[larkis]

I scan 4x5 film on a V750 pro or whatever epson calls is, while the scanner can extract quite a bit of information, scanning at 4800dpi only scans into the grain and does not get any additional information. Depending on the task, I scan high to oversample, scale down to 2400dpi and then work on the files.

[itshimitis]

I scan at much lower than full resolution on my V600 as high resolution scans are just......horrible. To me it's just common sense - there's a reason why the Nikon Coolscan while discontinued is still in the £1,000's second hand and flatbeds are not, even when brand new.

[jt_cph_dk]

..Ok guys, these two shots are both taken with my LX loaded with TMY ASA400. One negative is scanned with an Imacon and the other with my V750.
Now my question to you is, which is which?

[tuco]

..Ok guys, these two shots are both taken with my LX loaded with TMY ASA400. One negative is scanned with an Imacon and the other with my V750.
Now my question to you is, which is which?

Do it again with the same image.

[PPPPPP42]

I was going to say the same thing, plus at this size even being out of focus is often hidden, we would have to see about 4 times as large to see what a printed size would look like.

A 100% crop of the same picture would be perfect for comparison.

[tuco]

The bottom one looks out of focus but also looks like it has more DR. In the first one, BW film should easily capture the entire light range of that scene without the clouds barely hanging on. But that is a function of development too.

[larkis]

I scan at much lower than full resolution on my V600 as high resolution scans are just......horrible. To me it's just common sense - there's a reason why the Nikon Coolscan while discontinued is still in the £1,000's second hand and flatbeds are not, even when brand new.

Yes, I have a nikon scanner for 35mm film and the advantage is not resolution but the Dmax of the scanner. The nikon is a little crisper but both the epson and nikon will still scan into the grain of the film. There is no magic that is going on there where some magical 1 billion dpi scanner of the future will suddenly extract more detail from the film. I don't want to start a film vs digital war here as I use and like both, but the film resolution claims have been demystified a while back. I would love for digital to mimic film's response to over exposure though.

[tuco]

Yes, I have a nikon scanner for 35mm film and the advantage is not resolution but the Dmax of the scanner.
...

I have a 9000ED too and it does get a bit more scale out of the blacks.

Some of the trees in this shot are burnt from a fire and are black. The metering for this shot was derived off the black tree to the left of center showing bark texture and placed at zone III. On a larger size, some of the black trees in the distance are darker and have some texture too. I'm pretty sure my older Epson I use for 4x5 work would not get that. The blacks from that scanner just seem to fall off rapidly.

400TMY @ EI 25, Yellow Filter

[larkis]

I have a 9000ED too and it does get a bit more scale out of the blacks.

Some of the trees in this shot are burnt from a fire and are black. The metering for this shot was derived off the black tree to the left of center showing bark texture and placed at zone III. On a larger size, some of the black trees in the distance are darker and have some texture too. I'm pretty sure my older Epson I use for 4x5 work would not get that. The blacks from that scanner just seem to fall off rapidly.

400TMY @ EI 25, Yellow Filter

Yes, the nikon scanners do have better dmax, a definite advantage in brining stuff like that out of the image. As far as resolution details go the differences are less apparent. Some development techniques are also better for scanning than others (to control density). I like perceptol 1:3 with ilford HP5.

[jt_cph_dk]

see about 4 times as large

Happy that you join the game, since I feel that we are taking your post of point.
Here are ‘original‘ size with much more detail at flickr

All sizes | A_dry_high_plateau_of_Ladakh_03 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All sizes | Essaouira_Seagull_(Restored)_By_Jakob_Trägårdh | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The bottom one looks out of focus but also looks like it has more DR. In the first one, BW film should easily capture the entire light range of that scene without the clouds barely hanging on. But that is a function of development too.

Focus on the seagull was not my prime subject (impossible anyway to get exact focus on a bird coming at you). My focus was on the beach and the seascape light. Just happened to be ‘lucky‘ in the timing with the seagull flying by, saying ‘hello‘.
Both were developed at pro labs (I don´t have the kind of skill or knowledge that you do with film development. Your point makes me want to have it. I should like to get into that). I did not have a yellow/orange filter with me on that trip (6X7 was my main gear and bulky), which probably explains the very brigth looking sky.

My choice of scanner is based on economy and use for other scan jobs (high level graphic work). I need a good level scanner for other things and a dedicated one like the Nikons/Canons can´t do that.

The first one is taken with my RMC Tokina II 28/2.8 (PKA) which is not too sharp at the corners. This is the V750 scan.
I was disappointed by the dark shades (quite noizy) of the Imacon 848 scan in the second photo. Also I dislike how it crops very close to the edge of the negative, since I really prefer the lively, rounded given edge of a negative.


Thank´s for joining the game. Back to topic.

Regards

[Silent Street]

Chapter and verse has been and could be written about one scanner's virtues vs another, and the Epsons, like so many others, do the job very well: my fine art prints are scanned on an Epson V700 at 4800dpi, downsampled at RIP to 300dpi and resized for tiff printing (around 68Mb). With film, density and tone is controlled through processing: no good pointing the finger at a scanner — any scanner, if your baseline exposure of the film was dodgy. Transparency film is even more demanding: if shadows are blocked and/or highlights blown, forget about scanning.

[jt_cph_dk]

the Epsons, like so many others, do the job very well

..in my opinion, the biggest problems with scanners derive from the software. I find the software, that I have worked with, old fashioned, counter intuitive, annoying at times. I am sure better scans could be made if the software was up to date and well made. I don´t understand Epsons policy on this. Here in Denmark the V750 is expensive enough (at around 1200US!) and last year bundled with SilverFast Ai 6.XX which is several years old and resemple software from a decade ago.

[PPPPPP42]

Hmm, though it would be nice to see the same (or similar) picture for both I can definitely see that it is scanning to film grain level already, so yeah more resolution in scanning is like more megapixels in the DSLR's right now, rather pointless. I would have to see a wet print without burning or dodging to really get an idea of any limitations on the dynamic range of the scanners sensor. I would think if there were limitations you could figure out some HDR method to combine 2 scans.
I would guess a "better" scanner right now has a fast scanning speed with an excellent dynamic range and really good software to go with it, not the ability to scan each grain of the film to death.

EDIT: from reading a ton of reviews on amazon I am seeing consistent enough complaints about the same things in any brand or model to determine that with all consumer level scanners the film holders are not perfect, service and parts is crap, and the software pretty much consistently sucks. It looks like the complaints are mostly from the many people who want them for film scanning and that's where these things are the weakest, its still a distant secondary market I guess.

[jt_cph_dk]

I would have to see a wet print without burning or dodging to really get an idea of any limitations on the dynamic range of the scanners sensor

This is probably as far as we can come, you being in Wisconsin and me in Copenhagen. Sharp thoughts on scanners etc, by the way, Regards

Wet print (digital copy taken with K7 and 2.8/40 DA)

See the ‘original‘ here: All sizes | Rokia | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Scanned on Imacon 848 (and post processed)

See the ‘original‘ here: All sizes | Sidi_Ifni_Rokia_(Restored)_By_Jakob_Trägårdh | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

They are quite different. The area on her (Rokia) arm is probably most sharp and clear to check out.

[PPPPPP42]

Given the choice of those two the wet print is clearly better, is it possible to turn the scanner brightness down so she isn't quite so overexposed and end up with something closer to the wet print? It looks like the scanner works to recover the shadows at the cost of highlights if that is all on auto or something.