New epson scanners on the way

I find it very annoying that they're allowed to claim such high resolutions when it is such a bunch of fibs.
 
H'mm another great big flatbed scanner...I'd prefer a neat dedicated scanner that can scan 35mm or 120, holding the negs flat with a blower cleaning the negs as they enter the m/c, with resolution close to a drum scanner and high D-max...about £350 sounds reasonable. (y)
 
As someone who mainly uses 5x4, a limitation to 120 would rule it out for me. As to size, when it comes to scanning old 35mm slides, I fnd being able to load up 24 at a time and leave the software (VueScan in my case) to get on with scanning the lot while I do something else valuable. I doubt a small scanner could manage that, unless the slides were fed through from an edge, leaving the ones awaiting scanning or post scan vulnerable to dust and damage. Or use a slide magazine, as one scanner does.

As and when the 850 arrives, we'll probably get one.
 
Last edited:
This might see some V750s come on the 2nd hand market! ;)
 
I hope so, I'm already growing tired of scanning my LF stuff in two bits and merging them.
 
It makes me wonder though how different they will actually be - in their "middle" range (V500 etc) the actual scanner has not changed since the V500 came out quite a few years ago; the V550 and V600 are exactly the same just in a differently styled case and with slightly different software.
 
excalibur2 said:
H'mm another great big flatbed scanner...I'd prefer a neat dedicated scanner that can scan 35mm or 120, holding the negs flat with a blower cleaning the negs as they enter the m/c, with resolution close to a drum scanner and high D-max...about £350 sounds reasonable. (y)
Click to expand...

"Resolution" and actual image quality are two very different things... ;)
 
PMN said:
"Resolution" and actual image quality are two very different things... ;)
Click to expand...

Surely the sole purpose of a scanner is to try and faithfully reproduce what's on the neg at the highest detail without too much digital interference....if it's a crap neg then crap result so what's quality to do with it?
 
excalibur2 said:
Surely the sole purpose of a scanner is to try and faithfully reproduce what's on the neg at the highest detail without too much digital interference....if it's a crap neg then crap result so what's quality to do with it?
Click to expand...

Who's talking about negs? A crap photo is a crap photo and always will be, we're talking about scanners here not photographic technique.
 
PMN said:
Who's talking about negs? A crap photo is a crap photo and always will be, we're talking about scanners here not photographic technique.
Click to expand...

Huh! What's the point of getting an expensive scanner if you don't scan negs (or I suppose pos as well).........I proved to myself years ago that even a cheap scanner can give very good results scanning prints (well 8" X10"). :rolleyes:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say...is it that say:- results from a Nikon coolscan look better than a V750 both scanned at 2400dpi or whatever?
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
Who's talking about negs? A crap photo is a crap photo and always will be, we're talking about scanners here not photographic technique.
Click to expand...

under exposed over exposed bad processing on a neg they all effect how the scanner works and outputs the file so that comes under technique not content
 
dave clayton said:
under exposed over exposed bad processing on a neg they all effect how the scanner works and outputs the file so that comes under technique not content
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure why quality of the original image is coming into this. It's a given that no scanner will save a rubbish quality photo (although it's incredible what can be pulled from quite dramatically under or over exposed neg film), why is photographic technique being brought into the conversation?
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
I'm really not sure why quality of the original image is coming into this. It's a given that no scanner will save a rubbish quality photo (although it's incredible what can be pulled from quite dramatically under or over exposed neg film), why is photographic technique being brought into the conversation?
Click to expand...

I've edited my previous post...but you confused me by saying ""Resolution" and actual image quality are two very different things...". Which would suggest that some scanners make the results look better by software "fiddling".
 
excalibur2 said:
I've edited my previous post...but you confused me by saying ""Resolution" and actual image quality are two very different things...". Which would suggest that some scanners make the results look better by software "fiddling".
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Take an 8 megapixel digital camera and put a really nice high end lens on it, then take a 10 megapixel camera and put a kit lens on it. Despite having a lower resolution the 8 megapixel camera will probably give the most detailed images because the sensor is 'seeing' more detail from the lens.

Scanners can be thought of in a similar way. If I do a 2400dpi scan on the V500 (which is a native resolution and thus there's no software fiddling) and then scan that same frame at 2000dpi on the Screen Cezanne, the 2000dpi version will have much more detail, again despite a lower resolution, because the quality of what's being used to capture the image is much higher.

Resolution is simply how big the output file is (and some manufacturers confuse this figure by stating interpolated resolution which obviously is software fiddling). Even if we're talking about native resolution that on it's own has relatively little to do with how much detail is in the actual scan, that's more dictated by the quality of how the image is actually captured.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
Not necessarily. Take an 8 megapixel digital camera and put a really nice high end lens on it, then take a 10 megapixel camera and put a kit lens on it. Despite having a lower resolution the 8 megapixel camera will probably give the most detailed images because the sensor is 'seeing' more detail from the lens.

Scanners can be thought of in a similar way. If I do a 2400dpi scan on the V500 (which is a native resolution and thus there's no software fiddling) and then scan that same frame at 2000dpi on the Screen Cezanne, the 2000dpi version will have much more detail, again despite a lower resolution, because the quality of what's being used to capture the image is much higher.

Resolution is simply how big the output file is (and some manufacturers confuse this figure by stating interpolated resolution which obviously is software fiddling). Even if we're talking about native resolution that on it's own has relatively little to do with how much detail is in the actual scan, that's more dictated by the quality of how the image is actually captured.
Click to expand...


Ah...so what do I edit my first post to read i.e.".I'd prefer a neat dedicated scanner that can scan 35mm or 120, holding the negs flat with a blower cleaning the negs as they enter the m/c, with resolution close to a drum scanner and high D-max...about £350 sounds reasonable."

...and maybe the Asda scans using the frontier machine are not so bad after all although they are low dpi and clip blacks and highlights :D
 
If I do a 2400dpi scan on the V500 (which is a native resolution and thus there's no software fiddling) and then scan that same frame at 2000dpi on the Screen Cezanne, the 2000dpi version will have much more detail,
Click to expand...

I dont beleive that for a second. How could something that scans 400 dots less over an inch, quite a measureable portion less, actually resolve more detail? An inch is an inch, a dot is a dot regardless of scanner. 400 less represents about 6mm? and yet you think it can recover that lost space? nah.

Anyway, we shall wait and see how independent tests handle these new ones. At least they havnt claimed 9600dpi, i guess thats not fashionable anymore.
 
The main problem is the Epson and Canon and most other manufacturers lie about the optical resolution. A 2400dpi scan will not give you 2400 dpi. If you actually scan a test chart on the lower res settings you will find they're usually way lower than listed.

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html

Also with a better dmax you'll find you can find detail in a scan which another scanner cannot.

Without scanning a test chart you don't really know what the actual resolution is.

Braun do the FS-120 which actually delivers their claimed resolution. It does medium format as well but it is £1200. It's very similar to the reflecta model. They claim a higher resolution which it can't actually do. Considering second hand minoltas and nikons from donkey's ago sell for this much then I think the Braun is actually a very good buy.

The scanner manufacturers need calling out on this.
 
essexash said:
I dont beleive that for a second. How could something that scans 400 dots less over an inch, quite a measureable portion less, actually resolve more detail? An inch is an inch, a dot is a dot regardless of scanner. 400 less represents about 6mm? and yet you think it can recover that lost space? nah.

Anyway, we shall wait and see how independent tests handle these new ones. At least they havnt claimed 9600dpi, i guess thats not fashionable anymore.
Click to expand...

Well I understand from Paul's reply is that the components are of better quality.....I noticed something similar\related with my Father's cheap 13 X 50 binoculars compared to my Ross 10 X 50...although the magnification was more I could see more detail with my Ross.
 
essexash said:
I dont beleive that for a second. How could something that scans 400 dots less over an inch, quite a measureable portion less, actually resolve more detail? An inch is an inch, a dot is a dot regardless of scanner. 400 less represents about 6mm? and yet you think it can recover that lost space? nah.

Anyway, we shall wait and see how independent tests handle these new ones. At least they havnt claimed 9600dpi, i guess thats not fashionable anymore.
Click to expand...

You clearly didn't read what I actually wrote, did you?

Re-readwhat I said about lenses on DSLR's, apply similar logic to scanners and it should all make sense. Not all image capture devices are created equal...
 
essexash said:
I dont beleive that for a second. How could something that scans 400 dots less over an inch, quite a measureable portion less, actually resolve more detail? An inch is an inch, a dot is a dot regardless of scanner. 400 less represents about 6mm? and yet you think it can recover that lost space? nah.
Click to expand...

ez2c8dL.jpg


2000dpi scan of the above on a Screen Cezanne Elite:

I4RW71G.jpg


2400dpi scan on a V500:

Dlasb7V.jpg


I think most people with vaguely working eyesight would find it difficult to argue the V500 scan contains more detail despite having the higher 'on paper' resolution.

Again, not all image capture devices are created equal.
 
Last edited:
Let's have a bit more fun! 5300 on the Cezanne and 6400 on the V500, not really fair as the V500 is digitally fiddling to try get 6400 but nonetheless it's interesting to see the difference.

Screen Cezanne at it's native max of 5300dpi:

AOp2hX6.jpg


V500 trying to cheat at getting 6400dpi:

teG7qXw.jpg
 
Sorry to get in the way of a good argument, but just a comment on the OP - we should be very happy that Epson is producing new products for film scanning! After all, if new (and hopefully better) scanners continue to become available, especially from major manufacturers like Epson with their widespread distribution and visibility, it will do a lot to encourage continued use of film. Hurrah!
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Sorry to get in the way of a good argument, but just a comment on the OP - we should be very happy that Epson is producing new products for film scanning! After all, if new (and hopefully better) scanners continue to become available, especially from major manufacturers like Epson with their widespread distribution and visibility, it will do a lot to encourage continued use of film. Hurrah!
Click to expand...

Agree! I hadn't actually thought about it but you're absolutely right, new film toys are good! :)
 
PMN said:
ez2c8dL.jpg


2000dpi scan of the above on a Screen Cezanne Elite:

I4RW71G.jpg


2400dpi scan on a V500:

Dlasb7V.jpg


I think most people with vaguely working eyesight would find it difficult to argue the V500 scan contains more detail despite having the higher 'on paper' resolution.

Again, not all image capture devices are created equal.
Click to expand...


Your results are a bit unfair as the true dpi of a V500 is about 1600, the comparison of the Cezanne should be with a V750 which has a true dpi of 2400?
 
excalibur2 said:
Your results are a bit unfair as the true dpi of a V500 is about 1600, the comparison of the Cezanne should be with a V750 which has a true dpi of 2400?
Click to expand...

The first example is perfectly fair, Brian. 2000 and 2400 are native resolutions of both machines, it's in no way unfair.

The second example is a bit unfair (which I clearly stated), but that was just done for a bit of fun.
 
PMN said:
The first example is perfectly fair, Brian. 2000 and 2400 are native resolutions of both machines, it's in no way unfair.

The second example is a bit unfair (which I clearly stated), but that was just done for a bit of fun.
Click to expand...


......but you have a first class scanner and while it's interesting a V500 is not the best Epson make. My 2nd scanner is a 4180 and probably a V500 is about the same, but I too can show how the cheaper scanners are inferior to a V750 from:- http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...ormat-owners-group.456350/page-9#post-6439683 #327 and #340
IMO a thread like "don't bother spending £600 on a V750" get a S/H Cezanne....and show why (y)......interested?
 
excalibur2 said:
......but you have a first class scanner and while it's interesting a V500 is not the best Epson make. My 2nd scanner is a 4180 and probably a V500 is about the same, but I too can show how the cheaper scanners are inferior to a V750 from:- http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...ormat-owners-group.456350/page-9#post-6439683 #327 and #340
IMO a thread like "don't bother spending £600 on a V750" get a S/H Cezanne....and show why (y)......interested?
Click to expand...

Brian, my example was aimed at Ash to correct his wrongful (and very bluntly expressed) idea that dpi is the be all and end all of scanning quality. I'm not trying to convince people to get a Cezanne rather than an Epson (have you seen the size of these damned things?)
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
Brian, my example was aimed at Ash to correct his wrongful (and very bluntly expressed) idea that dpi is the be all and end all of scanning quality. I'm not trying to convince people to get a Cezanne rather than an Epson (have you seen the size of these damned things?)
Click to expand...

Hey we agree ( I think) as the V750 gave a better quality picture compared to the 4180 (ignoring the dpi), but my results wasn't anyway a scientific comparison and could have errors.......anyway I'm happy with Asda :D and any outstanding shots would scan myself or send to a lab.
 
essexash said:
I dont beleive that for a second. How could something that scans 400 dots less over an inch, quite a measureable portion less, actually resolve more detail? An inch is an inch, a dot is a dot regardless of scanner. 400 less represents about 6mm? and yet you think it can recover that lost space? nah.
Click to expand...


Not all dots are created equal. There's no point having more of them if they're not representative of the source material.
 
This argument is like someone saying "a 24mp camera is better than an 18mp camera" which is obviously very subjective to the camera.

DPI isn't the be all and end all of scanning, just like megapickles aren't the be all and end all of digital cameras.
 
I can't believe F&C keeps going with digital cameras as their analogy. How about "box camera using 120 film versus Leica using 35mm"?! ;-)
 
thorton said:
DPI isn't the be all and end all of scanning, just like megapickles aren't the be all and end all of digital cameras.
Click to expand...

Does make it more confusing if e.g. the V850 has the same true dpi of 2400 which is the same as a V750 but the results are better....and you can go on comparing the V500 to the V600, 3200 to the 4990, and even comparing with other flatbed makes with the same true dpi. :eek:
 
excalibur2 said:
Does make it more confusing if e.g. the V850 has the same true dpi of 2400 which is the same as a V750 but the results are better....and you can go on comparing the V500 to the V600, 3200 to the 4990, and even comparing with other flatbed makes with the same true dpi. :eek:
Click to expand...

The trick is ignoring the dpi! Saying a scanner is good because it has high resolution is like saying a speaker will sound great just because it has a high power rating, it just doesn't work like that.
 
abdoujaparov said:
I can't believe F&C keeps going with digital cameras as their analogy. How about "box camera using 120 film versus Leica using 35mm"?! ;-)
Click to expand...

It's just easier to say 18 vs 24mp lol.

excalibur2 said:
Does make it more confusing if e.g. the V850 has the same true dpi of 2400 which is the same as a V750 but the results are better....and you can go on comparing the V500 to the V600, 3200 to the 4990, and even comparing with other flatbed makes with the same true dpi. :eek:
Click to expand...

dpi doesn't mean everything though, as Paul said there's a difference between DPI and image quality, not the image quality of the neg but of the scanner, I guess you could call it scan quality instead to save confusion.
 
Last edited:
I thought your point was that higher resolution was better - just that it didn't correlate with dpi?
 
StephenM said:
I thought your point was that higher resolution was better - just that it didn't correlate with dpi?
Click to expand...

No. I haven't said higher resolution is better anywhere in any of my posts, what I have said is the idea that a higher resolution scan will always have more detail than a lower resolution one regardless of the scanner being used is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top