Epson V series of Scanners, How good are they at film scanning

P

Paul-H

Suspended / Banned
Messages
977
Edit My Images
No
Hi all

As subject

I have a very large number of medium Format Negatives and slides that I would like to digitise to a high quality

In the past I have used a Minolta Multiscan pro which could make huge 4000Dpi scans but that sadly was sold for peanuts many many years ago and second hand ones are now a small fortune, even higher than they cost when new.

I also have access to a couple of Epson Flatbed scanners that support film scanning a 4490 and a 4990 and to be honest the results from these are quite poor, with a lack of sharpness and poor bit depth being the main issues.

Compared to these two scanners are the newer v series of scanners any better.

At the moment I get quite good results using my camera an a macro lens but the post processing of the negatives are quite long winded and for some reason I get much better results with negatives than I do with slides, so once again I am looking to the scanner market.

For those with them just how good are the scans from the v series, are the results pin sharp or do you still need to do a lot of post processing to get a good result.

I am looking to get scans that would print nice and sharp to A3plus size.

Thanks for any input on this.

Paul
 
A lot of us in here use the v500 to good effect and I believe the later versions are even better.

Andy
 
i use a v750 and its great for 120 and 5x4 not so good for 35mm although it makes a perfectly fine scan of 35mm you can get better from dedicated scanners. It will go up to 2400dpi which is more than enough to get a3's out of.
 
I don't think I can help, as your standards are clearly higher than mine - or your eyes sharper :D. I've used the Epson flatbeds you mention for black and white, and been happy with the results. I could print 35mm as large as I would dare with 35mm, and 6x7 gave (to my eyes) very sharp A3 prints. Caveat - I use black and white. I now use a V700 and am happy with the results. N.B. it's always necessary to apply a small amount of sharpening, just as with digital raw files.
 
The the 4490 is a bit ropey, the 4990 is pretty much as good as anything there is currently available, so if it isn't meeting your expectations then either your expectations are a bit skewed by the results you remember from the Minolta (which obviously was a cut above consumer flatbeds) or you might need to revisit your scan technique, maybe try some different holders, experiment a little see if you can't sharpen them up a bit.
I gotta say though, you are unlikely to get close to matching the Minolta :)
 
As far as I'm aware, the 4490 and 4990 are exactly the same as the V500 and V700, respectively, except for a change in the light source, so I can't imagine you'll see much of a difference.
 
I had both, the 4990 was much better than the 4490, I can only relate my experience, apart from scanning more frames in one go it was optically superior.
 
I've come to the conclusion with 3200, 4990 and 700\750 the Epson engineers came to the same conclusion that they are not going to go much further with a jack of all trades scanner without a complete redesign and considering development costs and the high price they would have to charge for the scanner, and sales, it is not going to happen. I'm surprised the Chinese are not bothering to copy the Nikon coolscan and sell at a cheap price...maybe a patents problem
 
excalibur2 said:
I'm surprised the Chinese are not bothering to copy the Nikon coolscan and sell at a cheap price...maybe a patents problem
Click to expand...

They copy high volume products, because that makes it worth the effort and initial manufacturing cost. A high end film scanner has always been a relatively niche product.
 
freecom2 said:
They copy high volume products, because that makes it worth the effort and initial manufacturing cost. A high end film scanner has always been a relatively niche product.
Click to expand...

H'mm I suppose Nikon even making the coolscan in China they weren't going to make a decent profit :(:( so that's that.
 
joxby said:
The the 4490 is a bit ropey, the 4990 is pretty much as good as anything there is currently available
Click to expand...


I have a 4870 which has turned out to be a lot better than I was expecting. Basically the same as the 4990 but can only do 2 5x4 negatives at the same time. And it usually sells for less too because no one has heard of it!

I have made my own film holders for it as it didn't come with any.


Steve.
 
The 4990 only did 2 5x4's so I dunno what the 4870 is lacking, mebbe resolution, dmax or something..

Anyway, I'm not that well read on scanner specs especially flatbeds, I mean I researched at the time I wanted one but that was a long time ago when the 4990 was current, I don't think its actually been improved very much since.
Scanning generally is pretty naff, its ok for an 800 pix picture on a webpage but you don't need the latest and greatest for that, its when you want to print it that the scan becomes important, I just don't think any consumer scanner is doing the neg justice.
 
joxby said:
The 4990 only did 2 5x4's so I dunno what the 4870 is lacking, mebbe resolution, dmax or something..
Click to expand...
Oh. I thought it could do 10 x 8.

EDIT: It does:

  • 8" x 10" Transparency Adapter built-in lid with four film holders: 35mm slides (8 frames), 35mm film strips (24 frames), medium format strips 2-1/4", 120/220mm, 6x12cm (3-6 frames) and 4" x 5" film (2 frames); 8" x 10" film area guide
Click to expand...

EDIT AGAIN: Although that's confusing. 10x8 is four 5x4 frames, not two.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Oh. I thought it could do 10 x 8.

EDIT: It does:



EDIT AGAIN: Although that's confusing. 10x8 is four 5x4 frames, not two.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It comes with a holder for one 8x10 and a separate holder which will take two 5x4.
 
Steve Smith said:
I see. So if you want to do four 5x4s (which I don't) you would need to make your own film holder.


Steve.
Click to expand...

That's right, but you need to be sure there's enough coverage. Whilst you can put four 5x4 into 8x10. You'd need to make the overall size slightly larger to accommodate each 5x4 separately.
 
Thanks for all the replies

So it must be me then ;)

I know the negatives I have will print well using an enlarger as I have in the past printed most of them myself

I have tried Epson Scan, Silverfast and Vuescan and have tried scanning at different DPI settings 1200, 2400 4800 and get the same results with all three, if I zoom in on the scanned image they are soft long before I get to a magnification where the grain is or should be visible.

If I put the negatives in the Epson Film Holder and place that on a light box and photograph them using my digital camera a macro lens I get a far far better result with the grain structure being shown sharp and well defined.

Perhaps my scanners just don't like the film stock and shooting style I used at the time, they are all of portraits shot with a Zeiss Softar #1 or 2 so perhaps the optical effect of how the Softar works is fooling the scanners, clutching at straws here I know.

I lost a huge number of negatives in a house move a few years ago so no longer have anything without the Softar use to try out. Although the slides I have which are sharp and of more normal subjects don't scan well either but then they don't copy well using the digital camera method either because of the inherent contrast increase associated with slide copying.

Paul
 
Loads of discussion threads about scanners. I have a v500 but yet to try scanning any 120 film. Having read other opinions some say that anything less than a drum scan simply isn't worth shooting MF, I personally would like to know how much real world difference there is rather than doing the equivalent of pixel peeping.
 
Blasted said:
Loads of discussion threads about scanners. I have a v500 but yet to try scanning any 120 film. Having read other opinions some say that anything less than a drum scan simply isn't worth shooting MF, I personally would like to know how much real world difference there is rather than doing the equivalent of pixel peeping.
Click to expand...
TBH you won't find many on here that say that anything less than a drum scan isn't worth it, in an ideal world yes we'd all like to have access to reasonable priced drum scanning but realistically you'll get perfectly adequate scans from the V500 unless you want to print very large.
 
Blasted said:
Having read other opinions some say that anything less than a drum scan simply isn't worth shooting MF, I personally would like to know how much real world difference there is rather than doing the equivalent of pixel peeping.
Click to expand...

Ignore them, they are talking out of their backdoors. Unless you are chronically underexposing slide film or are printing onto the side of buses, drum scans won't change your world. They are nice to have, but flatbeds are not as terrible as high end scanner nuts will have you believe.

Here is a comparison between a drum scanner (a fairly low end Howtek D4000) and an Epson V500

100% crop at 2000DPI from 6x9cm Fuji Acros

D4000vsV5002_zpsjjuevtiv.jpg
 
Blasted said:
Having read other opinions some say that anything less than a drum scan simply isn't worth shooting MF.
Click to expand...

As with most thing in photography the only correct option is the one that suits what you're doing, not everyone's needs are the same. If you're only ever doing large prints or selling digital files and need high levels of detail then a high end scan (not necessarily a drum scan - some high end flatbeds are capable of out-resolving some drum scanners) is the way to go. If you're doing smaller prints and uploading to the Internet at smaller sizes then a V500 will be more than adequate if you get out of the full auto modes and spend a little time learning to get the best out of it. For general Internet use I find the V500 perfectly fine even for 35mm, with medium format you're potentially dealing with 4-5 times the amount of information 35mm holds which leads to larger, even more detailed scans. It should meet your needs just fine. :)
 
Thanks for the conformation of what I thought and the file examples, I hope the OP also finds it of use.

I see the logic of shooting medium format and wanting to get the best out of it, but as people have said, its what you are doing with it at the end that counts. For me a bulk of my pictures will be on screen and thats where I start to think about how much difference it is from shooting with my 5D mark 3, will I still be able to show that film quality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top