Menu
What's new
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

S

shuttershane

Guest
Hey Guys,

I was wondering if anyone here would be willing to send me a full resolution scan of 645 format velvia 50 (or similar) using a Epson V700 or V750 scanner.
 
P

Professional

Active member
First of all, why you want that?
Second, it must be 645 format or any other MF format as well?
Third, it must be Velvia 50 or another color? or B&W is fine too
Forth, what kind of shots you want, landscapes, portraits, abstract,....etc?
Last, i have only V750, so i hope this is what you really ask about.
 
S

shuttershane

Guest
Well I am picking up a Contax 645 and plan to use it for Color Landscapes and occasional portraits. I am trying to decide on a scanner and from what I am reading the v700/750 is a good choice. What I really want to see is how well this scanner does for 645 format on high quality film. I know the Nikon 9000 is a better choice, but I really want to see if it is worth the higher cost.

really I just want to see what a full res scan on the v700/v750 looks like. The only thing I really have to compare would be a 5D MKII.

Hope that helps
 
P

Professional

Active member
I can scan maximum with 6400dpi with V750.

I can send a full resole scan from it, but the file size is horrible, unless you want JPEG then it will be smaller even still large, but i don't have any 6x4.5 film camera, i have MF from 6x6 up to 6x12, so if you ok with any of those format even you will get 6x4.5 then i can send you, but i recommend you to get Hasselblad 6x6 or Bronica, forget 6x4.5 and get something bigger, i am sure if you get Hasselblad or Bronica which are cheap these days then you will never look back, and i can tell you that the scanner V700/V750 can do a great job, i also wish to get Nikon, Nikon is winner clearly with 35mm, and with MF it is hardly to see a big difference, and V700/750 can scan LF which will beat those MF scans.

Here are few examples in resized resole for you, maybe not so good enough or interesting results, but to show you what i did with that scanner [v750] so far:

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8157/img073x.jpg

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/2116/img072.jpg

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/7048/img071.jpg

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/3752/img070.jpg

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/5452/img069.jpg

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/7749/img063m.jpg

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/6296/img012x.jpg

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2223/bw4f.jpg

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5971/img0112ar.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3678/img0101ye.jpg
 
G

gsking

New member
The 2400dpi number for the V500/V700/V750 is bandied about a lot. I use it as the base resolution for my V500. But it seems like I can stretch it to 3200dpi with good shots and get more detail. I can't say I've ever seen any meaningful improvement above that.

The benefit of the V700/V750 IIRC is greater Dmax and wetmount capability
 
P

Professional

Active member
I also heard that 1600-2400dpi is the best we should use those V700/V750 at, beyond that no more gain details improving worthy there, slightly with 3200, but with 6400 i heard it may not be the best option to go with, i keep using 2400 all the time, sometimes 1200-1600 for web size, for prints 2400-3200 is just enough and as good i can use, maybe one day if i can have Nikon i may try 3200 or 4800dpi to see the quality.
 
A

archivue

Active member
1600 is the real resolution of the V750... numbers are just marketing !
i have a V750 and a close friend bought the top of the range hasselblad/imacon...
while, i've found that the pro scanner is really expensive compare to a digital back... and really close to the V750 for small prints... for larger prints, there's no comparison !
 
S

shuttershane

Guest
My main concern is to get a resolution high enough for 22x30 and 30x40 prints. I do this already with my 5D MKII and most of the time it looks good.

BTW Professional thanks for posting those images.
 
V

Valentin

New member
archivue said:
1600 is the real resolution of the V750... numbers are just marketing !
....
Click to expand...
Can you link where you got that information from? It's one thing to have wording that's only marketing and a different thing to spell out the specifications.

I can see saying that v750 is capable of 128,000 dpi as marketing (that would be marketing because it's interpolated) and another thing to say 4800 dpi is marketing since that it's listed as the optical (which is the actual resolution).
 
A

archivue

Active member
Can you link where you got that information from?
from users, including myself !

google V750 real resolution...

an other example :

"I tried scanning at different dpi to find out where the 'break point' was i.e. the point where extra dpi on the slider doesn't result in any increase in effective resolution. I tried quite a few resolutions and did see a jump around the 1600-2400 mark. If we say that the maximum resolution is typically a multiple of the native resolution, then the frankly ludicrous 28800 dpi should scale down to either 3200 or 1600. I tried scans at 1600, 2400 and 3200 and tried scaling the smaller ones up and could not tell a huge amount of difference. In fact, in some cases I saw more resolution out of the 1600 than the 2400.. I thought this was an anomoly but tried a few more times and it seems like the the 2400 and 3200 does some form of interpolation or double passing which smears fine detail. The 1600 dpi scan definitely holds a little more detail although it is undoubtedly slightly noisier. That said, if I reduce the noise with a good filtering program, the results are no worse than the 2400, 3200 scan."

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/7394353370023240828
 
V

Valentin

New member
Thanks archivue. I think it's a thing of semantics. Optimal resolution vs the actual resolution. Kind of apertures and lenses: there is an optimal aperture, but that doesn't mean the lens is not capable of other apertures.
 
S

SCHWARZZEIT

Guest
Here is a test on the v700. On a USAF1951 scanner target they could resolve 2300 spi optically. Keep in mind that this is a very high contrast target. So with real world contrasts on film the 1600 number seems to be more realistic.

The resolving power of film is very different compared to a digital camera sensor because it stretches over a long range depending to a large degree on the original contrast. For high contrast detail i.e. more than 2 stops contrast, most modern films resolve more than 100 lp/mm with some microfilm (ADOX CMS 20 or SPUR ORTHOPAN UR) being able to resolve more than 250 lp/mm on film which is out of range of even the best available drum scanners. But when your contrast drops detail easily gets lost in the grain structure of the film and your actual resolving power is much smaller. It's really interesting to see what normal films do to image detail compared to that microfilm which is capable to almost resolve the aerial image of the sharpest 50mm Zeiss lens available. It's obvious how a film's grain structure attacks the optical image even at lower frequencies. This is where film based image degradation starts but it's long way until high contrast resolution drops. So with a v700/750 you may be able to resolve the clean part of the film image but it doesn't let you see deep into the bowels of the film's grain structure.

Basically you have to control the contrast transfer across the whole imaging chain. There is detail as long as your contrast is up. With every optical link you lose some contrast. I would just make sure that the scanner isn't the weakest link.

Of course there are other quality aspects besides resolution when it comes to scanning like tonal range, color gamut, Dmax and signal noise ratio. All of it matters. Bottom line with scanners is you get what you pay for. On the other hand there are some good deals on drum scanners on the used market, probably because of their inconvenience and the longer learning curve involved. However, once you're into it you don't want to use anything less. The Dante proverb might be appropriate on that subject as well.

-Dominique
 
T

tjv

Active member
I'll be honest and say I have a V700 and I'm lucky to have a Nikon 9000 and 8000 at work. Compared to the Nikon scans, the scans I get from my V700 are horrible. I bought the Epson because I wanted to be able to proof quickly at home but I was hoping it would be high enough quality to also print finals up to A2 size. Unfortunately the D-Max just isn't good enough and without very fiddly methods it's hard to keep the film flat enough - I use a glass carrier in the Nikons. Also, the Epson scans show a lot of flaring on high contrast edges. In short, I've given up using the V700 for all but basic proofing.
 
F

fotografz

Well-known member
I have a V750 PRO. I use it for normal scanning of documents and old family photos ... and originally got it to scan my library of B&W prints from years ago ... which it does wonderfully.

I have scanned negs from a Contax 645, Mamiya RZ, Hasselblad 203FE, and from my Hasselblad H2F with film backs ... the RZ pics being the best because of the 6X7 film size.
These were done on the 750 (or the Epson model immediately preceding it), because the demand of the image quality was low ... proofs, proof sheets, web use, and small prints.

There are a number of factors to consider besides published resolution numbers, and the debate as to which is best. I can say from experience that debate is fruitless.

At the final print size you want to make, none of the arguments mean much. Using any of the above cameras with the best films available, the Epson will be the weakest link in the imaging chain. My very first Medium Format film dedicated scanner (a Poloroid model), was better.

The D Max of the V700/750 isn't very good at holding shadow detail, so in pratical terms, the numbers they publish are less meaningful, or how there arrive at those numbers. Who cares? It isn't very good.

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.

Scanning at the best multi-pass resolutions takes an eternity on the flatbed, and keeping the film flat with Medium Format films is difficult during long scan times. If you are using a vacuum film back on the Contax, that feature will be wasted.

So, I'd have to agree ... you get what you pay for, and there are no magic short-cuts to high image quality ... especially at those print sizes.

Depending on how many images you really need scanned ... it may be better/more economical to use a high-end scanning service that caters to art photographers. Or maybe there is a place where you can rent time on a Hasselblad or Imacon scanner.

-Marc
 
D

djonesii

Workshop Member
Said another way ....

Since I got my MFDB, my film output has been very limited. Even a bottom of the barrel back like my ZD beats the pants of my Epson V700.

I still do shoot the occasional 4X5 with either film or fujiroid, but that style of shooting is far and few between.

From all I have read and seen, unless you are at the top of the line Nikon, digital is just better than film digital.

Early on, I made the decision that all my color work was better on a D300, and ONLY did B&W on the Fuji 645 or LF.

just my 2 cents, YMMV.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top