Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise?

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.RemoveThis@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:470CBF35.20107@qwest.net...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "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
>>
>>
> For some more examples:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners
>
> 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. However, scanning
> at 16-bits/pixel it is easily corrected. Also, there is a little
> more work involved in careful unsharp masking to improve
> the scans on the flatbeds. A dedicated film scanner does a better
> job with less total user time (I use a sprintscan 4000 for 35mm).
> But for large format, the flatbeds are very good and saves a lot of
> money.

For large format, what other choices do you have?

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

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:54:36 -0400, "Tony" <none.TakeThisOut@none.com> 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.

Hi. I have also been looking for something to scan a wide variety of
things but mainly a large quantity of photographs, but also quite a
number of slides and negatives too.

I've come to the conclusion, based on a lot of advise from people in
this group as well as my own research, that as good as the V700/750
is, it is still not going to beat a dedicated film scanner, even one
that is a number of years old and doesn't have the same stats or
resolution, is still going to beat the V700/750/4990 when it comes to
scanning slides and negatives etc.

I believe the best compromise, and one that will also save you money,
would be to buy a Canon Flatbed Photo Scanner with Qare for scanning
all your photographs. Models like the Canoscan 8800F, 8600F, 9950F
etc. These are a lot faster at scanning than the Epsons with Digital
Ice and the quality is no different. For slides and negatives I think
the best thing is to buy one of the Nikon Coolscans. Would be quite
expensive maybe £500 but there would be a noticeable difference in
quality over the flatbeds for doing this sort of stuff.

You don't have to keep it though, you could scan everything you needed
to, all your slides and negatives and then sell it. You would still
get a good price for it because they are in demand, and one that was
really new and had only scanned a small number of things since it had
been bought you would get quite a lot back from what you paid for it
when you then sold it on after you'd scanned everything you needed to.

I am going to get a Canoscan 8800F to scan all my old photos. I
believe it will cost around £150. A lot less than the 4990 £250 and
V700/750 £350+. Plus it scans faster and has LEDs instead of lamps.
V500 also worth mentioning as that would be good for scanning photos
as well. Not sure what the speeds would be like though, if the past is
anything to go by the Canon probably still wins, plus the V500 is a
bit more expensive than the 8800F. Will be keeping the 8800F once I
get it. Once I've scanned all my old photos though I'll be getting a
Coolscan to scan all my slides and negatives with. Once that's done
sell it on ebay or something but I'll keep the flatbed for other
stuff.

Cheers

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

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:08:55 +0300, Toni Nikkanen
<toni.DeleteThis@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:

>
>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.

The Canon will blow the Epson out of the water in terms of speed and
the results wont be much better as the 9950F as far as
photographs/transparencies go if at all. You'll be three times more
productive with the Canon and get more done whereas with the Epson
you'll be waiting until the cows come home if you need to do a lot of
scanning with dust removal.

The 9950F has been one of the better scanners Canon have made. The
Epson with Ice you will be waiting several minutes whereas the Canon
with Qare only a couple. See here (bottom of page):
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_14.htm

Essentially it is the same thing as the V700, its the same ICE, and
the same cold cathode fluorescent lamp. I wouldn't be able to comment
on the V500 because I don't know how much the speed would improve with
LEDs, but I would guess compared to the 8800F from Canon also with
LEDs, that the Canon would always probably still win in terms of speed
with dust removal turned on.

V700/750 is very good, one of the best flatbeds you can buy. I just
don't think it is good value based on its price premium and only small
gain. I think you'd be better off buying a Canon like the 8800F,
8600F, 9950F etc for a lot less, then the extra £200+ you would have
otherwise spent on the V700/750 put that towards a Nikon Coolscan for
your slides etc. You would already nearly have half the cost of the
Coolscan by not buying the V700/750 and getting a Canon with Qare for
your photographs and transparencies instead.

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

A lot of the images I have looked at on an number of sites i-photo
included I have always found the ones the Coolscans have produced
better than Epson or Canon flatbeds including their newest and that
just backs up what people in this group have told me when I have asked
similar questions in the past.

Cheers

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

Kinon O'Cann wrote:

> For large format, what other choices do you have?

I second that question, now that my Noblex 6x12 came back from repair.
How do I scan 6x12 cm. slides and negatives?

I think that a good flatbed scanner (e.g. Canon 9950F or Epson V700) is the
only available solution at the moment.

N.F.
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Nick Fotis" <nfotis RemoveThis @otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:felsel$2m8a$1@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> Kinon O'Cann wrote:
>
>> For large format, what other choices do you have?
>
> I second that question, now that my Noblex 6x12 came back from repair.
> How do I scan 6x12 cm. slides and negatives?

Nikon 8000 or 9000, scan in two pieces, merge in Photoshop.

> I think that a good flatbed scanner (e.g. Canon 9950F or Epson V700) is
> the
> only available solution at the moment.

It's a serious pain with the 8000/9000 (getting the exposure right, no
rotation, and the film flat enough for both scans are all a pain), but it
can be done.

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote in message
news:UbGdnUQyD_kWH5PanZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Nick Fotis" <nfotis.RemoveThis@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:felsel$2m8a$1@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>> Kinon O'Cann wrote:
>>
>>> For large format, what other choices do you have?
>>
>> I second that question, now that my Noblex 6x12 came back from repair.
>> How do I scan 6x12 cm. slides and negatives?
>
> Nikon 8000 or 9000, scan in two pieces, merge in Photoshop.
>
>> I think that a good flatbed scanner (e.g. Canon 9950F or Epson V700) is
>> the
>> only available solution at the moment.
>
> It's a serious pain with the 8000/9000 (getting the exposure right, no
> rotation, and the film flat enough for both scans are all a pain), but it
> can be done.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

David, in response to your other post with the links to your own samples, I
believe in what I saw but I also have to wonder about the samples on the UK
review site (the link I posted). It seemed like with careful USM the Epson
flatbed scans sharpened up to be very close to the LS8000. Do I assume that
your samples from the flatbed were USM'd and still turned out to be that
different from the Nikon?
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Tony" <none.RemoveThis@none.com> wrote:
>
> David, in response to your other post with the links to your own samples,
> I believe in what I saw but I also have to wonder about the samples on the
> UK review site (the link I posted). It seemed like with careful USM the
> Epson flatbed scans sharpened up to be very close to the LS8000. Do I
> assume that your samples from the flatbed were USM'd and still turned out
> to be that different from the Nikon?

The samples I posted were (if memory serves, but I'm quite sure) not
sharpened.

I simply don't understand what the bloke at i-photo is doing. First of all,
the images should have different magnifications. So one or the other is
resampled, up or down, but he doesn't tell us. Second, no one else in the
known universe has ever seen such close performance between a correctly
focused 8000/9000 and an Epson flatbed. And he gets that with every Epson he
tests.

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote in message
news:dZudnSRtL-1xVJPanZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Tony" <none.TakeThisOut@none.com> wrote:
>>
>> David, in response to your other post with the links to your own samples,
>> I believe in what I saw but I also have to wonder about the samples on
>> the UK review site (the link I posted). It seemed like with careful USM
>> the Epson flatbed scans sharpened up to be very close to the LS8000. Do I
>> assume that your samples from the flatbed were USM'd and still turned out
>> to be that different from the Nikon?
>
> The samples I posted were (if memory serves, but I'm quite sure) not
> sharpened.
>
> I simply don't understand what the bloke at i-photo is doing. First of
> all, the images should have different magnifications. So one or the other
> is resampled, up or down, but he doesn't tell us. Second, no one else in
> the known universe has ever seen such close performance between a
> correctly focused 8000/9000 and an Epson flatbed. And he gets that with
> every Epson he tests.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Well, I would love to find out what's going on. If he has some trick that
actually gets this to work for real then it makes the problem of settling on
a flatbed maybe not so bad.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Tony" <none DeleteThis @none.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I would love to find out what's going on. If he has some trick that
> actually gets this to work for real then it makes the problem of settling
> on a flatbed maybe not so bad.

My take would be that if you can live with up to 6x enlargements, you
probably don't need the 9000. But at 8x and above, you need to compare scans
you've done yourself. 16x20s from the 8000 and 6x7 look amazing.

Back when I did it, the 2450 was cheap and bad. I got my money's worth from
it learning how to scan, and then was very happy with the 8000. Nowadays,
the V700/V750 are pricey enough that it's harder to do that. More money
thrown away, and the improvement may not be as much.

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote in message
news:hbadnZtaoJb-YpPanZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Tony" <none.TakeThisOut@none.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, I would love to find out what's going on. If he has some trick that
>> actually gets this to work for real then it makes the problem of settling
>> on a flatbed maybe not so bad.
>
> My take would be that if you can live with up to 6x enlargements, you
> probably don't need the 9000. But at 8x and above, you need to compare
> scans you've done yourself. 16x20s from the 8000 and 6x7 look amazing.
>
> Back when I did it, the 2450 was cheap and bad. I got my money's worth
> from it learning how to scan, and then was very happy with the 8000.
> Nowadays, the V700/V750 are pricey enough that it's harder to do that.
> More money thrown away, and the improvement may not be as much.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

Wonder if the Canon 9900F might be a better way to go. I do not plan on
printing my 35mm work beyond 8x10 or 11x13 or so tops.
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise? 

"Tony" <none.TakeThisOut@none.com> wrote:
>
> Wonder if the Canon 9900F might be a better way to go. I do not plan on
> printing my 35mm work beyond 8x10 or 11x13 or so tops.

I don't know. The Canon scanners get talked about a lot less than the
Epsons. (My best bet is that there isn't any flatbed that'll make a quality
8x10 from 35mm.)

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

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:01:57 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote:


>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.

No, the worst problem is the highly folded optical path
and the tiny, short-focal-length lenses used on flatbeds,
as compared to dedicated 35mm or MF scanners.

Compare the imaging lens on an LS-9000 to the one
on a 4990, or compare the optical paths on the two
-- it's like comparing Palomar to a Questar.

That layer of glass that your negative sits on is really
only a minor part of the problem.

>However, scanning
>at 16-bits/pixel it is easily corrected.

I've worked enough with CCDs and scanner firmware to
hazard a guess that anything beyond 11-12 bits of real
S/N from a CCD is a pipe dream.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise?