Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-28-2010, 11:46 AM   #16
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
One thing that I thought was interesting about the review comparing the Nikon with the Epson is that the USM was USeless on the Coolscan 9000. That is my experience. Like the shot on the review, using Nikon USM actually makes a tack-sharp scan less sharp. I tend to think that this is a problem with the software. You can make the very sharp results from the Coolscan 9000 a tad sharper by using the Smart Sharpen in Photoshop. Likewise, the JPEGs created by the Nikon software sometimes have banding in them that I never get from a converting a TIFF in Photoshop.

That being said, the scans of a 645 or 67 negative on the Coolscan can go as big as anyone would ever want. You can also see every micro-speck of dust if you don't/can't use Digital ICE. I sometimes find myself getting lost with the spot healing brush a few pixels wide on a 6x7 negative, and have to remind myself of the scale of any print from this scan.

It is an interesting question whether you would see the difference between the scanners in an actual print. But that seems to be the big question in all of our sharpness discussions on this forum.

03-28-2010, 12:29 PM   #17
Senior Member
bensonga's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Alaska
Photos: Albums
Posts: 148
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I would be perfectly happy with the ability to proof at low res and send out for high res scan and/or optical prints.
Steve
The great thing about 6x7 and 4x5 film is that even a 2400 dpi scan (as with the V700/V750) these negs can produce really big prints. I've never needed to scan my 6x7 or 4x5 film higher than 2400 dpi for that reason.

By my calculations.....P67 and 4x5 sheet film at 2400 dpi can produce prints of these sizes at varying resolutions.

Gary
Attached Images
   

Last edited by bensonga; 03-28-2010 at 12:46 PM.
03-28-2010, 07:34 PM   #18
Senior Member
bensonga's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Alaska
Photos: Albums
Posts: 148
So basically, the 40mp 645D will yield just slightly higher resolution images than I'm already very happy with from my P67 (when scanned at 2400 dpi).

This will be the best of all possible worlds.....using my 67 lenses on both the P67 and 645D!

Gary
04-21-2010, 08:32 AM   #19
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Washington DC, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 553
I have purchased two Coolscan 8000s so far. Both for well under $1000. I just picked up a Coolscan 4000 for a really low price too! There are still good deals on the 8000 out there, you just have to keep looking.

QuoteOriginally posted by Vaards Quote
If you can`t afford Coolscan 9000 then go for Coolscan 8000. It is the same scanner, the same quality, but 2 times cheaper. These goues on ebay for 800USD time by time. Most expencive cases - till 1100 USD (like I bought year ago - but with glass carrier).

I did really hard evaluation, lurked around scanner half a year. Bought Epson pro v750m and... was not satisfied. Bought Coolscan 8000. And got satisfaction.

Main difference from Coolscan 9000... Oldest model has banding if you scan without Super CCD. It means scaner uses all three sensors and dark areas of picture shows lines.

So, one just need to scan everything with SuperCCD - three times longher than 9000 model, but who cares?

I am puting 4 645 velvia slides for night into scanner, make it to chose 8x sampling, CCD superscan. And it works three hours approximately.

At the morning I put in next slides and go to work. And it scans again.

Then I have 8 super perfect big 16bit TIFFS for post processing, or for archiving.

Although I have 6x9 Fuji camera too. These two files after sacnning is hard to open. Some 30 seconds till my laptop opens these 1/2 gigabyte files.


04-21-2010, 10:56 PM   #20
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,483
Got the Epson V700 today. My initial impressions?
  • Big, very BIG!
  • Quiet and relatively fast
  • Excellent scan quality so far on the 6x7 negatives
  • Film can droop in holders
  • Holders hard to use with short (<3) strips
  • Room for no more than two 6x7 images per strip
  • Epson software is a little buggy (can't clear default USM or save current config...)
  • Standoffs for negative holders work best at full height
04-25-2010, 07:48 AM   #21
Veteran Member
artobest's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Swansea, Wales
Posts: 455
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Got the Epson V700 today. [*]Epson software is a little buggy (can't clear default USM or save current config...)
I'd hate to see you rely on the Epson software. No matter what I do with it, I can't get it to produce images half as good as I can make using Silverfast. Of course, Silverfast isn't cheap, although I was lucky that it came free with the V750, and neither is it perfect - the interface is ridiculous, for one thing. But it is worth it, if only for the superior results with negatives. I don't have experience of Vuescan, but people speak highly of that, too.
04-26-2010, 06:35 PM   #22
Veteran Member
superbass's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 331
I have the canoscan 8800f, and I am not pleased with it. The images are ok and at smaller prints they are ok, but it won't wow you.

Let me clarify. For the average person who is not interested in making very large prints, then it is great. 8x10s and even 11x14s are great from this, but if you're looking for the clearest option capable of making very large prints, you get what you pay for...

I'm a pixel peeper, so it bothers me that I can see a noisy pixelated image at 100%.

Last edited by superbass; 04-26-2010 at 09:12 PM.
04-27-2010, 10:55 AM   #23
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,483
QuoteOriginally posted by artobest Quote
I'd hate to see you rely on the Epson software. No matter what I do with it, I can't get it to produce images half as good as I can make using Silverfast. Of course, Silverfast isn't cheap, although I was lucky that it came free with the V750, and neither is it perfect - the interface is ridiculous, for one thing. But it is worth it, if only for the superior results with negatives. I don't have experience of Vuescan, but people speak highly of that, too.
The V700 came with Silverfast SE. I can upgrade to the SE Plus version with multiexposure for about $84. I have been playing with Silverfast and Vuescan in addition to the Epson Scan. I have gotten all three to do my bidding, but am not really happy with the work flow with any of them.

Steve

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, medium format
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
scanner camera Steve Beswick Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 02-14-2010 11:32 AM
Finally got a scanner! mk07138 Pentax Medium Format 10 01-06-2010 10:44 AM
Scanner recommendation stanleyk Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 08-28-2009 04:17 PM
FS2710 scanner Help? cak Pentax Film SLR Discussion 0 01-07-2009 10:26 PM
What Scanner to get montezuma Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 10-20-2008 04:49 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:07 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top