V700 v Polaroid Sprint 120

[mesh]

I am looking to upgrade my Epson V700 for medium format (primarily 6x6). Nikon 9000 still unavailable in Australia, and around 5K so don't really have the budget. I have the ability to buy a Polaroid 120 for a decent price... anyone familiar with it here? Do you think there's a tangible difference from V700?

Thank you.

 

[glhs116]

It's unavailable in a lot of places but international courier services are your friend. I just bought a new Coolscan 9000ED from a pro photo shop in Seattle. I had it in Doha a week later. I really think the Coolscan 9000ED is very hard to beat.

 

[mesh]

Still too much by the time it gets in here unfortunately. Not as simple as it sounds either with customs, power adapters etc. And I can't imaging the 9000 being THAT much better than the Polaroid... ?? I guess I am really interested in where the Polaroid might sit between the V700 and 9000. Thanks.

 

[pschwart]

Still too much by the time it gets in here unfortunately. Not as simple as it sounds either with customs, power adapters etc. And I can't imaging the 9000 being THAT much better than the Polaroid... ?? I guess I am really interested in where the Polaroid might sit between the V700 and 9000. Thanks.

You will want a glass film holder for the Polaroid. The Polaroid was a rebadged Microtek, so those holders will work but they are hard to find. You had better make sure the available driver supports your operating system

 

[mesh]

Good point Philip. I will buy Silverfast Ai - it's not cheap of course but I still come out ahead considerably. So can anyone actually compare the V700 and Polaroid? I guess not many people would have used both.

 

[glhs116]

Not to beat a horse to death but I think the 9000 is really very under-appreciated. If its optical quality is inferior to the Flextights it is only by a very small margin. It has the world's best automatic ICE system (only scanner on Earth that can use ICE on Kodachrome). Not only is scanning without ICE time-consuming, it is also less accurate. I recently rescanned a frame that had taken me thirty minutes to spot for dust previously only to see that a few spots remained on the Nikon scan. They were stars.

The Coolscan 9000ED also comes with the excellent Nikon Scan software that allows batch scanning with extreme ease. The current version (4.02) also does negative conversions that are almost print-ready in probably 90% of cases.

The 120 will give you an older noisier CCD with (I believe) no ICE and will have you fighting SCSI and age-related battles. The V700 is a flatbed so you will be fighting all the flatbed-related battles of fighting to get a sharp image and constant cleaning.

I'm not sure about the Polaroid but you can certainly get an idea how the V700 stacks up against the 9000 here:

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html

Also, what none of these reviews will touch upon is the colour rendition on the Nikon which is superlative. My little Konica Minolta is as sharp as the Nikon but the images it creates do not compare.

Don't mind me if your mind is made up but for the benefit of others reading this thread, the Coolscan 9000ED is more than the sum of its parts.

 

[donbga]

Not to beat a horse to death but I think the 9000 is really very under-appreciated.

I don't think the Nikon 9000 is under-appreciated, just hard to get new and perhaps over priced.

I own the Polaroid Sprint Scan and it's an excellent value if one can get the glass film holder and the drivers for the unit. Most of the time drivers can be located on the internet.

The Sprintscan 120 is perhaps slower to use than the Nikon 9000 but I think it probably rivals the image quality of the 9000, but that's merely conjecture since I've not tested them head to head.

In short if one is budget minded then the Sprintscan 120 is a great value, especially considering one can also scan smaller formats too.

BTW, If you do find a SprintScan you may need to connect it with a SCSI adapter. You will definitely need to do that if you are running a Windows OS later than XP or if you can't find the drivers.

Don

 

[pellicle]

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.

The microtek is viewable here

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

as to customs and power adaptors (speaking as an Australian who buys most stuff OS) I'll say that you'll be liable for GST if it gets snagged. As to power adaptors the units take all voltages and so all you'll need a new chord and thats it. So flog the lead off the Kambrook in the kitchen and you'll be up an going.

So I think you're overblowing that particular issue.

I'll ask you a question: how often do you scan your 120 film to print to greater than 50cm wide? Would you be well off on those imagages to get a scan done with a Imacon or drum scan?

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.

 

[mesh]

Thanks for all the advice. Look the issue with the 9000 is THAT I CAN'T AFFORD ONE. Simple. I understand it's a better scanner and have used the 8000 extensively (along with Crossfield drum scanners and Imacons). I'd also like an X5 but I'm not going to buy that either. I understand where you are all coming from though - best to wait until I can afford the Nikon... fair enough.

Pellicle - the cheapest I can find one landed in still 4K... and without a warranty. I may as well find another grand. The issue with the power is more with warrantly - it totally voids anything you might have.

 

[mesh]

I must say I do see the difference between a V700 and Nikon say, even at web sizes. It's not just about resolution. Because I have always loved scanning and enjoy that 'process' (it's also my way to instil a 'look') I am reluctant to get external scans - although that's a good idea Pellicle.

I think I also need to consider the value of shooting MF... I am not a professional and I could sell my Hassy kit and buy loads of nice 35mm gear and a nice dedicated scanner - plus I do wet print quite a bit now. The issue for me , is that whilst I think the Epson is great value for money - it's not quite there, and scanning is a waste of my time using it.

 

[pellicle]

The issue with the power is more with warrantly - it totally voids anything you might have.

can't see why or how that is the case, the unit is designed to accept 240~110 VAC and automaticaly switches. This is the same with all of my Nikon Scanners, I'll pop a question to a mate who has the 9000 in Sydney but I am 99% certain that this is the case. There is no USA vs European / Australian model.

Do you know this or do you just suppose it or has some sales person said this to you?

there is no doubt they are more expensive ... if you want to see differences between the LS-4000 and my Epson 4990 with 35mm film look here. From what I've seen (comparing stuff with my mate in Sydney) you can expect the same level of accuracy of scan from the 9000 per square mm of film as you can from the LS-4000 (which I have).

If you need 4000dpi scans from 120 film that is ... I do 6x12 so it would be rather overkill

also you need to consider something else significant, that is effort. As the possiblity for performance of scans goes up, so too does the requirement of attention to detail and effort on the part of the operator. You will find many many many threads where people go to extra-ordinary lengths to attain the required focus and film flatness which is required to reveal the additional benefits that the 9000 can deliver. Start thinking glass hoders and wet mounting on your 9000 and this equates to something like at least 15 minutes in time per image scanned (ifyour fast)

 

[pellicle]

I must say I do see the difference between a V700 and Nikon say, even at web sizes. It's not just about resolution.

I'm willing to stand up to the plate on that one, if we can arrange a 9000 operator then I'll scan on my Epson 4990 and we can do a blind test.

I suggest that properly operated you can not pick which one is which at web sizes. I have done many comparisons between my 4990 and my 4000 on 35mm and when sized to 1600x1200 can not tell which was which even when I scanned them.

If you are getting such poor results from an Epson then I'm sure you're driving it badly.

 

[mesh]

Thanks for all your help. Pellicle - a dealer did say the warranty would be void so perhaps that can be taken with a grain of salt. Regarding lower res... yes I can see a difference in DR in my comparisons (even on screen) but there are lots of variations of course. Frankly, I can also see a small difference between Nikon and Imacon scans as well, but maybe it's a placebo effect... ;-)

 

[glhs116]

also you need to consider something else significant, that is effort. As the possiblity for performance of scans goes up, so too does the requirement of attention to detail and effort on the part of the operator. You will find many many many threads where people go to extra-ordinary lengths to attain the required focus and film flatness which is required to reveal the additional benefits that the 9000 can deliver. Start thinking glass hoders and wet mounting on your 9000 and this equates to something like at least 15 minutes in time per image scanned (ifyour fast)

Here I must take exception. I have seen the same threads you have and I think people must either be really picky or have much worse problems with film flatness than I ever have.

Included in the box is a glassless holder for 120 with a tensioning mechanism. Basically, the film is clamped both sides. You apply tension and push a slider over to lock in the tension. The tension keeps any piece of film I have ever seen almost perfectly flat (even if it had pre-existing curl).

The sharpness of the 9000 (which comes at no extra effort since it autofocuses -- something flatbeds don't do) is such that I have no need of sharpening even at 4000dpi. The sharpness is so good that I typically only need 2000dpi even for very large framed prints from 120 (and even 35mm if the original film image is sharp).

In any case, sharpness is only one factor. I invite anyone who is interested to peruse my Flickr stream

http://www.flickr.com/samagnew

There you will see a lot of images scanned on Coolscan 9000s (oldest ones on the work's 9000, newest on my new 9000) and a fair number scanned on my Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV which I had to use for about six months. There is nothing wrong with the sharpness of the Konica Minolta and I can even persuade a decent slide film scan out of it but just look at a few images in large size from either scanner and tell me what you see. Actually, more to the point, look at them even in thumbnail. A number of images are there that I rescanned and they have links back to the scans on the other scanner. Here is just one example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samagnew/4905026715/

Although the image quality is clearly higher here on the Coolscan another major benefit is that the crummy KM scan took me almost an hour of fiddling and dust spotting and getting the exposure just in the sweet spot of its limited sensor and so on. The Coolscan scan was just an "auto" scan without any extras except ICE. I scanned as a positive and used ColorPerfect in this instance since I'm still evaluating this software but I can assure you the result would be almost as good by just specifying "negative" and hitting scan. Most of my older photos are negative film and none of the older photos make use of any "tricks" other than just specifying "negative" in Nikon Scan and hitting the button.

I would rate time saved as a major benefit of the 9000. In my personal experience.

 

[pellicle]

Here I must take exception. I have seen the same threads you have and I think people must either be really picky or have much worse problems with film flatness than I ever have.

it could just be that. When I lived in Finland my 120 film was always flat ... here in Australia it curls like a daemon

I think humidity and storage conditions have large influences.

one has to remember to to a pre auto focus too or the image will not be at its best.

as always YMMV

 

[pellicle]

Thanks for all your help Pellicle

no wukkers ...

 

[pellicle]

I suggest that properly operated you can not pick which one is which at web sizes. I have done many comparisons between my 4990 and my 4000 on 35mm and when sized to 1600x1200 can not tell which was which even when I scanned them.

anecdote: when picking up the prints from this comparison both the operator and I could not tell the smaller prints apart ... we referred to the larger prints (which was easier to spot the Epson) and I drew upon the fact I knew there was a dust spec on the neg in the Nikon image which was not on the Epson

if you look at that comparison there are a few sharpness things which do give away the Epson image ... (like the headband and colour balance) but then I didn't do much tweaking on them

 

[mesh]

Nice Flickr sets glhs116! Thanks everyone. Will sleep on it and make a decision tomorrow... looks like it might be sensible waiting until I can afford a 9000... Then I'll probably want an Imacon!! And then an Aztec... gee it gets bad doesn't it! ;-)

 

[mesh]

Last post - sorry ;-) Just seen prices of 9000 in the US and they have obviously come back in stock. About 1K cheaper than a month ago!

 

[Donsta]

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.

Sorry - that's just a presumption based on ignorance - the reality is that the Sprintscan 120 is very, very close to the Nikon 9000 and certainly a lot better than the V700 - even at modest enlargement.

Would you be well off on those imagages to get a scan done with a Imacon or drum scan?

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.

I'd suggest that you inability to discern a good drum scan from a 4990 scan at modest enlargement means that (a) the images you compared lack fine detail or texture, or (b) the drum scans you have seen are of average to poor quality, or (c) your printing skills need work Before purchasing my Howtek 4500, I made several 16x20 inch prints ( a very modest 2X enlargement) from 8x10 B&W negatives scanned on my Epson 4990 (and before you jump to a rash conclusion, I do know "how to drive it" and have done thousands of scans on it at optimal focus height etc). Some months after owning the Howtek, I rescanned the same negatives and re-printed them - the differences are astounding. Obviously, these are not differences in detail in the prints, but mostly involve microcontrast.

Sorry, but given your ongoing self-promotion as the great expert on scanning on this forum, there are some big gaping holes in what you are saying...

 

[pellicle]

Dear Donsta

Sorry - that's just a presumption based on ignorance - the reality is that the Sprintscan 120 is very, very close to the Nikon 9000 and certainly a lot better than the V700 - even at modest enlargement.

sure, if I had one I'd say what I see ... but I didn't

I'd suggest that you inability to discern a good drum scan from a 4990 scan at modest enlargement means that (a) the images you compared lack fine

starting to smell like a troll here ... when have I said I can't see the difference between a drum scan and others?

you either can't read or are wanting to pick a fight

Sorry, but given your ongoing self-promotion as the great expert on scanning on this forum, there are some big gaping holes in what you are saying...

self promotion as an expert .... LOL ... man when have I ever said anything to suggest I regard myself as an expert. All I do is try to answer questions and suppliment my answers with actual evidence.

Do you do as much?

If you disagree with anything I say you're more than entitled to. If you have some point in particular then please help everyone on this forum along with your wisdom and publish it. Let me quote from another author:

It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice

PS

I read again what you said and decided to add more as a PS (not wishing to touch the above). I suspect that perhaps I may have misinterpreted your intentions

you say:

I'd suggest that you inability to discern a good drum scan from a 4990 scan at modest enlargement means that (a) the images you compared lack fine detail or texture, or (b) the drum scans you have seen are of average to poor quality, or (c) your printing skills need work

to which I'd reply that I'm not unable to discern the differences in the scans but at the prints the difference is less significant, particularly (as you say) at modest enlargement. I'm not doing the printing that's always been sent out, so perhaps here that makes a difference.

I made several 16x20 inch prints ( a very modest 2X enlargement) from 8x10 B&W negatives scanned on my Epson 4990 ... Some months after owning the Howtek, I rescanned the same negatives and re-printed them - the differences are astounding. Obviously, these are not differences in detail in the prints, but mostly involve microcontrast.

Perhaps that is so. I'd be curious to see your files and prints. Personally I've found that adjustment of the files from the Epson requires different handling to my Nikon 4000 ... I see the same sort of difference with the scans I've had done on a 9000. My approach to sharpening on the Epson is to do more local area contrast enhancement. By this I mean the application of unsharp mask at something like 60 pixels at something like 9 to 15 percent depending on the image. I feel this is due to the nature of difference between the scan process. Some have compared this to the difference between condenser and diffuser enlargers, back when there were arguments as to which was better / sharper.

I suspect your communication style is different to mine, so you've assumed I'm attempting to promote myself as an expert. This is not the case, I know what I know and I come here mostly to learn. Occasionally read questions which I feel I can answer and attempt to do so using examples where I can. This has also had the effect that I learn from being corrected.

So there is no pompus attitude of "I'm the expert here" only a willingness to engage in discussions and examine what others present as well as present what I've learnt over the years. If I were to reply to everything I read here and say "wow, thanks for that I didn't know that" it would perhaps change the balance of what you think ... not to mention clutter up the forum with more posts.

 

[mesh]

Hey guys - sorry to have started a debate ;-) All your comments have been great and are really relevant. There are so many variables here, but I think ultimately we all know what's 'better'. The V700 is great for the money but not quite a Sprintscan, which in turn isn't quite a 9000... and then there's the Imacons, Topaz's etc. ;-) Certainly I also believe that a good operator can get a better scan from a V700 than a terrible one with a 9000!

 

[donbga]

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.

Chris,

Something is wrong somewhere if those are your observations. And one doesn't need to print that large (50cm) to observe the differences clearly between a drum scan and scan from a 4990. The differences are wildly obvious even when comparing scans of sheet film on enlargements of moderate size, about 12x18. Actually just viewing onscreen at pixel level tells most of the story.

In short the Polaroid 120 will kick a v700 if one compares *without* any sharping. If one wet mounts with a v700 a small amount of detail and micro-contrast will be achieved but compared to a dedicated scanner the v700 alwyas comes in second.

I wish that I could wet mount with the SprintScan just to satisfy my curiosity about how much better a wet scan might be with that scanner but the physics of the Polaroid/Microtek glass holder prevent that. Speaking of which, my glass holder is labeled Microtek and the quality is a bit under whelming. An industrious person might be able to fabricate something vastly superior but not without a lot of skill, metal cutting expertise, time, and money. So I have a feeling that the Nikon 9000 holder is superior in that arena.

If anyone with a 9000 wants to do comparison scans with the SprintScan 120 please contact me. I'd like to find out what the quality differences are like.

If DPUG does come into fruition it may be a worth while project to create comparison of various scanners.

Don

 

[donbga]

I would rate time saved as a major benefit of the 9000. In my personal experience.

Those are very nice film scans you have on your Flickr page, the Nikon 9000 is obviously an excellent machine.

Don

 

[donbga]

Perhaps that is so. I'd be curious to see your files and prints. Personally I've found that adjustment of the files from the Epson requires different handling to my Nikon 4000 ... I see the same sort of difference with the scans I've had done on a 9000. My approach to sharpening on the Epson is to do more local area contrast enhancement. By this I mean the application of unsharp mask at something like 60 pixels at something like 9 to 15 percent depending on the image. I feel this is due to the nature of difference between the scan process. Some have compared this to the difference between condenser and diffuser enlargers, back when there were arguments as to which was better / sharper.

Chris,

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. The loss of detail and noise can't be made up for by later adjustements.

Don