Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-06-2019, 08:54 AM   #16
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,912
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
I have used an Epson V500 and have never been satisfied with the output. Results are not sharp at all and with colour film it's extremely difficult to get accurate colours. Others here will disagree - Colton (Swift1) gets excellent results from his Epson scanners - but I have been unable to replicate them despite hours trying.
The V700 and V750 are in a completely different world from the V500 in terms of performance. I believe Colton has a V750, IIRC.


Steve

05-06-2019, 10:08 AM   #17
Pentaxian
Swift1's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,522
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
The V700 and V750 are in a completely different world from the V500 in terms of performance. I believe Colton has a V750, IIRC.


Steve
I have both a V500 and V750, and I still use both.
The real world scan quality difference between the two is not actually as big as some say, and actually the V500 is capable of better results than many give it credit for. If you leave Epson Scan "as is" when installed, the V500 won't give great results. With careful setup, it will give good results.

This is a scan of a 35mm Ektar negative that I scanned on my V500.
Top is the entire frame. Bottom is a 100% crop from the original 2400 dpi scan.
It won't compete with a Nikon Coolscan 5000, but I wouldn't hesitate to make a 10"x15" print from this scan.

05-06-2019, 03:40 PM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 145
I also have a coolscan v ed, but I like the tonality of the epson more. I sharpen on low in the scanner software, because I think it's too soft without it. If I had bought a v700 I'd probably use that, but resolution doesn't mean much to me, and I'm not sure results w/o sharpening would be much different anyway. Like I said, I have a coolscan that doesn't get as much use as the V500.
05-06-2019, 05:16 PM - 1 Like   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,376
Continuing to use the Nikon Coolscan and Nikonscan on a Windows Vista PC. Over 40K frames of various films used to date and it continues to provide very good results. ICE (dust and scratch removal) works on all film types except for true b&w film. Here is an example of a particularly distressed frame of color negative film - courtesy of very poor lab handling, that shows it's effectiveness. I also DSLR scanned it and shows my attempt compared to default automatic settings from the Coolscan. However, I was not going to attempt to clean it in post, especially since it only takes about 50 seconds for the Coolscan to deliver a color correct and clean result!



05-06-2019, 10:51 PM   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Essex County, Ontario
Posts: 540
I have been considering acquiring a flatbed scanner recently and I've done some reading and comparisons at blogs and sites. Can anyone here give impressions and opinions regarding the Epson 600. It's still available at very low prices compared to the Epson 800 and others. My needs would be med res scans of 35mm and 120 colour neg, slides, and B&W. I would expect to have to pay for a higher quality scan if I'm ever to desire very large prints.
05-06-2019, 10:57 PM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 733
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
Still, I feel that DSLR scanning is the future for digitising negatives as scanner technology is very old and is no longer being advanced due to low demand, while DSLR scanning is moving with digital camera technology.
The key issue for me is this. The best scanners out there seem to be 15 year old scanners that require SCSI or FireWire, and modern computers have or are abandoning those tech. I may break down and buy a flatbed eventually (though I have no space for one) but I really want to go all in trying to get DSLR scanning working for me since I know in the future Iíll be able to get new cameras.

I sort of surprised that the third party scan software vendors like silverfast havenít integrated DSLR processing. Iím fine with B&W, but color negative, I really need something to handle the conversion.
05-07-2019, 02:53 AM   #22
Pentaxian
goddo31's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,422
I use the V700 for both 35mm and 120. I find that with a good negative I can get fairly decent quality even from the 35mm and have printed up to 10x15 without issue.
Still I would prefer a better scanner for 35mm if I could justify the cost.
I use the Epson scan software and scan to tif files with minimal adjustments and USM turned off. From there I import into Lightroom, sharpen, adjust contrast etc and output as jpg.

For me the biggest challenge is film flatness with 120. I find that getting uniform flatness across a film strip is hard with either the stock V700 120 film holder or even with the Better Scanning one. There are methods to combat this however it can be quite fiddly.

Below is a recent example, scanned at 2400ppi (6x6 so it's 120 film). A sample at 100% is attached too.

Attached Images
 
05-07-2019, 05:33 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
h.butz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Island New York USA
Posts: 26
QuoteOriginally posted by Astro-Baby Quote
For the time being I am using a local place to do the processing but going forward I am thinking process the negatives (or positives) at home and then scan in for post process work and possible printing.
I've gone thru several flatbed scanners (SCSI, Firewire, USB) and a negative scanner. I'm satisfied with an analog front end (film) and a digital back end to print (jpeg's). My work flow runs thru North Coast Photo, which is on the West Coast of the U.S. I'm still confused as to why they call themselves North Coast Photo, but - I digress. They do developing with "enhanced" scans of 3390 x 5035 from 35mm B&W and color. @150dpi that gets you 22x33" enlargements. They also return the negatives to you so you re-scan at a higher resolution from the negs in the future if you need larger.

05-07-2019, 11:08 AM   #24
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
old_manual_guy's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Saint Louis
Photos: Albums
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
DSLR scanning (using a DSLR and macro lens to photograph the negative and then inverting the results) provides far sharper results but for B&W it can be very difficult to get good tones. For colour it's even harder as colour films have an orange mask that is very difficult to account for in the processing of the resultant image files. There is a LR plugin called Negative Lab Pro which is designed specifically for this purpose and I have seen very impressive results from it but have not used it myself. It costs $100 but of course you need to also pay for Lightroom. Look on Facebook for the group "Negative Lab Pro Users" to see results and discussion.

Still, I feel that DSLR scanning is the future for digitising negatives as scanner technology is very old and is no longer being advanced due to low demand, while DSLR scanning is moving with digital camera technology.
Do you need a light source like a light table/tablet for DSLR scanning? If so any recommendations?
05-07-2019, 12:01 PM   #25
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,912
QuoteOriginally posted by abruzzi Quote
The best scanners out there seem to be 15 year old scanners that require SCSI or FireWire, and modern computers have or are abandoning those tech.
Hmmmm...I am chewing on this a bit and am assuming you mean best scanners used at a reasonable price point (e.g. higher spec Minolta or SCSI Nikon or Pakon). One can still get expansion card support for both interfaces, but the issue is operating system driver support for the scanner itself. As for digitization using a dSLR, the utility depends on your setup and the tough parts are in having suitable film holder and lighting and positioning of the original. If one has the ability to quickly and easily put a new frame in place and in focus, one can manage better throughput than batch or continuous processing with most scanners. If not, digitizing a full 36 exposure roll may require an hour or more of fiddlesom tedium.


Steve
05-07-2019, 04:59 PM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 733
The Epson 850 series scanners look pretty good from what I can tell, but even they are pretty old. I guess Epson is selling enough to keep making them. The 600 series scanners seem to be too low resolution for 35mm (tests I’ve seen put the real world optical DPI at around 1400 or so, which for 35mm is something like 2.6 megapixels.) I’d prefer something like the Nikon 9000, which has great resolution for both medium format and 35mm. But they are scanners that people keep dedicated computers around to keep running. I’m not saying that scanners are going away, but it seems like the best tech is in the past.

35mm I digitize with my K3ii and a Pentax macro bellows and slide copier attachment. It takes me less than 10 minutes to create 36 raw files from an already developed and cut roll. Now, those raw files require cropping, straightening, inverting and adjusting, but that doesn’t take much time either. I have a process that speeds things along, and I can determine early if a frame warrants spending more time on. So a half hour or so to digitize, quick crop, invert and set curves to one basic setting that lets me decide if I want to spend more time on any of those frames.

Medium format is slower because I don’t have a fixed rail, so it requires a lot more setup, and even then, a roll of 6x4.5 (15 frames) takes more time in the actual digitizing than an entire roll of 35, since I have to manually move each frame, adjust under the camera, then refocus. I think a better device to hold the film would help. Right now I’m using enlarger negative holders.
05-08-2019, 06:21 AM   #27
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,912
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
Still, I feel that DSLR scanning is the future for digitising negatives as scanner technology is very old and is no longer being advanced due to low demand, while DSLR scanning is moving with digital camera technology.
Yes, digital scanning and downstream image processing has been a mature reprographic technology for decades. I would not expect any groundbreaking tech that direction. As for dSLR copying, its equivalent is also very mature, that being the devices used for minilab "scans" employ a ccd or cmos sensor capable of instantaneous capture similar to what is in our cameras. The requirements for reproduction are well known and well addressed. What's more, the limitations for dSLR copying remain the same as traditional slide and negative copying using film cameras, that being quality of original, flatness, alignment, and optical path. The capture medium for both at present is not the limiting factor in regards to quality.

I would not expect any groundbreaking improvements in dSLR tech that will directly improve the suitability to task for film copying.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 05-08-2019 at 06:45 AM.
05-08-2019, 08:57 AM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,376
QuoteOriginally posted by old_manual_guy Quote
Do you need a light source like a light table/tablet for DSLR scanning? If so any recommendations?
You will need a means to backlight the film. I use a Gepe light box which has a diffused white light source that works very well.
05-08-2019, 01:05 PM   #29
Senior Member
Russell W. Barnes's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Near Penrith, Cumbria, England UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 182
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote

I would not expect any groundbreaking improvements in dSLR tech that will directly improve the suitability to task for film copying.

Would increased megapixel resolution not make a difference, then? I know 'more megapixels isn't necessarily more better', (noise, etc...) but given that the DSLR processing engine seems (to me) to offer less noisy images for increasingly higher ISO it seems this is an improvement. I appreciate that copying a neg can only be as good as the resolution of the digital sensor doing the xopying, but surely a higher resolution sensor will eke more detail from the negative unti a point is reached where all neg detail has been got?

Unless that point has been reached now, of course. I find my Sony RX-100D copies my 6x6 negs to my satisfaction, and my ancient EOS 5D Mk: 1 copies 35mm negs as good as my prehistoric Acer Scanwit SCSI neg and slide copier when coupled to a 'traditional' slide-copier tube adapted for negs. I'd like to compare my 6x6 neg copies off the Sony with those off a drum-scanner, say.

I copy 6x6 negs with the Sony RX100 in a 'one-er' but am mindful that I could copy sections at a time and join them together, should I wish to do so.
05-08-2019, 11:33 PM   #30
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,912
QuoteOriginally posted by Russell W. Barnes Quote
Would increased megapixel resolution not make a difference, then?
Probably not unless the scale was on the order of the density of sensitized silver crystals on a sheet of photo print paper. Without actually making a print, the test I might suggest is to compare a full resolution crop of a best effort dSLR copy image with visual observation using a loupe of the original negative on the light box. That should give some notion of the degree of inadequacy. I have done such with my Nikon 5000 ED for 35mm and my V700 for 6x7 and 4x5 and the scans are woefully unsatisfactory when confronted with the original.


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!
image, process, scan, scanner, slide, software
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scanning slide film, color vibrance aaacb Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 6 05-07-2018 04:11 AM
dslr + enlarger film scanning soti Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 4 05-28-2017 02:18 AM
Some Film Scanning Questions butangmucat Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 9 05-22-2017 07:59 AM
Bruce Barnbaum: b+w film exposure and film scanning dj_saunter Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 4 07-07-2011 07:16 AM
Film Newbie - Q's about film choice, development and scanning Ryan Trevisol Pentax Film SLR Discussion 22 05-12-2011 07:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:44 PM. | 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