V700 v Polaroid Sprint 120

pellicle · Aug 19, 2010

Hi Don

Don Bryant said:
In my experience, the problems of scans made with the Epson 4990 can't be corrected with sharpening or other post processing and made to compare to a dedicated film scanner.

certainly at greater enlargement I agree 100%, its at lesser magnifications which I feel the difference is less tangible.

for clarity:
I do not wish to be making any defence of a V700 against a drum or Nikon 9000 scanner for > 2000dpi scans as I think its indefensible. I thought I'd made the point earlier that one should send the image out for larger prints (NB greater enlargement) and that we were talking about using it for modest enlargements and the term "web sizes" came up. To put a figure on that I'd call that no wider than 1024 pixels

I would seriously doubt that the differences in a 6x9 (or heck even 6x4.5) would be observable at that size.

I also ventured that I've been satisfied with results from the 4990 scans of 6x12 120 roll (which is what I mainly expose my 120 at) up to 50cm wide, but added that for bigger prints the move to a better scanner will show more clearly. Recall that at 50cm a 6x12 neg is only being enlarged x4.1 ... now perhaps this is the turn around point for some and perhaps its earlier (like x3).

In the article I linked to I suggested that if there was a small difference in detail in the scans it may be lost when printing due to blur which occurs in the printing processes (ink jet or laser) I placed a sample there of the print I had made with photoshop generated text and a screen grab of the file.

So what may appear a bit more on screen does not always translate in my experience of prints ... naturally others MMV.

The OP already stated he can't afford a LS-9000. I believe this indicates he is unlikely to purchase on based on any glory storys here, so I was trying to suggest that the V700 was a reasonable compromise and rather than spend more money on a possibly only slightly better scanner that he should use that money to get high quality scans made on the prints he intends to enlarge significantly.

Donsta suggested that at x2 he could see the difference and identified he was not meaning clarity but micro contrast, which I then addressed. For clarity a x2 enlargement (to me) means scanning at something like 800dpi and printing at 400dpi ... I remain unconvinced that at 800dpi there is any challenge for the V700.

I would however wish to actually SEE something that demonstrates that. I don't have access to a Howtec (which I believe Donsta does have) or I would grab a sheet of film perform the experiment myself and post my findings. If I could see a difference I'd be the first to say "well bugga me, I'd never have expected to see ..."

Again I fully agree that a dedicated film scanner is of worth, which is why I own a Nikon LS-4000 rather than scan 35mm with my epson (which I use for 4x5 and 120@6x12)

donbga · Aug 19, 2010

pellicle said:
Donsta suggested that at x2 he could see the difference and identified he was not meaning clarity but micro contrast, which I then addressed. For clarity a x2 enlargement (to me) means scanning at something like 800dpi and printing at 400dpi ... I remain unconvinced that at 800dpi there is any challenge for the V700.

I would however wish to actually SEE something that demonstrates that. I don't have access to a Howtec (which I believe Donsta does have) or I would grab a sheet of film perform the experiment myself and post my findings. If I could see a difference I'd be the first to say "well bugga me, I'd never have expected to see ..."

Click to expand...

Well I guess my next question is - who scans film at 800 spi? And I will say that without ever having seen a drum scan at 800 spi there will be an obvious and tangible difference to a 800spi scan made with a v700/750. I have no doubt about that.

On your other comment:

So what may appear a bit more on screen does not always translate in my experience of prints ... naturally others MMV.

I guess that is possible but that's not what I experience here at home.

Don

pschwart · Aug 19, 2010

Scanning discussions always seem to end up just like this one. Here is what I say:
- buy the best you can afford that is appropriate for your print
size
- use a glass carrier, or wet mount if you must
- learn how to use the scanning software to best advantage
- limit your prints to a size appropriate for the scan quality

If you are satisfied with your print quality, you don't need to torture yourself about not using a drum scanner.

I have an Epson V700 and it makes great proof sheets and 3x prints from 6x6 and 6x9 negatives. I have a Nikon 9000 that I can use for bigger print sizes, even from 35mm.

Donsta · Aug 20, 2010

pellicle said:
Hi Don

certainly at greater enlargement I agree 100%, its at lesser magnifications which I feel the difference is less tangible.

for clarity:
I do not wish to be making any defence of a V700 against a drum or Nikon 9000 scanner for > 2000dpi scans as I think its indefensible. I thought I'd made the point earlier that one should send the image out for larger prints (NB greater enlargement) and that we were talking about using it for modest enlargements and the term "web sizes" came up. To put a figure on that I'd call that no wider than 1024 pixels

I would seriously doubt that the differences in a 6x9 (or heck even 6x4.5) would be observable at that size.

I also ventured that I've been satisfied with results from the 4990 scans of 6x12 120 roll (which is what I mainly expose my 120 at) up to 50cm wide, but added that for bigger prints the move to a better scanner will show more clearly. Recall that at 50cm a 6x12 neg is only being enlarged x4.1 ... now perhaps this is the turn around point for some and perhaps its earlier (like x3).

In the article I linked to I suggested that if there was a small difference in detail in the scans it may be lost when printing due to blur which occurs in the printing processes (ink jet or laser) I placed a sample there of the print I had made with photoshop generated text and a screen grab of the file.

So what may appear a bit more on screen does not always translate in my experience of prints ... naturally others MMV.

The OP already stated he can't afford a LS-9000. I believe this indicates he is unlikely to purchase on based on any glory storys here, so I was trying to suggest that the V700 was a reasonable compromise and rather than spend more money on a possibly only slightly better scanner that he should use that money to get high quality scans made on the prints he intends to enlarge significantly.

Donsta suggested that at x2 he could see the difference and identified he was not meaning clarity but micro contrast, which I then addressed. For clarity a x2 enlargement (to me) means scanning at something like 800dpi and printing at 400dpi ... I remain unconvinced that at 800dpi there is any challenge for the V700.

I would however wish to actually SEE something that demonstrates that. I don't have access to a Howtec (which I believe Donsta does have) or I would grab a sheet of film perform the experiment myself and post my findings. If I could see a difference I'd be the first to say "well bugga me, I'd never have expected to see ..."

Again I fully agree that a dedicated film scanner is of worth, which is why I own a Nikon LS-4000 rather than scan 35mm with my epson (which I use for 4x5 and 120@6x12)

Chris

Feel free to suggest that I am a "troll" because you disagree with me or because you have a divergent opinion on the ability of scanners, but I'll clear something up for you:

I have actually made prints (myself and I am a competent printer IMO) from drum scans and Epson 4990 scans of the same negative, and despite what you think, you cannot invent microcontrast which does not exist - I'm pretty sure most folks here know how to bump up microcontrast using the USM tool - if the texture does not exist on the scan it does not suddenly jump out from no-where; and it shouldn't be confused with increased noise either. There are clear differences in the prints - dramatic enough that I unframed some prints and re-printed them. Remain as unconvinced as you like, but be sure to qualify your opinions when you make them on a public forum as you may well be challenged by folks who have actually done comparisons all the way through to print.

If you're so concerned with cluttering up the forum with noise, I'm very confused about this comment (which as I pointed out, is completely contrary to my own opinion, based on ACTUAL USE of both scanners):

pellicle said:
have not seen much testing on the WWW to indicate that the Polariod 120 is much better than the V700 ... it'll be around the margins, depend on operator knowledge and within a similar ball park.

These are exactly the sort of postings on the WWW which create all sorts of confusion down the road - which is why I picked you out on it.

Marco B · Aug 20, 2010

Interesting discussion of scanning. However, I think there are at least five main variables obscuring the discussion:

- Scan resolution in ppi (pixels per inch)
- True optical scanner resolution
- Film size (35mm, 4x5 etc)
- Final print or viewing size (pixelpeeking in PS, small sized image for web, or small or very large (inkjet) prints)
- Resolution of output medium (inkjet, Lightjet)

All of these interact with each other, and some combinations will work, and others won't...

Personally, I think both Pellicle and Donsta are both right, in the context of their workflow and final output...

With what I mean: Donsta is talking about the significance of microcontrast as part of high res drumscans. He is right that that certainly plays a big role at some final large output sizes.

He makes one very significant remark in this respect:

Donsta said:
you cannot invent microcontrast which does not exist - I'm pretty sure most folks here know how to bump up microcontrast using the USM tool - if the texture does not exist on the scan it does not suddenly jump out from no-where

I fully agree with this statement above.

However, to support Pellicles statements for images printed on small size or web viewing
, we can also turn this statement around:

****************
You can not display high level detail or fine microcontrast that exists in a scan if the output medium (print, screen) does not support it at the size of the output. If the final medium is not capable of displaying all the detail and microcontrast in the image, it will not matter if the scan was made on a high end drum scanner, or a cheapo flatbed.
****************

Now, before all people get me wrong:

What I am roughly saying is:

If I make a 2000 ppi drum scan of a 4x5 100ISO negative, it will likely have the equivalent of some true 80 Mpixel detail in the image. Each pixel will carry information, since most 100 ISO films will easily resolve up to the 2000 ppi and above.

If you now downsize the image to a mere 400x500 pixels for viewing on the web, clearly the output medium is INCAPABLE of displaying all that detail... at that size, it is highly likely the image of a flatbed is undistinguishable from a drum scanner.

This is Pellicles scenario.

Conversely, Donsta's scenario is a large print in need of tons of detail and microcontrast. Clearly, if we desire to print at some mural size, a blurred 4000 ppi scan of a flatbed like the V700, with a true optical resolution of maybe 2000-2400 max, will not deliver the same result as a full 4000 or 8000 ppi scan of the same negative using a drum scanner.

As Donsta said: the flatbed based print will lack microcontrast, since the fine detail and texture was never scanned and therefore never existent in the first place.

HOWEVER: There is a sliding scale between Pellicle's and Donsta's assumptions and observations... It will again depend on the entire workflow, at what final output size the higher end scanner wins over the other...

That is why I said both can be right, depending on circumstances

Marco

Marco B · Aug 20, 2010

Output medium resolution

By the way,

One underrated aspect I listed in the previous post, is the resolution the output medium is capable of. A computer screen only does some 90-150 ppi, an inkjet more, a Lightjet digital/analog print even more, and silver gelatin paper is capable of displaying a staggering amount of detail...

To illustrate this, two series of scans of prints. The analog contact print was made of a 4x5 HP5 negative on Ilford MGIV RC, the digital print made from a scanned 4x5 Kodak 320TXP negative, printed on my R2400

First series in this post: The analog contact print at 100, 300 and 1200 ppi scanning resolution:

Marco B · Aug 20, 2010

Output medium resolution (2)

Scanned EPSON R2400 print at 100, 300 and 1200 ppi scanning resolution. Printed image based on a scan from a 4x5 LF negative:

Clearly, talking about "microcontrast", the analog print wins hands down when viewed at the about 12x enlargement of the 1200 ppi scan. The fine detail an inkjet print can deliver, even though 1200-2400dpi according to specs, is still magnitudes bigger than the size of developed silver particles in silver gelatin paper, which are on a molecular level.

Of course, I am blatantly ignoring a 6th aspect we all know the significance of: viewing distance... In reality, you will never view prints at this high magnification...

glhs116 · Aug 20, 2010

I think scanning suffers from the measurbation syndrome like lots of things and dpi is our megapixel. I keep coming back to the real differences between my Konica Minolta and my Nikon Coolscan. It wasn't in the sharpness and it wasn't in the dpi. It was in the subtlety of tone and the sense of weight and depth acheivable.

There was just a guy selling his "Colorgetter" drum scanner. He has switched to digital capture and is happy with his results. However, he has some scans of his 4x5 shots from his drum scanner that have breathe-taking depth. They look like a window. I'm talking about the web size version. It is a result I think you would never get from a smaller format or a CCD scanner. At least from my experience.

Why is this the case when there are so few pixels that the film size shouldn't matter and the scanner resolution shouldn't matter? I don't know. But I believe my eyeballs.

pellicle · Aug 20, 2010

Hi

Donsta said:
Chris

Feel free to suggest that I am a "troll" because you disagree with me or because you have a divergent opinion on the ability of scanners,

no, it was they way you approached the discussion. Perhaps I misinterpreted it, which is why I put in my PS (perhaps you didn't read it anyway). However please accept my apology as probably I was wrong on that point.

you cannot invent microcontrast which does not exist

true, but you can in the digital domain work quite effectively to tease out what may have been hidden in the murk.

pellicle · Aug 20, 2010

Marco

Marco B said:
HOWEVER: There is a sliding scale between Pellicle's and Donsta's assumptions and observations... It will again depend on the entire workflow, at what final output size the higher end scanner wins over the other...

this cuts to the heart of the problem (that perhaps and definition of terms). Some people speak only in absolutes and others in shades of grey.

for example to more clearly qualify what I meant when I said:

I use my 4990 Epson for stuff up to 50cm wide and having had a drum scan or 3 done, find that I can't really see it in the prints till its double that in dimensions.

it was that at 50cm the difference between high quality scan and my Epson is marginal and perhaps observable with close and discerning examination in good light (not the way most of our prints are examined most of the time). However when printed to double that dimension the difference is clear immediately. I didn't think I needed to dot each i and cross each l ... perhaps even then it wouldn't have mattered because I'm just wrong.

if only I could see that

mesh · Aug 20, 2010

I think the reason we are all guilty of 'pixel peeping' is that most of us are thinking relatively long-term with our film commitment. There are obviously varying reasons why we still love film... but time scanning probably isn't one of them ;-) I know I don't need to 'compete' with a 5D MkII (I am not pro) but shooting medium format, I do expect a reasonable return for the effort.

I really believe the V700 is a wonderful piece of kit for a great price, but in the back of my mind I know I'll be rescanning my negs one day... and frankly that's just a waste of my time. I don't need a drum scanner or even an Imacon. A 9000 would be nice but I think I will go with the Polaroid. It's going to be a little better than the V700 (especially 35mm that I do shoot also) and the investment wont break me. A digital back for the Hassy will ;-)

pellicle · Aug 21, 2010

Hi Mesh

glad this debate has given you enough food for thought to make a decision. That after all is the purpose of you asking

We all make decisions on our stuff and all have different requirements / budgets / expectations / wants so for all of us the answers will be different. For my own part I normally consider my negs to be my primary source and prefer to archive them well so that when I need a better scan I'll get it on the date I'm using it for making a print. I mainly use black and white so this argument is less sound for colour where some amount of fade will occur over time.

For what its worth, I was examining the tests over at Large Format Photography and was in particular re-examining some of the scans there. They are based on this 4x5 chrome:

As the scanned segments there are done at 2400dpi I thought I'd do a little surgery on the images and drop them to 1200dpi (enough for a x4 enlargement). In particular I was interested in the Tango and the V750 Pro scans .With colour matching the V750 image, sharpening it at 1.8 pixels and then dropping both images to 1200dpi I get this result

which does indeed indicate on my screen that the Tango is still ahead, this may or may not be observable on a print. Certainly for something less than competition or fine art submission should be sufficient. However when scaled back smaller (to 600dpi) its challenging to see there is any difference...

Considering that this is a segment of the overall and observing how much larger it is than the portion it represents in the overall image (sized for web) I feel this supports my suggestion that "for web sizes" you won't see any difference.

glhs116 · Aug 21, 2010

Thanks for the example pics, pellicle. To my eye the difference is just as clear in the scaled down version and I think would be even clearer if a correspondingly larger part of the image were shown (to make the final image size the same at the lower dpi).

I just see natural texture on the left and artificial blockiness on the right. I see this just as well in the "web" crop which I guess makes the point I was talking about. Maybe others don't have such "picky" eyes, however.

mesh · Aug 21, 2010

I have to be honest, I also see a difference in DR. Not huge and maybe prints would show less difference.

pellicle · Aug 21, 2010

Hi

interesting ... I mainly see that the curves are different ... if that's what is being called dynamic range.

informative

glad I posted ...

mesh · Aug 21, 2010

You're implying it's just a curves adjustment, and regardless, that IS indeed DR. I am not arguing with you, because I agree somewhat and have certainly appreciated your expertise and ideas, but in your last example... yes I do certainly believe that's DR. No doubt.

glhs116 · Aug 21, 2010

pellicle, I think the issue is that if you try to do a curve on the RH image to match the LH image and the shadow detail is not there then you end up with gritty horrible shadows. And that's why you crushed the shadows in the first place.

Of course it would be great to see the images as close in treatment as possible to isolate the scanner specific issues. As I understand it, this is what you were attempting. Still, call it microcontrast or call it what you will, there is a naturalness to the LH image that comes through even in the smallest size.

At some point, this is like an audiophile discussion. I remember the days of tapes and records. We were all sure we would have perfect sound if only we could get the frequency response flat and kill the wow and flutter. Along came CDs with no wow or flutter and completely flat frequency response. Nevertheless, in defiance of good sense, some sounded great and some sounded thin and bad even though they all hit the numbers.

I doubt the picture on the right can be made to look as natural as the one on the right but I sure wouldn't mind seeing someone try.

TareqPhoto · Aug 21, 2010

I want to buy "New" Nikon Coolscan 9000, where i can find it?

glhs116 · Aug 21, 2010

Two options:

1. Order from Adorama, Calumet, B&H, etc. and wait. You will get it. You will just have to wait.

2. Find a place that has it in stock. Should be possible if you look around enough.

Java · Aug 28, 2010

Mesh are you still looking for a Sprintscan?

Well I have the Micotek 120tf which is the orginal one and I think the Polaroid Sprintscan was sold under licence inder the Polaroid name. But all in all I believe they are the same machine.

The Microtek can be connected to a computer via fire wire or SCSI. Mine use the fire wire.

I use Silverfast Ai version 6.2 with mine and tbh I fin d the software a pain to use. Very powerful but not intuative to use if can find a web page called The Computer Darkroom it is great help at understanding how Silverfast works.

How does the Microtek comapre to the V700?

Very well from what I have seen, obviously the V700 is more versatile, and is a new machine and proable about the same price new as the Microteks are on the used market.

If I was chossing a machine again then I would go for the V700, new, easier to understand software and a fine machine.

mesh · Aug 29, 2010

Hi Java. The V700 is a great machine and very versatile as you mention. For 35 - 6x9, the 120tf or Sprintscan is better IMO. Not a massive difference, but noticeable nonetheless. Slightly better DR and sharpness.

Cons... slower, perhaps not as robust, can't do large format or reflective, and obviously no longer supported. I will still be keeping my V700 anyway - best of both worlds I think.

V700 v Polaroid Sprint 120

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency