Medium format slides and the Epson V750

  • Thread starter Thread starter nathantw
  • Start date Start date
Greg "_" said:
That would be cool too...just give an overall low res reference next to
it,...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for 35mm
compared to my older 2450.
Click to expand...

What I'd also like to see is 6400 downsampled to 2400 ppi. If you downsample
Nikon 8000 scans to 2400 ppi, the look _gorgeous_ and support an 8x
enlargement quite reasonably. The nice thing about 6400 is that you can
noise reduce at that resolution without losing the detail at 2400 ppi.

Of course, the last time I hit a 4000 ppi scan of 645 with NeatImage, it
took half an hour. Since then, NeatImage claims to have gotten twice as
fast, and my PC has gotten twice as fast as well.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for 35mm
compared to my older 2450.
Click to expand...

There is a significant improvement compared to the 2450. Still not quite as
sharp as a dedicated 35 mm film scanner, but much closer.

Doug
 
nathantw said:
Is there a certain type of subject matter you'd like me to scan? I may
have it.
Click to expand...

I think Architecture is best, will show a sharp edge if it can begotten
with the scanner. Just let us know the film type. If you have anything
like that on 100 speed film all the better.
 
David J. Littleboy said:
What I'd also like to see is 6400 downsampled to 2400 ppi. If you downsample
Nikon 8000 scans to 2400 ppi, the look _gorgeous_ and support an 8x
enlargement quite reasonably. The nice thing about 6400 is that you can
noise reduce at that resolution without losing the detail at 2400 ppi.

Of course, the last time I hit a 4000 ppi scan of 645 with NeatImage, it
took half an hour. Since then, NeatImage claims to have gotten twice as
fast, and my PC has gotten twice as fast as well.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Click to expand...

I have heard murmurs that Nikon may be coming out with a new scanner to
replace the 9000. What do you think?
 
Greg "_" said:
I have heard murmurs that Nikon may be coming out with a new scanner to
replace the 9000. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think it's unlikely. But then I think the 8000 and 9000 themselves are
unlikely (since Nikon doesn't make any MF cameras).

If they do, I'd like it to be 4800 ppi with an anti-aliasing filter on the
CCD (so negative scans don't look so ugly), a light source three times as
bright and a lens one f stop slower (for better DOF).

Now that would be one nice scanner; you'd scan at 4800 ppi, noise reduce,
and downsample to 2400 ppi and make _killer_ 8x enlargements. Maybe even
downsampling to 2700 ppi for 9x enlargements with TMX100 or Pro160S.

I don't think we'll get any of the above, though.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
nathantw said:
Scott,
What did you use to scan your photos? They look a lot sharper than
mine.
Click to expand...

Sorry I should have said, mine is digital. Stitched for a rather
larger number of
photos

I figured it would be about the same size are yours give or take some.
I think showing the whole photo and then crops is is great way to give
a feel
for the detail in a photo.

Scott
 
Noise Ninja would help your scans.

regards,
The film type is Kodachrome 64. The camera was probably a Nikon FE or N8008
with either the 85mm f/1.8 or the 75-150 Series E.

The scan was done at 6400dpi with a USM of 170% at 1.9 radius. I didn't get
rid of the dust or anything. I dropped the resolution to 300dpi. 2400dpi is
just too big of a file to upload to the free upload website.

full building
http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/3855/2001420453669765625_rs.jpg

zoomed 100%
http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/80/2001470292031539155_rs.jpg
Click to expand...
 
degrub said:
Noise Ninja would help your scans.
Click to expand...

'Noise Ninja' or 'Neat Image' should be in everybody's toolkit,
especially when scanning film.

Here is an example from an earlier version of Neat Image:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-2.htm>
Current versions are even better and much faster.

Noise reduction even makes a lot of sense when down-sampling, because
it will avoid noise- and grain-aliasing.

For the best quality scans, scan at the scanner's native resolution,
reduce noise/graininess, and use proper (!) down-sampling (if the
resolution isn't there or you need a smaller version).
 
Nathan:
Regarding using Costco:

Costco online allows you to see which printers they use at various
locations and also to download free profiles from drycreekphoto.com. I
don't enjoy at all the time on my computer...I would MUCH rather be out
pestering folks with my camera, but even I can see the advantage to
this process. One of the adjustments is to simulate the finished print
on the type of paper chosen. This lets me re adjust (often contrast)
to get closer my desired results...and at $3.00 a print for 12 x 18 I
wish I had this last year when I was spending thousands on my printers.
 
Bart said:
For the best quality scans, scan at the scanner's native resolution,
reduce noise/graininess, and use proper (!) down-sampling (if the
resolution isn't there or you need a smaller version).
Click to expand...

Bart, can you elaborate on "proper" down-sampling?
Thanks,
Roger
 
SNIP
Bart, can you elaborate on "proper" down-sampling?
Click to expand...

Most applications use improper down-sampling, in the sense that they
do not apply a low-pass filter which removes the fine detail that
cannot be represented in the smaller image size. That omission will
therefore in most cases lead to aliasing artifacts.

This is a test done with an artificial image to demonstrate the
effects:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/down_sample.htm>
and this is how it can manifest itself on a film scan:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/example1.htm> .
 
nathantw said:
The film type is Kodachrome 64. The camera was probably a Nikon FE or N8008
with either the 85mm f/1.8 or the 75-150 Series E.

The scan was done at 6400dpi with a USM of 170% at 1.9 radius. I didn't get
rid of the dust or anything. I dropped the resolution to 300dpi. 2400dpi is
just too big of a file to upload to the free upload website.

full building
http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/3855/2001420453669765625_rs.jpg

zoomed 100%
http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/80/2001470292031539155_rs.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks for the effort.
 
Back
Top