Digital BW, The Print

Hey all,

With the new epson v700 scanner out and reviews being very good about it, do you as a 
knowledgable group think that flatbed scanners are going to be the best choice in the 
future for scanning b&w negatives?  Conventional wisdom is that a dedicated film scanner 
gives a better scan.  Is this wisdom changing?  I am excited about the possibility of a 
flatbed doing a better job on b&w than a dedicated film scanner.  Your thoughts?

> ...  Conventional wisdom is that a dedicated film scanner
> gives a better scan.  Is this wisdom changing?  

I'd have to see well controlled tests before I'd believe that a flatbed
could outperform a dedicated film scanner at about the same price point.
The only way I can see it making sense is if the increased volume of sales
of the flatbed lowered costs to the point where economies of scale
outweighed the inherent design advantages of the dedicated scanner.  Getting
more for the money, of course, is a real possibility.

I would not make a decision to buy such a scanner based on a subjective
review that did not have comparison resolution chart images.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I think it comes down to price vs quality: value.

For $800 for a scanner like the V-750 that will scan up to 8x10" 
films up to 6400 dpi, how can you go wrong?

If you're only shooting roll film, you may want to go with a 
dedicated film scanner like the Nikon ED-9000 or whatever.

But if one is shooting sheet film, I'd spring for the flatbed.

FWIW,
Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshscapes" 
<joshrandall@...> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
> 
> With the new epson v700 scanner out and reviews being very good 
about it, do you as a 
> knowledgable group think that flatbed scanners are going to be the 
best choice in the 
> future for scanning b&w negatives?  Conventional wisdom is that a 
dedicated film scanner 
> gives a better scan.  Is this wisdom changing?  I am excited about 
the possibility of a 
> flatbed doing a better job on b&w than a dedicated film scanner.  
Your thoughts?
>

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@...> wrote:
>
> I think it comes down to price vs quality: value.
> 
> For $800 for a scanner like the V-750 that will scan up to 8x10" 
> films up to 6400 dpi, how can you go wrong?
> 


All I know is that I'm in the market for a new flatbed scanner, and 
I'm not doing anything until the v750 reviews come out, and maybe 
some time after that. I still have to wonder if the 6400ppi is going 
to be real or the normal over inflated value that Epson is pretty 
well known for.

Greg,

Whether that file size is interpolated through magic or not, the real
issue is dynamic range, 4000 dpi is really enough for almost anything,
even most 35mm projects.

Epson, like Nikon and Imacon, most likely will lie about the dynamic
range numbers, but we won't really know until someone who is doing
really high-end scans does a range of comparison tests, from film that
isn't perfect, to see if this is really a new breed of flatbed. If
they somehow have managed to produce a really good dynamic range,
which I always expected to be on the horizon somewhere for flatbeds,
then fluid mounting under acetate with Kami fluid may well keep the
film flat and avoid the focus problems resulting from the film not
being completely flat in the standard Epson carrier. A poor dynamic
range produces noise in the shadows and often in the highlights as
well, and quite often a reduced color gamut. The Nikons are quite
noisy. I expect the Epson may at least equal that. They are all ccd
scanners, basically digital cameras, and the best flatbeds like Scitex
or Premier already pretty much equal the Imacon in dynamic range and
file size. 


John

John

 




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:

>
> --- In 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
> <scott_now_coming@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it comes down to price vs quality: value.
> > 
> > For $800 for a scanner like the V-750 that will scan up to 8x10" 
> > films up to 6400 dpi, how can you go wrong?
> > 
> 
> 
> All I know is that I'm in the market for a new flatbed scanner, and 
> I'm not doing anything until the v750 reviews come out, and maybe 
> some time after that. I still have to wonder if the 6400ppi is going 
> to be real or the normal over inflated value that Epson is pretty 
> well known for.
>

I don't think 6400 will turn out to be "real", but 2400 should 
be "real" no problem.

A 4x5" sheet scanned at 2400 would provide a file large enough to 
make a over 37 inches wide for the 4" side.

I've seen 40x50" prints from "old" digital technology that look great 
(6x7 scans from a 2400 series Epson, printed on an Epson 9600).

So, the bottom line for me is, making a high quality 40x50" print 
should be no problem.

I think the V-series will work out just fine. I'll comment here once 
I get a hold of one and make some prints.

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:
>
> --- In 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
> <scott_now_coming@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it comes down to price vs quality: value.
> > 
> > For $800 for a scanner like the V-750 that will scan up to 8x10" 
> > films up to 6400 dpi, how can you go wrong?
> > 
> 
> 
> All I know is that I'm in the market for a new flatbed scanner, and 
> I'm not doing anything until the v750 reviews come out, and maybe 
> some time after that. I still have to wonder if the 6400ppi is 
going 

> to be real or the normal over inflated value that Epson is pretty 
> well known for.
>

Dear Group,

Some incremental information for your files, and a couple
of pennies out of my pocket...

Apple¹s ³Image Capture² application will access the available
6400 DPI within an Epson 4990 Pro.

I use it periodically to see what the image is like, and the
image file is huge, where it tops out at 1.91+ Gb with a 4X5
black and white negative, scanned as a colour transparency
with the profile set to Adobe RGB 1998 8bit, which seems to
be the default profile setting for Apple¹s Image Capture.

The profile is also named Epson Perfection 4990.  There are
a number of other profiles available for the scan with Apple¹s
Image Capture application, but I have not tried any of them
to see what differences might exist.  Maybe I should. :)

The scan, on an older Mac of mine, takes approximately 25
minutes through a Firewire connection at this setting.

The image size becomes 1.27Gb at 16bit, when the colour
information is discarded and the image is inverted, for anyone
that might be interested, and approximately 650Mb for 8bit.
The image file is definitely a smoother image file compared
to my preliminary scan at 4800dpi, where the 4800dpi file
at 16bit is about 750mb.

I do not know if there are any limitations with respect to a
file size, such as scanning an 8X10 negative with Image
Capture, since I do not have one to scan.  That file would
be massive at 6400dpi.  Photoshop might choke on that one.

Personally, I do all of my final selective scanning on a Howtek
Drum Scanner.  An Epson flat bed scanner, at this time, can
not acquire the subtle detailed information buried in the
shadows and, or the highlights compared to a drum scanned
image.

A 4X5 negative in an Epson scanner does not produce a
quality image if the negative is bowed and, or if gravity
impacts the negative shape during a scan. The focused
sweet spot becomes extremely localized, and this issue
alone absolutely retards the effective use of a full negative.

I don¹t think Photoshop developed a filter to improve that fault.

A drum scanned image just rocks with any negative
because the negative is perfectly shaped against the drum,
floating on oil, and held in place by Mylar. The entire negative
is never out of focus.

It is unfortunate that the cost of a drum scanned image is so
exorbitant, depending on the final file size, but for myself, I
will make the choice to drum scan an image, once I decide
to select a specific image for exhibition, and only work with
that image file. I have two excellent sources for a drum
scanned image and their ability to produce a quality file
happens to be legendary.

But within a year or two, who knows. My drum scanning
sources might not be required.  The possibility of wet
mounting a negative on a flat bed might change my view,
but for the moment, that science is outside my fence...

Epson, et al, are slowly acquiring a market share, dominated
by drum scanners, where Epson continually improves the
image quality with each new generation.  Are they yet? I
don¹t think so, but again that is just my own opinion, since I
only like the information I see from a drum scanned image.

If I owned a drum scanner within a business, I would be
spooked by any reduction in business.  It will happen.

That said, and for the moment, my comfort avenue is a
drum scanned image, knowing I have a great image file
to work with, and the opportunity to print a great image.

jim k








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

Greg wrote:
> --- In 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
> <scott_now_coming@...> wrote:
>> I think it comes down to price vs quality: value.
>>
>> For $800 for a scanner like the V-750 that will scan up to 8x10" 
>> films up to 6400 dpi, how can you go wrong?
>>
> 
> 
> All I know is that I'm in the market for a new flatbed scanner, and 
> I'm not doing anything until the v750 reviews come out, and maybe 
> some time after that. I still have to wonder if the 6400ppi is going 
> to be real or the normal over inflated value that Epson is pretty 
> well known for.

I expect that the Epson V750-M will have a true resolution 
somewhere between 3000 and 4000. probably closer to the 3000 
side. That isn't much lower than the 3600-3800 of the Nikons. 
The Dmax and dynamic range may proof to be equal to the Nikon 
8000-9000, the older Epson models already came close in German 
ISO tests. The tube light source may result in more flare + 
noise, on the other hand the oversampling + the tube light 
source may prove to be nicer for B&W grain. Signal/noise can 
only be measured in a good ISO test and there's a relation 
between S/N and available resolution / film size when printing 
big sizes. Noise doesn't always show in the print.

The focus issue is one thing to check. With wet mounting you 
can reasonably well keep the (larger) film flat and at the 
right focus distance from scan to scan. That focus finding 
should be better than the 3 choices Epson hardware gives. 
There's something I worry about more, if the scanner has done 
several scans and warmed up I would like to know what changed 
in the focus distance. The former models had a plastic shell 
and the engineering had the sensor, traction etc fastened to 
the bottom on a metal plate. The glass is at the top of the 
plastic shell. It wouldn't surprise me if the 8 cm height of 
the shell gives a focus shift of 0.5 mm after 20 scans. The 
V700 etc seems to have a metal shell which would make it 
better. There are some other ways to compensate temperature 
influences. Without active focusing this becomes a thing to 
control. I have seen some neat designs where the sensor 
carriage actually rides against the glass (springs for some 
pressure)  to keep the distance equal to the original. That 
was on a cheap reflective scanner.


Ernst

-- 

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Earnest,

Have you seen the link on this page yet?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/message/656

A lot of technical information that I think a lot of people here may 
be interested in.

Most of it is too technical for me, but I like the section on films 
asigning a ddi number and resoulution and what not.

Scott


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>
> Greg wrote:
> > --- In 
> > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
> > <scott_now_coming@> wrote:
> >> I think it comes down to price vs quality: value.
> >>
> >> For $800 for a scanner like the V-750 that will scan up to 8x10" 
> >> films up to 6400 dpi, how can you go wrong?
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > All I know is that I'm in the market for a new flatbed scanner, 
and 
> > I'm not doing anything until the v750 reviews come out, and maybe 
> > some time after that. I still have to wonder if the 6400ppi is 
going 

> > to be real or the normal over inflated value that Epson is pretty 
> > well known for.
> 
> I expect that the Epson V750-M will have a true resolution 
> somewhere between 3000 and 4000. probably closer to the 3000 
> side. That isn't much lower than the 3600-3800 of the Nikons. 
> The Dmax and dynamic range may proof to be equal to the Nikon 
> 8000-9000, the older Epson models already came close in German 
> ISO tests. The tube light source may result in more flare + 
> noise, on the other hand the oversampling + the tube light 
> source may prove to be nicer for B&W grain. Signal/noise can 
> only be measured in a good ISO test and there's a relation 
> between S/N and available resolution / film size when printing 
> big sizes. Noise doesn't always show in the print.
> 
> The focus issue is one thing to check. With wet mounting you 
> can reasonably well keep the (larger) film flat and at the 
> right focus distance from scan to scan. That focus finding 
> should be better than the 3 choices Epson hardware gives. 
> There's something I worry about more, if the scanner has done 
> several scans and warmed up I would like to know what changed 
> in the focus distance. The former models had a plastic shell 
> and the engineering had the sensor, traction etc fastened to 
> the bottom on a metal plate. The glass is at the top of the 
> plastic shell. It wouldn't surprise me if the 8 cm height of 
> the shell gives a focus shift of 0.5 mm after 20 scans. The 
> V700 etc seems to have a metal shell which would make it 
> better. There are some other ways to compensate temperature 
> influences. Without active focusing this becomes a thing to 
> control. I have seen some neat designs where the sensor 
> carriage actually rides against the glass (springs for some 
> pressure)  to keep the distance equal to the original. That 
> was on a cheap reflective scanner.
> 
> 
> Ernst
> 
> -- 
> 
>                     --
>            Ernst Dinkla
> 
> 
> www.pigment-print.com
> (         unvollendet         )
>

scott_now_coming wrote:

> Earnest,
>
> Have you seen the link on this page yet?
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/message/656
>
> A lot of technical information that I think a lot of people here may
> be interested in.
>
> Most of it is too technical for me, but I like the section on films
> asigning a ddi number and resoulution and what not.
>
> Scott

Sadly, it's a "members only" group, and I already belong to too many 
groups. My sanity (such as it is) can't take any more. Guess I'll miss it.
--
Bruce Watson

It would also be nice if Epson put active cooling on the CCD to 
decrease the noise, but I bet they won't. Even a big heat sink would 
help, but a peltier cooler would be really nice.

At 7:20 PM +0000 3/29/06, joshscapes wrote:
>With the new epson v700 scanner out and reviews being very good 
>about it, do you as a
>knowledgable group think that flatbed scanners are going to be the 
>best choice in the
>future for scanning b&w negatives?  Conventional wisdom is that a 
>dedicated film scanner
>gives a better scan.  Is this wisdom changing?  I am excited about 
>the possibility of a
>flatbed doing a better job on b&w than a dedicated film scanner. 
>Your thoughts?

With the dual lens Epson flatbeds the comparison with dedicated film 
scanners like the Nikon 9000 gets more interesting. What it comes 
down to is the CCD chip and lens choices and whether the focusing 
distance required with flat beds places too great a compromise on the 
lens choice to approach the quality of the dedicated film scanners.

It would be interesting to get a spec list of the lens and CCD 
components used in scanners.

DaleH

scott_now_coming wrote:
> Earnest,
> 
> Have you seen the link on this page yet?
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/message/656
> 
> A lot of technical information that I think a lot of people here may 
> be interested in.
> 
> Most of it is too technical for me, but I like the section on films 
> asigning a ddi number and resoulution and what not.
> 
> Scott

The link itself can't be put here or does it go to the 
Wetmount files ?
I unsubscribed that list yesterday. It isn't healthy when 
moderators launch mailing lists as part of their commercial 
activities. Some can resist the desire to bend the 
information, Julio isn't one that can. And I didn't find much 
news either.

Ernst
-- 

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Sure, I understand that.
And it takes forever for a message to get posted. Really irritating.

Here the link to the article:

http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2006-01-vitale-
digital_image_file_formats.pdf

The info that interest me the most in this article started around 
page 15 or so, fwiw.

Enjoy,

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>
> scott_now_coming wrote:
> > Earnest,
> > 
> > Have you seen the link on this page yet?
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/message/656
> > 
> > A lot of technical information that I think a lot of people here 
may 
> > be interested in.
> > 
> > Most of it is too technical for me, but I like the section on 
films 

> > asigning a ddi number and resoulution and what not.
> > 
> > Scott
> 
> The link itself can't be put here or does it go to the 
> Wetmount files ?
> I unsubscribed that list yesterday. It isn't healthy when 
> moderators launch mailing lists as part of their commercial 
> activities. Some can resist the desire to bend the 
> information, Julio isn't one that can. And I didn't find much 
> news either.
> 
> Ernst
> -- 
> 
>                     --
>            Ernst Dinkla
> 
> 
> www.pigment-print.com
> (         unvollendet         )
>

scott_now_coming wrote:

> Here the link to the article:
> 
> http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2006-01-vitale-
> digital_image_file_formats.pdf
> 
> The info that interest me the most in this article started around 
> page 15 or so, fwiw.

Interesting,

I had a discussion with Tim Vitale some days ago about the 
quality of Imacons and Nikons. Though I still believe he is 
underestimating the Nikons I probably wouldn't have replied on 
his first message when I had seen this article :-)

Ernst
                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:
>
> It would also be nice if Epson put active cooling on the CCD to 
> decrease the noise, but I bet they won't. Even a big heat sink would 
> help, but a peltier cooler would be really nice.
>


This post was made more than 24 hours ago!

Greg,

Shoot that question over to Earnest. Maybe he could figure out a system 
as you described.

Nothing like doing a "mod" to improve what you have. :>)

Scott


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:

>
> It would also be nice if Epson put active cooling on the CCD to 
> decrease the noise, but I bet they won't. Even a big heat sink would 
> help, but a peltier cooler would be really nice.
>

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@...> wrote:
>
> Greg,
> 
> Shoot that question over to Earnest. Maybe he could figure out a 
system 
> as you described.
> 
> Nothing like doing a "mod" to improve what you have. :>)
> 

We'll have to wait for it to arrive and see what it has. The 3200 
could be modified if you really wanted to do the work, but that 
machine didn't really deserve it.

Still can't believe that it took over 24 hours for that message to 
arrive.

Greg wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
> <dfaprinting@...> wrote:
>> It would also be nice if Epson put active cooling on the CCD to 
>> decrease the noise, but I bet they won't. Even a big heat sink would 
>> help, but a peltier cooler would be really nice.
>>
> 
> 
> This post was made more than 24 hours ago!

Did Epson add Peltier elements in between :-)

Greg, it will be difficult to get any cooling on the sensor. 
The sensor carriage (sensor, lenses, mirrors) has to cross the 
length of the scanner. Any cooling system will add weight and 
has to dissipate the heat somewhere outside the  shell of the 
scanner. That's easier to implant on a fixed sensor + lens 
system like the Imacon (some have it) or the Nikons (don't 
have it). A silver bucket against the sensor where you drop a 
lump of ice in per hour may be the only practical solution. 
That model will carry the ddICE sticker.

Ernst

-- 

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Greg wrote:

> We'll have to wait for it to arrive and see what it has. The 3200 
> could be modified if you really wanted to do the work, but that 
> machine didn't really deserve it.

It was interesting to see that the new Silverfast 
multi-sampling feature gave the highest gain of Dmax with the 
3200 (of all the Epsons). Lasersoft pages. The sensor well 
size must suit the 3200 limited resolution better than on the 
newer models including the 4990.  So I'm quite happy with the 
3200 with all the mods I added, resolution on 4x5 is here more 
restricted by the Epson 10000 print output size. It will be 
replaced by a V700 or V750 (which one depends on what Vincent 
is able to squeeze out in quality from the last). I am not yet 
impressed by the first picture of the Epson wet mount holder. 
I think there's a good chance for a third party wet mount 
holder if the design and package is better. That could suit 
the V700 then as well.

Ernst
                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

On 1.4.2006, at 11:28, Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> I think there's a good chance for a third party wet mount
> holder if the design and package is better.That could suit
> the V700 then as well.

There are antireflections layers on glasses, lenses, mirrors in V750.  
Maybe there is the difference.

Martin Sluka

Martin Sluka wrote:
> On 1.4.2006, at 11:28, Ernst Dinkla wrote:
> 
>> I think there's a good chance for a third party wet mount
>> holder if the design and package is better.That could suit
>> the V700 then as well.
> 
> There are antireflections layers on glasses, lenses, mirrors in V750.  
> Maybe there is the difference.
> 
> Martin Sluka

Martin,

I know and this time I even believe that the V750-M is 
different to the V700 on that aspect (and not just marketing 
hype). The better light reflection of the mirrors is however 
only translated in faster scanning speed, they claim more 
light gets through so the stepper motor can run faster. The 
less color fringing with the CCD lens coating may be the main 
quality difference. At least I guess that color fringing is 
what they see reduced. To test the differences between the 
V700 and the V750 may require very good testing methods, film 
in glassless carriers might be too inconsistent for the 
differences in hardware.

There's also more software aboard the V750-M but I have most 
of that already in alternative packages. Nevertheless I will 
order the V750-M. Price at 809 Euro is too much though if 
compared to the US package at 800$ that contains more (wet 
mount carrier included).

Rafe has added new snippets to his scanner pages:

Epson V700 v. Epson 4990 v. Nikon LS-8000 (Same Negative)

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

About 2/3 of the way down the page.


Ernst

-- 

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )