View Full Version : v500 is here and works quite good
martin-f5
05-08-2008, 11:56
the only thing I dislike is the neg. holder,
when the film is not flat,
nothing handles it
Martin, glad you finally received your V500. Well done image there! Yes, they are decent scanners for the money and I do have to agree about the film holders.
martin-f5
05-08-2008, 12:36
hey Wray great to hear from you,
did you scan negs with holder?
is that possible?
this is a print scan
and I think it comes closer to my way
martin-f5
05-08-2008, 12:46
a second neg. scan
A-h-h, two more well done images! Prints do scan well don't they? Yes, I'm still using the stock film holders. Here's a scan I just did this morning of an old "Woodie" from an auto show this weekend.
http://homepage.mac.com/rayhill2/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/Woodie1.jpg
martin-f5
05-08-2008, 13:03
that's a great shot,
negativ scan?
are your negativs flat?
do you know that:
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/insert35.html
It's Fuji Superia 400 shot a 200 ISO. Yes, I've seen those glass inserts and seriously considering purchasing.
martin-f5
05-08-2008, 13:22
number 3, and still wondering
martin-f5
05-08-2008, 13:28
and the last for this night
I use a Nikon Coolscan V ED for my 35mm scans, but recently picked up a V500 for medium format. I never used the stock, flimsy, floppy, 2-frame-only film holders. I had already ordered the variable height holders from betterscanning.com, and I love them. I also use VueScan exclusively on both 35mm & 120. Great results. I find I always scan at 3200dpi rather than the available 6400 though. I haven't needed the 180mb(!) files from 6400dpi. The 50mb files from 3200dpi suffice! ;)
Oh, and I looked at the V750 before purchasing. As far as I can tell, the V750 would be mandatory if I wanted 4x5 or 8x10 scans (shudder.... haven't bitten that yet.... but...) with its second lens. But the V500 is better than okay for 6x6 (with the aftermarket holders) and I much much much prefer the LED backlight instead of fluorescent, for ease of use, immediate startup, evenness of lighting, and ecological friendliness.
martin-f5
05-10-2008, 08:13
and now, color dia scanns:
Pherdinand
05-10-2008, 08:48
the 35mm holders for the v700 are quite fine. The 120 holders are not so fine, if the film is curled, but i still manage with them. The scanners' DOF is quite large. Just have to make sure the film does not cur so much that it would touch the scanner glass!
martin-f5
05-10-2008, 10:40
6x4,5 Mamyia TriX in Rodinal 1+50 (grainy !)
and Denis is chocking :-)
martin-f5
05-10-2008, 11:15
second choice
P. Lynn Miller
05-10-2008, 11:58
Ray,
Didn't you used to use a 4490? As you know I am looking for a medium format scanner and have a chance to get a 4490 at a good price.
martin-f5
05-10-2008, 12:41
the mf filmholder is much better than the 35mm one,
some years ago I had a problem....
martin-f5
05-10-2008, 12:52
power yoga :-)
old film but still great to scan
martin-f5
05-10-2008, 13:20
I know, I have to stop it,
but 6x7 neg. had to be tested
full and coped
Martin, thank you so much for the post. I am still looking for a MF (6x7) scanner and appreciate your V500 samples. Excellent photography.
P. Lynn Miller
05-12-2008, 12:44
Martin,
You do not need to stop on my part. I am enjoying your photos. Thanks posting these scans as I am looking for a medium format scanner at the moment.
Is the V500 and/or the V750 adequate for 35 mm as well? The lab I am using claims that's what they have but the quality of the 35 mm scans they produced for me (from slides, bw, and color neg) is nowhere near as good as the images you posted above. Obviously it has to do with the way the scanner is set/handled, but I wonder if there is any way to find such settings reasonably easily or whether it is painful trial and error process which doesn't necessarily lead to good results, eventually. As a matter of fact, scanning represents such a bottleneck for me that it makes sometimes wonder if it is really worth shooting film. At least with a high end digital camera you consistently get the same results, while with scanning there are so many variables involved that more often than not you risk to throw away a beautiful shot just by scanning it.
martin-f5
05-14-2008, 06:34
first of all, none of the photos are shown in that quality wich they realy have.
The rff server software kills half of the quality.
Second, I'm realy new to this scanner nad have no large experience to it,
so this are the very first results without doing anything special.
You may have a look at wray's photos, they are linked to an externel srever and they show the real quality.
Guys, it's fantastic what you get out of this "cheap" epson and the original software.
You nay have a look to my other thread :
v500 & xpan (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58842)
there I've postet a screen shot.
Thanks to all
At how many dpi did you scan those images?
martin-f5
05-14-2008, 06:49
At how many dpi did you scan those images?
1200
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59369&d=1210532062
shadowfox
05-14-2008, 08:27
Martin, I just want to comment on your pictures.
They are all great! you have an excellent eye for composition and light. I love especially the Xpan shots.
About the scanner, I think these results are adequate for web viewing, trying to get much better quality from any flatbed scanner IMHO is counter-productive.
BUT, if you want to print your pictures big digitally, then maybe find a drum-scanner.
martin-f5
05-14-2008, 12:03
Martin, I just want to comment on your pictures.
They are all great! you have an excellent eye for composition and light. I love especially the Xpan shots.
About the scanner, I think these results are adequate for web viewing, trying to get much better quality from any flatbed scanner IMHO is counter-productive.
BUT, if you want to print your pictures big digitally, then maybe find a drum-scanner.
Hello Will,
I don't print photos on a inkjet printer,
I print them in my darkroom,
the scans are only for web viewing,
so the quality is realy more than expected.
I should make a accout at flickr to show wich quality is possible with the V500,
but therefor we have wray!
He's the best
Just to give you an idea, I am attaching 2 sample details (actual pixels) of what I got from my 'custom lab' which uses Epson 4990. Both images were scanned at 300 dpi. The landscape image is shot on Velvia 100 slide and the 'portrait' is shot on Reala 100 negative. I can understand the 'portrait' may not be that great since I used an old Summar at full aperture and in low light, but for the landscape I used a Summicron 50. I find both scans totally unacceptable.
Any suggstions on what the problem can be?
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q28/layden25/13-36.jpg
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q28/layden25/Img021.jpg
It looks to me like they scanned at 300 dpi then enlarged the image afterwards in imaging software. If you scan at a low dpi you have to enlarge the image in Epson's software then import into your imaging program. For example here's an old Kodachrome transparency that I scanned at 360 dpi with 1000% size increase in the Epson scan software before importing into Photoschop.
http://homepage.mac.com/rayhill2/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/Mom.jpg
Wray, thanks. I don't think they enlarged it after scanning it. They just scanned it at 300 and at that size. But the result is awful and I haven't managed to get much bettert than that. Colors are also off most of the time. But what puts me off is the noise. That's why I was so amazed by the scans showed by martin-f5. I don't think it has to do with the negative or the slide because the slide, in particular, is grain-free and well exposed.
I am a bit reluctant to get myself a v700 (or any scanner for that matter) if this is what I would get...
Pherdinand
05-15-2008, 00:37
Gilo, the first image has a square-ish aspect ratio. Obviously it is cropped. How much cropped?If i heavily magnify a part of the slide film, it looks like this. If it is not heavily cropped from full frame, i suspect stg wrong with the film or the developing.
The second one is loaded with noise. It is a film grain issue again, imo, not scanning issue.
Maybe the film was underexposed badly? Maybe it was too old?Maybe developing was screwed up? This can also lead to sharpness issues.
Pherdinand
05-15-2008, 00:39
I scan everything on a v700, and most images look good, be it slide film, negative, BW, 35mm or 6x6. The ones that look bad are badly exposed or developed.
You may check my gallery for samples.
martin-f5
05-15-2008, 02:57
with those results I'd digg a hole and burry the scanner :bang:
there's realy more possible and you don't need a graduate at oxford :cool:
or a drum-scanner
it's so easy,
open the scanner, open the "uplight-flap" and put in the film,
start the software-> preview and adjust a little till you see want you want to see,
than scan,
that's all
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/sonstiges/87150d1210848792-unterwegs-c-stein-taback.jpg
please let me know if can't see the photos?
and crop:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/sonstiges/87152d1210848944-unterwegs-100-crop.jpg
Pherdinand, thank you. Both images are cropped: the original images are 2614 X 3932 pixels. Both are scanned at 300 dpi. I just cropped them in order not to attach a huge image, but still show the image in actual pixels.
While the actual slide looks good on the light box (hence, the bad quality of the scan doesn't seem justified), the other image is far from perfect, even when printed from the negative. The neg is an expired Reala 100, pushed one stop (it was exposed at 330 ASA). This certainly doesn't help the quality of the scan, but the fact remains that the 5x7 inches print from the negative doesn't look that bad.
The issue is that all the scans I got from this lab look more or less the same, no matter whether it is BW, slides, color negs (expired or not).
Unfortunately this is the only custom lab of the whole of Manila (where I am based) and I have no alternatives :bang:
I was finding it strange that a custom lab (however unprofessional) could handle a simple scanner like the 4990 and/or the V 700 that bad..:( As a matter of fact ,what I showed you is already a back job (!): the first time all the images were straight green :(. So I asked them to re-do it. But when I saw the second output I started thinking that maybe when it comes to 35 mm film no scanner can handle it properly unless it is a drum scanner (which of course is not available here). But what martin f5 has posted here seems to prove the opposite, hence my query to you all: is it worth getting myself a v700 and scan my own stuff because the problem lies in the way they scanned, or should I just go back to digital, since maybe the issue is that they can't develop film properly??? (or both:bang:)...
Pherdinand
05-15-2008, 05:39
As i said, the green and magenta dots you see in the negative image are "grains" and not related to the scanner.
Actually, the scan is good enough to resolve the grain, which is quite nice.
I'm not sure a drum scanner could do it better.
About the slide, well, it's quite sensitive to exposure and development too, but if it is heavily cropped, i would say it is okay for a 35mm scan.
martin-f5
05-15-2008, 06:33
or should I just go back to digital, since maybe the issue is that they can't develop film properly??? (or both:bang:)...
back to digtal?
oh my dear, not that,
b&w you can develop by your own,
and colorfilm development is a wide spread standard.
Buy a scanner and you'll get what you need.
P. Lynn Miller
05-16-2008, 04:33
I just acquired an Epson V500 based on the scans shown here and various other forums by V500 users. I am very pleased with the scanner.
Here is my first scan -
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2181/2497087684_ae94b6f711.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24706160@N06/2497087684/)
The files produced by this scanner are plenty good enough for printing. While not as high quality as a drum scan, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference up to about 11 x14 enlargements with medium format. The photo above was 6x6 B&W negative scanned at 6400dpi, retouched and post-processed in Photoshop CS3, and printed as an 8" x 8" print. The detail and quality is as good as any drum scan I have ever used.
martin-f5
05-16-2008, 04:46
first scan and perfect scan!
congratulations!
Gilo25,
What kind of film were these? If it was scanned @300dpi and the result was 2614 X 3932 , then the film frame was 8.7 X 13.1 ?!? I really doubt that...
First - I wouldn't even call it a "lab" if they are scanning 35mm with 4990. That's plain unprofessional.
Second - Scanning film at 300dpi - you're joking, right? That's not enough for even prints scan, forget about film...
IK13, thanks. The film was a normal 35 mm, one was slide, the other was a color negative. I have no idea what they did to reach that size.
I fully agree with you on the level of the 'lab': unfortunately that's what you get here... :(
And, no I am not joking: they scanned it at 300 dpi and I have even to ask for it because they would normally scan only at 72:bang:
I guess I 'll just have to buy a v500 or v700 and do it myself..
Ben Blacket
05-21-2008, 16:48
Gilo, i think those samples look quite good for 'actual pixels'. It appears to be resolving the grain in both. You said you shot wide open for the mirror portrait & it shows. The point of focus is on the mirror & her shoulders, albeit narrow & 'soft'. V700 (& presumably 4990/V500) scans are a bit soft, even when using a custom holder & adjusted to the optimum height. I think it's great that we scrutinise images on screen, at actual pixels or 100% - it helps us get the best out of our equipment. But remember the days in the darkroom when we only judged the final print, not each grain that hit the easel? Remember when big grain was ok & just par for the course if you wanted to get a shot in low light? Has anyone compared prints - one from the darkroom & one from V500/V700 & inkjet?
nextreme
05-21-2008, 17:47
A-h-h, two more well done images! Prints do scan well don't they? Yes, I'm still using the stock film holders. Here's a scan I just did this morning of an old "Woodie" from an auto show this weekend.
http://homepage.mac.com/rayhill2/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/Woodie1.jpg
Wow ! Awesome shot, and awesome car !
Cheers
Wow ! Awesome shot, and awesome car !
Cheers
Thanks! P-s-s-t, don't tell anyone around here but the shot was taken with my OM-2 and 28mm lens. If you like old woodies, here's another one for you ...
http://homepage.mac.com/rayhill2/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/Woodie2.jpg
martin-f5
05-25-2008, 13:42
some scanns
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59899&d=1211664180
Martin, once again excellent scans! Oh, by the way well done images, too!:D
Martin nice scan indeed, but can you shed some light on what film was used, how many dpi it was scanned at, how big is the original size of the scanned image, any settings worth noting?
Many thanks
martin-f5
05-26-2008, 00:18
film = cheap 400 ASA color Film, maybe Fuji
I scan with 2400 dpi and rescale it to 800 pixel
auto mode in epson software
Hey all, enjoying this thread and examples, as I have this scanner. Most of the time I am pretty satisfied with the results from this scanner.
But...sometimes with 35 and 120 I get a slide or negative that looks very sharp and in focus but then when it is scanned is blurry and out of focus looking, even after unsharp mask. This is not really a curled film issue. I can't quite figure out what causes it. I've tried scanning with the holder and flat on the scanner, no holder with the same results. So I'm considering the betterscanner holder, does anyone have any rave reviews of it, as $75 is like half of the price of the scanner itself...
Seems like cars are popular, so here's one that turned out nicely:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2018/2536940692_d753acd58e_b.jpg
I let a piece of ANR glass, whichI got with my other stuff from betterscanning.com, sit on curly 35mm strips, which shmooshes down the film fairly well on my 4490. Anybody have a better technique? The holder works okay for MF film, but nothing seems to work satisfactorily with 35mm. Perhaps a CoolScan is the ticket?
Just to add my own experience for those considering buying a V500.
I found the scanner to be over than capable in general. I use a Nikon 9000 rented from a local lab and own a Canon FS4000 dedicated 35mm scanner too. Comparing the results on the same frames I observe the following:
o the 3.4 Dmax has never been a limit. I repeat. 3.4 Dmax is *not* limiting, I have scanned really dense slides and only over a strong light-table can I see more detail in the shadows (and the 9000 of course)
o V500 gives the same resolution as the dedicated Canon film scanner in 35mm for color negatives and chromogenics in general, a bit less resolution in BW films and slides. I have printed from a Portra 160NC in 35mm a well exposed frame at 60cm the long side and the print is totally wonderfull (all the strands of hair are there for those resolution freaks) resolution and tonality wise. The best sharpening method is a 200% at 0.9 radius initially and then a 30% at 2-10 radius depending on the image for me, and works great especially on lower iso films.
o I wonder why none else has noted this, but there is some problem with really saturated areas. I had tonality problems scanning a really red face on a Velvia which was shot under tungsten light, which had scanned perfectly in 9000. Nothing was there apart from a red red area. OK, we have to be sane. There should be no comparison between these scanners. The fact that this comparison itself is done means that V500 performs really well. In any case this was an extreme example, the fault was mine and I didn't expect more from any scanner at this price. Other less saturated slides like Kodak 100G scanned perfectly.
I suggest this scanner to everyone and from my experience you will have the best results with chromogenic films. I suggest the Neopan 400CN and Ilford's XP2 to anyone doing BW work. Leaving the lack of push/pull in darkroom abilities, these films are awesome, noise is simply non-existent, they print wonderfully in darkroom and scan like honey in V500. I just got a print from a portrait shot in 120 format with Neopan 400CN with a mamiya TLR and scanned in the V500 at 80X80 cm and 300dpi (for the printer) and the printed photograph has "that thing". Which means that everything in tonality (which is more important for me) and in resolution is there, so that everyone who looked at the photograph "felt" the person photographed exactly as he was in real life.
Film holders are not horrible (could be better yes) and the scanning software gave me in color negative films where Vuescan was a nightmare to color calibrate immediately useful results. All around I recommend this a lot and I am by no means affiliated to Epson or any of the brands that I mentioned.
I've been thinking of buying the V500 and this thread has been a very interesting read.
Thanks to all of those who have contributed their experience/information with this scanner.
cheers
>>>>I suggest this scanner to everyone and from my experience you will have the best results with chromogenic films. I suggest the Neopan 400CN and Ilford's XP2 to anyone doing BW work. Leaving the lack of push/pull in darkroom abilities, these films are awesome, noise is simply non-existent, they print wonderfully in darkroom and scan like honey in V500. I just got a print from a portrait shot in 120 format with Neopan 400CN with a mamiya TLR and scanned in the V500 at 80X80 cm and 300dpi (for the printer) and the printed photograph has "that thing". Which means that everything in tonality (which is more important for me) and in resolution is there, so that everyone who looked at the photograph "felt" the person photographed exactly as he was in real life.<<<<
I am also thinking of buying the V500, but I love "old" b/w films like Pan-X and APX100 which I soup in Rodinal.
How does the scanner perform with these films (MF most of the time)?
Wallace
anyone compared v500 to canon 8800F? I noticed canon has led lighting and 100 euros cheaper, hmm. Maybe enough good for preview, web and no prints for 35mm and MF?
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.