|
Edmond Dantes posted:I think this thread might be quite dead, but it's worth a try. I own an Epson Perfection V350, and looking at the specs on the V330 I think they're pretty close. I've only done negatives with mine so far, but I just got a batch of kodachrome back from Dwayne's so I'll be doing slides very soon. I'm happy with its performance on 35mm negs, but I might not be as demanding as you are. Here's an example; it's not a fantastic picture but it is representative of the detail and contrast I get out of my V350. I shot it on Ilford Delta 100 and I haven't adjusted anything except the size. I also didn't use any of the noise reduction/spot removal/unsharp mask option that the scanner software offers.  Painting and plant by kinghotpants, on Flickr I hope that's helpful!
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:28 |
|
|
King Hotpants posted:I own an Epson Perfection V350, and looking at the specs on the V330 I think they're pretty close. I've only done negatives with mine so far, but I just got a batch of kodachrome back from Dwayne's so I'll be doing slides very soon. I'm happy with its performance on 35mm negs, but I might not be as demanding as you are. I'm not really that demanding, I just want to be able to see my dad's pictures any time I want without having to hunt for a slides projector. Also, they have been in their containers for quite some time now and I'm starting to be afraid they may get ruined and just want to back them up in digital format.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
Oh, yeah. The other thing is that it can only do four slides at once, so I hope you have some free time. It also can't do medium-format; I don't know if that's a concern for you or not. With any luck I'll be doing some of those slides tomorrow or Wednesday. I'll post here when I get something worth looking at. If you're worried about those slides, box/bag them up and stick them in the fridge. They'll keep longer if they are cool and dry--so if you have any spare silica packets from things like electronics packaging, you might want to throw one of those in as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
King Hotpants posted:Oh, yeah. The other thing is that it can only do four slides at once, so I hope you have some free time. It also can't do medium-format; I don't know if that's a concern for you or not. I think they have been in storage since around... before 1982. Last time I tried looking at them they were still "viewable", but honestly I don't know how they are holding up. I think I'll go to my mom's today and take a look at them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
Two questions: How good are the Epson V700's scans in relation to a dedicated film scanner? Is the version of Silverfast that comes with the V700 worth anything?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
Edmond Dantes posted:I think they have been in storage since around... before 1982. Last time I tried looking at them they were still "viewable", but honestly I don't know how they are holding up. I think I'll go to my mom's today and take a look at them. Cool and dry, cool and dry. I have slides that are more than 60 years old that look just perfect (Kodachromes!) because they were kept in an attic in the northeastern USA. I also have ones that are less than thirty years old that are covered in mold and falling apart because they were kept in a damp basement. Treat film like fine wine and it'll easily outlast the usable life of any known digital medium.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 03:49
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Two questions: They lack contrast and are a little softer. At web resolution the V700 is fine. If you're looking at stuff up-close or want the best detail a dedicated film scanner is best. Likewise, if you want good prints a dedicated scanner is ideal. Here are some Epson V700 scans in comparison to some dedicated film scanners: http://tinyurl.com/6a5oq7q Here's a scan from a V700 of a 35mm negative at web resolution. It looks pretty decent:  ...found here. Obviously, when you scrutinize the details you notice it doesn't compare that favorably to good dedicated scanners. Here's a comparison between the V700 (left) and Plustek OpticFilm (right):   And for comparison, a scan from the Hasselblad Flextight Imacon (a $20,000 scanner):  It seems to have the best dynamic range of the three, not surprisingly. ... I have been weighing the OpticFilm 7600i for a very long time but it's really hard to justify the expense. It costs me $5.50 to get a roll of film scanned - $6 if you include shipping since I don't use a local place. At $480 for the Plustek OpticFilm I would have to shoot 80 rolls of film before I could justify the cost. Sure, I would have control over resolution, but is it worth it? Will I ever shoot that many rolls? Hard to say. Probably not. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Feb 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:I got drunk last night and ordered a V500 from B&H Scanner Talk: I got drunk last night and ordered a V500. Is that bad?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 06:02
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:They lack contrast and are a little softer. At web resolution the V700 is fine. If you're looking at stuff up-close or want the best detail a dedicated film scanner is best. Likewise, if you want good prints a dedicated scanner is ideal. Here are some Epson V700 scans in comparison to some dedicated film scanners: Thank you for this - I'm researching dedicated scanners now. Do you know how the V700 stacks up for medium format?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 06:29
|
|
|
I've got a question about "scanning" film. I've been using my 5DII to do it. Set it up on a tripod with a "lightbox" made from an old laptop LCD backlight under the frame, and focus with a macro lens and a set of bellows. Except something has been weirding me out: when I look at the live histogram, it fits entirely within the sensor's range. There's no white or black clipping, and I've got plenty of room on either side. Is this right? I know that the 5D has a good sensor, but I thought that film was supposed to have way more dynamic range than you could capture with a digital sensor in one shot. I've tried adjusting the exposure to see what happens When I get the images processed and the proper curves applied, they look pretty good to me. Not as good as a silver print, obviously, but that could certainly be because I'm displaying them on a screen. They don't look like they're clipped or posterized. Am I missing something here, maybe to do with the overall brightness/darkness of the lightbox? It seems that maybe increasing the brightness also increases the dynamic range of the frame, but I don't really get how -- just making the whites whiter. It just doesn't seem right that I could actually capture the entire dynamic range of the film frame in a single shot. [e] wait, durf. I think I figured it out. Increasing the brightness of the illumination will bring up the whites, but the blacks will stay dark because they're...pure black. They block all the light. So as long as the negative is properly exposed, it's basically "indefinitely bring up the brightness and stop down until you reach the limits of your capture method". Right? All of the above is making it way more complicated than it should be, and all I actually need is a brighter lightbox. orange lime fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Feb 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 09:50
|
|
|
orange lime posted:scanning re: dynamic range: what your camera can pick up from film isn't what film picked up from the original exposure. As you guessed there's shadow detail your sensor doesn't pick up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 12:06
|
|
|
Edmond Dantes posted:It's really quite helpful, thanks a lot. I'd really appreciate if you could give me a heads up when you do those slides, but I'm pretty sure I'll be getting it as soon as I get my check this month. Update: It works fine. It does introduce some softness compared to the original, but for less than a hundred bucks there's not much room to complain. If you need them razor-sharp (which I can understand if you're going to be archiving them) I'd look at a dedicated negative/slide scanner.  k64_3_011 by kinghotpants, on Flickr King Hotpants fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Feb 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
King Hotpants posted:Update: It works fine. That does it then, I'll be getting it as soon as I get my check (probably sometime next week). Thanks again for everything! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
Hi everyone. I recently got a v500 for $100 bucks and now I'm in the process of scanning old photos (not negs). I was wondering what Dpi I should be scanning these at if I'm going to archive them on a hard drive? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Bongodrums posted:Hi everyone. To do this, you can either scan at 300DPI and scale the output size, or keep the output at 100% or scan at a much higher DPI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
I used a V500 to digitize my mom's Kodachromes and got great results. Now I want to use it for my own stuff. Two questions - first, anybody have any betterscanning.com stuff for the V500? More specifically, the 35mm ANR insert. Second - I've tried Silverfast and Vuescan and found Silverfast to be much closer to my needs; if you have Silverfast, which version do you have and why? Are there any features in the more expensive versions you wish you had? I'm currently looking at the SE Plus version for $100.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 06:00
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I used a V500 to digitize my mom's Kodachromes and got great results. Now I want to use it for my own stuff. I have a V600 which is basically the same scanner. The betterscanning.com 120 holder is miles above the stock holder, I would definitely pick one up. I hemmed and hawed and ended up buying Silverfast Ai. I don't think that SE has the expert dialog or 48bit output. I also liked that negafix has adjustable profiles in the Ai version. This setup will last me a few years until I break down and buy a Coolscan or a V700.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 10:16
|
|
|
Would I be advised to look into this guy here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/696856-REG/Canon_4207B002_CanoScan_9000F_Color_Image.html Is the 9000F a decent thing? It seems about right for the price and it's exactly suited to my needs (120/35 film and slide). What's the thoughts on that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2011 06:36
|
|
|
Tempest815 posted:Would I be advised to look into this guy here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/696856-REG/Canon_4207B002_CanoScan_9000F_Color_Image.html My wife bought me one for my birthday. Initial impressions are really good, except the MF film holder wasn't very exceptional. betterscanning does make a MF holder for the scanner though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2011 12:16
|
|
|
I have an Epson v700 and i am using the betterscanning holder,glass, and Silverfast- 2 questions: 1) How do people do scans of their film and still have the black film borders? 2) Is it always a pain in the rear end to get the color correct? Using negafix gets me kind of close, but even then the negative color looks muddy and the contrast is way off the prints. I can dial it in a bit but it takes forever and never looks as good as the print. It almost looks like i am scanning at a low bit-depth but i have it set to the 48->24bit setting. Am i missing something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 10:24
|
|
|
OJ.SImpson posted:I have an Epson v700 and i am using the betterscanning holder,glass, and Silverfast- 2 questions: I just line up my negs so that I can scan the edges. Some people file down one frames worth of black borders. As for negafix it isn't perfect but I can generally get in the neighborhood and then just do a small curves adjustment in PS to remove any lingering color cast. You could always use the levels/curves dialogue in Silverfast to adjust contrast if you wanted to. I tend to scan them flat and adjust in PS since I need to sharpen the scans anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 14:04
|
|
|
Is Vuescan Pro worth it? It looks like the "DNGs" it makes are just a fancy TIFF. Lifetime upgrades might be worth it though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
The DNG format is really only useful if you want the files you make to go through a RAW processing program as far as I can tell. It is important to note that this does not mean there is the kind of difference as a dSLR's RAW and TIFF files, it's pretty much just interface compatibility. e: Then I can't think of a difference. V 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Mar 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 07:40
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I've got a question about "scanning" film. The brightness of the LCD backlight is nowhere near as bright as the brightness of sunlight, so that backlight is compressing your film's dynamic range. Reichstag posted:The DNG format is really only useful if you want the files you make to go through a RAW processing program as far as I can tell. It is important to note that this does not mean there is the kind of difference as a dSLR's RAW and TIFF files, it's pretty much just interface compatibility. TIFF files work just fine in RAW though, as far as I can tell. Anytime I've done large 48-bit TIFF scans, Adobe Camera Raw was able to treat them just like any other Raw format. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Mar 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 07:44
|
|
is go
|
You can lossless-convert proprietary raws to DNG, can you do that with TIFF?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2011 10:54
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You can lossless-convert proprietary raws to DNG, can you do that with TIFF? Why would you want to convert your Tiff files to DNG? Tiff is, as far as I know, a well documented, lossless format.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
DNG's are TIFF's guys, it's just that adobe software is built around having more features for DNG's. I guess they have more metadata or something.
Moist von Lipwig fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Mar 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 12:36
|
|
|
Ive got a whole bunch of velvia slides I want to scan as well as a bunch of kodachrome and old stuff thats been laying around the house. Would I be better off going with the Epson V500 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/496399-REG/Epson_B11B189011_Perfection_V500_Flatbed_Photo.html or Plustek OpticFilm 7400 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/685040-REG/Plustek_60_A1A_BBM310_C_OpticFilm_7400_Scanner.html Epson Pros: Cheaper!!! Also scans documents and old photos Scans 120 (of which I might shoot one roll a year) Plustek Pros: Better quality for 35mm? Dedicated to scanning film Now I think the main purpose of this is to scan them in and send them off to be printed as its going to cost a bundle to get each slide scanned on top of the printing at the place I use. So it quickly makes sense to buy my own scanner. But I know the place I will get the photos printed at is going to have a pretty awesome scanner so is the Epson going to let me down there? Does anyone have any comparisons in scans between these two? I've seen people reccommend the higher up plustek models. I'm probably making prints up to about 10x15" or so
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
Well what scanner will they be using? Regardless, for 35mm a dedicated scanner beats a flatbed every time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 06:48
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Well what scanner will they be using? Regardless, for 35mm a dedicated scanner beats a flatbed every time. Truth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 10:48
|
|
|
I ended up getting a Betterscanning 35mm anti-Newton-ring insert. I also got a spare holder to go with it. I dremeled off the clips that hold the film down at the top of the holder so the Betterscanning inserts could cover the entire film strip instead of being blocked by the clips. I honestly didn't see any improvement when using the holder, but when I put the film straight on the platen with the ANR glass on top of it, I saw a small but noticeable difference. Both images 100% sections of scans at 2400dpi, the maximum optical resolution of my V500. Left with stock holder. Right with film + ANR glass directly on platen. Would I do it again for $30 per insert? Probably not, but I can see it being incredibly useful if I ever have to deal with severely arched film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I ended up getting a Betterscanning 35mm anti-Newton-ring insert. I also got a spare holder to go with it. I dremeled off the clips that hold the film down at the top of the holder so the Betterscanning inserts could cover the entire film strip instead of being blocked by the clips. I honestly didn't see any improvement when using the holder, but when I put the film straight on the platen with the ANR glass on top of it, I saw a small but noticeable difference. There's some noticeable shadow detail in the right one that's darker in the left one. What film is this? For some super dense chromes it might be useful to get every extra little bit of dMax. 
Moist von Lipwig fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Apr 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 07:02
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:There's some noticeable shadow detail in the right one that's darker in the left one. What film is this? For some super dense chromes it might be useful to get every extra little bit of dMax. e: oh, another thing I like about being able to put the film straight on the glass: I can scan the whole strip, with frame numbers and everything, if I want. The main challenge now is getting it lined up straight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:It's Ektar. I don't know how much of that shadow detail is because Silverfast applied different curves each time I scanned it (should have tried to control variables better), so I limited myself to commenting on the sharpness. So did you just get the big sheet of ANR glass from betterscanning?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:So did you just get the big sheet of ANR glass from betterscanning?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
Anyone here have experience doing fluid mounting directly on v700 glass?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
Any recommendations for a scanner that scans photos (your typical 35mm processed photos)? Something cheap and something somewhat pricer: one thats around $100 and another at $400 so we have something to compare with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 14:36
|
|
|
LuisX posted:Any recommendations for a scanner that scans photos (your typical 35mm processed photos)? Something cheap and something somewhat pricer: one thats around $100 and another at $400 so we have something to compare with. For prints most any flatbed will do. For film I'd say compare the Epson V500 and V700 to your needs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 15:08
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Film or prints? Prints, I found one in newegg but the client was not sure about the unknown brand name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:28 |
|
|
I just want to thank those in this thread that have turned me back on to VueScan. I had tried it out a couple years ago and it didn't make an impact on me. I just gave it another shot, and bought a copy after 5 minutes of seeing how much more awesome than SilverFast it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 16:54
|
|
