The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

v700/750 Request Full Res scan

Lars

Active member
...I don't even know what kind of lens is used in the V750 or if there is even one :ROTFL: ... the Imacon/Hasselblad scanners use Rodenstock lenses by comparison....

-Marc
The simpler flatbeds usually have a 45-degree mirror under the scan light path, and a fairly simple lens group in front of the sensor. The sensor strip usually is about 2 inches wide or so.

One of several major problems with scanning film on a flatbed is that the light source covers the entire width of the flatbed so there is a lot of light bouncing around.

Another problem is cooling - usually the scan mechanism sits in an unventilated box under the glass - to keep dust out. This means that the box heats up over time. My Microtek 1800f was (is) particularly bad in this respect - scanning an 8x10" transparency at high resolution with multi-sampling yielded a bright green blackpoint towards the end of the 1-hour scan. This is of course less of a problem with a shorter scan time for a MF scan, but it's a good idea to keep the scanner ventilated if working with it for several hours.

Another issue - especially with Epson scanners, it seems - is softness. As several posters above have commented, Epsons never seem to deliver nominal optical resolution in the final scan. Set your expectations accordingly.

An upside with the V700 series (and many other scanners) is that wetmounting is really easy and should be considered if scanning images with high density.

It can also be worth the effort to do some custom masking using black tape, to minimize stray light.
 

pfigen

Member
Why would you want the cheap Epson scanner to be the weak link in your system, effectively dumbing down the inherent resolution and contrast in your Contax lenses to something you won't be very happy with. Do yourself a big favor and don't settle for anything less than a Nikon 8000 or 9000, which will actually give you scans equal to or better than an Imacon once you learn it. Personally, I wouldn't bother with anything less than a good Howtek or ICG - the Howteks being the more affordable choice - and what I've been using exclusively for the last thirteen years or so. My philosophy is that you'll pretty much end up re-scanning later on, everything you ever scanned on a crappy scanner. Once you see what a really great scan is - and the scanner operator makes a huge difference as well - you won't want to waste your time on anything less than the best you can afford. Yeah, drum scanners are a pain to learn, but once you get up to speed, it really isn't a big deal, and they're not all that expensive to get into, just to fix.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I found this in depth review of the scanner; it also compares it to the Nikon one.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_1.htm

From my reading, it looks like it's a great choice for less than half the price compared to the Nikon one.
I own the V750 Pro and have gotten pretty decent scans of medium format and 4x5 film with it. While I've never actually used a Nikon 9000 myself, I have a friend who owned one and I've seen quite a few of his scans. They are good....but I wouldn't say they were noticeably better than the V750 scans. That's just my overall impression, but is consistent with the review from Photo-i linked above (which I had read before deciding to purchase the V750).

The OP didn't say if he had a price range in mind...but in the $500-$800 range for a new scanner, I think the V700/750 does a pretty good job. In my case, I wanted to scan both medium format and 4x5 sheet film....so the V750 fit the bill nicely.

Of course, if I could find a Hasselblad scanner at a price I could afford, that would be my first choice!

Shuttershane.....if you're still looking for some full res scans with the V750, I have many color and BW scans from Pentax 67, Hasselblad, Mamiya TLR and even a few with a Pentax 645. Have a look in my Subscriber Gallery and let me know if there's anything there you would like to see. Here's an example, taken with a Hasselblad 501CM, 80mm Planar on Fuji Provia 100....and scanned with the V750 of course.

Someday, I would really like to get one of my negatives or transparencies scanned with a Flextight scanner so I can appreciate the difference. On the other hand, maybe it's best that I don't know.

Gary

 

tjv

Active member
I read the photo-i review also before buying my V700 and I also bought the the adjustable MF film holder from better scanning, or whatever they are called. I can say with absolute certainty that the V700 is nowhere near the same league as the Nikon scan, either MF or 35mm and certainly not with slide film. Less D-max, way less sharpness, more flare. Great value for money, but not close to the Nikon.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I wish I had thought to get my friend to scan some of my color transparencies with his Nikon 9000 while it was still working. The film transport mechanism on his 9000 failed twice. It was quite expensive to repair and when it failed the second time he decided not to get it fixed since he doesn't shoot much film anymore.
 

tjv

Active member
Yeah, that has happened with the 8000 at work a few times. Not cheap and parts for the 8000 are no longer available in NZ. I've had a few Imacon 848 scans done and they were good, although I wouldn't say any better than the 8000/9000 scans I've done myself. I'd assume with careful operation by me I'd push more out of the Imacon, but I can't say that for certain. To be clear, I think the V700 is great value for money, I just wouldn't expect it to give even near the resolution possible with a 12mpx dslr, even when scanning 6x4.5 film. Of course the other option is to buy the V700 for proofing and paying for the occasional drum scan when best quality is needed.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
I've used both the Epson 700 and Imacon 343 extensively (now the Hassy, but not sure they offer this lower model), and offer the following:

- for 35 mm, the Epson just doesn't do the trick. There just aren't enough horses to pull the cart.
- the 343 has been much used on some 35 mm microfiche line drawings, and the results are impeccable. Tight, sharp, laser like. Great tonality. On 6x6 film, the 343 is clearly better. Haven't done a "back vs. film" comparison with it, but the scanner is very very good.
- surprisingly, the 700 is workable with larger film (6x6 or bigger) for smaller prints especially - say up to 11" squares. The OP mentioned print sizes, but if those are inches - I don't think the 700 will do the trick. I haven't gone larger with its scans, and don't want to. It is quite convenient, fast, has dust removal, etc. but is not the complete cure. That said, I was surprised that for striaghtforward work, it was definately a workable tool and easier and faster to use than the 343. I'd probably scan a roll of film on it, and if I found one shot that was to be worked hard, get a drum scan. The scans are definitely better than the 8 mb commercial scans, and can be quite nice for the price/ease of use trade-off.

Overall, the 700 is a great workhorse, and is used a lot. If for larger prints - not sure it has the results you are looking for. OTOH, I've never wet mounted on it, and really tweaked it so there may be some upside still there.

Years ago, At a Cone work shop in VT, they took a 6x6 neg and did a huge drum scan of it, and we printed it about 24" square - and it was just lovely. More than the 343 could do, but then again, they knew what they were doing - but it took about 30 minutes to get a good scan. Good scanning is about precision, very small bits of it matter a lot. For really big prints, you need a lot.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Yeah, that has happened with the 8000 at work a few times. Not cheap and parts for the 8000 are no longer available in NZ. I've had a few Imacon 848 scans done and they were good, although I wouldn't say any better than the 8000/9000 scans I've done myself. I'd assume with careful operation by me I'd push more out of the Imacon, but I can't say that for certain. To be clear, I think the V700 is great value for money, I just wouldn't expect it to give even near the resolution possible with a 12mpx dslr, even when scanning 6x4.5 film. Of course the other option is to buy the V700 for proofing and paying for the occasional drum scan when best quality is needed.
I can say for certain the that Imacon 848 will crush other dedicated scanners ... and the 949 will crush the 848, a the best of the drum scanners will crush the 949.

BUT, you have to learn how to use them. Back when I shot film more extensively I tried all of them, and took the time to learn the in's and outs and use of the software. Just like MFD, profiles play a huge role the scanning experience, and that takes time to learn.

I do not say this lightly, and didn't approach my year testing all the choices as a frivolous task. It represented a huge potential investment gap between a four figure scanner and a 5 figure one. What I did learn is that you do indeed get what you pay for.

My Hassey rep brought me a 848 to use for a couple of months ... but more importantly, he trained me on it. Once up to speed, I ended up rescanning every film I had ever shot and scanned on a Polaroid, Nikon and Minolta MF scanner. Then I committed to a 949 because it was even faster, and had a better light source than the 848. I then rescanned some key films with this scanner.

The Imacon/Hassey scanners are built like a tank and are commercial grade ... I've had zero issues with my 949 and it is easy to maintain (I've since sold to a film shooter as I moved deeper into MFD). It is also the fastest table-top scanner on the planet. Scanning is actually fun when there is no mess and no fuss, no film flatness issues, and the scan is done before you can prep the next film for scanning :thumbs:

Just my $10K worth. :ROTFL:
 
T

tokengirl

Guest
Of course the other option is to buy the V700 for proofing and paying for the occasional drum scan when best quality is needed.
+1

I have the V750, and it's a terrific scanner for the money. But you do get what you pay for.
 
T

tokengirl

Guest
To give you an idea of what to expect from the V750, this is a 35mm Ektar negative scanned at 3200 dpi using Vuescan software with the infrared cleaning set to "light".

Full photo resized for web:


First crop from above photo at 100%:


Second crop from above photo at 100%:


I think this is pretty darn good, I did not expect the whiskers on her chin to be so clear. I wish I had access to a Coolscan and an Imacon to compare.
 

Valentin

New member
+1

I have the V750, and it's a terrific scanner for the money. But you do get what you pay for.
I think you have to take in consideration the intended end result as well. If you plan on printing a large billboard or very large prints, then yes, this might not be a good choice. If you print 8x10 or slightly larger, then it looks like this is a good option.

I don't have experience with it, but I've been looking a different tests done by different people. Is it the best out there? Nope, but at the same time, it doesn't break the bank.

The link that I posted earlier, compares it with the Nikon scanner. Yes, the Nikon scanner is better, but the difference is not big while the price is 3 times the Epson.
 

Professional

Active member
Another shot done with same film and same camera and film i used above, the film is expired if you ask, the colors are not the best that day, i didn't use any filter, the heat were nearly 48C with high humid, so i can't say those are the best, but i showed this to you to imagine how hard are the conditions and the results were not very bad, even with Nikon or drum scanner it will not give me much better results, slightly better with Nikon and noticeably quality with drum scanner but not huge difference.



Crop


Did little more adjustments with PS on it to enhance color [even i am not good in correcting or enhancing colors with film]


All that with the normal attached film holder from Epson, if i used that better scanning then i may get better results, also with wet mount i heard i can get better results more as well, and don't forget my manual focus maybe not spot on, what else to say, at the end if this scanner is really bad and not good enough then we have to save more bucks to go with dedicated film scanner or even drum scanner, i hope one day i can do that.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I've made many good prints from V750 scans of medium and large format film at print sizes of 11x14, 11x17 and now 13x19. I suppose at the print sizes the OP mentioned, there could be some problems. And of course, what looks ok to me might not to someone else. As others have said, for the V700/750 it really comes down to value for money....and in my case the added attraction of being able to scan 4x5 sheet film (vs the Nikon 8000/9000).

Both Tokengirl's and Tareq's scans look good enough to me for decent quality prints. I was actually surprised at how good the scan from 35mm film looked. I haven't used my V750 for 35mm film. I just saw your images of the bench Tareq....those look VERY good to me.

I suppose as Marc and others have mentioned, reduced dynamic range would be the biggest limitation.

Any one have recommendations on where I could send some film to be scanned with a Hasselblad scanner, such as a 949/X1/X5? I really would like to see what I'm missing.
 
Last edited:

Professional

Active member
I've made many good prints from V750 scans of medium and large format film at print sizes of 11x14, 11x17 and now 13x19. I suppose at the print sizes the OP mentioned, there could be some problems. And of course, what looks ok to me might not to someone else. As others have said, for the V700/750 it really comes down to value for money....and in my case the added attraction of being able to scan 4x5 sheet film (vs the Nikon 8000/9000).

Both Tokengirl's and Tareq's scans look good enough to me for decent quality prints. I was actually surprised at how good the scan from 35mm film looked. I haven't used my V750 for 35mm film. I just saw your images of the bench Tareq....those look VERY good to me.

I suppose as Marc and others have mentioned, reduced dynamic range would be the biggest limitation.

Any one have recommendations on where I could send some film to be scanned with a Hasselblad scanner, such as a 949/X1/X5? I really would like to see what I'm missing.
I think one day i have to send one of my films to the lab i use for processing and ask them to scan with their drum scanner [Imacon i think], they have 2 drum scanners, one for up to MF and the other able up to 8x10 large format, so i can compare it to V750 and see how much difference i can see, i asked them to scan 2 films so far but they did so low quality size scanning with Noritsu minilab scanner, the quality in fact was superior even with that small size resolution, but it wasn't much big difference than V750, at the end i really wish to have Nikon 9000 to have better scans over my Epson, whereas i can't afford a drum scanner at the moment, i will do a test where i will use my H4D-60 with 120 Macro lens as a scanner and see the result.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I think one day i have to send one of my films to the lab i use for processing and ask them to scan with their drum scanner [Imacon i think], they have 2 drum scanners, one for up to MF and the other able up to 8x10 large format, so i can compare it to V750 and see how much difference i can see, i asked them to scan 2 films so far but they did so low quality size scanning with Noritsu minilab scanner, the quality in fact was superior even with that small size resolution, but it wasn't much big difference than V750, at the end i really wish to have Nikon 9000 to have better scans over my Epson, whereas i can't afford a drum scanner at the moment, i will do a test where i will use my H4D-60 with 120 Macro lens as a scanner and see the result.

You know, an old fashioned slide copier that used to fit over a lens would be a great idea to use with a digital camera ... just get the negs developed and proofed, and then shoot the selects with the digital camera even tethered so you could adjust until perfect, and invert the neg image in Photoshop.

THIS 35mm version ...

http://specialtyphotographic.stores.yahoo.net/slcounpro.html

WITH THIS:

http://specialtyphotographic.stores.yahoo.net/slfinecaboun.html

You would have to jerry-rig your own for MF films ... maybe an old Macro Bellows could be used?


-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I've made many good prints from V750 scans of medium and large format film at print sizes of 11x14, 11x17 and now 13x19. I suppose at the print sizes the OP mentioned, there could be some problems. And of course, what looks ok to me might not to someone else. As others have said, for the V700/750 it really comes down to value for money....and in my case the added attraction of being able to scan 4x5 sheet film (vs the Nikon 8000/9000).

Both Tokengirl's and Tareq's scans look good enough to me for decent quality prints. I was actually surprised at how good the scan from 35mm film looked. I haven't used my V750 for 35mm film. I just saw your images of the bench Tareq....those look VERY good to me.

I suppose as Marc and others have mentioned, reduced dynamic range would be the biggest limitation.

Any one have recommendations on where I could send some film to be scanned with a Hasselblad scanner, such as a 949/X1/X5? I really would like to see what I'm missing.
Hmmm, not trying to be mean ... but they look flatish and oddly colored and about the quality of a good 3/4ths digital camera, if even that. Not sure using a MF film camera and great lenses plus all the effort to scan ... to then dumb down the quality ... is anyone's true objective is it Gary?

The real test is thinking about a broader application in all types of lighting scenarios ... not just fat light where there are little to no D-Max challenges.

IMO, 35mm is a good test if you are going to print MF films large. An 16 X 20 print pulled from a 35mm scan can reveal what you may well get at 20 X 30+ from MF.

Here's one from an Xpan IDSO 400 film where the shadow areas were held pretty well on a Minolta dedicated MF scanner. The 949 would improve on it greatly.

-Marc
 
Top