new scan snippets: 4990 vs. V700 vs. vs LS-8000 (same negative)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Raphael Bustin
  • Start date Start date
R

Raphael Bustin

Epson V700 v. Epson 4990 v. Nikon LS-8000 (Same Negative)

<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/>

About 2/3 of the way down the page.

The original is courtesy of Alan Bridgewater, taken
with Mamiya 645 Super, 80mm, on Fuji Reala.

Alan provided the V700 scan and mailed me the film
which I then scanned on my 4990 and LS-8000.

If you've got a V700 or V750 snippet to share, I'll
be happy to post it. See submission rules at the
top of the page (URL above.)


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Raphael said:
Epson V700 v. Epson 4990 v. Nikon LS-8000 (Same Negative)

<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/>

About 2/3 of the way down the page.

The original is courtesy of Alan Bridgewater, taken
with Mamiya 645 Super, 80mm, on Fuji Reala.

Alan provided the V700 scan and mailed me the film
which I then scanned on my 4990 and LS-8000.

If you've got a V700 or V750 snippet to share, I'll
be happy to post it. See submission rules at the
top of the page (URL above.)


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Click to expand...

Thanks for webbing this. The V700 scan looked a little sharper than the
4990 scan but the colours looked poorer.
 
Yikes the V700 gets spanked compared to the 8000. This image seems
surprisingly grainy for MF Reala, although only the LS 8000 even comes
close to showing the grain. The 8000 doesn't have any autosharpening
in the driver, does it?
 
Yikes the V700 gets spanked compared to the 8000. This image seems
surprisingly grainy for MF Reala, although only the LS 8000 even comes
close to showing the grain. The 8000 doesn't have any autosharpening
in the driver, does it?
Click to expand...


No, it does not, as far as I can tell.

This sort of grain isn't unusual for Reala on
the Coolscans. Reala is what I usually shoot,
so I'm fairly familiar with how it looks. Most
reversal materials (eg. E6 chromes) will show
substantially less grain and color noise.

With Reala, the most objectionable grain and
noise usually is found in shadow detail -- ie.,
from the *thinnest* portions of the negative.

Go figure....


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Yes, the V700 still falls in the category of 'you can't get something
for nothing' relative to the LS-8000.
 
Yes, the V700 still falls in the category of 'you can't get
something
for nothing' relative to the LS-8000.
Click to expand...

From the sample shown, it appears to be the case. However, I don't
have any idea how well 'focused' by the V700 the film was. From what
I've read about it, it may be a bit difficult to determine/achieve the
optimal focus plane.

Bart
 
Yes, the V700 still falls in the category of 'you can't get something
for nothing' relative to the LS-8000.
Click to expand...


In all fairness, you should try sharpening the Epson V700 scan.

I'm not saying that will make up the difference -- I'm just saying
that the Epson flatbed/film scanners really take well to
sharpening -- at levels that the Nikon scans won't tolerate.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Raphael said:
In all fairness, you should try sharpening the Epson V700 scan.

I'm not saying that will make up the difference -- I'm just saying
that the Epson flatbed/film scanners really take well to
sharpening -- at levels that the Nikon scans won't tolerate.
Click to expand...

It's the end product that counts, after all, so if it can be made to
look better through sharpening then so be it. What settings do you
recommend for sharpening at the different scan resolutions? Does the
software do a decent job or is it better done in Photoshop? Also for
resizing, is it better to send people the original scan if they might
resize it or sharpen what you've got at full size?
 
Raphael said:
No, it does not, as far as I can tell.

This sort of grain isn't unusual for Reala on
the Coolscans. Reala is what I usually shoot,
so I'm fairly familiar with how it looks. Most
reversal materials (eg. E6 chromes) will show
substantially less grain and color noise.

With Reala, the most objectionable grain and
noise usually is found in shadow detail -- ie.,
from the *thinnest* portions of the negative.

Go figure....


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Click to expand...

Rafe,

Correct, I prefer Portra 160 - 400 and expose for 320 with the
last. That's the only way I can get acceptable shadows. And
the shadows do not improve with more scan sharpness like the
tweaked wet mount carrier of my Nikon 8000 delivers, in fact
this becomes worse. That's why I think that some films are
better suited for Epson's mix of over-sampling + the
acceptable loss in sharpness. In the end you can decide where
you like to stop in sharpening.

In view of a substantial change in the processing of analogue
film it surprises me that there has been so little R&D done on
color and B&W films meant for scanning. I have mentioned the
orange mask of color negative film that could be removed for a
scan film, another one could be a slide film that compresses
the dynamic range like a colorfilm does + get a better
latitude in exposure. Chromogenic B&W film already scans
better than conventional B&W but that has been pure luck as it
wasn't intended for that purpose. A reversal B&W slide film
with dynamic range compression would be more ideal too. The
last probably exists in some thick emulsion, two bath
development schemes, I have not checked that. With the right
scan films for MF + LF photography "analogue" photography
could compete much better with digital cameras for some time
to come.

Ernst

--

--
Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
( unvollendet )
 
It's the end product that counts, after all, so if it can be made to
look better through sharpening then so be it. What settings do you
recommend for sharpening at the different scan resolutions? Does the
software do a decent job or is it better done in Photoshop? Also for
resizing, is it better to send people the original scan if they might
resize it or sharpen what you've got at full size?
Click to expand...


There are scan snippets (from the 4990) showing the Epson
scan "raw" and sharpened. Ultimately you have to be the
judge of how much sharpening you can get away with.

Just know that as you crank up the sharpness, the image
degrades in other ways.

I doubt very much if it makes any difference whatsoever
*where* you do the sharpening or resizing, but that
discussion quickly degrades into superstition and
metaphysics, splines, nearest neighbors, and so on.

By all means, download the scan samples and see how
they respond to USM.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Raphael Bustin said:
There are scan snippets (from the 4990) showing the Epson
scan "raw" and sharpened. Ultimately you have to be the
judge of how much sharpening you can get away with.

Just know that as you crank up the sharpness, the image
degrades in other ways.

I doubt very much if it makes any difference whatsoever
*where* you do the sharpening or resizing, but that
discussion quickly degrades into superstition and
metaphysics, splines, nearest neighbors, and so on.

By all means, download the scan samples and see how
they respond to USM.
Click to expand...
Hello all,

I think its time for me to take the plunge in these discussions. It was
I who submitted the v700 scan snippet and negative to Rafe.

For the sake of completeness, as soon as the negative comes back from
Rafe, I'll rescan it using the Epson scan software, apply sharpening and
then submit the new snippet.

Bart van der Wolf referred to focussing elsewhere in this thread. Film
flatness is a problem with the scanner, especially, as I'm finding, with
monochrome film.

The spacers that Epson supply with the film folders increase the
distance from the glass to the film surface in 0.5mm increments. There
was a discernible improvement in sharpness ( grain better defined) on
going from 3mm to 3.5mm, 2.5mm (no spacers) was awful. The snippet was
scanned with the spacers set at 3.5mm. I haven't yet tried increasing
the distance any further.

I'm fairly sure that some of my 120 monochrome negatives bow by more
than 0.5mm and the effect is quite obvious; grain is fairly well defined
at the edges of the affected images and becomes noticeably less obvious
towards the centre.

I successfully used a home-made glass holder with my old CanoScan 8400f
and I'm going to experiment with one for the v700.

I can't afford a Nikon LS-8000.

Alan
 
Hello all,

I think its time for me to take the plunge in these discussions. It was
I who submitted the v700 scan snippet and negative to Rafe.

For the sake of completeness, as soon as the negative comes back from
Rafe, I'll rescan it using the Epson scan software, apply sharpening and
then submit the new snippet.

Bart van der Wolf referred to focussing elsewhere in this thread. Film
flatness is a problem with the scanner, especially, as I'm finding, with
monochrome film.

The spacers that Epson supply with the film folders increase the
distance from the glass to the film surface in 0.5mm increments. There
was a discernible improvement in sharpness ( grain better defined) on
going from 3mm to 3.5mm, 2.5mm (no spacers) was awful. The snippet was
scanned with the spacers set at 3.5mm. I haven't yet tried increasing
the distance any further.

I'm fairly sure that some of my 120 monochrome negatives bow by more
than 0.5mm and the effect is quite obvious; grain is fairly well defined
at the edges of the affected images and becomes noticeably less obvious
towards the centre.

I successfully used a home-made glass holder with my old CanoScan 8400f
and I'm going to experiment with one for the v700.

I can't afford a Nikon LS-8000.
Click to expand...


Hello Alan,

Thanks again for sending the film. It arrived Friday
evening and I hope to have it back in the mail to you
either later today or tomorrow morning.

It will be curious to see if additional care in focusing
can improve the V700 scan. There's no question that
at high resolutions and MTFs, depth-of-focus and
film flatness are big issues.

On the LS-8000, optimal flatness across the frame
takes great care (and/or a glass carrier that costs
another $240.)

The LS-8000 also has a motorized focus adjustment
and measuring scheme, so even on "wavy" piece of
film, you can still get near-perfect focus on a
particular area of the film.

Which kind of wraps back around to the whole
discussion of wet-mounting.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Mike said:
You need to apply Unsharp Mask to the flatbed scans. It will close the
gap significantly.
Click to expand...

Make me quite chuffed. I definitely could not justify the expense of the
Nikon and I would not expect the 4990 to be as good, given the price
increment. However, its not bad in comparison.
 
Raphael said:
There are scan snippets (from the 4990) showing the Epson
scan "raw" and sharpened. Ultimately you have to be the
judge of how much sharpening you can get away with.

Just know that as you crank up the sharpness, the image
degrades in other ways.

I doubt very much if it makes any difference whatsoever
*where* you do the sharpening or resizing, but that
discussion quickly degrades into superstition and
metaphysics, splines, nearest neighbors, and so on.

By all means, download the scan samples and see how
they respond to USM.
Click to expand...

I haven't got a copy of Photoshop but what I have noticed (again it
might be more superstition than science) is that I seem to get better
results with my 8M digital camera having no internal sharpening applied
(supposedly) and leaving it on low contrast and doing the sharpening
after I have resized.
 
Back
Top