Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise?

"Kinon O'Cann" <somewhere RemoveThis @over.the.rainbow> wrote in message
news:3YOOi.384$C8.352@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
>
> "Tony" <none RemoveThis @none.com> wrote in message
> news:9pWdneJ9D6vJLJbanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
>> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
>> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor
>> that the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true
>> it may be quite good enough for most users.
>>
>> But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
>> (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the
>> Epson has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these,
>> but I was wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few
>> of these to tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
>>
>
> No flatbed I've ever used can touch a Coolscan 8000. I use an Epson V750,
> and while it is good, it's only about 60% of the Coolscan, at best.
>

Apparently you don't know how to use it then.

Psygnosis
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

My experience with flatbeds for 35mm has not been good. I suspect that
even an old LS-2000 or LS-30 does a better job for 35mm negatives.
Optical resolution is definitely not the issue. An LS-30/2000 is only
2,700 dpi, but that translates into 10 megapixels and, in TIFF format
from the LS-2000, a 50 megabyte file. That's as much resolution or file
size as I would want, even if more were available.


Tony wrote:
> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
> the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
> quite good enough for most users.
>
> But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
> (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the Epson
> has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but I was
> wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of these to
> tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM.DeleteThis@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:470bdde0$0$32517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> My experience with flatbeds for 35mm has not been good. I suspect that
> even an old LS-2000 or LS-30 does a better job for 35mm negatives. Optical
> resolution is definitely not the issue. An LS-30/2000 is only 2,700 dpi,
> but that translates into 10 megapixels and, in TIFF format from the
> LS-2000, a 50 megabyte file. That's as much resolution or file size as I
> would want, even if more were available.
>
>
> Tony wrote:
>> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
>> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
>> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor
>> that the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true
>> it may be quite good enough for most users.
>>
>> But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
>> (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the
>> Epson has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these,
>> but I was wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few
>> of these to tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.

Ah another brain that has never used the scanner.

Psygnosis
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Tony" <none.RemoveThis@none.com> writes:

> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
> the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
> quite good enough for most users.

No it's not almost as good, but you'll be able to get very good
results anyway. I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
for a day and I've already blown myself out of my chair a couple times
re-scanning some slides.
(And I still haven't even tried the glass carrier yet, but probably
will in a few hours )

However if you need to scan reflective or large format transparent
materials it's going to be hard to justify getting TWO huge scanners
on your desk, so the Epson might be the choice to make anyway..
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Toni Nikkanen" <toni RemoveThis @morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote in message
news:rlp4ph06xbc.fsf@morgoth.tuug.fi...
> "Tony" <none RemoveThis @none.com> writes:
>
>> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
>> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
>> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor
>> that
>> the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may
>> be
>> quite good enough for most users.
>
> No it's not almost as good, but you'll be able to get very good
> results anyway. I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
> for a day and I've already blown myself out of my chair a couple times
> re-scanning some slides.
> (And I still haven't even tried the glass carrier yet, but probably
> will in a few hours )
>
> However if you need to scan reflective or large format transparent
> materials it's going to be hard to justify getting TWO huge scanners
> on your desk, so the Epson might be the choice to make anyway..
>
>
>

Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you haven't
used. It makes you look like an ass.

Psygnosis
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

I'd like to add that I have no experience on the other scanner models
mentioned, except I don't think the Canoscan 9950F will be able to
beat the V700 in any respect, though the difference isn't likely huge.
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Kinon O'Cann" <somewhere.RemoveThis@over.the.rainbow> wrote in message
news:3YOOi.384$C8.352@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
>
> "Tony" <none.RemoveThis@none.com> wrote in message
> news:9pWdneJ9D6vJLJbanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
>> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
>> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor
>> that the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true
>> it may be quite good enough for most users.
>>
>> But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
>> (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the
>> Epson has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these,
>> but I was wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few
>> of these to tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
>>
>
> No flatbed I've ever used can touch a Coolscan 8000. I use an Epson V750,
> and while it is good, it's only about 60% of the Coolscan, at best.
>

You may not have seen this, but take a look here

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_5.htm

at the V750 crop after USM. Also read the text.
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Psygnosis - Silent Running" <Psygnosis RemoveThis @SilentRunning.com> writes:


> Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
> haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.

Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

On Oct 9, 3:58 pm, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS....TakeThisOut@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> My experience with flatbeds for 35mm has not been good. I suspect that
> even an old LS-2000 or LS-30 does a better job for 35mm negatives.
> Optical resolution is definitely not the issue. An LS-30/2000 is only
> 2,700 dpi, but that translates into 10 megapixels and, in TIFF format
> from the LS-2000, a 50 megabyte file. That's as much resolution or file
> size as I would want, even if more were available.
>
> Tony wrote:
> > For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
> > the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
> > little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
> > the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
> > quite good enough for most users.
>
> > But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
> > (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the Epson
> > has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but I was
> > wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of these to
> > tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.


My LS-2000 is sitting on a shelf after I bought the V700, other than
convienience the dynamic range of the V700 beat the LS2000 hands down,
sharpness was about equal on the screen. I had much better shadow
detail with the V700. Against my Minolta Dimage Multi again the V700
has bettter dynamic range but the Minolta is sharper, the Minolta
can't do the res the V700 can either. I would think with the
improvements Nikon made in their scanners from the LS2000 to the
LS5000 or the LS8000/9000 the Nikons should be better. Scans I have
made on the V700 have printed very well to 16x20, it is nice to have
the range of resolution to scan to print size.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Psygnosis - Silent Running" <Psygnosis.DeleteThis@SilentRunning.com> wrote in message
news:470bf5b8$0$84926$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> "Kinon O'Cann" <somewhere.DeleteThis@over.the.rainbow> wrote in message
> news:3YOOi.384$C8.352@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
>>
>> "Tony" <none.DeleteThis@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:9pWdneJ9D6vJLJbanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've
>>> read the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you
>>> use a little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the
>>> sensor that the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If
>>> that's true it may be quite good enough for most users.
>>>
>>> But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900
>>> and (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think
>>> the Epson has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of
>>> these, but I was wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or
>>> a few of these to tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
>>>
>>
>> No flatbed I've ever used can touch a Coolscan 8000. I use an Epson V750,
>> and while it is good, it's only about 60% of the Coolscan, at best.
>>
>
> Apparently you don't know how to use it then.

Gee. Maybe you could come by and show me?

God, what a stupid comment.
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Tony" <none.RemoveThis@none.com> wrote in message
news:tqKdnfyJRqLGqpHanZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>
>
> You may not have seen this, but take a look here

I did see that, and it doesn't really apply to me. I've done quite a few
comparisons (not lately) between the V750 and my old Coolscan 9000, and
they're on different planets. However, the Epson was good enough for my
purposes and I sold the Coolscan. I had a Coolscan 8000 before that, but
wore it out.

Anyway, Even that test shows (to me) that the dedicated film scanner is
better.

>
> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_5.htm
>
> at the V750 crop after USM. Also read the text.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> writes:

> I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
> it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
> I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
> glass adds reflections and reduces contrast.

I'd add two other points:
- Flatbeds don't have an autofocus mechanism (not that I know of; height-
adjustable film holders do exist, though)
- Flatbeds don't seem to read RGB and IR channels in the same pass; this
contributes to the factor that Digital ICE doesn't work as well as in
a dedicated film scanner


Also, flatbeds have 2 more glass surfaces to keep clean. Of course,
using the glass carrier of the Nikon or Minolta Multipro means you
have four extra glass surfaces to keep clean!
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Toni Nikkanen" <toni RemoveThis @morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
> "Psygnosis - Silent Running" <Psygnosis RemoveThis @SilentRunning.com> writes:
>
>> Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
>> haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.
>
> Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
> for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
> desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.

I don't know what gives with "i-photo" but they never seem to find much
difference between the flatbeds and the Nikon 8000/9000. Here's what I saw
with one of the first 4800 ppi Epsons that handled medium format, again,
that i-photo found to be close to indistinguishable from the 8000/9000.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise?