Epson V550 Settings

[Forkbeard]

I didn't really plan on buying a scanner but ended up biting the bullet and going for the v550. I've been playing around with it and am not sure what resolution etc I should be scanning at. I started at 3200 and saved them as jpegs and they looked half decent. I then decided to try a tiff and 4800 and the files were huge! They also didn't look very good, but I suspect my monitor is partly to blame for that (and I'm guessing there's no point pixel peeping). I don't reaLly know what they're meant to look like though.

I'm thinking maybe 3200dpi tiff files would be good enough, but I'm shooting in the dark. Can anybody give me any tips? Cheers, James.

 

[ChrisR]

You're not getting much advantage past 2400 ppi, just bigger files. See filmscanner.info for detailed reviews that show actual resolutions well below what's claimed!

Vuescan has an option to scan at a higher setting then reduce the files by a factor of 2 or 4, helps reduce noise and improve quality, but it does increase scan times.

 

[Forkbeard]

You're not getting much advantage past 2400 ppi, just bigger files. See filmscanner.info for detailed reviews that show actual resolutions well below what's claimed!

Vuescan has an option to scan at a higher setting then reduce the files by a factor of 2 or 4, helps reduce noise and improve quality, but it does increase scan times.

Thanks I'll have a look at that link. I think I'll give 2400 a go next - I tried 3200 and it's loads better. 4800 definitely looks bad in comparison.

 

[FishyFish]

I use 2400 on mine, for the same reasons as Chris - there’s no real increase in resolution that I can personally see at higher setting, just more time to scan and much larger files.

I use the Epson Scan sharpening at its default setting (though you may prefer to sharpen elsewhere) and use the histogram control to edit the image highlights and shadows etc. before scanning to a tif (16 bit greyscale or 48 bit colour).

 

[Forkbeard]

I use 2400 on mine, for the same reasons as Chris - there’s no real increase in resolution that I can personally see at higher setting, just more time to scan and much larger files.

I use the Epson Scan sharpening at its default setting (though you may prefer to sharpen elsewhere) and use the histogram control to edit the image highlights and shadows etc. before scanning to a tif (16 bit greyscale or 48 bit colour).

Cheers, I'm more or less doing it the same way then, just higher resolution which seems like unnecessary work. Do you leave the unsharp mask on medium?

Will scanning at a larger res have any benefit for larger prints?

 

[Forkbeard]

Here's a sample what I've got so far (ignoring the rubbish subject!) - 2400dpi tiff converted to jpg and colour adjusted in Fastone. I may have over sharpened it a bit:

img043

 

[FishyFish]

Cheers, I'm more or less doing it the same way then, just higher resolution which seems like unnecessary work. Do you leave the unsharp mask on medium?

Will scanning at a larger res have any benefit for larger prints?

Yes, I use the medium unsharp mask setting (I think that's the default, isn't it?). I sometimes add extra sharpening using Sharpener Pro 3: Output Sharpener that comes with the free Nik Collection plug-ins.

I can't comment on print resolution as I've not printed any of my stuff (yet ).

 

[Ben johns]

i use 2400 dpi for 120 film and 1200 dpi for 35mm

 

[ChrisR]

i use 2400 dpi for 120 film and 1200 dpi for 35mm

Odd, I think I would do that the other way round! 1200 ppi on 35mm is good for a 4*6" print...

 

[Ben johns]

Odd, I think I would do that the other way round! 1200 ppi on 35mm is good for a 4*6" print...

whys that? i have to say i havent really done any testing but from what i have done ive found that any more than 1200 dpi for 35mm and im just making a larger file for the sake of it, it doesnt have anymore detail, same for 120. Again I could well be wrong. Not that I really intend to print that large from my scanner, Ive been searching for that elusive film photo that I justify getting drum scanned but ive not got it yet!

 

[excalibur2]

whys that? i have to say i havent really done any testing but from what i have done ive found that any more than 1200 dpi for 35mm and im just making a larger file for the sake of it, it doesnt have anymore detail, same for 120. Again I could well be wrong. Not that I really intend to print that large from my scanner, Ive been searching for that elusive film photo that I justify getting drum scanned but ive not got it yet!

True about the detail staying the same but scanning at a higher dpi adds more pixels per square cm so the picture looks better esp if cropping. Anyway it's not digi so the amount of jpgs\tiffs over the year scanning 35mm film @ 2400\3200 ain't going to make much difference in storing files on a modern HD ( esp deleting the losers)....which is usually 1 or 2 tbytes.

 

[StephenM]

whys that? i have to say i havent really done any testing but from what i have done ive found that any more than 1200 dpi for 35mm and im just making a larger file for the sake of it, it doesnt have anymore detail, same for 120. Again I could well be wrong. Not that I really intend to print that large from my scanner, Ive been searching for that elusive film photo that I justify getting drum scanned but ive not got it yet!

Simply because 35mm frames are smaller than 120 frames, and therefore for the same size print require more enlargement. In digital terms, if you're going to accept the conventional wisdom that you need 300 pixels per inch printed, then 1200 gives you four inches on the short size of the print, and 6 on the long - a 6"x4" print. On roll film at 2.25" on the short side (or both, if it's square) that's 1200 x 2.25 = 2700 divided by 300 to give a short side of 9".

If you aren't getting any more detail, why use 2400 at all - and certainly why use it where it's least necessary?

 

[Ben johns]

Simply because 35mm frames are smaller than 120 frames, and therefore for the same size print require more enlargement. In digital terms, if you're going to accept the conventional wisdom that you need 300 pixels per inch printed, then 1200 gives you four inches on the short size of the print, and 6 on the long - a 6"x4" print. On roll film at 2.25" on the short side (or both, if it's square) that's 1200 x 2.25 = 2700 divided by 300 to give a short side of 9".

If you aren't getting any more detail, why use 2400 at all - and certainly why use it where it's least necessary?

Well as I said I haven’t done a lot of testing. With 120 and 35mm I started at the highest dpi my scanner can do and went down till I got to a dpi that would give me both a smaller file size and enough detail to print at the sizes that I would print at when using that scanner. I don’t use 35mm for landscapes, just family events and stuff so I wouldn’t need to print large. 120 I use for landscapes so I would print larger, the only logic I have on the matter

One thing I do like about film is really it doesn’t matter what dpi you scan at as you can just go back and do it again. I did start scanning at the highest dpi I could so that I wouldn’t need to scan again but I just didn’t need a file that big for what I use them for the majority of the time

 

[Ben johns]

True about the detail staying the same but scanning at a higher dpi adds more pixels per square cm so the picture looks better esp if cropping. Anyway it's not digi so the amount of jpgs\tiffs over the year scanning 35mm film @ 2400\3200 ain't going to make much difference in storing files on a modern HD ( esp deleting the losers)....which is usually 1 or 2 tbytes.

I haven’t compared a lower dpi scan and a high one in a while, might have to do some testing again. I have a roll of provia that’s been sent away to be developed at the moment so that might be a good time to try out the different dpi’s again.
I’ve been mainly shooting pinhole at the moment so there isn’t must detail anyway

 

[excalibur2]

I haven’t compared a lower dpi scan and a high one in a while, might have to do some testing again. I have a roll of provia that’s been sent away to be developed at the moment so that might be a good time to try out the different dpi’s again.
I’ve been mainly shooting pinhole at the moment so there isn’t must detail anyway

Well most of us here recognise pixels e.g. a very low lab 35mm scan would be about 1540 X 1024px and with no cropping it's ok for posting on the web but an A4 print from it won't look great (well depends how fussy you are ).
When I first used my Epson V750 I compared it to an Asda scan which was 1820 X 1240 and scanning with the V750 @ 3200 dpi and up and getting up to 6160 X 4160 pixels shots, well the detail in the neg was about the same but doing an A4 print the Asda scan was inferior compared to the V750...which proves more scanning pixels in the shot the better it looks.
So the scanner determines the detail you can get out of a neg and the best scanners are expensive, and with a cheap scanner all you can do is add more pixels to the scan to make it look better, and for me the way I look at is:- I will not have a non sharp lens in my collection even though guys say "you can get great shots with a less sharp lens", but taking a shot with an excellent lens I can always go down and make the shot blurry\inferior, so same for scanning in that for 35mm, I scan at 3200 dpi and could be over kill, so what I can always go down\reduce in Photoshop to post here and have the original scan as backup on the hard disk and useful for a decent size print.

 

[Mr Badger]

After carrying out tests at various dpi, I scan 35mm and 120 negs at 3200 dpi on my Epson V600 and find this seems to capture the most detail in the resulting JPEG image (I don't bother with TIFF).

 

[ChrisR]

Look your scanner up on filmscanner.info and it'll tell you what the maximum actual resolution is. I have a Plustek and an Epson and both seem to give real extra detail at 2400 over 1200. I sometimes go higher than 2400, up to 3600, but I'd use multiscan to improve the result, which means much longer scan times.