V850 scans look terrible compared to digitized with camera; scanner just too old?

[markaudacity]

I've been digitizing my 35mm negs with a Canon EOS RP and a Negative Supply negative holder. This setup works decently well for quick scans, but the NS holder doesn't hold the film flat at all and the macro lens on the Canon can't fill the frame with a 35mm neg.
The lab also has an Epson V850, so I thought I'd give that a shot since it will hold the negatives flatter in its dedicated film holders, and I gotta say, if this were my scanner I would be selling it, if this is the best it can do. This is all in VueScan, which I've used extensively, so I don't think it's a software or settings issue.

The problems, specifically:
- massive noise, for negs that are a bit thick but would print easily
- a sort of flecking or speckling in dense areas of the negative that looks not like grain or digital noise but almost like paint peeling?
- cannot get a sharp scan at any neg carrier height. The Epson neg carrier holds the film emulsion-up, so the image is being registered through the film base, which seems..not ideal.

So, this is essentially a two-part question:
1. Is the EOS sensor simply so many generations newer that the Epson isn't going to be able to keep up in terms of image quality, particularly shadow performance?
2. Is there an additional variable I'm unaware of besides negative-to-glass distance that's preventing sharp exposures?

This is all at a community lab, so equipment selection is pretty much fixed.


SIDE NOTE: if I had paid almost $400 for this neg carrier, I would be furious. Does not hold negs square or flat due to the slot in the (3D printed! 3D printed parts in a $400 neg carrier!) film guide being more than twice as thick as 35mm film base, the film gate is sized for approximately 24x60mm images (is this a format that exists?), and it's neither wide enough to capture the full 35mm frame nor narrow enough to crop the frame edge. Their copy stand hacked together from 80/20 aluminum extrusion is trash; there's almost five degrees of slop between locked and unlocked on the height adjustment, and an RP with a 35mm macro is not exactly a heavy rig.
I am not convinced the people who designed this have ever been in the room with an actual copy stand.

 

[jeffreyg]

I don’t do 35mm rather 120 & 4x5 both with my 850 that’s several years old. I use the Epson film holders which aren’t the greatest and SilverFast Ai Studio 8 software set at resolution 2400ppi (although that’s what it says) and get very good quality. Some negative scans have been enlarged to five feet. You might try reinstalling your software to see if that helps. If your negatives are flat,they might have the part that you can use to put the film on the glass Are other people using the same set up there having the same problem? Maybe someone changes something that creates the problem and it goes unnoticed.

 

[koraks]

@markaudacity flatbed scans tend to look a little soft. And when scanning in particular underexposed color negatives, chroma noise in the shadows can get oppressive indeed. There are limits to the system and it's quite possible that your 'scans' with the Canon camera come out better all considered.

Having said that, there may be opportunities for some optimization, but it's hard to judge without examples.

 

[Sharktooth]

The problems, specifically:
- massive noise, for negs that are a bit thick but would print easily
- a sort of flecking or speckling in dense areas of the negative that looks not like grain or digital noise but almost like paint peeling?

This sounds like you've got the "Digital Ice" or other similar dust reduction system turned on. These dust reduction systems are infrared based, and don't work with conventional B&W negatives, or Kodachrome. They require a chromogenic dye image like what you'd get using conventional color negative film. If you're scanning B&W film, then the speckling or blotchy patches that you describe are almost certainly the outcome of having dust reduction turned on.

I have a much older Epson 4870 scanner and I get results that are comparable, if not better than a stitched digital camera scan. The V850 itself should produce excellent scans, unless it's broken in some way.

 

[Pieter12]

This sounds like you've got the "Digital Ice" or other similar dust reduction system turned on. These dust reduction systems are infrared based, and don't work with conventional B&W negatives, or Kodachrome. They require a chromogenic dye image like what you'd get using conventional color negative film. If you're scanning B&W film, then the speckling or blotchy patches that you describe are almost certainly the outcome of having dust reduction turned on.

I have a much older Epson 4870 scanner and I get results that are comparable, if not better than a stitched digital camera scan. The V850 itself should produce excellent scans, unless it's broken in some way.

That brings up a question for me. I have an Epson V600 Photo that has a |Digital ICE sticker on it, but I don't see anything in the Epson scan application to be able to turn it on or off. Is it just always enabled with that model?

 

[koraks]

Is it just always enabled with that model?

I don't think so; you should have something like this in the Epson scan dialog:

Note the last line. It only becomes available when selecting color film and when using the film holder (as opposed to area guide) setting on my old 4990. Otherwise it's greyed out. I would expect the V600 interface to be similar.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

ICE also works with photo prints.

Here's the V600 manual:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://files.support.epson.com/pdf/prv6ph/prv6phug.pdf

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I've been digitizing my 35mm negs with a Canon EOS RP and a Negative Supply negative holder. This setup works decently well for quick scans, but the NS holder doesn't hold the film flat at all and the macro lens on the Canon can't fill the frame with a 35mm neg.
The lab also has an Epson V850, so I thought I'd give that a shot since it will hold the negatives flatter in its dedicated film holders, and I gotta say, if this were my scanner I would be selling it, if this is the best it can do. This is all in VueScan, which I've used extensively, so I don't think it's a software or settings issue.

The problems, specifically:
- massive noise, for negs that are a bit thick but would print easily
- a sort of flecking or speckling in dense areas of the negative that looks not like grain or digital noise but almost like paint peeling?
- cannot get a sharp scan at any neg carrier height. The Epson neg carrier holds the film emulsion-up, so the image is being registered through the film base, which seems..not ideal.

So, this is essentially a two-part question:
1. Is the EOS sensor simply so many generations newer that the Epson isn't going to be able to keep up in terms of image quality, particularly shadow performance?
2. Is there an additional variable I'm unaware of besides negative-to-glass distance that's preventing sharp exposures?

This is all at a community lab, so equipment selection is pretty much fixed.


SIDE NOTE: if I had paid almost $400 for this neg carrier, I would be furious. Does not hold negs square or flat due to the slot in the (3D printed! 3D printed parts in a $400 neg carrier!) film guide being more than twice as thick as 35mm film base, the film gate is sized for approximately 24x60mm images (is this a format that exists?), and it's neither wide enough to capture the full 35mm frame nor narrow enough to crop the frame edge. Their copy stand hacked together from 80/20 aluminum extrusion is trash; there's almost five degrees of slop between locked and unlocked on the height adjustment, and an RP with a 35mm macro is not exactly a heavy rig.
I am not convinced the people who designed this have ever been in the room with an actual copy stand.

The V850 film holder has height adjustments. The nominal factory setting is 3mm and is marked with a little arrow at each of the four tabs. Set all four height tabs the same.

Try Epsonscan software. You can download here:

Epson Perfection V600 Photo | Support | Epson US

epson.com

 

[Pieter12]

ICE also works with photo prints.

Here's the V600 manual:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://files.support.epson.com/pdf/prv6ph/prv6phug.pdf

Epson states that Digital ICE is not supported for my OS, only earlier versions apparently. They offer Silverfast SE as an alternatative.

 

[blee1996]

To isolate the potential issue, I would use Epson Scan software in professional mode to scan the negatives at 2400 dpi.

I have used Epson V700 (predecessor of v850) for years, and the scans of 35mm negative are decently good. Not as good as the Nikon Coolscan, but not as bad as you experienced.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

To isolate the potential issue, I would use Epson Scan software in professional mode to scan the negatives at 2400 dpi.

I have used Epson V700 (predecessor of v850) for years, and the scans of 35mm negative are decently good. Not as good as the Nikon Coolscan, but not as bad as you experienced.

My experience is the same. Not the greatest but quite decent, good enough for me. Sometimes I get soft results when film is not flat ( which doesnt happen when I scan with my dslr).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Epson states that Digital ICE is not supported for my OS, only earlier versions apparently. They offer Silverfast SE as an alternatative.

The basic Silverfast was included when I bought my new V850. (...and a CD with SilverFast SE Plus 8 and X-Rite i1 software.)_But I stuck with the Epsonscan on my Windows 11 (current) because I had used it for ten years on earlier Windows versions with my previous V600. I didn't see the point in learning a new scanning app.
V850 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1083201-REG/epson_b11b224201_perfection_v850_pro_scanner.html

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Samples of my 35mm scans with a V850.

Removing ground brush with fire - 35mm Tmax 400

New Jersey Forest Fire Department clears bush by burning. Near Craig House, Monmouth Battlefield.

www.flickr.com

 

[markaudacity]

Thanks for all the responses, y'all, got some good suggestions here for a next round of test scans. It sounds like it may be that flatbed scans simply aren't going to deliver the results I want, at least for 35mm. Might try scanning the contact sheets for a rough index and scan prints for the images that are worth more effort.

@markaudacity flatbed scans tend to look a little soft. And when scanning in particular underexposed color negatives, chroma noise in the shadows can get oppressive indeed. There are limits to the system and it's quite possible that your 'scans' with the Canon camera come out better all considered.

Having said that, there may be opportunities for some optimization, but it's hard to judge without examples.

Some of the worst-offending images are underexposed, so this may be part of it. They're black and white, but it sure does look the way blotchy chroma noise does when you dial the saturation down to zero.
I'll upload some samples later this evening which will hopefully help diagnose the issue further.

This sounds like you've got the "Digital Ice" or other similar dust reduction system turned on. These dust reduction systems are infrared based, and don't work with conventional B&W negatives, or Kodachrome. They require a chromogenic dye image like what you'd get using conventional color negative film. If you're scanning B&W film, then the speckling or blotchy patches that you describe are almost certainly the outcome of having dust reduction turned on.

I'll double-check that it's off and see if that helps, I wasn't exactly doing a scientific inquiry the first time around so I can't be sure which scans did or didn't have ICE enabled.

The V850 film holder has height adjustments. The nominal factory setting is 3mm and is marked with a little arrow at each of the four tabs. Set all four height tabs the same.

This was the first thing I tried once I remembered that flatbed scanners are fixed-focus, but even with the height all the way up, the scans are still softer than I find acceptable. (I did reduce it one notch from the default as well, and that didn't improve things either).
Is it possible that the scan head is out of alignment?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

...
This was the first thing I tried once I remembered that flatbed scanners are fixed-focus, but even with the height all the way up, the scans are still softer than I find acceptable. (I did reduce it one notch from the default as well, and that didn't improve things either).
Is it possible that the scan head is out of alignment?

Since the V850 is at a community lab, who knows what condition it's in with everyone sticking their hands on it. Do the users know what they're doing?

 

[markaudacity]

Since the V850 is at a community lab, who knows what condition it's in with everyone sticking their hands on it. Do the users know what they're doing?

I believe they do, the staff has a good deal of experience and enrollment requires an application process, so it's not just random folks off the street. The scanner doesn't look like it has ever suffered abuse, no dings or scuffs, glass is clean and free of scratches, film carriers look like new, scanner doesn't make any odd noises while operating.

My suss is that it's a combination of poorly-exposed negatives and possibly unreasonable expectations for the sharpness a flatbed can deliver...although the scans you linked look much better than mine, so more investigation is necessary.

 

[koraks]

My suss is that it's a combination of poorly-exposed negatives and possibly unreasonable expectations for the sharpness a flatbed can deliver.

Did you check the ICE thing? Sorry if I missed it. I mean that ICE doesn't work on B&W silver negatives (as opposed to XP2 etc.) It can produce the kind of 'chroma noise' and 'pastiness' that I imagine you were describing.

I've never heard of a scanner head going out of alignment.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I believe they do, the staff has a good deal of experience and enrollment requires an application process, so it's not just random folks off the street. The scanner doesn't look like it has ever suffered abuse, no dings or scuffs, glass is clean and free of scratches, film carriers look like new, scanner doesn't make any odd noises while operating.

My suss is that it's a combination of poorly-exposed negatives and possibly unreasonable expectations for the sharpness a flatbed can deliver...although the scans you linked look much better than mine, so more investigation is necessary.

Have you asked other users at the lab how their scans were coming out? Have you seen them? MAybe they can walk you through the process.

 

[250swb]

I think everybody will think the Epson V700/V800 produces very good scans if they've never tried anything else. But the reality is a Plustek 35mm scanner is a fair bit better, and a digital camera is much better than that. The Epson is actually quite good for scanning medium format and large format because the diffused light source is mitigated by the larger area. But for 35mm no matter how much you test and adjust the height of the neg carrier, or use ever more complicated software, and learn ever more refined techniques, with a V800 you'll only end up with something a tiny bit better than you started with.

 

[Les Sarile]

This sounds like you've got the "Digital Ice" or other similar dust reduction system turned on. These dust reduction systems are infrared based, and don't work with conventional B&W negatives, or Kodachrome. They require a chromogenic dye image like what you'd get using conventional color negative film. If you're scanning B&W film, then the speckling or blotchy patches that you describe are almost certainly the outcome of having dust reduction turned on.

I have a much older Epson 4870 scanner and I get results that are comparable, if not better than a stitched digital camera scan. The V850 itself should produce excellent scans, unless it's broken in some way.

As far as I know, only the Nikon Coolscan + Nikonscan ICE works on Kodachrome. With the Coolscan V & 5000, there can be the tiniest bit of artifacting and none at all with the 9000. Below you can see this anomaly is most prominent where dark and bright areas intersect as shown in the crops below.

Effectiveness of ICE on Kodachrome by Les DMess, on Flickr


And of course there is no ICE better than Coolscan + Nikonscan in terms of speed and quality.

Kodachrome D800-Coolscan by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[Les Sarile]

Thanks for all the responses, y'all, got some good suggestions here for a next round of test scans. It sounds like it may be that flatbed scans simply aren't going to deliver the results I want, at least for 35mm. Might try scanning the contact sheets for a rough index and scan prints for the images that are worth more effort.


Some of the worst-offending images are underexposed, so this may be part of it. They're black and white, but it sure does look the way blotchy chroma noise does when you dial the saturation down to zero.
I'll upload some samples later this evening which will hopefully help diagnose the issue further.


I'll double-check that it's off and see if that helps, I wasn't exactly doing a scientific inquiry the first time around so I can't be sure which scans did or didn't have ICE enabled.


This was the first thing I tried once I remembered that flatbed scanners are fixed-focus, but even with the height all the way up, the scans are still softer than I find acceptable. (I did reduce it one notch from the default as well, and that didn't improve things either).
Is it possible that the scan head is out of alignment?

The V850 makes a good index page for a roll of 35mm . . .

Here's a roll of color slides in a film holder and the last strip is cutoff as it is beyond the scan area.

Full roll of Fuji Astia on Epson V700 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Here's a roll of color negatives layed flat on the glass area. I suppose I could have overlapped them some more to get the full set in.

Full roll Kodak Portra 400UC on Epson V700 by Les DMess, on Flickr

If you click on the image, you'll get the full res and at 2400dpi it is very reasonable quality and quick to scan. Arranging the strips on the glass is tedious.


BTW, I am not sure if you're shooting new film - and continuing to shoot more, and digitizing them so this is a suggestion towards the underexposure you may be encountering. Most all color negative and b&w film today have exceedingly wide tolerance for overexposure so you can err on that side. Below shows just how wide this is with Kodak Portra 400 of +10 and still usable with the most minor of post work. I didn't test Kodak Ektar 100 to it's extent at that time as I assumed then it would be limited since it's considered a "contrasty" film. I have since found out it's also very good.

Kodak Portra 400 overexposure by Les DMess, on Flickr

I've tested many other films in this manner.

 

[JWMster]

FWIW, let me say that I've just recently started fluid scanning with my Epson V850. Dry scans were "okay" but never anything to really make you stand up and say, "Hey.... what a great scan!" Yes they could be as good as some labs. And I've had a Nikon Coolscan 8000 and it was decent, but a dry scan as well. My experience (which is short to be clear and limited in number) is sufficiently stronger and better with fluid scanning that I'm not sure I'll ever go back to dryscans. Just not worth the squeeze.

In fact the improvement was in my experience.... just from "unh" to almost "wow!" Close-up of a subject just popped so much and sharpness increased sufficiently to just scream "Don't leave me baby." Yes and that was from a crank on a winch.

In terms of B&W KORAKS and I traded some emails back and forth on the subject not too long ago, and his guidance is good. But the clean-up with a dry B&W scan can still be an issue. With B&W in a fluid scan.... MOST of the innumerable defects in the sky and the like are just gone. You will not have to use Photoshop AI masking to remove them. Haven't tried C41's yet.... but I will. The point is that BEFORE you give up, you should consider a wetmount from EPSON. Cost is worth it. There's another thread on here recently ( Fluid Mount Supplies ) on supplies for fluid mounting and you really can get pretty much what you need for a reasonable price. I listed what I bought and others did too. Just be generous with the fluid when you use it and the whole goes pretty fast.

Now the caveat I'm going to finish with is that NO, I have not done a side-by-side of the same photo DRY and FLUID scanned. I should, but I don't have endless oodles of time either... so it's not happening. But converting to the wet/fluid process from that point has simply meant I'm seeing more of the elimination of post-scan processing time with the image and that time can run sufficiently longer that a little bit more time up front with a fluid mount seems a worthy switch.

 

[brbo]

Now the caveat I'm going to finish with is that NO, I have not done a side-by-side of the same photo DRY and FLUID scanned. I should, but I don't have endless oodles of time either... so it's not happening.

Sure it is. Just tell me which type of film do you want me to scan (BW, BW reversal, C-41 or E-6) and on what scanner (drum (4000dpi), flatbed (~1900dpi effective), dedicated film scanner (4000dpi)) and I'll make a side-by-side comparison.

 

[Hassasin]

OP asks a question about supposed really bad results scanning 35mm on V850, and yet shows nothing for others to comment on. {edited}

V850 does a decent job on 35mm, but it is not made to give great results for obvious reasons. But still, scans are quite OK for the small format and pretty good quality prints can be made to 8x10 even 11x14 with some care.

In this sense there is no need to discuss anything, just some on line search will show what V850 can do with 35mm. If things come out, apparently, so far out of norm, it is not the design limitations of the V850.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

OP asks a question about supposed really bad results scanning 35mm on V850, and yet shows nothing for others to comment on. {edited}

V850 does a decent job on 35mm, but it is not made to give great results for obvious reasons. This has been hammered over the years to the momentous minutia. One might say this horse has died and died again. But still, scans are quite OK for the small format and pretty good quality prints can be made to 8x10 even 11x14 with some care.

In this sense there is no need to discuss anything, just some on line search will show what V850 can do with 35mm. If things come out, apparently, so far out of norm, it is not the design limitations of the V850.

Here's my results with Tmax 100 35mm within a V850. I had to sharpen the heck out of it in post. But you get fairly decent results. I haven't printed these., so there's that.