How far off is it?

I'm pondering buying the Epson Perfection V750-M PRO scanner. With my budget this really is stretching it thin and I may end up not affording that either.
What I'd like to know is what differences I can expect from a professional scan from an X/Y scanner, or a drum scanner?

I have had some slides and c-41 print film scanned professionally to the resolution where grain is resolved and beyond. I'm very impressed how that resolution and lens quality makes for a sharp print/view. 6400 resolution should resolve grain, but will film holders, lens quality, software, etc, make a huge difference? I understand the adage of getting what you pay for, but how big is the difference and what is the main area of difference, really?

Really thankful for your insight and help!

- Thomas

Thomas, this review from the UK compares it to a nikon 9000 which is by all reports top notch medium format scanner. I've seen scans from a 9000 and they are at least equivalent if not better than my old Precision II Flextight.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_5.htm
Ike

Thanks Ike. I appears that for things such as alt process, the V750 would be more than adequate. Time to save up...
- Thomas

The v700 would probably be fine. The actual resolution that you can get isn't that much different, still somewhere in the real world of 2400ppi. If you want better results work hard at getting the focus set correctly, and for one step farther go with a wet mount adapter from Scan Science http://www.scanscience.com/index.html

ike said:

Thomas, this review from the UK compares it to a nikon 9000 which is by all reports top notch medium format scanner. I've seen scans from a 9000 and they are at least equivalent if not better than my old Precision II Flextight.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_5.htm
Ike

Click to expand...

IM(not so)HO
The review is not very good. Not that the Epson isn't good, but the scans they made don't really test the equipment, the differences between the scanners is larger than they are stating (at least by virtue of the images they presented) and the way they applied USM borders on the incompetent.

Hi Greg. Thanks for the information. I'd like to know a few things since I'm a novice to scanning.
1. How do you measure the 2400ppi? I thought the scanner was rated at 6400.
2. How do you set the focus correctly? If that's a redundant question where the answer will be obvious after I receive the scanner, then please forgive me.
I have a lot to learn about scanning and digital technique since I've been living in the dark since I started my photo endeavor.
- Thomas

I can't speak to what exactly Greg may have meant, but the stated samples and what the scanner can actually resolve is what will lower the value from 6.4k to 2.4k. I have used many scanners. At one time a good scanner came with a calibration utility that reset the colour/grey scale and the focus. Scanners with moving parts fall out of focus and scanners with lamps need to be re profiled from time to time so as to reproduce red as red, etc... This is to say that all scanners need to have these things done from time to time.

This has been a weak point of Epson's, but they may have fixed it.

Thomas, one thought is to call West Photo, I know they have one or two Epson scanners setup in the back along w/ a new Imacon. If they have the V750 you could try it on one of your negs.
Ike

Most flatbed scanners have a resolution limit at around 2.400 ppi, no matter what the ads say. Higher resolutions will only have one effect: blow up the file size. I had a flatbed for several months but it almost drove me insane because I needed high resolutions. So I invested into a used Nikon Coolscan 9000 which almost ruined me, but today I have forgotten the hole in my pockets and enjoy hi res images.

One word of caution though: I'm making a living on large format prints, so if you just want to scan some images up to 40x60 centimeters, a flatbed scanner should do the trick. Or if your negs or slides are larger than 6x9 the Nikon can't handle them and you definitely need a flatbed scanner. Or an Imacon with the price tag of an average car in the showroom.

The brains on the Yahoo Epson scanner group did the testing, and it was what stopped me from buying a v750. All the previous Epson flatbeds have claimed a much higher resolution than they can actually produce. The good news about the v750 is that it can finally hit the 2400ppi mark.

$1000 will buy you a decent used drum scanner, or a new Nikon film scanner. Bith of these would be better unless you need one scanner that can do film and reflective materials, or you have 4x5 or larger films to scan. Most any drum scanner will still do up to 8x10 in both reflective and transmissive media.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I'm pondering buying the Epson Perfection V750-M PRO scanner. With my budget this really is stretching it thin and I may end up not affording that either.
What I'd like to know is what differences I can expect from a professional scan from an X/Y scanner, or a drum scanner?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I've used that scanner and unimpressive is the kindest thing I can say. I'll stop there as I don't want to insult anyone's equipment - that would be rude and I don't want to be rude, sincerely. However, there is no comparison between that scanner and a professional drum scan - any drum scan. I would suggest the real (optical) resolution is below 2000, likely down near 1000-1500.

I have a good scanner, an Aztek Premier, way beyond your budget. I only got it as I started a business as a service bureau and leases in a business environment are easy to get (and sometimes hard to pay for). It does 8,000 dpi, sharp as a razor, edge to edge. (And 8,000 dpi optical as well.)

Almost every drum scanner out there is far beyond any of the flatbeds except one or two. The Epson wouldn't be included in this bunch. There are many, such as my first one, a Howtek 4500, that can resolve to 4,000 dpi. They cost around 10K or less, after you buy everything you need, software, etc. On a 4x5 piece of film, that's 500dpi at 40 inches. And sharp. I do add sharpening the the image - at a radius of .2. Low noise, the PMT gets everything on the film. Drum scanners are a joy to use. And they deliver.

Some of that depends on the operator, how much of a scan you get, etc. My business model is to give everyone everything on the film - large scans instead of doling out a little here and there.

I hope this helps you.

Lenny

eiger@eigerstudios.com
www.eigerstudios.com

Hi Lenny,
it's always better to know than to live blindfolded. On the other hand it sucks that I will never be able to afford spending the kind of money you're suggesting. Not even close.
On the other hand, I have gotten by with a $150 camera for four years, with a lens that would probably be sub-par if measured in resolution only. So maybe there is hope for someone like me, on a shoe-string budget, to practice hybrid photography on a decent level after all.
Maybe I should have mentioned that I have never printed anything larger than 10" square, never will either. If a miracle happened and someone commissioned me to make them a mural, then I'd probably plunk down the cash and have a drum scan made.
With that print size in mind, in your opinion, is there hope for the starving artist?
- Thomas

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Hi Lenny,
Maybe I should have mentioned that I have never printed anything larger than 10" square, never will either. If a miracle happened and someone commissioned me to make them a mural, then I'd probably plunk down the cash and have a drum scan made.
With that print size in mind, in your opinion, is there hope for the starving artist?
- Thomas

Click to expand...

There is lots of hope. If you are going to stay that small, I think I might save my money and buy a digital camera instead of a scanner. You will save a lot more in the long run -no film costs or developing, etc. You can visit a friend with a scanner for the few things you would scan from one's portfolio.

There are many digital cameras that can generate enough pixels to do 360-400 dpi at 10 inches.

But, to answer your question, if you want to scan film and print, there is plenty of information that any scanner will make for that size. I don't think a 700 or 750 will be any better than a small scanner. The critical part of scanning is always when you need to go to 16x20 or more...

Sounds good.

Some day I will probably go with a digital SLR, but my true love is film / darkroom photography and printing so it would be a compliment to my line-up of film cameras. The scanning issue has arisen since I had negs damaged on a recent photo trip, and I embarked on a mission to save those negs by scanning them, and burning new negs with laser, so that I can still print in the darkroom.
The added benefit of having high resolution, high quality scans made was to be able to print platinum from digital negs. I thought it was an intriguing bandwagon that I just might jump on. I've seen how beautiful the platinum prints Ike have pulled off from digital negs are, and that's where the inspiration really set in. While visiting him I saw one of Bill Schwab's prints as well, and that was a stunner too.
The reason I'm looking at flatbed scanners is I shoot 4x5 too, and a one-stop-shop is the only solution I can defend in front of my family (since my income from print sales is yet to superseed that of the costs I incur).

Thank you for your thoughts on this. They have helped me a lot in deciding where I want to take this.

- Thomas

lenny said:

There is lots of hope. If you are going to stay that small, I think I might save my money and buy a digital camera instead of a scanner. You will save a lot more in the long run -no film costs or developing, etc. You can visit a friend with a scanner for the few things you would scan from one's portfolio.

There are many digital cameras that can generate enough pixels to do 360-400 dpi at 10 inches.

But, to answer your question, if you want to scan film and print, there is plenty of information that any scanner will make for that size. I don't think a 700 or 750 will be any better than a small scanner. The critical part of scanning is always when you need to go to 16x20 or more...

Click to expand...