Digital BW, The Print

I e mailed epson asking if their 4870 could scan  5x7 negative. they said yes if you make an adapter. Anyone out there tried this? Does anyone have another idea? I would appreciate any input    Dan

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Dan Koons"  wrote:
> I e mailed epson asking if their 4870 could scan  5x7 negative. they said yes if you 
> make an adapter.

You could make your own out of matte board.

Also Doug Fisher is working on a 4x5,  5x7 holder for the Epson Scanners:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html

Dan, if the 4870 is like the lesser 3200 you don't need any adapter. 

You can just lay the film on the glass with a black paper
mask...there's tremendous depth of focus,unlike film-only scanners.
The supposed need for "1mm" spacing seems an urban legend with sheet
film (I've scanned a lot of 4X5). 

In fact, you may not even need a mask (though a densitometer might
prove that wrong). I've scanned a lot of strange sized ancient
negatives without masks and it's worked beautifully.  

fyi you'll probably want to use the bundled Silverfast. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Koons"
<hackberry@s...> wrote:
> I e mailed epson asking if their 4870 could scan  5x7 negative. they
said yes if you make an adapter. Anyone out there tried this? Does
anyone have another idea? I would appreciate any input    Dan
>

I have scanned 4X5 negs on my 3200 in lieu of the adapter that came 
with the flatbed:  If you have access to a mat cutter, simply cut a 
black mat, 2-ply, to the dimensions of the top of your flatbed, and 
then cut a 5X7 window in it.  By simply placing the negative in direct 
contact with the glass on the flatbed and using the board with the 
window as a mask, you can shield out any undesirable light that bleeds 
through during the scanning process.  You of course must use the top 
light attachment as with the adapters that come with the scanner.  (If 
this approach worked with the 3200, it should work with the 4870.)  
Peter G.

On Feb 25, 2005, at 2:15 PM, Dan Koons wrote:

>
> I e mailed epson asking if their 4870 could scan  5x7 negative. they 
> said yes if you make an adapter. Anyone out there tried this? Does 
> anyone have another idea? I would appreciate any input    Dan
>

Close but no cigar.

The subject has been explored pretty thoroughly on the Yahoo 4870 
group.

The problem is that the focal plane for a transparency scan is a bit 
higher off the platen than for a reflective scan and the DOF isn't 
quite deep enough to give a sharp image.

Use the 4x5 tranny holder that comes with the 4870, or the 
alternative which is to cut a matt board with the correct thickness, 
approx .070, then put the tranny over that, then put a piece of ANR 
(anti Newton Ring) glass over it to flatten the tranny. One can even 
wet mount it doing this.I've wet mounted 35mm with very good results, 
however I mostly do MF with Doug Fisher's aftermarket MF film holder. 
(It blows the doors off of the epson "cracker Jack toy" film holder)

Jules


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Gorwin 
<pshelleyg@c...> wrote:
> I have scanned 4X5 negs on my 3200 in lieu of the adapter that came 
> with the flatbed:  If you have access to a mat cutter, simply cut a 
> black mat, 2-ply, to the dimensions of the top of your flatbed, and 
> then cut a 5X7 window in it.  By simply placing the negative in 
direct 
> contact with the glass on the flatbed and using the board with the 
> window as a mask, you can shield out any undesirable light that 
bleeds 
> through during the scanning process.  You of course must use the 
top 
> light attachment as with the adapters that come with the scanner.  
(If 
> this approach worked with the 3200, it should work with the 4870.)  
> Peter G.
> 
> On Feb 25, 2005, at 2:15 PM, Dan Koons wrote:
> 
> >
> > I e mailed epson asking if their 4870 could scan  5x7 negative. 
they 
> > said yes if you make an adapter. Anyone out there tried this? 
Does 
> > anyone have another idea? I would appreciate any input    Dan
> >

Djon wrote:

>Dan, if the 4870 is like the lesser 3200 you don't need any adapter. 
>
>You can just lay the film on the glass with a black paper
>mask...there's tremendous depth of focus,unlike film-only scanners.
>The supposed need for "1mm" spacing seems an urban legend with sheet
>film (I've scanned a lot of 4X5). 
>
>In fact, you may not even need a mask (though a densitometer might
>prove that wrong). I've scanned a lot of strange sized ancient
>negatives without masks and it's worked beautifully.  
>
>fyi you'll probably want to use the bundled Silverfast. 
>
>  
>

Djon,

The best scans that I get on my 3200 are with a mask 1,5 mm thick and 
the film wetmounted to a sheet of 2 mm floatglass that is lying on that 
mask but with the film at the underside of the extra glass sheet. I use 
an extra piece of transparent polyester foil to wetmount the film. Of 
everything I tried this is the best method. But I have seen many reports 
of other methods like your's. In my opinion Epson QC tries to keep the 
focus at 1 mm above the glass as the film in the carriers is at that 
height. But the best focus may vary between the glassplate and 2 mm up 
in practice, it is hard to notice where it exactly is because the DOF is 
so extreme.

I wouldn't dare to claim that you can do without a mask. Especially not 
on the 3200 that has a fixed lightsource over the entire length of the 
scan area. The 4870 and 4990 have the moving lightsource but even then 
you can improve the scan with a mask. Even on the Nikon 9000 a mask 
improves the scan and that one has the Leds as a more or less point 
lightsource. Just check the borders of unmasked versus masked scans in 
PS, do an autolevel in PS and you will see it. How a densitometer can be 
used for that purpose is a mystery to me.

Ernst

Thanks . . . I learned something.  I would have sworn that my images 
contained crucial sharpness.
Ernst Dinkla talks about a float glass to attain to attain the proper 
focal plane in a later post.  I'll have to modify my approach.

Peter G.

On Feb 25, 2005, at 4:55 PM, lulalake_1999 wrote:

>
>
> Close but no cigar.
>
> The subject has been explored pretty thoroughly on the Yahoo 4870
> group.
>
> The problem is that the focal plane for a transparency scan is a bit
> higher off the platen than for a reflective scan and the DOF isn't
> quite deep enough to give a sharp image.
>
> Use the 4x5 tranny holder that comes with the 4870, or the
> alternative which is to cut a matt board with the correct thickness,
> approx .070, then put the tranny over that, then put a piece of ANR
> (anti Newton Ring) glass over it to flatten the tranny. One can even
> wet mount it doing this.I've wet mounted 35mm with very good results,
> however I mostly do MF with Doug Fisher's aftermarket MF film holder.
> (It blows the doors off of the epson "cracker Jack toy" film holder)
>
> Jules
>

Please tell me what "ANR" (Anti Newton Ring) glass is.  What makes it 
different from other glass and where would I find it?

Thanks,
Bruce Varner
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/btvarner/Bruce/photo.htm


> > The subject has been explored pretty thoroughly on the Yahoo 4870
> > group.  The problem is that the focal plane for a transparency 
scan is a bit higher off the platen than for a reflective scan and 
the DOF isn't quite deep enough to give a sharp image.
> > Use the 4x5 tranny holder that comes with the 4870, or the 
alternative which is to cut a matt board with the correct thickness, 
approx .070, then put the tranny over that, then put a piece of ANR 
(anti Newton Ring) glass over it to flatten the tranny. One can even 
wet mount it doing this.I've wet mounted 35mm with very good results, 
however I mostly do MF with Doug Fisher's aftermarket MF film holder. 
(It blows the doors off of the epson "cracker Jack toy" film holder)
> >
> > Jules

On 2/26/05 1:18 PM, "btvarner" sent the following verbage:

> 
> 
> Please tell me what "ANR" (Anti Newton Ring) glass is.  What makes it
> different from other glass and where would I find it?

Glass which has been treated to avoid newton rings when scanning.  Roughened
or etched. You can buy anti-newton spray, or the glass already treated. Some
internet searches will lead you to further information about purchasing etc
for your area, or preference.

Carolyn

btvarner wrote:

>Please tell me what "ANR" (Anti Newton Ring) glass is.  What makes it 
>different from other glass and where would I find it?
>
>Thanks,
>Bruce Varner
>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/btvarner/Bruce/photo.htm
>
>  
>
 You can get newton rings when two smooth surfaces are pressed together. 
Anti newton ring glass has a texture, which eliminates the smooth 
surface to smooth surface contact that can be a problem. You can get 
anti newton ring glass from Focal Point in florida. 
http://www.fpointinc.com/web_store/Products/focal/fpnewt2.htm

-Peter

But I have seen many reports 
> of other methods like your's. 

Yes...we report that because the simple method works.

In my opinion Epson QC tries to keep the 
> focus at 1 mm above the glass as the film in the carriers is at that 
> height. 

I don't know how "opinion" is relevant. If you have Epson
documentation about "1mm", please share it. In MY "opinion," its 
urban legend :-)  As likely the APPROXIMATE 1mm is just a convenience
 for injection molding...nothing to do with focus, since focus isn't
critical, as you point out here:
 
> in practice, it is hard to notice where it exactly is because the
DOF is 
> so extreme.

Yes..."in practice" its not significant in large film (unlike 35,where
we work with sparse film information, large film allows a multitude of
sins).  

A scanner isn't like an enlarger or contact printer. It's a reader: it
reads and reports densities. When a point source is used an optical
compromise is evidently introduced...the reason Minolta scanners do so
much better when manually focused than autofocused.

> I wouldn't dare to claim that you can do without a mask. 

Try it.  There may be an effect around the edge, but even that
probably won't be noticable unless that edge is buckled or torn. 

Precise location of Silverfast's dotted frame is what's critical
...light frome elsewhere, such as around the edges, is simply rejected
digitally.

Especially not 
> on the 3200 that has a fixed lightsource over the entire length of the 
> scan area. 

The moving source may somehow account for the 4870's slight sharpness
advantage over the 3200 with 35mm negs, but it's proportionately less
significant with large, old negatives and common enlargement sizes. 

For enlargement to a given size, a 4X5 (5") negative would get only .3
(30%) of the benefit that a 35mm (1.5") negative would get, switching
from a 3200 to a 4870. Might be visible in a mural, if that's relevant. 

How a densitometer can be 
> used for that purpose is a mystery to me.

Understood. Its a mystery due to careless word usage by marketers. A
densitometer is simply a device that quantifies density, measuring
transmitted or reflected light. Many devices can do that...even common
spotmeters, if used with a stable light source.

Incredibly accurate densitometers were in use fifty years ago by the
expert lithographers. Good photolabs started using them in the
Sixties. Until their recent sloppy decline, minilabs routinely used
them to monitor process strips.  

The practical use of a densitometer for our discussion would be in
print evaluation (Forum centers on prints, visual objects, not digital
readouts) .. we'd begin by measuring blacks around edges, since
contrast and curves are so easily tweaked in Photoshop. 
 



 
> 
> Ernst

A convenient source for AN glass may be a local camera store or
defunct photolab. I've used AN glass in Durst negative carriers
forever...expensive stuff, but worthwhile. 


> > Please tell me what "ANR" (Anti Newton Ring) glass is.  What makes it
> > different from other glass and where would I find it?

Djon wrote:

>  But I have seen many reports 
>  
>
>>of other methods like your's. 
>>    
>>
>
>Yes...we report that because the simple method works.
>  
>
With some 3200s it might work because the focus is at the glass level, 
it isn't working on my 3200.

>In my opinion Epson QC tries to keep the 
>  
>
>>focus at 1 mm above the glass as the film in the carriers is at that 
>>height. 
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know how "opinion" is relevant. If you have Epson
>documentation about "1mm", please share it. In MY "opinion," its 
>urban legend :-)  As likely the APPROXIMATE 1mm is just a convenience
> for injection molding...nothing to do with focus, since focus isn't
>critical, as you point out here:
>  
>
Norman Koren has a nice page on focus finding on the 2450, the later 
models do not differ on that aspect. Focus height differs per scanner 
due to QC.  The DOF of approx 2-3 mm is there to get a good focus for 
reflectance originals on the glass and on the rim around the glass when 
the lamphouse is taken away, that's about 2,5 mm above the glass. The 
film holders keep the film at 1 mm above the glass so in a concept like 
that you try to keep best focus at 1 mm above the glass as you want more 
resolution with film than with reflecting originals. Whether it is 
written down by Epson isn't the point, the whole concept of that range 
of scanners shows that they are designed like that. That my scanner has 
best focus at 1.5 mm above the glass and your's at the glass is just one 
indication that the normal best focus could be at 1 mm above the glass 
but QC isn't that tight.

> 
>  
>
>>in practice, it is hard to notice where it exactly is because the
>>    
>>
>DOF is 
>  
>
>>so extreme.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes..."in practice" its not significant in large film (unlike 35,where
>we work with sparse film information, large film allows a multitude of
>sins).  
>  
>
I think with that approach you are throwing away a lot more potential 
quality with that scanner.

>A scanner isn't like an enlarger or contact printer. It's a reader: it
>reads and reports densities. When a point source is used an optical
>compromise is evidently introduced...the reason Minolta scanners do so
>much better when manually focused than autofocused.
>  
>
There's much more analogy between enlargers and scanners than that there 
are differences. Even the matrix CCD sensors with multi sampling of the 
Epsons and Nikons need optics to get light focused on the sensor lines. 
That there's a compromise on that in the Epson concept to have larger 
wells in the sensors for other properties like dynamic range and Dmax 
doesn't make a lens obsolete. The half pixel offset of more sensor lines 
is another way to get to the resolutions needed, following optical laws 
as well.
The Nikon 8000 that I also have doesn't create a shift in quality 
between manual or automatic focusing. The wet mount carrier that I made 
and tweaked is very plane and with the film wetmounted it doesn't matter 
where the focus point is set, the lens will focus to one plane and the 
rest falls well within the very short depth of focus. That fix focus + 
more DOF can not equal active focusing isn't news. I can check that 
every day with the scanners I have. That a lot of DOF and fix focus plus 
half a pixel offset, large well, sensor lines still can deliver good 
scans is good news but doesn't make the rest of the optical laws a thing 
of the past.
Drum scanners are still considered to be the best around and they rely 
on a point light source, small beam etc. There's no optical compromise 
found it that concept.
There are more roads to Rome, all quided by Nyquist.

>  
>
>>I wouldn't dare to claim that you can do without a mask. 
>>    
>>
>
>Try it.  There may be an effect around the edge, but even that
>probably won't be noticable unless that edge is buckled or torn. 
>
>Precise location of Silverfast's dotted frame is what's critical
>...light frome elsewhere, such as around the edges, is simply rejected
>digitally.
>  
>
I have done it on both the Epson and the Nikon. Put a 35 mm slide on the 
wetmount carrier of the Nikon and keep the same exposure between masked 
and unmasked, the shadows definitely have a loss, starting from the 
borders of the frame and into to center. Vuescan measures at a given 
percentage from the cropline, the default is 15% and that was used. 
After long threads on how to improve the scan quality on the Epsons and 
trials done by list members of the Epson 3200-4870 lists there was one 
thing that everyone agreed on, masking helps a lot.

>Especially not 
>  
>
>>on the 3200 that has a fixed lightsource over the entire length of the 
>>scan area. 
>>    
>>
>
>The moving source may somehow account for the 4870's slight sharpness
>advantage over the 3200 with 35mm negs, but it's proportionately less
>significant with large, old negatives and common enlargement sizes. 
>
>For enlargement to a given size, a 4X5 (5") negative would get only .3
>(30%) of the benefit that a 35mm (1.5") negative would get, switching
>from a 3200 to a 4870. Might be visible in a mural, if that's relevant. 
>  
>
The moving light source gives less light spilling into the scanners 
interior, allows more (focused) light while keeping overall heat lower. 
Especially with larger films that heat is a problem for good scanning. 
That's why the wet mounting with a sheet of 2 mm floatglass above the 
film is so effective, it gives a better light distribution by the 
wetmount and the film doesn't expand with the heat from the lamp.
If we all printed A5 size I absolutely agree that it doesn't matter. In 
that case I wouldn't scan 4x5.

>How a densitometer can be 
>  
>
>>used for that purpose is a mystery to me.
>>    
>>
>
>Understood. Its a mystery due to careless word usage by marketers. A
>densitometer is simply a device that quantifies density, measuring
>transmitted or reflected light. Many devices can do that...even common
>spotmeters, if used with a stable light source.
>
>Incredibly accurate densitometers were in use fifty years ago by the
>expert lithographers. Good photolabs started using them in the
>Sixties. Until their recent sloppy decline, minilabs routinely used
>them to monitor process strips.  
>
>The practical use of a densitometer for our discussion would be in
>print evaluation (Forum centers on prints, visual objects, not digital
>readouts) .. we'd begin by measuring blacks around edges, since
>contrast and curves are so easily tweaked in Photoshop.
>  
>
It is cheaper, more revealing, preciser and easier to check the scans in 
Photoshop after scanning than measuring a print of that scan with a 
densitometer.  The last would probably not detect much difference in the 
prints of the mask/unmasked scans of that 35 mm slide. Even incredibly 
accurate densitometers  in use fifty years ago by the expert 
lithographers would have a hard time then. I'm in the graphic industry 
for 30 years meanwhile. Still learning though.


Ernst