First review of the Epson V700

[Beniliam]

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_1.htm

[NoTx]

The V750 is something I am avidly waiting since BOTH my film scanners decided to die on me:(

[sfb_dot_com]

I've been following this review with some interest, being stuck on the horns of a dilemma. I'm not sure whether to hold out for this scanner, or plump for one of the currently available film scanners like the Nikon LS50.

The V700 is still not yet available, despite being advertised by some companies as such, but the Nikon, or a secondhand Minolta for that matter are also hard to get hold of at present.

The reviewer most recently concluded by altering the height adjustment that this scanner now gives better results than the Nikon. I've always had a deep distrust of flatbeds as film scanners, so would incline towards the dedicated film scanner if at all possible, however the flatbed with it's multi-format options has lot going for it.

However, back to the review. Looking at the example scans with the new settings he asserts that it now gives better scans than the Nikon at 4000dpi. I don't believe this to be so, because it seems to me that he has gained some shadow detail, but at the expense of detail in the highlights.

Thus I am still in doubt, and have not yet seen any other detailed reviews to confirm or deny my suspicions. I'm beginning to believe that the devil you know might be better as the Nikon is known to give excellent results, despite the clunky Nikon software.

Andy

[Traut]

What are the benefits of waiting 2 months and payong 50% more for the V750? Thanks

[amateriat]

What's interesting to me is the final file size of his 35mm color film scans at 6400dpi and (presumably) highest bit-rate: around 150mb. Color neg/slide scans done on my Minolta 5400 (I), scanned at maximum resolution (5400dpi), 16 bit, come in around 210mb, give or take a few.

Beside this, my main concern has to do with focus: I have the option to use my film scanner's autofocus mode or use assisted manual focus. If the Epson had a fairly deep pan-focus ability, which doesn't appear to be the case, this would be little more than a quibble. This flatbed would be a great all-in one solution for a lot of people, but for dedicated 35mm work it sounds a bit wobbly...at least compared to an upper-end 35mm film scanner.

As far as batch scanning goes: my UMAX PowerLook 2100XL, a tabloid-size flatbed with transparency adapter, came with assorted film holders, including one which holds 32 slides , and can batch-scan at assorted resolutions, but (at 1600dpi maximum optical resolution) nowhere near the maximum of the Epson, and sans Digital ICE. It comes in really handy for digital contact sheet creation. If the Epson can scan a full 36-exposure roll (cut, but not mounted), I could see having one of these alongside my film scanner, but the film scanner stays.


- Barrett

[jano]

What are the benefits of waiting 2 months and payong 50% more for the V750? Thanks

Supposed to come somehow optimized for wet mounting, which can give better results in many cases.

Barrett: forget the 6400 dpi, it's just a number, like megapixels in digicams. What the industry really needs is a way to measure resolving power.

[jano]

Jenni: scanning resolution and printing resolution are two different things. Think of it this way: input and output.

The input resolution is based on the size of your negative. 35mm negs are 24x36mm. Technically speaking this is not DPI but PPI.

The output resolution is based on the size you want to print. e.g. 8"x12", or A4, or whatever you choose.

What you need to do is scan at a certain resolution such that the resulting size matches the size you want to print out at... quick example:
- Output is 8"x12" @ 300dpi
- This means your image needs to have a resolution of 2400x3600
- 24x36mm is 0.95"x1.42"
- to get the above 2400x3600 from 0.9x1.4, you need to scan at a resolution of somewhere around 2500 (don't feel like doing the math.. it's 2400 divided by 0.95 or 3600 divided by 1.42, should be similar).

See that scantips website for an indepth explanation. It took me months to understand that.

The problem with the "numbers" game on the scanners is that, sure, it'll scan at 6400dpi, but the optics on the scanner aren't really resolving that much. It's doing something like 1000-4000dpi (just a guess, mind you) and then the software or hardware interpolates the rest. Think of the older digital P&S cameras that would boast something like 12x zoom.. 3x was optical, and 4x was software, which was no different than you taking that 3x zoom, cropping it, then resizing it to match the origianal width and height.

I know it seems confusing -- there are two kinds of resolution we're talking about here, one for size of pictures, and other for the detail you can successfully pull out from the optics.

Hope that helps...

[amateriat]

Barrett: forget the 6400 dpi, it's just a number, like megapixels in digicams. What the industry really needs is a way to measure resolving power.
Yep, I know...this is one of the things that drives me a bit batty when trying to juggle the numbers with both scanners and digicams; manufacturers just don't go for making direct comparisons easier. I also observe that, based on others' experience with previous Epson scanners (up to and including the 4990), the true DPI capabilty of these things seem to fall in the 2000-3000dpi range - hardly lousy performance, but nowhere near a tarted-up rating like 5000+ DPI.


- Barrett

[jano]

Yep, I know...this is one of the things that drives me a bit batty when trying to juggle the numbers with both scanners and digicams

Digicams make this process a whole lot more difficult when they have interchangeable lenses.. as we all know, the quality of the lens will affect the resolving power in addition to the sensor itself.

I guess there's a way to test resolving power with them lens charts, but, eh, I don't want anything to do with those. :p

[amateriat]

What you need to do is scan at a certain resolution such that the resulting size matches the size you want to print out at... quick example:
- Output is 8"x12" @ 300dpi
- This means your image needs to have a resolution of 2400x3600
- 24x36mm is 0.95"x1.42"
- to get the above 2400x3600 from 0.9x1.4, you need to scan at a resolution of somewhere around 2500 (don't feel like doing the math.. it's 2400 divided by 0.95 or 3600 divided by 1.42, should be similar).
This approach is good if you're certain you won't want to be printing beyond a certain size. If I'm bothering to make a scan, I prefer going for maximum resolution, obviating the need to go back for a re-scan sometime later; the one large file handles all I'll likely need, big or small.


- Barrett

[kaiyen]

I agree - as long as you got the disk space, scan at the highest resolution and bit depth you can. But it's useful to know what minimum scanner resolution one needs to get to a desired print size.

allan

[jano]

Yah, I agree, too, but only to a certain extent. If you don't intend to crop (I rarely do, just preference), then better to get it right the first time and not do any software resizing (although I like PS's bicubic smoother).

The point of what I wrote was demonstration of difference between input and output sizing to help Jenni understand. Hopefully it didn't confuse him/her/it. :)