed really - I shoot 6x6 in medium format but have been more and more impressed by my quick scans of a lovely fine frain 35mm film like ektar 100 - would a plustek opticfilm dedicated scanner produce simlar results to my medium format scans with the Epson v600 or v550? I'm wondering if I'm fighting too much of a form factor battle when I could get similar results from 35mm and a dedicated scanner.

Thanks!

 

[shutterfinger]

A dedicated film scanner will do better than a flatbed especially on 35mm film.

 

[Alan Johnson]

These film scanner tests for real resolution (not nominal) gave similar results to tests of 2 scanners that I did so I think they are pretty reliable:
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html
I divide up the quoted real dpi by the size of print required to see if it will give an acceptable print resolution.

 

[shutterfinger]

I have a Plustek 7600i, Epson V500 and V700.
Full frame scan on the 7600i in Vuscan, 7200 dpi, 48bit RGB, saved as tiff, reduced in PS CS5.1, bicubic sharper in steps, then mode changed to 8 bits for jpeg.

7600i crop converted to 8 bit for jpeg, no other adjustments

Epson V500 scan at optical limit of 6400 dpi crop converted to 8 bit for jpeg, no other adjustments

I scan at manufacturers stated optical limit for critical work.
The V500, V550, V600 are virtually the same scanner with different transparency area the only major difference.
The V700 will not be any better.
Vuescan was used for all scans in this comparison.

 

[sixby45]

Hi Shutterfinger - thanks for these above - question for clarification - is that a 35mm scan or medium format scan from the v600? My question is comapring the two would I be better off with the dedicated film scan - I know this is true for 35mm but what about 120 on a flat bed vs 35mm on a dedicated rig? Thanks!

 

[shutterfinger]

Kodak Ektapress exposed in a Nikon F4s with a 35-135 f3.5-f4.5 in front of an extension tube, (35mm) same negative on both the V500 and 7600i. I don't have a 35mm and 120 negative of the same subject to compare.
I do not own a 120 dedicated scanner.
I do not know what the gain from a dedicated 120 will be.

 

[Les Sarile]

There are many factors that are involved in your question. I happen to have an example but it is using Kodak 100UC in 35mm and 6X7 MF - predecessor to Ektar 100, using Epson V700, Coolscan 5000 and 9000.

First of the film area difference between 6X7MF and 35mm - a little more than 2X. I chose a wall map as it has a lot of low contrast detail.

Here are 100% crops of these films saved out at 90% JPEG so there would be no noticeable artifacting interfering with the detail even past 300% magnification.

35mm Kodak 100UC scanned with Coolscan 5000

6X7 Kodak 100UC scanned with Epson V700 @ 6400

Ignoring the color differences, clearly there is a substantial difference in detail between the two.

The above examples addresses your original question, below is the same 6X7 MF Kodak 100UC scanned with a Coolscan 9000.

All of these are straight out of the scanner with no post work. You can apply your own if you want to see how much work can be added to the Epson scan to enhance it's appearance of sharpness to look more like that of the Coolscan 9000.

Interestingly, I don't see a huge advantage in detail by the 9000 over the V700 in this test. However, when using a high contrast target and higher resolving film - in this case Fuji Velvia, it is clear to see just how much detail the Coolscans have over the V700.

Fuji Velvia 50 using Coolscan 5000

Same frame of Fuji Velvia 50 with Epson V700

So given the film type and target - of course ideal shooting conditions using great lens, tripod, etc., the Coolscan can clearly extract more detail if the detail is captured on the film.

 

[shutterfinger]

Les, are the ISO 12333 test charts purchased or home printed?
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/res-chart.html

 

[Les Sarile]

Les, are the ISO 12333 test charts purchased or home printed?
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/res-chart.html

I downloaded it from that link you provided and printed them on 11 X 17 @ 1200dpi arranged 4 high and 4 wide. Optimum shooting conditions.

 

[shutterfinger]

Thank you.

 

[jtk]

From experience, you will see more detail resolution from any flatbed if you use any of the several versions of film holders from Betterscanning.com. The adjustable focus version is especially good if you put in the effort. With any of them you will gain Vs 35mm and any of the Nikon scanners with any of the scanning applications.

 

[sixby45]

Thank you everyone! The examples are great! Much appreciated and I'll be sticking to the larger film formats

 

[faberryman]

From experience, you will see more detail resolution from any flatbed if you use any of the several versions of film holders from Betterscanning.com. The adjustable focus version is especially good if you put in the effort. With any of them you will gain Vs 35mm and any of the Nikon scanners with any of the scanning applications.

The betterscanning holders will allow you to achieve best focus with a flatbed scanner. The do nothing to improve resolution of the scanner itself.

 

[jtk]

The betterscanning holders will allow you to achieve best focus with a flatbed scanner. The do nothing to improve resolution of the scanner itself.

I suspect most are looking for better results, not some mystic concern for "scanner itself"

 

[faberryman]

I suspect most are looking for better results, not some mystic concern for "scanner itself"

I agree. That's why if you wanted better results you would choose a film scanner over a flatbed scanner with third party holders.

 

[jtk]

I agree. That's why if you wanted better results you would choose a film scanner over a flatbed scanner with third party holders.

That's why I use a Nikon V for 35mm and a Betterscanning/Epson (or whatever/macro over lightbox) for everything else.

 

[jtk]

From experience, you will see more detail resolution from any flatbed if you use any of the several versions of film holders from Betterscanning.com. The adjustable focus version is especially good if you put in the effort. With any of them you will gain Vs 35mm and any of the Nikon scanners with any of the scanning applications.

I didn't make myself clear..oops. The Betterscanning holders won't allow 35mm to produce results rivaling Nikon however in my experience they can lead to prints rivaling 120 in medium size optical enlargement (e.g. 16X16).