resolution 2400 x 1200, interpolated 7200 x 7200 dpi, max density 3.4 D ??

[Lukas Werth]

I must display my ignorance:

resolution 2400 x 1200, interpolated 7200 x 7200 dpi, max density 3.4 D are the data given for a Heidelberg Linotype Saphir Ultra 2 scanner - I ave no experience interpreting these data. What can I expect? What will be the resolution of the scanned files, the maximum print size of, say, a scanned 6x7 negative?

How good is the density range?

Lukas

 

[Halka]

You can pretty much ignore the interpolated values. The 2400 x 1200 is the scanner's true resolution, from which the 2400 dpi value is probably the 'mechanical' resolution (how precise is the scanner's head at positioning itself) and 1200 dpi is the actual optical resolution.

If we divide 1200 by a standard print resolution of 300 dpi, we come out with a factor of four - this means that you could print your 6x7 negatives at sizes up to 24x28 cm.

These are all values 'on paper' though, so the real resolution may be lower.

The density range is average for a flatbed scanner.


Note that this scanner uses a SCSI connector to connect to the PC (does not work with USB like most modern scanners).

I've found a (German) review here, the images don't look at all bad; if it is cheap and you are sure you can hook it up to your PC and make it work, I'd go for it.

 

[L Gebhardt]

My guess is this won't be any better than the Epson 750's resolution. I suspect you will get about 1500 to 1800ppi out of it. You will probably be about to get a decent 4 to 5x enlargement out of it. The 3.4 max density is hard to say. Most manufacturers over inflate this value by using the theoretical max, and not an actual measurement. Most 4.2 scanners like the Epsons don't come close to the values specified for them. Since this looks like a conservative value, maybe it can reach this. Either way it's probably fine for negative scanning, but may not be great for dense transparencies like Velvia.

I wouldn't spend a large amount on this scanner until you have tested it, or found some decent reviews and are sure it will meet your needs.

 

[Lukas Werth]

Thank you both for the answers, this is helpful.

I have a follow-up question: what scanner would you recommend to scan pyro- and pyrocat HD negatives of up to 8x10" size, and enlarge them with a factor of at least five to six?

Lukas

 

[L Gebhardt]

If you want new the Epson 700 or 750 looks decent, but I haven't used those models. I have an older 4870 and it does OK for black and white negatives, including pyro stained ones. The 700 and 750 are supposed to be slightly better, and support 8x10.

My main scanner is a ScanMate 5000 drum scanner. I picked it up a few years ago for much less than the Epson, and it does a nicer job. If you can find one, and have tha space for it, I highly recommend you think about getting it.

You could also look for an Eversmart if you think you may go larger than 8x10. They are probably the best flatbed scanners out there.

 

[Lukas Werth]

Thank you for this answer.

One question first: the Epson v750 looks attractive, but user reviews say it gives problems with Windows 7. Is this true; or is there a sure fix?

I have some problems, because I live in Pakistan and am able to bring products I can't get here from Germany when I travel there. So carrying a huge drum scanner is out for me. And if I bring scanner, I must rely on it working over here. I can't just take it back to the vendor.

Lukas

 

[gmikol]

I use a V750 with Vuescan and Silverfast regularly on a Windows 7 machine. I don't think there are any problems. I can't say for sure about EpsonScan, but I think I've used it once or twice.

I am away from that scanner for a few days, but I can try it early next week if you don't hear from anyone else.

--Greg

 

[jd callow]

WRT Dmax scanners tend to use the mathematical max of the color gamut and traditionally photog's are more inclined to measure the physical density of the film. ten years ago I tested a epson expression 'pro', creo eversmart and a flextight II against a neg that had been tested on a densitometer. I don't recall the actual numbers for each scanner or the neg -- if memory serves me the film dmax was around 3.0 and none of the scanners could penetrate it. What I do remember is that epson failed horribly (noise build up was exceedingly bad and I believe it failed in the low 2.0s or worse) and that the flextight failed at higher dmax with far more grace (far less noise). The Creo may have been the overall winner or comperable to the Flextight, but the quality of the scan was inferior to the flextight.

The lesson here is that manufacturer Dmax is a throwaway number.

Additionally, the epson had a stated resolution similar to the Flextight (4.8k v. 5.2 or 5.6k) and the Creo was higher than both and unlike the Flextight was good across the scanning surface, but only the flextight appeared to actually resolve the stated resolution. Again, the Epson was not even close (if memory serves it was about 1/3 of the published number). I don't recall how close the Creo was, but I'm sure it was far better than 1/3 and was likely still higher than the flextight. The most compelling feature of the Creo was that it could batch scan a large number of negs (although it would take a very long time). I know many here will tell you how good the v700/750 is and I cannot argue against that from specific knowledge of the product, but I'd look for a used professional grade scanner first.

 

[Lukas Werth]

Could you name a few other professional grade scanners worthwhile looking for (I suppose Creo and Flextight are those), whose weight is such that I can take them on the aircraft with me?

Lukas

 

[jd callow]

Lukas, The only scanners that I know of that would offer proffessional level scanning and could be taken on an airplane would be 35mm film scanners like the Nikon Cools scan -- I've used their older versions and the 8000 (35mm-120 scanner) and would think that the "V" or 5000 would be the ones to look for.

 

[StoneNYC]

My guess is this won't be any better than the Epson 750's resolution. I suspect you will get about 1500 to 1800ppi out of it. You will probably be about to get a decent 4 to 5x enlargement out of it. The 3.4 max density is hard to say. Most manufacturers over inflate this value by using the theoretical max, and not an actual measurement. Most 4.2 scanners like the Epsons don't come close to the values specified for them. Since this looks like a conservative value, maybe it can reach this. Either way it's probably fine for negative scanning, but may not be great for dense transparencies like Velvia.

I wouldn't spend a large amount on this scanner until you have tested it, or found some decent reviews and are sure it will meet your needs.

Are you SURE about that? At 3200 dpi I can get crisp images.

Often the issue is that the film plane height isn't right and people don't get the crisp images the Epson is capable of. The 750v I mean.

I don't actually know when the interpolation starts but I can't imagine it's any lower than 4800dpi


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[L Gebhardt]

Stone, no I'm not sure of results on the V750 as I said in another post in this thread. I only have the 4870, but I have read many times that the V700 and V750 have only a small advantage over the 4870 in resolution. My 4870 resolves about 1800 to 2000ppi when the negative is in the sweet spot for focus.

But I was specifically saying that my guess is the Linotype Saphir Ultra 2 will not exceed the V750, since I know the Epson can resolve at least 1800 to 2000ppi, and the Saphir is only 1200x2400.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, no I'm not sure of results on the V750 as I said in another post in this thread. I only have the 4870, but I have read many times that the V700 and V750 have only a small advantage over the 4870 in resolution. My 4870 resolves about 1800 to 2000ppi when the negative is in the sweet spot for focus.

But I was specifically saying that my guess is the Linotype Saphir Ultra 2 will not exceed the V750, since I know the Epson can resolve at least 1800 to 2000ppi, and the Saphir is only 1200x2400.

Hmm, is there a way I can send a file example that can be determined by size? I really like to know if the file is interpolated, it's really crisp after being fine tuned and doesn't look to be extrapolated.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[L Gebhardt]

It won't be interpolated until you specify a resolution that's greater than the lowest dimension specified as the hardware resolution. I looked up the Epson V750 (Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner - Product Information - Epson America, Inc.) and it looks like 4800 x 9600 dpi is the native resolution. So if you go over 4800 dpi it will be partially interpolated. That doesn't mean it can resolve 4800 dpi, just that the software will not be averaging values to fill in the missing info. My guess is the scanner lens is the weak point and you reach the resolution limit before it starts interpolating.

Scan a few negatives with lots of fine details at different dpi values. See where the scanner stops resolving more detail. That will be the limit for the scanner and negative combination. Find a high power loupe and compare to the negative to see if the scanner is leaving info uncaptured. With your Mamiya 7 you should have many negatives that have more information than the scanner can resolve if you shoot on a fine grained film like TMax, Acros or Delta 100.

 

[StoneNYC]

It won't be interpolated until you specify a resolution that's greater than the lowest dimension specified as the hardware resolution. I looked up the Epson V750 (Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner - Product Information - Epson America, Inc.) and it looks like 4800 x 9600 dpi is the native resolution. So if you go over 4800 dpi it will be partially interpolated. That doesn't mean it can resolve 4800 dpi, just that the software will not be averaging values to fill in the missing info. My guess is the scanner lens is the weak point and you reach the resolution limit before it starts interpolating.

Scan a few negatives with lots of fine details at different dpi values. See where the scanner stops resolving more detail. That will be the limit for the scanner and negative combination. Find a high power loupe and compare to the negative to see if the scanner is leaving info uncaptured. With your Mamiya 7 you should have many negatives that have more information than the scanner can resolve if you shoot on a fine grained film like TMax, Acros or Delta 100.

Yes the scanner can't handle my negs since as you said I shoot with the Mamiya 7 with the 150mm, the 65mm, and most importantly the impossibly perfect 43mm

Good to know, and yes the lens is the fail point, that and it's shallow depth of field. I've been able to narrow it to 3200dpi with still crisp edges, but it took a long time and a lot of different techniques per film type (120,70mm,35mm etc) all take different methods to achieve crispness but I've done it

I can try 4800 I haven't in a while because I don't want to, those files would just be so massive, they are already 350mb each for the color and something like 60mb for the B&W ones...

Thanks for the confirmation and info.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Oh and yes I shoot those same films


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

OK, best I could do as I'm kinda busy....

The image, I haven't even cropped out the edges of the can yet......


The cropped area...


The scan at 3200 with Epson holder cropped 1:1 ...


The scan at 3200 with betterscanning holder and ANR glass cropped 1:1 ...


It's certainly not super great, this was Provia 100F, I seem to do a lot better with B&W film than color, but this is SUCH a tiny part of the frame, you could blow this up really big and not see any blur. I don't have technical understanding of film and scanning and all the tech side, but this looks really sharp even larger than 20x24.

Hope this is in some way helpful.

 

[L Gebhardt]

That's quite a difference between the two holders. It should be convincing to people that you can get significantly better results from the Epsons with a new holder and some time for adjustments.

Also, leaving the edges in the scan lets me see that you got the exposure right in the scan. It also looks like you are getting better shadow detail out of the V750 than I am on the 4870, but that's hard to say for sure without scanning the same piece of the film. But I have never been satisfied with transparency scans on the 4870, even for proofing.

 

[StoneNYC]

That's quite a difference between the two holders. It should be convincing to people that you can get significantly better results from the Epsons with a new holder and some time for adjustments.

Also, leaving the edges in the scan lets me see that you got the exposure right in the scan. It also looks like you are getting better shadow detail out of the V750 than I am on the 4870, but that's hard to say for sure without scanning the same piece of the film. But I have never been satisfied with transparency scans on the 4870, even for proofing.

I tried my best to leave them untouched, I believe the output file does a "for screen sharpening" but nothing of significance. But the clarity and sharpening can be increased both in scan and post scan, but I didn't do either. I'm also lazy so the betterscanning can also probably be tuned in MORE, I just don't have the patience to mess with it.

The V750 comes with all the holders AND Silverfast 6 which can be upgraded for FREE to Silverfast 8 if you own Apple Mac OSX Mountain Lion.

BUT the only holder that's any good is the wet scan glass holder.

Anyway it's expensive but I'm not disappointed in the purchase.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gmikol]

Have you attempted to tune the Epson holders using the adjustable feet on the bottom? I'm kind of surprised to see that big of a difference between the OEM holder and the BetterScanning.

--Greg

 

[StoneNYC]

Have you attempted to tune the Epson holders using the adjustable feet on the bottom? I'm kind of surprised to see that big of a difference between the OEM holder and the BetterScanning.

--Greg

Those "adjustable" feet aren't actually adjustable, they come out but they don't really change height.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gmikol]

I beg to differ, when the arrows on the feet are pointing to the "+" sign, the holder is at a nominal height of 3.5mm above the scan glass. When pointing towards the "O" symbol, 3mm, and when removed, 2.5mm.

In practice, I measured the height on the "+" setting between 3.3 and 3.4 mm (http://www.dpug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=22559), and found that the actual best height for my scanner is about 3.8-4.0mm. I need to take the scanner apart to clean the glass, and I'm going to shim the glass up to make up the difference.'

--Greg

 

[StoneNYC]

I beg to differ, when the arrows on the feet are pointing to the "+" sign, the holder is at a nominal height of 3.5mm above the scan glass. When pointing towards the "O" symbol, 3mm, and when removed, 2.5mm.

In practice, I measured the height on the "+" setting between 3.3 and 3.4 mm (http://www.dpug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=22559), and found that the actual best height for my scanner is about 3.8-4.0mm. I need to take the scanner apart to clean the glass, and I'm going to shim the glass up to make up the difference.'

--Greg

Ok but on MY scanner as they are all different as the production if them seems to differ from scanner to scanner, the height adjustment was just too high and it didn't matter which position they were all too high.

And the film was ALWAYS bent / curved and never fully flat. They just aren't as good as the betterscanning holders is all I meant which you can completely adjust the height not just 3 positions but ANY height you want AND the ANR glass keeps the film plane perfectly flat. Especially with 35mm which is a bitch with some films.

Anyway I just showed you my results to help I don't need to argue about it lol


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk