V600 versus lab scans

[Alan Edward Klein]

I find that adjusting Levels first get the colors to normal pretty good. Better with slide film than negative color.

 

[Ted Baker]

I don't think this is valid criticism

I think it is, that type of target can and will give varying results, when the lines align or don't align with the sensor pixels. Its different from the actual test method that is supposedly used. However the targets can still be used to make valid comparisons.

 

[shutterfinger]

I think it is, that type of target can and will give varying results, when the lines align or don't align with the sensor pixels. Its different from the actual test method that is supposedly used. However the targets can still be used to make valid comparisons.

The misleading is when they say "the true resolution is" . Test method and test target make the difference.
Over stated or not the Optical Resolution as stated by the manufacturer is the limit before software interpolation comes into play and is the dpi setting that needs to be used to get the 3rd party tester's "true resolution".

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

It is not just the scanner that determines the outcome, but the skill of the user, and my experience tells me that 99% of buyers of the Epson scanners would benefit from formal technical training rather than leave the scanner to its own devices.

"Lab scans" can mean just about anything!
In a high street store, it could be a $2 scan tacked on to the processing of a roll of film, and the variations are considerable.
In a professional level lab it could mean a $400 scan for mural printing, or a simple JPEG for emailing. You do have to be specific!

Scanning 35mm is troublesome because of its size and not one scanner on the market excels over the other in this regard. The larger the format, the easier than scanning process becomes. Having said that, concentrating on getting your exposure spot-on in-camera should take priority of correcting errors at the scanning step (particularly contrast and exposure), which beginners often make considerably worse. Dust removal, straightening, scan-step USM and profiling for the print-step should be the most done.

Desktop scanners like the Epsons are nowhere near the absolute quality of drum scans, but for pro-lab drum scans, you pay a price, and would be expected to know your apples from your oranges, additional to the minutae of technical metrics that make set an average, ordinary scan apart from those that present a WOW! factor, and do so without floss and without artifice. I have used my Epson V750 for scanning of family photographs from the 1930s to the 1970s and also for producing funeral services. For my own photography there are better, albeit costlier scanning options available.

 

[Ted Baker]

The misleading is when they say "the true resolution is" . Test method and test target make the difference.

I agree its not very helpful, but I don't believe it is strictly speaking misleading as the scanner is able to show detail at those frequencies, however the fact that human eye is not able to distinguish those differences doesn't seem to factor in the test method...

 

[faberryman]

I agree its not very helpful, but I don't believe it is strictly speaking misleading as the scanner is able to show detail at those frequencies, however the fact that human eye is not able to distinguish those differences doesn't seem to factor in the test method...

filmscanner.info uses the same methodology to test every scanner, so while the tests may fall short of absolute accuracy because they rely on the Air Force test chart rather than something else, they do provide helpful information. So when they determine that the "actual resolution" of the V600 is 1560, the V700 is 2300, and the Pacific Image XE is 4300, you have some basis for comparison. In this case, having actually scanned 35mm film on the V700 and Pacific Image XE, it is easy to see that the scans from the Pacific Image XE are significantly more detailed.

 

[shutterfinger]

Montanawildlives, has your question(s) been answered?

 

[wyofilm]

Montanawildlives, has your question(s) been answered?

His questions might have been answered but geez let me see if I can summarize.

Epson FB scanners either suck or are fine, with the 600 suckier than the 750 or 800/850. (I'm sure suckier is word!)
Epson lies about resolution or Epson FB scanners don't lie (so much) about resolution.
Testing scanners either works or doesn't work.
The person scanning usually sucks.
Minilabs are better at scanning than one can do at home with a Epson FB scanner. Minilabs suck at scanning; one can do better at home (if he doesn't suck too much.)
The USAF 1951 chart sucks for scanner tests. The USAF 1951 chart is fine for scanner tests.
All home scanners suck. Only use a DSLR. From another thread we learn that DSLR cameras suck at digitizing film.

Have I missed anything?

Oh, yes right. The only home scanner that wasn't sucky was the Nikon coolscan 9000.

 

[macfred]

I use an Epson V600 for about 4 years - got it cheap and I'm quite satisfied with my results. I usually scan medium format (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7) and rarely 35mm.
For sharing my stuff on the internet I don't need another one. For larger prints I would recommend a professional drum scan service.

EpsonScan on automatic results in ugly files with no headroom for editing.
Turn everything off and you get tons of headroom and if you are any good at editing you will have much better files...
I use RGB curves to get the colour how I like it..

That's it!

I find that adjusting Levels first get the colors to normal pretty good. Better with slide film than negative color.

In line with my personal experiences.

It is not just the scanner that determines the outcome, but the skill of the user, and my experience tells me that 99% of buyers of the Epson scanners would benefit from formal technical training rather than leave the scanner to its own devices...

Scanning 35mm is troublesome because of its size and not one scanner on the market excels over the other in this regard. The larger the format, the easier than scanning process becomes...
Desktop scanners like the Epsons are nowhere near the absolute quality of drum scans, but for pro-lab drum scans, you pay a price...

I totally agree!

It's not so hard to get 'true colours' with an Epson desktop scanner and Epson software - one just have to practice.

Ektar - 6x4.5

Portra 160 - 6x7

Fuji Pro 400H - 6x4.5

Agfa Photo Precisa CT 100 - 35mm

Provia 100 - 6x7

 

[jtk]

Look into holders from betterscanning.com.

Even the cheapest can make a big difference.