[artobest]

Incidentally, Steve, I hope you don't mind but I've always wanted to try this: I've done a sharpen and tonal adjustment on that Epson scan just to see how close I can get it to the Nikon scan, and it's pretty near - in fact, I contend that the differences in resolution (mainly visible in the fence, and in a certain overall graininess) wouldn't be visible in most prints. Tonally it holds up admirably. Which just goes to show what a capable machine the Epson is (still not 6400 dpi capable though!).

Attached Images

 

[stevebrot]

Incidentally, Steve, I hope you don't mind but I've always wanted to try this: I've done a sharpen and tonal adjustment on that Epson scan just to see how close I can get it to the Nikon scan, and it's pretty near - in fact, I contend that the differences in resolution (mainly visible in the fence, and in a certain overall graininess) wouldn't be visible in most prints. Tonally it holds up admirably. Which just goes to show what a capable machine the Epson is (still not 6400 dpi capable though!).

Very interesting, though I do find the halo artifact (evident around lettering) to be a bit of a concern.

The original comparison was done with no sharpening and the default curves from the scanners. A bit of judicious adjustment can usually enhance the flatbed output to generate quite acceptable results, though I don't know that I would move to the V700 from the Nikon except for proof scans if my strip reader were broken.


Steve

[artobest]

Any high-contrast element, such as black-on-white lettering, will evidence haloes long before ordinary pictorial content, and Epson scans are particularly able to withstand extreme doses of capture sharpening - it's a necessity, in fact. You'll struggle to find haloes in the pictorial content of the scan itself.

If you already have a Nikon you'd be a fool to use the Epson for 35mm, but I think people contemplating buying a scanner can relax in the knowledge that, with a few simple techniques (including colour fringe removal in software like Lightroom) the Epson is capable of very good results.

[rhodopsin]

Nice scans!

For the comparison, that portion of the film could easily have been slightly out of the focus range of the Epson scanner (curled film) or where the scanner set its focus.

A proper test of scanner resolution involves a precision critically flat test chart, held critically flat at the precise focus distance above the scanner glass for the scanner.

Sinusoidal Targets - Edmund Optics

Re: ppi/dpi

We know from printers that one pixel is typically (sometimes MUCH) bigger than one dot.

[artobest]

Re: ppi/dpi

We know from printers that one pixel is typically (sometimes MUCH) bigger than one dot.

Dpi in printing is not the same as the dpi referred to in scanning. In printing, dpi literally refers to the number of droplets per linear inch a printer can lay down on paper. This is another reason I think the term 'dpi' for scanners should be laid to rest.

[jennverr]

I like the chart at the bottom of this page 35mm Negative Scanning Prices at Pearson Imaging

Shows what resolution of scan is needed depending on desired print size. I have considered the option of getting a flatbed scanner that scans film, but from all the reviews i've been reading and whatnot, i've decided to just send em out for now. I found a place in NC that had some good prices, and should be getting them back soon to see how they came out!

[stevebrot]

For the comparison, that portion of the film could easily have been slightly out of the focus range of the Epson scanner (curled film) or where the scanner set its focus.

Very good point, though the negative is dead flat (T-max 100) and my carriers are pretty nicely dialed in. My results are pretty consistent with other tests that have been done on the V700/V750 (one of my favorites is HERE), though I might see an improvement with something like a betterscanning.com carrier. Unfortunately, they don't make a 35mm version of their tunable carrier so it is a moot point. The important thing to consider is that no consumer flatbed scanner is capable of adjusting focus to the medium, so potential focus error is part of the general performance equation.

Steve

[stevebrot]

If you already have a Nikon you'd be a fool to use the Epson for 35mm, but I think people contemplating buying a scanner can relax in the knowledge that, with a few simple techniques (including colour fringe removal in software like Lightroom) the Epson is capable of very good results.

I agree 100%. I bought the Epson for medium and large format negatives a year or so after buying the Nikon. The 35mm comparison was done out of curiosity and I was actually pretty pleased with how well the Epson did. The V700 has somewhat lower contrast and I view that as a plus point for some subjects.


Steve

[artobest]

The V700 has somewhat lower contrast and I view that as a plus point for some subjects.

Steve

It's certainly much more forgiving of dusty, speckled or otherwise damaged film than my film scanner. It's just a shame that focussing - or at least, achieving a precise set-up - is such an issue.

Jenverr - let us know how your scans come out. Personally, I enjoy scanning, and for me (as a control-freak) it involves decision-making that I couldn't stand to leave to someone else.

[LesDMess]

The important thing to consider is that no consumer flatbed scanner is capable of adjusting focus to the medium, so potential focus error is part of the general performance equation.
Steve

The now discontinued Microtek ArtixScan M1 (Scanner Review: Microtek ArtixScan M1) had focusing capability and does not have to scan through the glass. Unfortunately, it's inflated DPI numbers didn't deliver in resolution any better then the Epsons either.

[stevebrot]

The now discontinued Microtek ArtixScan M1 (Scanner Review: Microtek ArtixScan M1) had focusing capability and does not have to scan through the glass. Unfortunately, it's inflated DPI numbers didn't deliver in resolution any better then the Epsons either.

Yes, despite its design, the Microtek did not deliver and was poorly rated.


Steve

[Vertex Ninja]

Dpi in printing is not the same as the dpi referred to in scanning. In printing, dpi literally refers to the number of droplets per linear inch a printer can lay down on paper. This is another reason I think the term 'dpi' for scanners should be laid to rest.

Agree totally. I like to use SPI(samples per inch) when talking about scanning, PPI(pixels per inch) when referring to digital files viewed on screen, and DPI(dots per inch) when referring to actual dots of ink on paper. An inkjet does not print the dots(pixels) in the file, it divides them into much, much smaller dots of individual ink using a screening pattern.

[Vertex Ninja]

Even glossy paper with an Epson 7880 cannot show the details of a 300dpi print...

Epson printers are capable of 300-600 pixel resolution on the paper... It just requires a loupe to see it... and the right paper.

Piezography resolution in comparison to Epson ABW | PiezoPress

[Vertex Ninja]

Huh? That's a bit over the top exaggeration imho. ...

He's right. Even a 10MP digital camera is not 10MP of resolution. 10mp of pixel dimensions maybe, but not resolution. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter what lens or aperture you used... they'd all be the maximum resolution and sharpness. Same applies to scanners. 6400 sensor sites per inch does not necessarily mean there is 6400 lines per inch of resolution on the film or that the lens in front of the sensor can even project that kind of resolution.

[LesDMess]

It just requires a loupe to see it... and the right paper.

I use a Carson Loupe/Microscope that is 8X/40X . . .



The 8X is for print review and the 40X is for 4000dpi scan review.