They (Plustek) claim 5300 true resolution (ie, the resolving power of the lens/sensor/motor combination), but this may only be gained if you choose the highest stepping resolution (10600 - that is, the finest incremental movement of the motor). I can't say for sure, since I don't have one and at current prices am unlikely to get one for a while, sadly.
Are you sure? I'm not trying to argue I just doubt it would be double what they claim.
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Hmm, I'll have to take your word on it, my Epson v750 maxes at 3200 for most fine grained films
Yes, and you need to scan higher to get that resolution, right? But when scanning at 6400, the extra pixels aren't interpolated, they're just, well, blur; rubbish pixels, if you like. The limiting factor is the lens, and maybe the glass platen, in combination with the problems in obtaining ideal focus.
3200 is pretty good for the V750, by the way.
Plustek seems to have filled the niche vacated by the Coolscan 9000 with a less capable unit at the same price point. That's a missed opportunity; I would even have paid more for a better unit, but I don't expect I will buy one of these Plusteks.
Should have made it 4x5 compatible
Why have two scanners for minutely more DPI (if you get a good one) lol.
Alas...
Wish I could see the difference on one of my own images...
I'm just surprised with all this technology we still can't get a good scan, it should be simple at this point, heck my iPhone camera is probably better than the one in these things, I don't get it... Lol
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with you that the Epson v750 (which I also use) maxes out optically at about 3200 ppi. I have worked hard to dial mine in focus-wise with a betterscanning holder, and I also wet mount (I don't see a huge difference with wet mounting, but it does have subtle improvement).
Regarding density - no scanner does 4.8 or 4.2, and I doubt any actually achieve 4.0. That said, given the evaluation procedure scan-dig did, I don't trust their assessment of 3.2.
Yes I assume you are tongue in cheek regarding the iphone.
Regarding my previous post, Stone, in fact I was serious that scanning at the minimum stepping motor increment is generally the way to assure getting the maximum resolution. Yes, that step will exceed the optical resolution, but is is precisely that procedure Plustek said they used to determine the 5300 ppi resolution. If the Scan-dig site did not run their test at that minimum step, they could not expect to achieve the same results as Plustek. The Plustek is not interpolating at the 5300 setting. It is my understanding that it is interpolating one dimension at 10600. But since the lens resolution has been exceeded at 10600, it is effectively duplicating pixels at that resolution in both dimensions. But if it is stepping at the 5300 setting, it is probably missing image data it can actually resolve.
I agree with you that the Epson v750 (which I also use) maxes out optically at about 3200 ppi. I have worked hard to dial mine in focus-wise with a betterscanning holder, and I also wet mount (I don't see a huge difference with wet mounting, but it does have subtle improvement).
Regarding density - no scanner does 4.8 or 4.2, and I doubt any actually achieve 4.0. That said, given the evaluation procedure scan-dig did, I don't trust their assessment of 3.2.
Surely you are joking about making it capable of 4x5. For most uses, the Epson is perfectly fine for 4x5 scanning, unless you are making billboards. On the other hand, a high quality drum scan of 4x5, even at the same resolution, by a skilled operator, can't be beat.
I was only half kidding about the iPhone images, however it should be understood that the new iPhone 5s camera and the lens elements that are contained within it are actually really really high-quality and precision made. Just very small.
Based on how variable the lenses in the scanners are, Visa V getting a good scanner or a bad scanner sometimes, it seems like the iPhone lenses and camera are actually more precise without any variation in quality from phone to phone. Trust me I hate to admit it because I don't want it to be so ... but it's true the iPhone camera is actually pretty decent.
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Well... yes, they are decent, if you are targeting a low resolution final output medium, like the web. An Epson v750 scanning a 35mm negative at 3200 ppi creates a 13 megapixel image, with 16 bits per channel, uncompressed lossless output. The iPhone 5s camera is an 8 megapixel camera, with 8 bits per channel, jpeg (lossy) output. Neither is great for much beyond the web and small prints, but clearly the Epson is technically superior.
A better scanner for 35mm is a Nikon D800e with a high quality lens. That would give you a 36 megapixel, 14 bit-per-channel image, lossless. And it would be faster than using the Epson. I sometimes do this for 35mm, but usually go with the Epson for other reasons, including being able to batch scan unattended using Silverfast. [Note: The resulting D800 image is not a true 36 megapixel scan due to the interpolation resulting from Bayer filtering. It is actually about 1/4 of the true resolution, but the interpolation algorithms are sufficiently good that you may not be able to detect the difference. But it is a reason to use a true scanner rather than a Bayer filtered camera. (The iPhone also uses a Bayer filter, so it is not actually a true 8 megapixel camera either.) The Epson is true pixels, reading each color at each pixel location, so its resolution is actual.]
Regarding scanners and quality - there is no such thing as a scanner that doesn't depend on operator skill. Any scanner will produce a bad scan if you just take defaults and don't understand the fine points of operation (including proper focusing, either manually or using auto focus, cleaning, mounting, etc.). The more sophisticated (ie, high resolution) the scanner, the more important it becomes that the operator develops skill with the device. It is also important to fully understand the relationship between scanning and follow-on post processing. Rarely is it ever the right choice for the scan itself to be the final product. Post processing is a critical element.
I've spent many hours dialing in my personal technique and getting flat, focused scans just with a simple Epson v750. With more sophisticated scanners, as much or even more care is required to get exceptional scans, which provide quality input for final post processing.
(Edited to add the Bayer filtering factor.)
You obviously know a lot more on the techy side of digital imagery, I've never understood the whole channel / bits thing. However the 8mp camera can output RAW files with a camera app so not sure how much improvement that makes, "645 Pro Mk II" is the name of the best app I can find reviews on but I don't want to purchase it till they get the iOS7 bugs out.
Anyway I am curios, perhaps I'll take two images one on film and one on digital of the same scenes and see how they compare.
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Thousands of webpages have been dedicated to that comparison... There are so many variables involved that in my opinion it isn't worth it.
Regarding channels and bits: a digital image is comprised of three channels: the red channel, green channel, and blue channel. Each pixel of the image has a red component, a green component, and a blue component. The number of "bits" used to represent a color determines how finely the color can vary. With 8 bits per channel, a single color can have 256 variations. (So you can get 256 shades of red in your image). With 16 bits per channel, a single color can have 65536 shades. That's a huge difference. But that difference really becomes important when you are editing your image during post processing, such as in Lightroom or Photoshop.
With images that are only 8 bits per channel, you will quickly get posterization (banding) as you adjust tones. With 16 bits per channel, you have more flexibility.
The second problem is with jpeg (compressed, lossy) images, versus raw (lossless) images. When editing the jpeg images during post processing, the smudges and such introduced by jpeg compression will be amplified, and frequently very noticeable in the final result. That is avoided with raw (lossless) images. Raw images give you everything the sensor saw. Jpegs are an interpreted image, and not recommended to be edited further.
To be accomplished with scanning, it is very important to understand these concepts. Your images will appreciate it!
artobest, You consider the Epson OEM holders irrelevant because:
- More Epson users are using it then the OEM holders?
- Or that it provides a verifiable difference?
Your question doesn't make sense? You mean more people are using the OEM holders than the betterscanning ones?
I think they are irrelevant because they are useless and don't produce an even enough film plane to even bother using them, in particular 120, or even slightly curly 35mm, but the 4x5 holders are ok.
The betterscanning ones are way better.
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?