Just how good is my Epson v750?

[emtor]

Where you are today depends on were you're coming from,-and as far as I'm concerned, I came from a world where slides used to be tack sharp provided things were in focus at the moment of capture.
So, can you imagine how disappointed I was when I saw the very first raw-file appear on the screen of my lap-top after using my Nikon D-50 (dslr) for the first time? Being a digital newbie I knew nothing about digital sharpening, and even though I got wiser, DSLR's and image sensors equipped with moire-filters have always irritated me . . . which is why I went back to medium format analog. I knew that going down the analog path also meant aquiring a decent scanner, so I ended up with the Epson v750.
My first scan was just as disappointing as the raw file from the Nikon D-50.
It was even more unsharp and required loads of sharpening before appearing as something I could barely call a sharp image.
First step was throwing away the 120-film holder that came with the scanner, and place the film between two sheets of glass. Results were a bit better, but still not what I would call sharp. Then I decided to find the focusing sweet spot, and with my v750 it seems to be 3 millimeters above the glass plate. I'm not expecting the v750 or any other scanner to perform miracles, but I did have one requirement when going hybrid: -That the scanned frames would be as sharp or hopefully even sharper than the unsharpened raw files from my Nikon D-50.

I've made two images side by side for comparision, and since I'm mostly putting my pics out on the web they're not at 100% resolution . . . sorry folks,-no pixel peeping. The image was shot with a Rolleicord V loaded with Velvia 50, dry scanned at 3200 dpi. To the left is the image straight from the scanner,-no sharpening. To the right is the image sharpened with Unsharp Mask, 125%, 0.3 pixels and levels=0.
What I did notice, was that I usually needed to crank the controls up much further when sharpening the raw files from my Nikon D-50 in order to get a decent result. You may also notice that the difference in appearance between the unsharpened and sharpened image isn't all that big, which tells me the Epson v750 is able to produce quite sharp images, as sharp or even better than my Nikon D-50 . . . which was what I was hoping for . . .

Dead Link Removed

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I'm not expecting the v750 or any other scanner to perform miracles, but I did have one requirement when going hybrid: -That the scanned frames would be as sharp or hopefully even sharper than the unsharpened raw files from my Nikon D-50.

I've made two images side by side for comparision, and since I'm mostly putting my pics out on the web they're not at 100% resolution . . . sorry folks,-no pixel peeping.

...

What I did notice, was that I usually needed to crank the controls up much further when sharpening the raw files from my Nikon D-50 in order to get a decent result. You may also notice that the difference in appearance between the unsharpened and sharpened image isn't all that big, which tells me the Epson v750 is able to produce quite sharp images, as sharp or even better than my Nikon D-50 . . . which was what I was hoping for . . .

glad you got a good result. I don't know how it looks on your monitor but that image is very dark on mine, and the histogram is pushed very much towards the dark end. Perhaps you could set the levels at the upper end a little more down, perhaps the image was simply underexposed to a point where it could not be scanned better?

If you have the time it may be nice to see what the differences between the two systems (the D-50 and the film).

 

[glhs116]

You can get sharp pictures from consumer flatbeds (and the 750 is probably the best of these) but sharp images straight from the scanner with no sharpening needed are, I'm afraid, the domain of dedicated film scanners. Of these, you would probably be looking at a Coolscan 9000 for medium format. The next step up is Flextight at 10x the price for probably less than 2x quality improvement and no ICE.

I, too, hate unsharp images. Most of my pics are scanned with my 9000 and I use very little to no sharpening. You can also click through to full size. I usually do slide film at 4000dpi and negative at 2000dpi.

My latest uploads are from a compact 35mm. Probably best to look at some images from my Mamiya for a better comparison. Try this:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=M645&w=46575101@N00&s=int

All of that said, some folks are very good at sharpening up those soft flatbed scans. That's not for me though, and I suspect not for you.

 

[emtor]

The image is very dark on my monitor also, but adjusting exposure in Silverfast or levels or curves in PS brightens the image without ruining it, so the slide is probably not underexposed "beyond repair".

The Nikon D-50 was donated to someone, but I do own a Nikon D3000.
A comparision would be very interesting indeed.
The felt need for sharpening the scans compared to the Nikon D-50 is of course very subjective, and a test is therefore required, but so far I'm very satisfied with the abilities of the v750. I've had this scanner since the month of august and is just beginning to learn how to use it.

 

[emtor]

You can get sharp pictures from consumer flatbeds (and the 750 is probably the best of these) but sharp images straight from the scanner with no sharpening needed are, I'm afraid, the domain of dedicated film scanners. QUOTE]

A nikon scanner would be nice, but they are expensive, and a v750 is a decent alternative since I only shoot medium format.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

The image is very dark on my monitor also, but adjusting exposure in Silverfast or levels or curves in PS brightens the image without ruining it, so the slide is probably not underexposed "beyond repair".

may I ask, have you used regular vanila Epson scan?

when you preview the image, what sort of histogram do you see?

like this?

that is an example from a black and white negative

The Nikon D-50 was donated to someone, but I do own a Nikon D3000.
A comparision would be very interesting indeed.

indeed ... I've found it useful. I normally put a digital camera in place as my light meter and take a shot more or less with the lenses in the same location (often the 4x5 is on the tripod and the digital right beside it hand held).

It can be very informative, rather like a spotmeter and a scene sketch (with spot readings noted) only faster ;-)

The felt need for sharpening the scans compared to the Nikon D-50 is of course very subjective, and a test is therefore required, but so far I'm very satisfied with the abilities of the v750. I've had this scanner since the month of august and is just beginning to learn how to use it.

have you looked at Bruce Frasers thoughts on Multipass sharpening?

 

[glhs116]

have you looked at Bruce Frasers thoughts on Multipass sharpening?

My goodness! What a lot to learn I have. Some amazing examples!

 

[emtor]

Hi
may I ask, have you used regular vanila Epson scan?
when you preview the image, what sort of histogram do you see?
like this?
QUOTE]

I use both Epson scan and Silverfast Ai Studio, and yes, I get a histogram like the one you posted in Epson scan, and three histograms (one for each color channel) in Silverfast. I scanned the image of the flowers again today, and used the histogram to get a much more correctly exposed image.
As far as Epson scan/Silverfast is concerned, I find them both very usable. What counts more is a decent slide/neg to begin with.

Before I bought my Gossen Bisix exposure meter I used my Nikon D-3000 as an exposure meter, and in fact what you say is true; -a DSLR is a very competent exposure meter with a built in histogram viewing ability and pre-view functionality.

I've read the sharpening article, and it is very interesting. I also stumbled across another sharpening tutorial Dead Link Removed

 

[lcooper]

I recently shot some of my best 4x5 Velvia negs in terms of exposure and sharpness and scanned them on my V750 using the Betterscience fluid mount. The images were printed 16x22 on a 3800 using Ilford Gold Fibre. They looked great, and required only minimal sharpening. I would like to have a good drum scan made of one of the negs just to compare, but at the size I printed, I don't know the difference would be worth the cost. I could be wrong. To repeat some of the advice given:
A sharp negative helps
Fluid mounting helps
Find the best height on the scanner for the negative to sit

 

[emtor]

I'm in the process of making a comparision between the sharpness of a DSLR raw-file and a scan from the Epson v750 since I recall that the raw files from my Nikon D-50 were much softer than a good scan from my v750. The only problem is I donatet my Nikon D-50 to someone so its no longer available. I do own a Nikon D-3000, but there's something fishy about the D-3000. With the D-50 you could set the sharpness/contrast/saturation etc. for the JPG-conversion without affecting the raw files. The raw files would come out unsharpened independently of the menu settings. Not so with the D-3000. Here the raw files get sharpened etc. according to how you apply settings in the menu. To make matters even worse, I suspect the D-3000 firmware to actually sharpen and adding quite a bit of contrast and saturation even if the settings are set to zero. This makes a comparision more or less meaningless.

 

[Loris Medici]

emtor,

I think it's best to compare those two at a constant print size - from inkjet, manipulating each file independently, up to their full potential. For instance, if you're going to scan 35mm film, a target print size of 8x12" would be reasonable. (That makes 8.5x enlargement, roughly...) I'd bet you'll find the (this) scanner falls short...

BTW, an important point: Scanning and raw processing require different work-flows; if you use the same work-flow for each, the comparison will be meaningless - definitely...

Regards,
Loris.

EDIT: I just noticed you use MF film. Then things may change in favor of your [MF film/lens/camera + V750 scanner] system. In any case, I wouldn't recommend enlargement factors over 7-8x - that's beyond the (practical) reach of V750, in my book...

 

[pellicle]

Hi

To make matters even worse, I suspect the D-3000 firmware to actually sharpen and adding quite a bit of contrast and saturation even if the settings are set to zero. This makes a comparision more or less meaningless.

to the best of my knowledge this is not the case. Metadata recorded along with the RAW can be used by software when converting the RAW or not. I can't imagine how an algorithm would apply the matrix of sharpening to the array of pixels to a yet de-mosaic-ed image but it is always possible.

However if you sharpen something then sharpen it again you will get to see what over sharpened looks like. I think from there you can get a feel of "if your D-3000 sharpens in camera" on the RAW.

to ensure that no metadata is being used download and run DCRAW to do your conversion, is a command line utility and it will produce a plain linear TIFF from your RAW file if you wish it to.

It is available for mac or pc platform.

just get a compiled exe, perhaps from Pukkitas darkroom corner

http://www.insflug.org/raw/

its free too

PS: http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/dcraw/index_en.htm seems a good tutorial

 

[emtor]

I have no knowledge on how firmware does things, but raw-files from the D-3000 look very vivid, saturated and sharp compared with the D-50 even when all the camera menu settings are zeroed. One of the problems is that PS's raw-converter refuses to reckognize the raw files from the D-3000 even after downloading the latest update. This is unfortunate since it was PS I used to convert raw-files from the D-50.
I'm currently using Raw Therapy or Nikon View NX to convert D-3000 raw-files, but I will try DCRAW and see if the conversion looks different.

 

[donbga]

I'm currently using Raw Therapy

Raw Therapy uses dcraw as it's RAW processing engine.

Upon reflection though you may prefer to run dcraw from the command line to minimize the effect of software rendering of the RAW file though I'm not convinced that dcraw passes data to a Tif file unscathed or unaffected. I think proprietary file conversions always are tainted by non-OEM converters. Such is life.

Don