new scan snippets: 4990 vs. V700 vs. vs LS-8000 (same negative)

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.

The original is courtesy of Alan Bridgewater, taken
with Mamiya 645 Super, 80mm, on Fuji Reala.

Alan provided the V700 scan and mailed me the film
which I then scanned on my 4990 and LS-8000.

If you've got a V700 or V750 snippet to share, I'll
be happy to post it. See submission rules at the
top of the page (URL above.)


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Raphael Bustin wrote:
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.

The original is courtesy of Alan Bridgewater, taken
with Mamiya 645 Super, 80mm, on Fuji Reala.

Alan provided the V700 scan and mailed me the film
which I then scanned on my 4990 and LS-8000.

If you've got a V700 or V750 snippet to share, I'll
be happy to post it. See submission rules at the
top of the page (URL above.)


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Thanks for webbing this. The V700 scan looked a little sharper than the
4990 scan but the colours looked poorer.

Yikes the V700 gets spanked compared to the 8000. This image seems
surprisingly grainy for MF Reala, although only the LS 8000 even comes
close to showing the grain. The 8000 doesn't have any autosharpening
in the driver, does it?

On 30 Apr 2006 09:19:11 -0700, "Roger S." wrote:

Yikes the V700 gets spanked compared to the 8000. This image seems
surprisingly grainy for MF Reala, although only the LS 8000 even comes
close to showing the grain. The 8000 doesn't have any autosharpening
in the driver, does it?


No, it does not, as far as I can tell.

This sort of grain isn't unusual for Reala on
the Coolscans. Reala is what I usually shoot,
so I'm fairly familiar with how it looks. Most
reversal materials (eg. E6 chromes) will show
substantially less grain and color noise.

With Reala, the most objectionable grain and
noise usually is found in shadow detail -- ie.,
from the *thinnest* portions of the negative.

Go figure....


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Flatbeds still have a LONG way to go. The V700 isn't even close to the
nikon.

Yes, the V700 still falls in the category of 'you can't get something
for nothing' relative to the LS-8000.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, the V700 still falls in the category of 'you can't get
something
for nothing' relative to the LS-8000.

From the sample shown, it appears to be the case. However, I don't
have any idea how well 'focused' by the V700 the film was. From what
I've read about it, it may be a bit difficult to determine/achieve the
optimal focus plane.

Bart

On 30 Apr 2006 14:56:21 -0700, wrote:

Yes, the V700 still falls in the category of 'you can't get something
for nothing' relative to the LS-8000.


In all fairness, you should try sharpening the Epson V700 scan.

I'm not saying that will make up the difference -- I'm just saying
that the Epson flatbed/film scanners really take well to
sharpening -- at levels that the Nikon scans won't tolerate.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Raphael Bustin wrote:
On 30 Apr 2006 14:56:21 -0700, wrote:

Yes, the V700 still falls in the category of 'you can't get something
for nothing' relative to the LS-8000.


In all fairness, you should try sharpening the Epson V700 scan.

I'm not saying that will make up the difference -- I'm just saying
that the Epson flatbed/film scanners really take well to
sharpening -- at levels that the Nikon scans won't tolerate.

It's the end product that counts, after all, so if it can be made to
look better through sharpening then so be it. What settings do you
recommend for sharpening at the different scan resolutions? Does the
software do a decent job or is it better done in Photoshop? Also for
resizing, is it better to send people the original scan if they might
resize it or sharpen what you've got at full size?

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Raphael Bustin wrote:
On 30 Apr 2006 09:19:11 -0700, "Roger S." wrote:

Yikes the V700 gets spanked compared to the 8000. This image seems
surprisingly grainy for MF Reala, although only the LS 8000 even comes
close to showing the grain. The 8000 doesn't have any autosharpening
in the driver, does it?


No, it does not, as far as I can tell.

This sort of grain isn't unusual for Reala on
the Coolscans. Reala is what I usually shoot,
so I'm fairly familiar with how it looks. Most
reversal materials (eg. E6 chromes) will show
substantially less grain and color noise.

With Reala, the most objectionable grain and
noise usually is found in shadow detail -- ie.,
from the *thinnest* portions of the negative.

Go figure....


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Rafe,

Correct, I prefer Portra 160 - 400 and expose for 320 with the
last. That's the only way I can get acceptable shadows. And
the shadows do not improve with more scan sharpness like the
tweaked wet mount carrier of my Nikon 8000 delivers, in fact
this becomes worse. That's why I think that some films are
better suited for Epson's mix of over-sampling + the
acceptable loss in sharpness. In the end you can decide where
you like to stop in sharpening.

In view of a substantial change in the processing of analogue
film it surprises me that there has been so little R&D done on
color and B&W films meant for scanning. I have mentioned the
orange mask of color negative film that could be removed for a
scan film, another one could be a slide film that compresses
the dynamic range like a colorfilm does + get a better
latitude in exposure. Chromogenic B&W film already scans
better than conventional B&W but that has been pure luck as it
wasn't intended for that purpose. A reversal B&W slide film
with dynamic range compression would be more ideal too. The
last probably exists in some thick emulsion, two bath
development schemes, I have not checked that. With the right
scan films for MF + LF photography "analogue" photography
could compete much better with digital cameras for some time
to come.

Ernst

--

--
Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
( unvollendet )