[stevebrot]

Scans are not sharp and do not usually give good results even at 2400.

Based on tests I have read, the V500 has a working resolution of about 1600 dpi. At that level you should be able to get an image of acceptable sharpness for onscreen display, but which would only be good for about a 4x5 printed copy. Film flatness is essential as is appropriate film height. That is where the betterscanning.com holders come in.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I used to do a lot of work with an LS8000 with glass film holders. The same images scanned on my V700 require somewhat more sharpening at a radius of 3 pixels or smaller when working at an output resolution of 300 ppi for 16x24 images, but the final prints are very, very close

A 16"x24" digital print from a 35mm negative requires a fair amount of pixel extrapolation from a source scan at 4000 dpi (assuming 300 dpi for output). Scanning at 6400 dpi with your Epson may actually be providing better input to the printer than the LS 8000 scans. If you are getting comparable results, the credit(?) probably goes to your printer driver. The practical limit for straight printed output from 35mm at 4000 dpi is about 18" for the long axis. A 16"x24" print would require a scan at 7200 dpi. Hello Imacon/Hasselblad!

As for the V700 resolution, I stand by the comparisons I have done in the past against the Nikon 5000 ED. 2400 dpi from the V700 is pretty much as good as it gets.


Steve

[John Poirier]

A 16"x24" digital print from a 35mm negative requires a fair amount of pixel extrapolation from a source scan at 4000 dpi (assuming 300 dpi for output). Scanning at 6400 dpi with your Epson may actually be providing better input to the printer than the LS 8000 scans. If you are getting comparable results, the credit(?) probably goes to your printer driver. The practical limit for straight printed output from 35mm at 4000 dpi is about 18" for the long axis. A 16"x24" print would require a scan at 7200 dpi. Hello Imacon/Hasselblad!

As for the V700 resolution, I stand by the comparisons I have done in the past against the Nikon 5000 ED. 2400 dpi from the V700 is pretty much as good as it gets.


Steve

Hi Steve. I'm not sure what you mean by "the practical limit for straight printed output". I certainly wouldn't print straight from scans. I rescale images and sharpen as appropriate. Nothing to do with the printer driver.

For me the practical limit is the largest size at which I can output a pleasing image. By pleasing I mean an image that stands up to close examination by well-informed viewers- like, other professionals. With proper processing, there is room to go beyond the limitations you have calculated. Bear in mind that I did photography for a museum for 20 years, and part of my work involved producing very large images for exhibit use- both for my own institution and internationally. This was particularly tricky when dealing with archival images. As a result I have a pretty good understanding of what I can get away with in rescaling my own stuff, which is a lot easier to deal with than some of the archival horrors I ran into. In my experience a 16x24 print from good 35mm is not that much of a stretch. I don' need no steenking Imacon!

I remember looking at your scanner comparisons. They were well done. However, I would not completely discount the possibility of sample variation, as I have seen somewhat different results elsewhere. I'll reiterate that I am not claiming 6400 or even 4000 ppi for the V700- just that my results tend to be better than they would be scanning at 2400.

John

[tuco]

To scan beyond 4000 dpi means an optical path that can resolve better than 70 MTF. Do you believe the V700 has that capability?

[John Poirier]

To scan beyond 4000 dpi means an optical path that can resolve better than 70 MTF. Do you believe the V700 has that capability?

No. I haven't said that. What I am saying is that as someone highly experienced in producing large images for demanding audiences in the real world I have had success with the V700 scanning 35mm. I have very clearly stated, and I will repeat, that I have not claimed 6400 or 4000 dpi as true resolution for the V700. I have said that I have achieved better results than would be obtained by scanning at the 2400ppi claimed as the useful limit by some people. That is all.

Among other things, I have found that scanning beyond 4000 ppi with the V700, at least the particular sample that I have, provides some benefits in avoiding grain aliasing. That is my observation, based on testing- as someone who has been pixel peeping since long before there were pixels to peep.

My real world experience is that I can hang 16x24 inch prints from V700 scans on a gallery wall and have experienced viewers marvel at the sharpness of the images. I am attempting to point out, in the face of the voices of doom about the V700 and 35mm, that with good scanning technique combined with proper processing, 35mm is a real option. Note that there is more to apparent print sharpness than MTF.

I am simply offering information that may open opportunities to those who are curious enough to try things for themselves, rather than closing doors on the potential to produce good work with a relatively affordable tool. People who make blanket statements that there is no point in scanning beyond 2400 with the V700 are simply closing doors. As a kindness to those of us on real world budgets, I am suggesting the V700 as a reasonable tool, not as the ultimate blah blah blah.

[tuco]

Do you shoot medium format, John?

[John Poirier]

Do you shoot medium format, John?

Yes, I've used medium format extensively since 1984. Pentax 6x7, Hasselblad, Koni Omega, Mamiya Press Universal, baby Crown Graphic, and a few others. Most of my V700 use is scanning that stuff. I also used to do a lot of 4x5 work as part of my former job.

For the last year I've mainly used digital due to health-related weight restrictions (and because I like it) but will probably resume some medium format work soon. I still enjoy messing around with 35mm, often for subjects where a somewhat gritty look with impure colour rendition is appropriate.

[stevebrot]

As a result I have a pretty good understanding of what I can get away with in rescaling my own stuff,

Oh...so you upscale in software (pixel extrapolation) with additional manipulation to make the scan look better than it is. Fair enough. That works well enough if the viewer keeps their distance from the print which is pretty much the norm.

My statement was based on the simple math of scan resolution x negative size as applied to the nominal printer resolution of 300 dpi. If you want to go bigger than 18" on the long side you need either higher than 4000 dpi resolution or some way to upsample the image (software/firmware solution).

Better yet would be to get a good wet print from the same negative. 16"x24" is quite do-able assuming the negative is up to the challenge.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I am simply offering information that may open opportunities to those who are curious enough to try things for themselves, rather than closing doors on the potential to produce good work with a relatively affordable tool. People who make blanket statements that there is no point in scanning beyond 2400 with the V700 are simply closing doors. As a kindness to those of us on real world budgets, I am suggesting the V700 as a reasonable tool, not as the ultimate blah blah blah.

And I am in the position of explaining to people who are working with less capable tools than the V700 why they don't get good scans and every once in awhile to people who are getting poor results from their V700. I have used my V700 in a pinch for 35mm and if the negatives are flat, it does a decent job. My thoughts on the matter can be summarized:

• The V700/V750 are a very good option for MF and LF scanning and are adequate for quality 35mm work.
• The V500/V600 are adequate for MF (LF is not an option) but pretty limiting for 35mm work
• There are better dedicated 35mm film scanners in the same price range (or less) than the V700
• The V700/V750 are over-priced

As for people closing doors...there is the assumption that the door was open in the first place. To go back to the analogy of the wet darkroom, your prints are only as good as the lens on the enlarger and the negative being projected.

I have not doubt that you able to produce display-worthy prints from your setup, especially considering your experience level and understanding of the process. I also know that I tried my darndest to squeeze more detail out of my V700, but with only limited success. You can't upsample and sharpen a line that simply isn't there on the scan. What is even more frustrating is to see detail on the negative with a loupe that is not expressed even at 4000 dpi!


Steve

[jt_cph_dk]

Part of the process involves careful sharpening in several stages in Photoshop- not in the scanning software. I've arrived at this method after considerable testing.

Interesting. Regards

[gofour3]

I have a Pacific Image “PrimeFilm 7250u” for scanning 35mm slides or negatives.

I mostly use it for scanning the odd slide. (I don’t digitize my 35mm slides unless I’m posting the image.) When I shoot 6x7 or 35mm negatives, I get the lab to do medium resolution scans at the time of processing.

Phil.

[hollywoodfred]

I'm quite late to the party here, but decided to contribute anyway.

I voted "scan provided by photo developer", although I have done some of my own scanning. I purchased a Canon 9000F intending to scan boxes of old negatives and new work. While I am perfectly happy with the results from the 9000F (I've scanned about 50% of old work), I get no satisfaction from scanning new negatives or slides when I get get the lab to provide even better results for just a few dollars.

Fred

[Jonathan Mac]

I'm quite late to the party here, but decided to contribute anyway.

I voted "scan provided by photo developer", although I have done some of my own scanning. I purchased a Canon 9000F intending to scan boxes of old negatives and new work. While I am perfectly happy with the results from the 9000F (I've scanned about 50% of old work), I get no satisfaction from scanning new negatives or slides when I get get the lab to provide even better results for just a few dollars.

Fred

All input is welcome.

Most places I've been to will charge a lot of money for a scan that's anything other than low resolution, and a small fortune for anything other than a low quality jpeg. I'd love to get high quality scans done for me, but it's just too expensive.

[stevebrot]

Most places I've been to will charge a lot of money for a scan that's anything other than low resolution

And even then, the quality may be poor. Costco was giving me garbage scans as 80Mbyte files and saying, "Hey look, it is 80Mbyte!" Grrrrr...


Steve

[Jonathan Mac]

Yep. Large files don't necessarily equal good quality any more than lots of megapixels equal high quality.