New Epson V500 scanner sample JPG [Archive]

Les Hall

10-25-2007, 21:46

I have been wanting to get one of these since they came out about two months ago. BestBuy have them on sale for $200 so it's a total steal right now.

I did a quick scan of a 35mm color neg and was blown away by the result. The film was cheap Costco Fuji 400 ASA. I shot it with a Contax G1, 45mm wide open. Minimal post processing. mostly cleaning up dust specs. I can't remember what the resolution was that I used, all I know is that it wasn't the highest. The photoshop file is about 20mb. This jpeg is only 1.3mb

I got the scanner to mostly handle 120 film and can't wait to give it a try.

Fast too - I think this scan took about 2 mins.

http://www.leshall.com/v500.jpg

I scanned a $10 bill as well at high res to see how much detail it captured and it was amazing - you could read all the tiny micro printing and see the threads in the paper. I knew there was some clever Federally mandated trickery if you scanned money and sure enough a dialog came up saying that I was scanning currency and that I could open it but would not be able to print it.

Thanks Les

Dr. Strangelove

10-26-2007, 01:41

I I can't remember what the resolution was that I used, all I know is that it wasn't the highest. The photoshop file is about 20mb. This jpeg is only 1.3mb

I got the scanner to mostly handle 120 film and can't wait to give it a try.

Fast too - I think this scan took about 2 mins.

http://www.leshall.com/v500.jpg

Thanks Les
This test suggests that the V500 might be able to achieve at least the same resolution as the V700. The CCD and lens system seems to be different from the V700 and V750, so theoretically the resolution might be even better. The DMax is lower though, only 3.4 according to specs.

Now it would be interesting to see a scan from a slide with a high dynamic range, so we could see how much worse the DMax is in practice. Nevertheless, the V500 seems to be excellent for the price and if you're looking for a scanner with less than $250 budget you can probably forget about the Canoscan 8800f and the older Epson 4490.

Les Hall

10-26-2007, 07:36

One other thing that is different (I believe) from the V700 is that you can only scan two strips of 35mm or one strip of 120 film.

I haven't shot slide film in 10 years so will have to go into the vault and see what I can find.

I'm a recent returner to analog.........

Cheers, Les

Scarpia

10-26-2007, 08:07

ocean7

10-26-2007, 08:51

Thanks a lot for the mini-review and the sample Les. It looks very good to me! I am looking forward to more samples if you can.

Now I wander if I should have purchased my Coolscan V... :(

shadowfox

10-26-2007, 09:17

Now I wander if I should have purchased my Coolscan V... :(

As far as I know, no flatbed can do 35mm better a good dedicated film scanner, not even the V750. And you Coolscan V is one heck of a film scanner.

I'm looking for the flatbed to scan medium format negatives/slides.

What amazes me from the sample is, it shows a very good control on highlights, better than I thought it would be with a dmax of 3.4

The V500 also uses the cold LED light source compared to the older 4490 or 4990.

Thanks for sharing the test, Les.

Nikon Bob

10-26-2007, 09:29

Thanks for sharing this. I have ordered one in so the test was timely. I need it for scanning med format. My wife has a box full of med format negs from her deceased dad with no prints so this should do the trick.

Bob

Les Hall

10-26-2007, 12:28

Here's a 6x7 scanned at 2400 and then down res'd in CS3. If I'd known how big it would have been I would have scanned at 1200 dpi

NO leveling or color balance done in CS3 apart from some dust touch-up & teeny amount of sharpening - this is straight from the scanner! I think the d-max or whatever it is that people might be worried about seems to be a non-issue.

I would feel very comfortable handing this in to a client.

This was shot about 18 yrs ago for Stanley Korshak in Dallas. Mamiya RZ. probably with the 150mm (???) and Fujichrome 100 (RPD???) All so long ago!

http://www.leshall.com/v500_RZ.jpg

Any other requests I will try and oblige.

Les

Les Hall

10-26-2007, 14:19

Here's a B&W image I shrunk it down to the size I would typically use on the web. What is weird is that I originally scanned it as a B&W neg at 1200 DPI save as 16-bit greyscale. No processing on it at scan time other than a teeny unsharp mask. They all came out blocky - very strange like all the blacks became blobs!! Not good at all. To get this I had to tell the scanner that it was color neg but saved it in greyscale space....

Extra points for those who know who this model is - shot circa 1990. God! Korshak was a dream client - they would send a bunch of stuff to the studio and say "Have fun - make something creative". Some of the stuff I shot then still looks cool - IMHO. Of course the fashion in this is dated.

http://www.leshall.com/bw.jpg

Les

RF-Addict

10-26-2007, 14:49

Did you have digital ICE on when you scanned the B&W image - it does not work with B&W - all you get is a high contrast image.

noci

10-26-2007, 14:52

WOW! that MF scan is amazing.. and that's not even at the max. dpi, right?

just jumped on the MF bandwagon and been thinking about the V750 or so for scanning 6x6- but these examples are really cool & might be a money-saving quality example.

thanks so much for sharing this! .. and for the dmax issue, I think it would be interesting to see a landscape scanned with this, with a really bright sky and dark shadows- how much detail would be in there, I wonder?

max

espressogeek

10-26-2007, 15:21

I have the v700 and the betterscanning.com carrier and i don't think my carrier is focused above the scanner properly. Does anyone have a technique to do this? I'm not trying to sidetrack this thread but i was really impressed with the results of the scans. BTW in the first 35mm scan the blacks around the side of the head look blocked up.

Les Hall

10-26-2007, 15:38

RF-Addict. It won't let you turn on Digital Ice when you scan B&W and when I scanned it in 'color' I didn't have it on either.

Noci - I'll see if there are any landscapes in the vaults. As far as I can tell from eyeballing the chrome on a 'calibrated" light box next to the monitor it looks pretty good. And no that wasn't max resolution.

Maybe the blocking in the 35mm is maybe JPEG artifacts? Nah looking at it again it looks like the scanner just running out of steam. Remember though, this is a huge enlargement of 35mm from a $200 flatbed scanner, the advances in technology is amazing.

Les

noci

10-26-2007, 15:52

thanks, Les!
.. and yep, I think the black drowned.. perhaps messing around with the software or using vuescan might improve things.
anyways, there is a lot of divided opinion on flatbeds, but I think for the price its performance is outstanding.

marbrink

10-27-2007, 08:36

Interesting samples Les. Looks good, especially for the MF pic, but then it is at 1600 dpi only. The 35mm scan looks compressed. If you can, it would be very interesting to see a 35mm scan at 3200 dpi, no sharpening and saved as JPEG maximum level quality (level 12).

jbf

10-27-2007, 12:45

For a 200 dollar scanner that is quite good! I might haev to purchase one of these for scanning film since it is so cheap.

Les Hall

10-27-2007, 13:59

Here you go Marbrink. 35mm at 3200 no sharpening just some levels tweaks - JPEG Max. Cropped so that it's not too huge. Even so it's still a 4.6mb file.

Of course this is a handheld 400 ASA probably somehting like 1/60th @ f2.8

http://www.leshall.com/still_life.jpg

Les

ocean7

10-27-2007, 14:50

Thanks a lot for the samples Les. The MF looks very very good, and the 35mm isn't bad either! That V500 looks like a great scanner for the price.

I am wandering if you intend to get Doug Fisher's holder and if so if you would mind posting your thoughts about how it improves your scans.

Cheers!

Les Hall

10-27-2007, 15:22

Hi Ocean7

I contacted Doug and he does have a holder that works but it's kind of spendy - $80. I might do some tests with various thicknesses of card to see if it is really an issue. Right now I'm not sure that it would make that much difference.

I really bought the scanner so that I could scan medium format film for web and small prints (under 8x10) - so I'm very happy with the results.

Les

imajypsee

10-27-2007, 16:19

and bought it for MF as well, for web posting. I'm not sure if I'll print from the scans. I like it; it's light years ahead of what I was using :)
Anyhow, when you say you'll use thicknesses of card, could you explain what that means. I'm assuming to make a holder.
any help would be appreciated,
Mary in Florida

Hi Ocean7

I contacted Doug and he does have a holder that works but it's kind of spendy - $80. I might do some tests with various thicknesses of card to see if it is really an issue. Right now I'm not sure that it would make that much difference.

I really bought the scanner so that I could scan medium format film for web and small prints (under 8x10) - so I'm very happy with the results.

Les

Les Hall

10-27-2007, 16:51

Hi Mary

I tend to believe that manufacturers try and make gear perform the best it can, so when I hear about stuff like fancy film-holders that supposedly make all the difference I tend to take it with a pinch of salt.

As I said earlier I am pretty happy with the results as it stands. But I might experiment. What I was planning on doing was measuring the glass to film distance in the stock film holder. Then I will cut some apertures the size of a 120 frame in thin black card. I will tape a piece of 120 film (some junk I don't care about - but sharp etc) on one of the pieces of card and then do scans with different amounts of card between the film and glass - in theory I should be able to find the optimum point or discover that it is roughly the same at various heights.

If it is best at a distance other than that of the stock film carrier I probably would consider buying an alternative.

Hope that explains my theory!

All the best. Les

imajypsee

10-27-2007, 17:17

I sort of thought that's what you meant; my big issue with the scans is for 135. I'm not that concerned but I'd sure like the negative to be flatter in the holder.

thanks for the quick reply,

Mary

Les Hall

10-27-2007, 18:11

I agree with you there Mary and betterscanning.com sells anti-newton ring glass that fits in the Epson holder. THAT would be worth having IMHO. In case you didn't know sometimes if you place film against glass you get strange rainbow moiré patterns forming, this glass prevents that from happening.

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/insert35.html

The items for the 4490 are compatible with the V500

Let us know if you buy the glass - it's not too expensive at $30

Good luck. Les

Way

10-28-2007, 08:00

Les,

Thank you for your efforts and real world experiences with this scanner. I already have a Minolta Scan Dual IV for my 35mm and the V500 looks like the way to go for low cost MF.

marbrink

10-28-2007, 09:37

Thanks Les!
It looks ok, not great, but ok for the price and versatility. Probably a great scanner for medium format if you're not making enormous prints and scanning at 2400 dpi or below.

wray

10-28-2007, 10:06

Here are a couple from my V500 ...

http://homepage.mac.com/rayhill2/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/InfinityRow.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/rayhill2/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/Christmas.jpg

espressogeek

10-28-2007, 11:19

I guess i will do the infamous brick wall shot so i can tune the height of the carrier on the v700. I notice a lot of blocking up with my slide scans but I think it is the slides. Fuji 160s looks real nice on these units from my experience.

marbrink

10-28-2007, 11:31

Does the V500 have different heights on it's film holder as the V700/V750? If so, you may be able to get huge improvements by trying other heights..

Dr. Strangelove

10-29-2007, 06:10

Thanks Les!
It looks ok, not great, but ok for the price and versatility. Probably a great scanner for medium format if you're not making enormous prints and scanning at 2400 dpi or below.
Maximum resolution is probably achieved at 3200 dpi though, if previous experiences from flatbeds apply. Most good flatbeds have a true resolution about half of their theoretical optical resolution along sensor axis.

I would not make too much conclusions from the 35 mm film scan without comparison to a dedicated film scanner, since it was made handheld at relatively slow shutter speed and wide aperture (of course without knowing which lense was used, it is impossible to say if lens resolution was a factor, but most slower than f/1.4 lenses typically would not have reached their optimum resolution at f/2.8). Even if there was just a slight motion blur invisible at 8x10 inch prints and the lens was still slightly soft, the aggregate effects could contribute to some softness. And of course the ISO 400 film grain might also "get in the way".

Les Hall

10-30-2007, 13:08

When I have time I'll try and do some slightly more controlled experiments. Would be interesting to see what some 35mm Velvia looks like.

I wasn't expecting much from the scanner and was really expecting to return it, but have been pleasantly surprised.

Les

jan normandale

11-01-2007, 05:21

Hi Les and Wray, could you both give me some feedback on your posted images here.

Les do I have this correct?

photo 1 : man w glasses; 35mm colour neg scanned
photo 2 : woman and fur coat; 120 colour reversal (transparency)
photo 3: woman jumping; 35mm bw neg
photo 4: wire basket still life; 35mm colour neg

BTW who is the model 'jumping'?

Wray

Photo 1: what BW film?
Photo 2: what colour film?

einolu

11-01-2007, 05:59

good samples, thanks a lot!

so you can scan like 2 6x7s at the same time? or just one?

haagen_dazs

11-01-2007, 06:04

I scanned a $10 bill as well at high res to see how much detail it captured and it was amazing - you could read all the tiny micro printing and see the threads in the paper. I knew there was some clever Federally mandated trickery if you scanned money and sure enough a dialog came up saying that I was scanning currency and that I could open it but would not be able to print it.

Thanks Les

I know that on the new bill notes, on the back, there are these yellow numbers in the background. eg $20bill, there are these yellow "20" numbers scattered.
they are suppose to be in a special pattern to alert copy machines that it should not be copied...

on the main note, this scanner looks awesome!
i have been looking for a scanner to scan my MF negs. :D :D :p

ampguy

11-01-2007, 21:06

how does this scanner compare to the v700?

imajypsee

11-02-2007, 07:44

but the new LED light needs no warmup time so you're scanning at a record speed compared to, say, the V700 which doesn't have the LED technology. I don't know what the warmup time for the V700-750 is, but on the V500 I can do a batch scan of my 35 negs (scanned at 300dpi for web use) 12 per scan in just a few minutes... I don't know the actual time because I'm usually reading or editing on another computer while the V500 is scanning. It takes a few minutes to edit each thumbnail, but once that's done you can look at your scans and decide which ones get the "big" treatment.
If the V700-750 ever come out with LED light technology I'll buy one...

HTH,
Mary in Fort Myes, FL

good samples, thanks a lot!

so you can scan like 2 6x7s at the same time? or just one?

Les Hall

11-02-2007, 08:17

Another blast from the past - Sharon Summerall a Dallas model who went on to become Don Henley's wife. Here a bit from Wikipedia, imagine having this band jamming at your wedding reception....

"Performers at the wedding included Bruce Springsteen, Sting, Billy Joel, John Fogerty, Jackson Browne, Donna Lewis, Sheryl Crow, Glenn Frey and Tony Bennett."

http://www.leshall.com/sharon.jpg pretty much a straight scan out of the machine 3200 dpi scanned at 16 bit but had to be saved at 8-bit for JPEGs. Tri-X probably processed at the lab so probably D-76?? I think I did unsharp mask in CS3 - really should keep notes ;)

Les

Les Hall

11-02-2007, 08:22

good samples, thanks a lot!

so you can scan like 2 6x7s at the same time? or just one?

No only 1 1/2 6x7 - two 6x6. But 35mm you can scan 12 frames of film or four mounted slides. That is using the carriers I haven't tried laying anything just on the glass - the area that scans film is roughly 3" x 9". wether that equates to a scanning area of that dimension I don't know.

Oops sorry Mary - you answered already!

thanks Les

haagen_dazs

11-02-2007, 08:30

Les
So the scanner can only scan 1 6x9 ?

How about xpan length negatives?
thanks

Les Hall

11-02-2007, 08:42

The 120 carrier's aperture is roughly 12.2 cm x 5.7cm so I guess whatever can fit in that. So yes to your question.

Isn't the Xpan a 35mm?? That should be fine as the 35mm neg carrier is roughly 22.5cm x 2.4cm

Hope that helps. Les

haagen_dazs

11-02-2007, 08:44

NO leveling or color balance done in CS3 apart from some dust touch-up

Les

Les
Epson website says the product has the Digital Ice technology.
Did you manage to use it? Is it good?
Is this the same ICE as what Nikon has?
:confused: :confused:

jan normandale

11-02-2007, 08:46

to save Les from tech questions.. here's a product link from Epson for the V500

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?oid=63070478

Les Hall

11-02-2007, 08:49

Thanks Jay for the link. I believe Digital Ice is a hardware based technology that is licensed to scanner mfrs so it's probably the same as the Nikon.

I used it some with the 35mm color - it only works on color images. One of these days I will scan something with and without to see if there is much difference.

Les

wray

11-02-2007, 08:56

Les
Epson website says the product has the Digital Ice technology.
Did you manage to use it? Is it good?
Is this the same ICE as what Nikon has?
:confused: :confused:
Yes, it has the same Digital Ice as the Nikon which cannot be used with Kodachrome or silver based b&w negs. However, the Epson scanner software also has their own dust removal which does work with silver based negs. Here is an example using Epson's dust removal on an HP5 neg ...

http://homepage.mac.com/rayhill2/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/EpsonTest.jpg

haagen_dazs

11-02-2007, 09:00

cool thank you..that photo looks old.. (based on the dress fashion) is it?

wray

11-02-2007, 09:12

cool thank you..that photo looks old.. (based on the dress fashion) is it?

Yes, I purposely picked out a 25 year old neg :D to see if the Epson dust removal would work.

jan normandale

11-02-2007, 09:18

Wray, great shot. I love the woman in the foreground with her arms spread wide. Great gesture to catch!

tmessenger

11-07-2007, 11:30

buydig.com have these for $220 delivered in the US and Epson has a $50 mail in rebate until 12/30/07. on their website so $170 after rebate.

tm

Les Hall

11-07-2007, 11:48

buydig.com have these for $220 delivered in the US and Epson has a $50 mail in rebate until 12/30/07. on their website so $170 after rebate.

tm

I thought I got a good deal at $199. Only certain stores qualify - BestBuy does not for example.

Les

haagen_dazs

11-07-2007, 12:18

buydig.com .

tm

are they a reputable online store?

tmessenger

11-07-2007, 18:38

are they a reputable online store?

I've bought camera gear from them for the last couple of yeas and no problems. Tigerdirect also has it for a bit less $.

tm

Nikon Bob

11-08-2007, 02:02

Les

Your post on the V500 was timely as I had ordered one. Now that I have it and tried a few scans of med format negs that are 40-60 years old I can say it will do nicely. I scanned a 6x6 neg at 1200 dpi, took it into PS Elements 2.0 and messaged it, cropped and sized it to print an 8x10 at 300 dpi and printed on an HP 7960. The resultant print was most pleasing and would satisfy most people, I think. I think Epson has a winner for modest cost at home med format scanning for those who occasionally dabble in med format.

Bob

Les Hall

11-08-2007, 03:50

Nikon Bob

11-08-2007, 07:02

Les

We love the little avatar too, his name is Lucky and he is a Rat Terrier. The reason for us to get the V500 was that we were looking for a fairly inexpensive way to scan a box full of med format negs that my wife had inherited when her father died plus I also use a med format camera sometimes. Definitely not pro use. Here is a JPEG of the 8x10 print we made of a 50 year old 6x6 neg.

Bob

ZaphodB

11-14-2007, 12:02

Thanks for the images and opinions; the V500 looks pretty good.

For the price I paid for my V700, this one had better not be better... grumble grumble technology grumble etc. ;)

Dr. Strangelove

11-15-2007, 04:48

For the price I paid for my V700, this one had better not be better... grumble grumble technology grumble etc. ;)
I doubt it is better, but it may be as good or nearly as good. Of course it has a much smaller film scanning area and does not do large format at all, so the V700 still has some clear advantages.

Nikon Bob

11-15-2007, 05:04

Thanks for the images and opinions; the V500 looks pretty good.

For the price I paid for my V700, this one had better not be better... grumble grumble technology grumble etc. ;)

No, I would not think that it is better. I think it is excellent for people who do little med format work and are not super critical of output. If I were serious about med format or large format I would have bitten the bullet and shelled out for the V750 Pro. I think that it is a hobbiests scanner and it fits that nicely at a good price point. Then again you know electonics, sometime you get a less costly new product that is as good or maybe better than than a previous model costing more.

Bob

Thardy

11-15-2007, 05:31

I notice people say to scan MF (6x6) at 1200 dpi.

What parameters are you guys using with your Epson scanners?

I have an Epson 4490 and the software allows scanning at the original film size as well typing in what you want the output size to be (print or web). I just ran across this sort of by accident.

I leave the settings at "original" and resolution 4800. For B&W film (16 bit grayscale) the scan time is short and the file size is about 200mb Tiff. If you scan the B&W neg at 48bit color, and 4800 dpi, the file size and scan time both increase dramatically.

Can you shed some light on your methods?

jan normandale

12-06-2007, 14:24

Hi Les et al, I've an Epson 4490 and scanning C41 seems to be giving me problems (see this very short thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50948)

What film are you using with your V500. Les , the results in your photos seem to be just what I'd like to see. Any thoughts on my problem and Rich's comments?

cheers Jan

Paul Jenkin

12-11-2007, 11:24

I've just read this thread and I'm hugely impressed with all I've seen. Mentions of how cheap the V500 is got me thinking. Anyway, in the UK, the cost is approximately double the US price. The Epson ".co.uk" site has links to places where you can get the V500 for as little as £199 ($400).

The V750 is the one I really want. Sadly, I'm one of those guys that would always wonder "what if" if I bought the lower specification. I know it's a terrible affliction but my mum always said "what will do a lot will do a little". Thing is, the V750 is almost £500 ($1000) - so I'm hoping Santa will be generous this year!

All of that said, I'm paying about £20 ($40) to get a roll of film developed and scanned by a pro lab to jpeg sizes of between 400kb and 1.5Mb - which I believe is a rip off.

So, assuming the developing only costs £5 out of the £20 spend, it would only take 34 rolls of film to pay for itself and then I'm in credit. Moreover, the quality of a 6400 resolution scan (when necessary) and the convenience of just scanning what I want when I want will really outweigh any saving for what, so far, have been pretty basic scans.

Great to see all your photos. Really inspirational.

Paul

Dr. Strangelove

12-13-2007, 08:29

I've just read this thread and I'm hugely impressed with all I've seen. Mentions of how cheap the V500 is got me thinking. Anyway, in the UK, the cost is approximately double the US price. The Epson ".co.uk" site has links to places where you can get the V500 for as little as £199 ($400).

All of that said, I'm paying about £20 ($40) to get a roll of film developed and scanned by a pro lab to jpeg sizes of between 400kb and 1.5Mb - which I believe is a rip off.
Paul
Those prices are really high even by European standards. One can get the V500 in here (Finland) for 250 euros and that's with a 22% VAT. I believe it is somewhat cheaper in Germany. Film development and 2400 dpi scan at a pro lab is 20 euros, which I always thought was a rip off, but £20 is about 30 euros!

I think it might be a good idea to check the price of the V500 in some of the big German internet shops. Many of them even have pages in English and can communicate via email in English. I don't know about the warranty policy of Epson, but most big electronic companies have EU wide warranties.