Scanner for 8x10 negatives

[Doc W]

I have heard that the Epson V800 and 850 will scan negatives up to 8x10, but the specs on both of these say the maximum film size is 4x5. The specs also mention a "8x10" Transparency Unit (built into lid)."

Will they do 8x10 negatives or not? Are there other options?

 

[Alan9940]

I have never owned either of those Epson scanners, but I believe you can do 8x10, if you stitch multiple scans. I use an old Epson Expression 1680 Pro which does an 8x10 scan in one pass. The optical resolution of this scanner is only 1600PPI, but that provides me with enough to print the largest print I can on my home printers.

 

[Oren Grad]

The V700/750/800/850 are designed to accept negatives or transparencies up to 8x10 - you put them directly on the glass bed rather than in dedicated plastic holders as with roll film or 4x5. There are settings in the Epson Scan software to accommodate this.

 

[Kino]

The older Epson 4990 will also do 8x10 and is equal to the V700/750 in my experience...

 

[removedacct1]

What Oren said. I have the V750 and lay 8x10 negs on the glass directly.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I highly recommend camera scanning, even for 8x10. All you need is a DSLR which you may already have, a copy stand, an LED panel such as the Kaiser Slimlite, and a macro lens. A single capture from a 36mp camera will yield a 16x20 print. You can quickly increase that resolution by stitching, which is very easy to do when 8x10. I use a Pentax K-1 with Pixel Shift so my scans don't even suffer from bayer interpolation. It's a true RGB 36mp capture. Software like Negative Lab Pro make color conversions easy and MUCH better than Epson Scan or even "profiled" software like Silverfast. I use a piece of ANR glass a few inches above my light source, which is masked off. There is some amount of 'fiddling', but it takes no more or less time than a flatbed scan.

Based on the quality i'm getting I will not go back to my V700. If an IQSmart3 fell in my lap I'd probably start using it but frankly I'd rather keep investing in camera scanning. The multi capture tech that is coming is going to make it even easier soon.

 

[minh0204]

There are two scanning lenses on the V7x0/8x0, the flat bed scans at 4800 ppi max and the film holders (just above the glass) scans at 6400ppi. Laying on the flat bed you can scan 8x10 negs at 4800ppi.

Check out this review: http://www.stockholmviews.com/epson_v850/index.html

 

[cooltouch]

Well, I just read through that review, and it hasn't changed my attitude toward resolution claims regarding flatbed scanners. They're all hugely bloated. Years ago, I tracked down a set of tests where the Epson V7xx series were evaluated against some other good scanners, but also in absolute terms. The V7xx scanners were managing about 2300 ppi. My Epson 4990 came in at about 2000 ppi. They used the AF test chart for determining resolutions. But one thing I noticed about my Epson was that, even though it may have maxed out at around 2000 ppi, I noticed greater color resolution than sharpness resolution -- that is, there was indeed more color resolution being displayed at the bloated scanning depths the scanner permitted, even though the sharpness resolution had peaked at lower outputs.

These days, I still use my 4990 but only for scanning medium format (I don't own any large format cameras) at 2400 ppi to minimize file bloat. I use my 24.3mp digital to dupe my 35mm images, although most recently I've even begun to dupe my medium format images with my digital.

I bought my 4990 after talking with a couple of guys who use it to make scans of their 4x5 images. After inspecting some of their output -- printed on quality archival paper -- I saw why they liked the 4990 so much. So I suspect the 4990 and later models would do an outstanding job with 8x10 images as well.

 

[markbau]

I borrowed a friends V800 and was very unimpressed with its scans of 35mm and 120 film using the film holders when compared to the scans from a Coolscan. I have been meaning to scan some 8 x 10 negs with it but seem to recall that unless the scanner senses a film holder it doesn't scan in transmission mode. Perhaps laying the neg straight onto the glass and using a heavy sheet of glass will help.

 

[Doc W]

Thanks for all the feedback. I am mulling this over.

 

[Oren Grad]

I have been meaning to scan some 8 x 10 negs with it but seem to recall that unless the scanner senses a film holder it doesn't scan in transmission mode.

This is not correct. As I posted above, there is a setting in Epson Scan software for scanning transparent materials directly off the bed.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Don't you guys get newton rings like crazy if you scan off the bed directly?

 

[MattKing]

If you scan with the emulsion side against the glass, I wouldn't expect to have problems with newton rings.
In the old days, when a lot of LF film had a retouching "tooth" on the substrate, you could put that side against the glass, and that tooth should prevent problems with newton rings.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

The V700/750/800/850 are designed to accept negatives or transparencies up to 8x10 - you put them directly on the glass bed rather than in dedicated plastic holders as with roll film or 4x5. There are settings in the Epson Scan software to accommodate this.

+1

I have an Epson V850 Pro. Roll film and 4x5 uses film holders, 8x10 goes directly against the glass (emulsion side facing glass). You tell the scanner which way it's scanning, it has a dedicated mode for each (with different native resolutions for each method)

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I borrowed a friends V800 and was very unimpressed with its scans of 35mm and 120 film using the film holders when compared to the scans from a Coolscan. I have been meaning to scan some 8 x 10 negs with it but seem to recall that unless the scanner senses a film holder it doesn't scan in transmission mode. Perhaps laying the neg straight onto the glass and using a heavy sheet of glass will help.

I don't use the v850 for anything smaller than 4x5, however, if scanning large format negatives (especially black and white), you get quite a bit of resolution by doing a monochrome scan using only the blue channel, which yields quite a lot more resolution that most of those online tests indicate by the simple fact that the shorter wavelength of the blue channel gets more spatial resolution through the scanners optical system. Each color channel, optically, will provide different amounts of resolution, and every place online I've seen where they measure scanner resolution, they do full color scans of a test chart and then point out that the resolution isn't anywhere near what the manufacturer claims. This is fair, but doesn't take into account that it only applies to full color scans. If scanning monochrome, it's always worth it to scan with just the blue channel (easily done if scanning with vuescan).

You can see roughly how much difference it would make by looking at the MTF function of any color negative films, like Kodak Portra 400, for example. The red channel hits 50% contrast at ~35 cycles per mm, whereas the blue channel hits the same 50% contrast at ~75 cycles per mm. That's not an insignificant difference, and does translate to other things like scanning BW negatives with the blue channel on the scanner. In that instance, it absolutely is worth it to scan at the maximum native sensor resolution, then scale down from there. You just get more detail. You get more detail doing that with full color, it's just more difficult to see because the red channel is masking a lot of the gains.

 

[Richard Man]

Here's a sample 8x10 scanned using the v700. It can be printed mural size ;-)

 

[removedacct1]

Don't you guys get newton rings like crazy if you scan off the bed directly?

Nope. But then I don't press the neg down hard on the scanner glass nor do I put a sheet of glass on top to hold it down. You don't need to.

 

[KenS]

I have heard that the Epson V800 and 850 will scan negatives up to 8x10, but the specs on both of these say the maximum film size is 4x5. The specs also mention a "8x10" Transparency Unit (built into lid)."

Will they do 8x10 negatives or not? Are there other options?

I 'invested' in an Epson 850Pro just for making digital images printed onto Pictorico for use when making the 'archaic' alternative print processes. My 8x10 negs are scanned 'layed down' on the glass platen rather than the 8x10' film holder... works OK for me anyway

Ken

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I 'invested' in an Epson 850Pro just for making digital images printed onto Pictorico for use when making the 'archaic' alternative print processes. My 8x10 negs are scanned 'layed down' on the glass platen rather than the 8x10' film holder... works OK for me anyway

Ken

Same here. Put the neg on the platen glass, works fine.

 

[NedL]

If you had a larger or longer negative ( like 7x11" ), is there a lip on the lid that will crimp the negative, or can a larger negative be scanned in parts without damaging it?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

If you had a larger or longer negative ( like 7x11" ), is there a lip on the lid that will crimp the negative, or can a larger negative be scanned in parts without damaging it?

The glass is recessed inside a lip.

 

[NedL]

The glass is recessed inside a lip.

thanks!

 

[neeksgeek]

I scanned a stack of 8x10” and 4x5” color and black-and-white negatives with an Epson V700 for a gallery show some years ago. Negatives went straight on the glass, scanned at 1200 ppi. The 16x20” inkjet prints looked great, even displayed next to real silver prints. No Newton’s rings in the scans, though we were expecting to deal with that.