Help with Epson V550 Scanner please
Jul 8, 2016 10:53:40 #
selmslie wrote:
The OP is not looking for the ultimate scan, just a scan that will produce an 8x10 from a 24x36 mm negative. When you do the math ...
I'll stick with what all experts say, which is to use the highest optical resolution setting the scanner provides, absent some very specific reason to do otherwise. Ten years from now when the purpose is a different print, and the film itself is not available, the better scan will pay dividends.
Jul 8, 2016 11:35:11 #
DebAnn wrote:
If anyone is familiar with this scanner, I hope you can help me. I can't figure out how to get the scanner to produce a high-res file from strips of 35mm colour film.
Do I insert a large dpi number, such as 1200 or more - is that the trick? I don't get a large file if I enter 300 dpi. I would want to print something at about 8 x 10 at 300 dpi.
Thanks
Do I insert a large dpi number, such as 1200 or more - is that the trick? I don't get a large file if I enter 300 dpi. I would want to print something at about 8 x 10 at 300 dpi.
Thanks
I do not have that scanner (I use the V750) but use the highest resolution the scanner allows for that format. It varies depending on the size of the image being scanned. Also it depends on your patience as it takes a lot longer the higher the DPI.
I use between 1200 and 2800 for 35mm for time and resolution factors. If there is something I see is worth a higher quality I do it even higher to 9600 if desired.
But 1200 should be the minimum.
This one of the higher higher scans I made of the plane landing in Phoenix, AZ in the mid 70's. Canon F-1 and Motor Drive, do not remember the lens, likely the original 80-200.
Jul 8, 2016 11:39:12 #
Apaflo wrote:
I'll stick with what all experts say, which is to use the highest optical resolution setting the scanner provides, absent some very specific reason to do otherwise. Ten years from now when the purpose is a different print, and the film itself is not available, the better scan will pay dividends.
The highest optical resolution available from an Epson flat-bed scanner is about 2300 dpi according to the experts who have actually tested them as well as those of us who have actually used them.
Scanning at a higher resolution does not do anything for the optical resolution. It only creates bigger files. Twice the dpi results in 4x the storage requirement.
Clearly you are not yourself an expert or even an actual user of scanners so you have to rely on the knowledge and experience of others. You can't Google experience.
If you take care of it, film is the ultimate archival storage medium. I have some images on film that are more than 65 years old and I am sure that others scan negatives that are much older. I can locate and re-scan any negative at will.
Jul 8, 2016 11:47:02 #
Architect1776 wrote:
... This one of the higher higher scans I made of the plane landing in Phoenix, AZ in the mid 70's. Canon F-1 and Motor Drive, do not remember the lens, likely the original 80-200.
That is an excellent example of why it is not worth the effort and storage space to scan at a higher resolution. At 2400 dpi the film "grain" is already visible. It looks like noise. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it if you don't print it too large.
Do you remember which film you were using?
Jul 8, 2016 12:02:27 #
selmslie wrote:
That is an excellent example of why it is not worth the effort and storage space to scan at a higher resolution. At 2400 dpi the film "grain" is already visible. It looks like noise. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it if you don't print it too large.
Do you remember which film you were using?
Do you remember which film you were using?
Yes, grain does become a factor. This was Ektachrome ASA 64 (For newbies ISO64)
Jul 8, 2016 12:05:46 #
selmslie wrote:
The highest u optical /u resolution available fr... (show quote)
Amazing statement, when I scan at higher resolutions the pixelation is considerably less pronounced. So not sure why 2400 is considered maximum resolution? I get far better scans at the higher settings as far as resolution.
Jul 8, 2016 13:15:29 #
Architect1776 wrote:
Amazing statement, when I scan at higher resolutions the pixelation is considerably less pronounced. So not sure why 2400 is considered maximum resolution? I get far better scans at the higher settings as far as resolution.
Of course, more pixels means you can blow it up more on your screen. It's just that you don't improve the optical resolution.
Take a look at http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html They have tested many different scanners using standard targets. When it comes to picture quality they find that, "The Scan of the USAF Testcharts showed the horizontal lines of the element 5.3 and the vertical lines of the element 5.5 being just about possible to differentiate. According to this we get a resolution of only about 2300 dpi - that's just 40% of the claimed resolution! The sensor of the V750 is able to get the indicated 6400 pixels per inch, however the "High Pass Optics" system of the scanner does not nearly reach the required quality required for capturing with the full resolution."
But in practice, once you can see the grain clumps or the dye clouds, you have achieved about all you can expect to resolve with ordinary film.
Jul 8, 2016 14:16:51 #
selmslie wrote:
Of course, more pixels means you can blow it up more on your screen. It's just that you don't improve the optical resolution.
Take a look at http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html They have tested many different scanners using standard targets.
Take a look at http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html They have tested many different scanners using standard targets.
They provide a lot of very good data. But they do not put much of it into context.
Resolution is not all there is to image quality. An image scanned at the exact resolution it will be printed at has different artifacts than an image scanned to produce more pixels and the resampled to the print dimensions. It is an entirely different problem if the image needs to have an even larger pixel dimension. The resampling software can be configured for optimal effect, but the scanner cannot.
Again... virtually all of the best advice for scanning is to use the maximum optical resolution a scanner can be set to unless there is an overriding reason not to. You can look up that value in the specification for any scanner. It is the "optical resolution" as opposed to the "interpolated resolution".
Jul 8, 2016 15:55:51 #
Apaflo wrote:
They provide a lot of very good data. But they do not put much of it into context. ... You can look up that value in the specification for any scanner. It is the "optical resolution" as opposed to the "interpolated resolution".
Epson claims a resolution of 6400 dpi for the V750 and 12,800 dpi for the V550. If you think that is the actual optical resolution then I have the deed to a bridge over the East River I can sell you for $100. That's not the optical resolution. You can upsize any digital image with software but it does not increase the optical resolution.
This link I provided earlier shows independently measured relative resolutions and reviews for a host of scanners without placing any weight on the manufacturers' puffing and exaggerated claims.
The only scanner that comes close to meeting the manufacturer's claim is the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED at 4000 dpi. It was about $1,900 new when I bought it but it is no longer made. You can find it used on eBay for $3,900 and I have seen asking prices as high as $7,000.
You could also look into a Flextight X1 scanner at $16,400 (claimed 6300 dpi, measured 6150 dpi) or the X5 for $25,700 (claimed 8000 dpi, measured 6900 dpi). Hasselblad does not exaggerate as much as Epson.
Jul 8, 2016 16:40:31 #
selmslie wrote:
Epson claims a resolution of 6400 dpi for the V750... (show quote)
I am not too sure how many people on this site wish to blow $16,000+ on a scanner. You seem to have some innate hatred for the Epson scanners which are incredible and provide great scans for a bit less than $16,000+. Here is another scan of an ols photo, one of the primary purposes we use these to preserve very old family photos besides slides.
Zoom in as much as you wish and it fails to pixelate, until a nostril fills the screen. For me this is plenty good and I did not have to spend $16,000+ to do it. This is just a straight scan with perhaps a bit of dust.
For the OP you will get excellent scans with your current equipment and don't listen to nay sayers that I doubt they have ever seen a $16,000+ scanner in real life let alone use one. I can look at Ferraris on the internet too and regurgitate specs all day and condemn a Mustang as lame in comparison. But I can own a Mustang and it gets me there at 80mph just like a Dodge Neon or the Ferrari. Use the highest setting you have patience for and have fun digitizing those old slides, negatives and prints.
Jul 8, 2016 16:57:04 #
Architect1776 wrote:
... You seem to have some innate hatred for the Epson scanners which are incredible and provide great scans for a bit less than $16,000+. ....
You are absolutely mistaken. Epson scanners are great!
I use my V750 to scan 4x5 film (the Coolscan 9000 can't do that) and I have several special holders from http://betterscanning.com/ (Epson's are a bit flimsy) including ANR glass holders to keep some of the curlier negatives flat. If it dies I will replace it with a V850 ($1000) or whatever comes next. If the Nikon ever fails and cannot be repaired I will consider another dedicated film scanner for small and medium format.
I just don't use the V750 for 35 mm. I only use it for 120 film when I am in a hurry and don't need the full 4000 dpi resolution.
But I am a realist. A flatbed cannot match the resolution of a quality dedicated film scanner, regardless of Epson's hype. I use it at 2400 dpi and get a 4x5 scan of about 100 MP.
Jul 8, 2016 17:01:24 #
selmslie wrote:
You are absolutely mistaken. Epson scanners are g... (show quote)
I do not believe that there ever was a claim a flatbed is superior to a dedicated film scanner. But the versatility and quality is good enough.
Jul 8, 2016 17:10:40 #
Architect1776 wrote:
I do not believe that there ever was a claim a flatbed is superior to a dedicated film scanner. But the versatility and quality is good enough.
Epson actually claims a resolution of 6400 dpi and 12800 dpi for the V750 and V550. That would seem to be a claim of superior resolution.
Who would fall for that? Maybe someone who does not know where the East River is located.
Jul 8, 2016 17:14:26 #
Architect1776 wrote:
I do not believe that there ever was a claim a flatbed is superior to a dedicated film scanner. But the versatility and quality is good enough.
Or that when set for 6400 DPI resolution that a the output image of a flatbed scanner can achieve an actual 6400 DPI resolution! Neither are the point here.
The point is still that the owner of an inferior flatbed scanner will get the best image scans possible by using the highest optical resolution the scanner can be set to.
Jul 8, 2016 17:15:12 #
selmslie wrote:
Epson actually claims a resolution of 6400 dpi and 12800 dpi for the V750 and V550. That would seem to be a claim of superior resolution.
Who would fall for that? Maybe someone who does not know where the East River is located.
Who would fall for that? Maybe someone who does not know where the East River is located.
Where is the East River?
Is that near the Hassayampa River? Perhaps near the Santa Cruz River?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.