Scanner option

[George Collier]

I made my first black and white print in the summer of 1958, in Japan at 10 years old. I’ve been hooked on image transfer of all kinds ever since, with a career in graphic arts, scanning, digital archiving, and printing technologies, as well as my own black and white personal film / darkroom work.

I still have a darkroom, shoot 35mm, 120, and 4x5, though not as much 4x5 the last few years.
Realizing that at some point I may stop printing in the darkroom (like when we leave this house), I will probably still shoot film, then scan and print digitally. (I also have a Nikon DSLR)

I have an old Epson 4990, which I’ve used for all film formats and it’s decent, but it’s time to replace it. I’ve researched dedicated film scanners, and the Epson V850. I will need to scan opaque things, but not for serious work.

A general question - comparing a film scan between the V850 and dedicated film scanners of the same price range, scanning with no sharpening, or any other enhancement (I have Photoshop and am well versed with it), on both scanners, at the highest resolution and scaling that both scanners can do (producing the same size and resolution file), would I be sacrificing any quality with the V850? I have the impression that a dedicated scanner of the same value might produce higher quality, of some kind, since it doesn't have to scan opaque materials with a flat bed option. I won’t need any productivity features of the film scanner, such as auto scanning of a strip of negatives, only the quality is important. If I got a dedicated film scanner, a V600 would do the job for opaque scanning.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I made my first black and white print in the summer of 1958, in Japan at 10 years old. I’ve been hooked on image transfer of all kinds ever since, with a career in graphic arts, scanning, digital archiving, and printing technologies, as well as my own black and white personal film / darkroom work.

I still have a darkroom, shoot 35mm, 120, and 4x5, though not as much 4x5 the last few years.
Realizing that at some point I may stop printing in the darkroom (like when we leave this house), I will probably still shoot film, then scan and print digitally. (I also have a Nikon DSLR)

I have an old Epson 4990, which I’ve used for all film formats and it’s decent, but it’s time to replace it. I’ve researched dedicated film scanners, and the Epson V850. I will need to scan opaque things, but not for serious work.

A general question - comparing a film scan between the V850 and dedicated film scanners of the same price range, scanning with no sharpening, or any other enhancement (I have Photoshop and am well versed with it), on both scanners, at the highest resolution and scaling that both scanners can do (producing the same size and resolution file), would I be sacrificing any quality with the V850? I have the impression that a dedicated scanner of the same value might produce higher quality, of some kind, since it doesn't have to scan opaque materials with a flat bed option. I won’t need any productivity features of the film scanner, such as auto scanning of a strip of negatives, only the quality is important. If I got a dedicated film scanner, a V600 would do the job for opaque scanning.

the v800/850 has a pretty big advantage if doing large format film. Optically, it tops out at 2400-3600 dpi, so if you’re doing mostly smaller formats you’ll get more bang for the buck with a good dedicated film scanner, as long as it can perform better than that.

 

[Les Sarile]

Not all represented scanner resolutions mean the same thing.
For example, these are scans of the same frame of Kodak Ektar 100 using the Epson V700 and Coolscan 5000 at their different settings - with and without ICE. Clearly at their highest optical resolution of 6400dpi, the Epsons doesn't even match the Coolscan at 4000dpi. The V700 makes small improvements up to 6400dpi but never gets to the Coolscan's 4000dpi.

Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/C6858EE09C0BFDA/orig.jpg

Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/FB36D70B2409405/orig.jpg

Of course these are idealized - optimal shooting conditions, target with sufficient detail to show resolution, good quality film and on-screen evaluation. Printing at smaller sizes will definitely loose a lot of this detail. Just how much of a difference will depend on your shooting conditions, film types, lenses and final output.

 

[George Collier]

Thanks for your replies. Let me ask a more specific question.
Let's say I scan a 6x6 black and white neg, crop the neg to 2" square, but scale up to 16" square. Output to 16" square at 600 res, no ICE or sharpening. Results should be a file 9600 pixes on a side, grayscale, if my math is right.
If I do this with the V850 and also a dedicated film scanner, like the Braun that runs about twice as much money.
With the size and resolution being the same, let's assume a linear, plain old scan with no clipping.
Will I see a difference in quality between them? Detail, local separation, etc?

 

[MattKing]

For top quality results, that would require a true optical resolution of 4800 ppi.
The Braun may be able to do that, while the V850 cannot.
That being said, the way that the V850 approaches that will give quite good results.

 

[Les Sarile]

Let's say I scan a 6x6 black and white neg, crop the neg to 2" square, but scale up to 16" square. Output to 16" square at 600 res, no ICE or sharpening.

If you are evaluating on paper print, then the paper type can make a huge difference. Super high glossy will be able to show more detail while textured fiber will loose more.

 

[George Collier]

Thanks for the replies. Matt, that's the kind of info I was looking for. Because I also want to scan 4x5, I'm inclined to the V850.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Thanks for the replies. Matt, that's the kind of info I was looking for. Because I also want to scan 4x5, I'm inclined to the V850.

George,

Sent you a PM regarding your 4990.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Thanks for the replies. Matt, that's the kind of info I was looking for. Because I also want to scan 4x5, I'm inclined to the V850.

I have the v850Pro, which comes with an extra set of holders. That can be helpful when scanning in batches as you can be mounting and prepping one set while one is scanning.

 

[George Collier]

Adrian - you mention somewhere that you scan on the bed glass for 4x5.
Do you use oil, and what is it like getting the oil off of the neg and the bed afterwards?
Have you ever used the Epson attachment for using oil with film?
Does the oil increase the dust?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Adrian - you mention somewhere that you scan on the bed glass for 4x5.
Do you use oil, and what is it like getting the oil off of the neg and the bed afterwards?
Have you ever used the Epson attachment for using oil with film?
Does the oil increase the dust?

on the v850, I don’t use any mineral oil or anything like that. I just put it down emulsion side down directly on the glass. If it won’t stay flat, I have a sheet of dimpled picture frame glass that I put on top of that.

On the canon 9000F MkII I do use mineral oil (it’s not an expensive scanner). For black and white, it can make a pretty dramatic difference in the reduction of dust and scratches, as well as overall detail as it changes the refractive index and eliminates surface to air transitions for the light to go through. For color, I don’t bother. I don’t use the 9000F much lately as the bulk of my smaller format scans are done with my dslr scanning setup, but, every once in a while I’ll have a really large 120 image (like 6x12) that somebody wants to do a special scan of, and for that, I’ll pull it out and wet mount it for a monochrome scan at 9600 dpi on the blue channel. Again, that scanners optical system doesn’t resolve that much, however, on the blue channel with a wet mount, it is quite a lot better than often quoted numbers for that scanner, and better than the v850. for cleanup, 99%+ isopropyl rubbing alcohol makes short work of it. Though overall, it’s a messy procedure, so this sort of thing is reserved for very special cases, with full transparency with the negative owner so they know what’s happening and consent to it.

the only thing I scan with the v850 is large format. I only mentioned the holders for those planning to scan other formats.

 

[138S]

The V700 makes small improvements up to 6400dpi but never gets to the Coolscan's 4000dpi.

Yes... but this is irrelevant, because the the V700 has more resolving power than the film has in practice, so adding more resolving power adds nothing to image quality.

Recently a very well made test was performed with a V700 compared to scanners that are way better than coolscans, and none could improve the V700 result in 120 film. https://www.largeformatphotography....rum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178

If you follow this extensive test you will find that the Creos and the Drum are quite superior to the Epson, but in practice the Epson result is as good because limiting factor is in the film itself.

It is true that a good scanner may deliver a better grain structure, but not a better image. Another thing is true, the Epson requires enhancing the image in Photoshop, while pro scanners deliver a better digitally optimized image.

 

[Les Sarile]

Yes... but this is irrelevant, because the the V700 has more resolving power than the film has in practice, so adding more resolving power adds nothing to image quality.

Relevancy is abosolutely a good argument. Because as I pointed out - depending on the scene itself, the conditions, the shooting style, film used and care taken and the final output, all the additional resolution advantage can be rendered useless. Afterall, if the detail is not captured on the film to begin with, it can obviously not be shown in the final result regardless of how much sharpening you apply.

 

[138S]

Afterall, if the detail is not captured on the film to begin with, it can obviously not be shown in the final result regardless of how much sharpening you apply.

Yes... Some datasheets (TMX) say film resolves 200 lp/mm at 1000:1 contrast, but optics won't project 200 lp/mm at 1000:1. Then we always have some shake and focus is never perfect if our scene is 3D, or we have diffraction. In practice not many shots improve much if scanned beyond 40lp/mm effective performance.

Problem with the V700 is that to reach that performance we have to scan at very high dpi and later we should reduce the image size with wisdom, instead a Pro scanner delivers that performance straight with less effort.

The V700 makes from 35mm to 8x10", being stellar for 5x7" and 8x10", for 35mm a dedicated roll film scanner may be more convenient, for 120 format it's quite good and cheap, as 120 roll film scanners (Plustek 120) are very expensive. An excellent combination would be a V700 and a Plustek 8200 for 35mm: new, warranty, drivers for modern computers, existing/affordable repair service...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes... Some datasheets (TMX) say film resolves 200 lp/mm at 1000:1 contrast, but optics won't project 200 lp/mm at 1000:1. Then we always have some shake and focus is never perfect if our scene is 3D, or we have diffraction. In practice not many shots improve much if scanned beyond 40lp/mm effective performance.

Problem with the V700 is that to reach that performance we have to scan at very high dpi and later we should reduce the image size with wisdom, instead a Pro scanner delivers that performance straight with less effort.

The V700 makes from 35mm to 8x10", being stellar for 5x7" and 8x10", for 35mm a dedicated roll film scanner may be more convenient, for 120 format it's quite good and cheap, as 120 roll film scanners (Plustek 120) are very expensive. An excellent combination would be a V700 and a Plustek 8200 for 35mm: new, warranty, drivers for modern computers, existing/affordable repair service...

I thought when using 8x10 or anytime you use the glass platen, the V850 uses a different lens that resolves less then the second lens which is used when you mount one of the 4x5, MF, or 35mm holders.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For whatever it's worth, my new v850 4x5 brackets have adjustments for setting the height for focus. I set one on middle height and the other in the middle/bottom slots. That's based on my eye looking at scans of the same negative.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I thought when using 8x10 or anytime you use the glass platen, the V850 uses a different lens that resolves less then the second lens which is used when you mount one of the 4x5, MF, or 35mm holders.

Yes, that is true. The v850 has two optical systems that operate at two different focal lengths. The 8x10 optical system focuses at the platen glass and is natively 4800 dpi. The other optical system for 4x5, and smaller focuses above the platen glass and is natively 6400 dpi. Neither one actually resolves much more than 2400-3200 dpi.

 

[Les Sarile]

Yes... Some datasheets (TMX) say film resolves 200 lp/mm at 1000:1 contrast, but optics won't project 200 lp/mm at 1000:1. Then we always have some shake and focus is never perfect if our scene is 3D, or we have diffraction. In practice not many shots improve much if scanned beyond 40lp/mm effective performance.

I was testing some used lenses just to see how good they were with some 35mm Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 and processed in Technidol and even the Coolscan's 4000dpi falls far short of resolving it completely. For that matter so does a 36MP Nikon D800 which looks just about the same as the Coolscan but with more pixels applied. This is what I mean when the scene has enough detail, taken under optimal conditions with great care and the detail is captured on film. The enlargement on the right is about a 5X optical magnification of the same portion scanned and as you can see there's plenty of detail left unresolved. Given the results, I am not sure what the limiting factor is - film, lens, setting? But obviously, shooting in the "real world" may fall far short of the optimal situation that would benefit from high res scans.

Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/8372250EA44CB06/orig.jpg

Although I have been wondering if the 10,000 dpi Heidelberg Tango can fully resolve this frame of film . . .

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I ser

Thanks for the replies. Matt, that's the kind of info I was looking for. Because I also want to scan 4x5, I'm inclined to the V850.

I seriously doubt you will see much difference between 4990 and 850. Unless there is something wrong with 4990, I would look into playing with it until you are sure it is not giving you desired results. With 850 (I have 800 & 4990 & 4870) you will have same problems as with any flatbed scanner, especially optimal height above glass for negative scanning. There is almost no repeatability from one example to next by manufacturing standard what that should be. It's a game that has not changed no matter what brand or age the flatbed scanner is. Every example of scanning from them is what a particular example gave back, and with few exceptions from sources that actually do a lot playing around with it, you can't even tell whether what you are shown is best it could do. Still though, flatbeds have their inherent limitations and should never be compared to dedicated film scanners, let alone drum ones.

 

[138S]

I thought when using 8x10 or anytime you use the glass platen, the V850 uses a different lens that resolves less then the second lens which is used when you mount one of the 4x5, MF, or 35mm holders.

Yes... the Epson has two interchangeable lenses. If a holder is detected you use the "Super-resolution" lens, it is automatically mounted when a film holder is detected and it is focused that the nominal film height in holders, a few mm over the bed. This lens covers 5.9" wide and it resolves 2900dpi effective in the horizontal axis and 2300 in the vertical one.

With the 8x10" area guide or simply with no holder the lower resolution lens is mounted. This lens covers the entire bed width (instead 5.9") and it is focused on the bed outer surface, it has the 75% of the resolving power in dpi compared to the "super-resolution" lens. An Epson V700 8x10" scan has more than 300MPix effective. A 4x5" scan delivers around 140MPix effective.

The 4x5" scan has way more than 1/4 of the effective pixels than the 8x10" scan has because the 8x10" one is made with the other lens. Anyway 300MPix effective are a crazy amount of image quality, 8x10" drum scans are usually not offered beyond 2000dpi, at 4000 they are crazy expensive, making the V700-8x10" a powerful combination.

Let me reiterate that in scanning and digital image processing most important factor is being careful in not degradating the IQ potential.

 

[138S]

Although I have been wondering if the 10,000 dpi Heidelberg Tango can fully resolve this frame of film . . .

I've been playing a lot with CMS 20, including in 4x5. Datasheet says 800 lp/mm in high contrast. Like TP case CMS 20 is not pictorial film, CMS 20 is even more extreme than TP as it is made with size monodisperse crystals. You know, these are technical films adapted to pictorial usage with many drawbacks for a general usage. Those films with a very good lens, on tripod, mirror up, perfect focus and optimal aperture... they may record atonishing amounts of graphic information, of course. A 35mm shot in CMS 20 may beat some 4x5" setups using regular pictorial film !!!!

But the general case is that those films that are really suitable for pictorial usage (speed, latitude) are less a challenge to scan, with the exception when we want BW grain structure well depicted. I guess it is a bit like with enlargers, some like condenser and other people like diffusion, but perhaps wet mounting if what helps to depict grain...

____

TMX with an outstanding lens may deliver around 85 lp/mm at 100:1 contrast in lab testing, but detail beyond 40lp/mm is of very low quality anyway, and usually of low interest, and anyway many real photography shots are far . The V700 resolves (50lp/mm) to the point until pictorial film delivers good enough useful quality, from that point resturns are quite diminishing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I ser

I seriously doubt you will see much difference between 4990 and 850. Unless there is something wrong with 4990, I would look into playing with it until you are sure it is not giving you desired results. With 850 (I have 800 & 4990 & 4870) you will have same problems as with any flatbed scanner, especially optimal height above glass for negative scanning. There is almost no repeatability from one example to next by manufacturing standard what that should be. It's a game that has not changed no matter what brand or age the flatbed scanner is. Every example of scanning from them is what a particular example gave back, and with few exceptions from sources that actually do a lot playing around with it, you can't even tell whether what you are shown is best it could do. Still though, flatbeds have their inherent limitations and should never be compared to dedicated film scanners, let alone drum ones.

My V850 Pro came with two holders for each film size. I just scanned 4x5 negatives. Each holder has 4 adjustment sliders, one at each corner of the holder where it sits on the glass platen. The sliders have 5 stops that you can select from to raise and lower the holder. So I scanned the same negative at each the 5 stops and compared. I found that there is a difference in focus. Interestingly, on the first holder, I found the best focus at the bottom or next to bottom stop. I couldn't see the difference between the two. The top slot was obviously the worse. With the other holder, the middle slider slot provided the best focus. I didn't open up the 35mm and medium format holders to see if they have focus adjustments on them.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes... the Epson has two interchangeable lenses. If a holder is detected you use the "Super-resolution" lens, it is automatically mounted when a film holder is detected and it is focused that the nominal film height in holders, a few mm over the bed. This lens covers 5.9" wide and it resolves 2900dpi effective in the horizontal axis and 2300 in the vertical one.

With the 8x10" area guide or simply with no holder the lower resolution lens is mounted. This lens covers the entire bed width (instead 5.9") and it is focused on the bed outer surface, it has the 75% of the resolving power in dpi compared to the "super-resolution" lens. An Epson V700 8x10" scan has more than 300MPix effective. A 4x5" scan delivers around 140MPix effective.

The 4x5" scan has way more than 1/4 of the effective pixels than the 8x10" scan has because the 8x10" one is made with the other lens. Anyway 300MPix effective are a crazy amount of image quality, 8x10" drum scans are usually not offered beyond 2000dpi, at 4000 they are crazy expensive, making the V700-8x10" a powerful combination.

Let me reiterate that in scanning and digital image processing most important factor is being careful in not degradating the IQ potential.

Does it pay to scan higher than 2400 with the V850 Pro?

 

[138S]

Does it pay to scan higher than 2400 with the V850 Pro?

Yes, if the shot is sharp enough, see here some measurements in table C.2 : https://archivehistory.jeksite.org/chapters/appendixc.htm

Of course from 2400 you have diminishing returns when increasing dpi. That test shows that best effective resolving is reached at max 6400 dpi scanning, this has a practical effect or not depending on the shot sharpness and personal valuation.

My recommendation with the V700 is scanning at high dpi, 3200 at least, and better if higher ...then sharpening in Ps and then downsizing to the edition imageside, which you later will downsize after edition to the release size.

Usually, for a good job you have 3 image sizes: scanning size, edition size and final release size. Today we have many GB RAM in the PC, and SSD or M.2 disks are very fast, so our workflow with the V700 can be improved. The computing performance we have today allows to not loss image quality potential.

Best is that you practice on your own, take a really sharp shot and scan at various dpi, then sharpen and downsize to the point there is no effective loss, use "bicubic ideal for reductions" choice in the Image Size dialog. Differences will be subtle, so it's about your taste and if wanting to extract the most possible.

The computer power increase has benefited the V700 specially, because to reach best quality with the V700 we have to scan at higher dpi than with Pro scanners which deliver better digitally cooked images.

 

[138S]

I seriously doubt you will see much difference between 4990 and 850.

The 4990 is a competent scanner, and for 8x10 the 4990 and the V850 are similar, when using holders (4x5, 35mm, 120 and 5x7 if having that custom holder) the V850 is quite superior, it delivers 30% more effective dpi because for that it uses an special lens only covering 5.9" scan width instead all bed.

If that 30% increase is important for you or not YMMV. To me the V850 can get most of Image quality recorded on film thanks to that additional lens, but this is only seen if the shot is sharp enough.

Another benefit of the V850 is that included new holders have ANR glass, and adjustable height, if these resources are used with wisdom then final result can improve a lot.