New Epson flatbed scanner...

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by Noons, Feb 24, 2006.

  1. Noons

    Colin D Guest

    I recently bought a Canon 9950F scanner, similar specs but 9600 x 4800
    optical res, with dual lamps, one either side of the ccd sensor to
    eliminate shadows from textured copy. Also film, 30 frames of 35mm, 8
    frames of 6x4.5, or 6 frames of 6x6 or 4 of 6x9, and 1 frame of 5x4

    Scan speed 11.1 msec per line. here is a review:

    http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_1.htm

    It appears, by this reviewer's testing, the Canon is a whisker ahead of
    the Epson. Me though, I'm rapt.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Feb 28, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Noons

    Colin D Guest


    Addendum: The 120 film holder will also hold a pano frame of 6 x 17 mm
    in one shot.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Feb 28, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Noons

    Rob Guest

    Do you think that its a 4800dpi optical and the 9500dpi is the tricked
    up bit.(double stepped)
     
    Rob, Feb 28, 2006
    #23
  4. Noons

    Colin D Guest

    The specs say 4800 x 9600 optical, so unless they're stretching the
    truth, it's not double-stepped or interpolated. I tend to believe them,
    though. I can't see Canon laying themselves open to charges of false
    representation.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Feb 28, 2006
    #24
  5. Noons

    rafe b Guest


    Lots of ways to stretch the truth without
    outright lying.

    Let's put it this way. If the Nikon film
    scanners are 4000 dpi, these film/flatbeds
    aren't anywhere close to that in terms of
    sharpness.

    IOW... if you expect a correlation between
    scanner dpi and sharpness, the film/
    flatbed scanners almost always come up
    short, compared to dedicated film scanners.



    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Feb 28, 2006
    #25
  6. Noons

    Don Guest

    Exactly! But by reducing the spatial frequency image data is thrown
    away which was my point.

    Djon's basic premise was that the amount of grain in a scan is a
    function of "skill" which is wrong. Grain is a function (an intrinsic
    part) of film image and reducing grain means reducing image data.

    Don.
     
    Don, Feb 28, 2006
    #26
  7. Noons

    Djon Guest

    "Djon's basic premise was that the amount of grain in a scan is a
    function of "skill" which is wrong. Grain is a function (an intrinsic
    part) of film image and reducing grain means reducing image data."

    No, that intentionally twisted what I said. Film grain is itself a
    function substantially of skill, with or without a scan.

    Scan results are irrelevant without considering reproduced images,
    whether litho, print, or monitor display. And the qualities of all
    those reproductions depend on skill as much as upon technology.

    Photographers make images, not "image data."

    Grain was traditionally addressed in wet darkrooms by grain dissolving
    developers such as D23, and by diffusion enlargers. Honorable,
    beautiful methodology for people who liked grainless images.

    I preferred point light source, or at least optically coated Durst
    condenser enlargers with glass carriers in the wet darkroom. That's
    simply another approach, entailing different/equal skills. My work
    showed sharp grain because I wanted to show it, was skilled enough to
    show it sharply. Ansel's students didn't want to show it, were taught
    how to avoid it: Skills that are just as applicable today, with
    scanners, as they were in Ansel's day.

    Human skills are crucial to photography. Digital technology is not
    crucial to photography. Grain is controllable by skill.
     
    Djon, Feb 28, 2006
    #27
  8. impression that while Epson's marketing claims substantially inflate
    expectations, the scanners themselves are still excellent performers
    and a great value. So if you expect it to outdo your (working) 5400,
    you'll probably be disappointed, but if you expect the best consumer
    flatbed you've seen, there's a good chance you'll be satisfied. :)

    false_dmitrii
     
    false_dmitrii, Feb 28, 2006
    #28
  9. Noons

    Chris Guest

    When the Epson ???? was released they quoted something like 800x1600
    resolution the resolution in which the 1600 was double stepped to appear
    like a 1600 scanner. But still the true resolution was still 800 dpi.
    (There must be an explanation somewhere on the web how they come to
    these figures.)

    I always only accept the smaller number as being the true optical
    resolution. Still 4800dpi is more than enough resolution for 35mm film.

    I very rarely use 4800 (normally 2400/3200) for medium format film
    anyway as I can't see any difference in the final output.
     
    Chris, Mar 1, 2006
    #29
  10. The smaller number is still a funny number. Epson uses an "offset" CCD that
    consists of two half-resolution CCDs offset by 1/2 the pixel pitch. The
    result is that instead of the theoretically optimal point sample, it samples
    each pixel with an area much larger than the pixel size for the nominal
    resolution. The good news is that this should reduce grain aliasing, the bad
    news is that the resolution MTF is abysmally low above 1/2 the nominal
    resolution, so the appearance is a lot more like what you'd expect from a
    point sampling scanner with 1/2 (or less) the resolution.

    The new Epson scanner appears to be playing the same game.

    http://photo-i.co.uk/News/Feb06/Epson_V700_scanner.htm

    (I almost always find that those guys get much better results from Epson
    scanners than anyone else does. Still, it looks pretty good.)

    Also, the 6400 dpi is good through 4x5, so maybe 4x5 users with 64-bit PCs,
    tens of GB of DRAM, and a lot of time will be amuzed...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 1, 2006
    #30
  11. Noons

    rafe b Guest



    I read at least one post on photo.net saying that the
    V700 and V750 use the same CCD chip as the 4990.

    So anyway -- from the dual lens trick, we'd still get
    a 33% increase in linear resolution, if not MTF.

    First person to get their hands on one of these: I
    want a sample for the "scan snippets" site.



    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 1, 2006
    #31
  12. Noons

    Rob Guest

    Yep that could be correct with the quoted resolution. Just knew they
    played with the figures to make them look better than the actual
    straight optical resolution. (Not taking away quality but its the
    consumer deception of how the figures are calculated)
     
    Rob, Mar 1, 2006
    #32
  13. Noons

    Noons Guest

    Perhaps if it is real 4800. Tricked up is not the same.
    Oh, I can! At least with the 4990. When it's working: been in
    warranty repairs at Epson for over a month now, they can't find
    what's wrong with it.

    <venting>
    Came back today, still not working, going back tomorrow: what is
    it with service departments that do NOT test a repair to make sure
    the darn thing is working? One would think that turning the
    blessed thing ON and TRYING a scan would be the very
    least one could test after a repair?
    </venting>
     
    Noons, Mar 1, 2006
    #33
  14. Noons

    Ernst Dinkla Guest

    Rafe,

    It is a 33% on both axis. The 9600 stepping rate over the
    length is in both SPI resolutions a heavy oversampling
    considering the well size. But the longer lens makes the
    scanned area (at one sample) covered by one well 33% smaller
    in both directions so the oversampling with the longer lens is
    reduced compared to the wider lens.

    There's another concept change I think. Unlike the 2450 up to
    4990 models the lid isn't meant to be taken off for reflective
    scans of originals larger than A4. The DOF of the wider lens
    that covers the A4 scan bed no longer needs to have best focus
    at 1 mm above the glass for the film holders and still
    acceptable focus at the scan bed and the 2,5-3 mm higher rim
    around the scan bed. The longer lens takes care of the film
    holders and will have less DOF. The wider lens will focus on
    the scan bed and will have less DOF too. The scanning of
    originals larger than A4 is sacrificed for that with less
    sharpness.

    The matrix CCD and the over-sampling still requires sharpening
    but less than with the lens system used on the older models.

    I'm not surprised that photo-i gets so excited and I expect
    more than the 33% quality gain.

    Ernst
    --
    Ernst Dinkla


    www.pigment-print.com
    ( unvollendet )
     
    Ernst Dinkla, Mar 1, 2006
    #34
  15. Noons

    rafe b Guest


    The snippets now showing at photo-i don't tell us very
    much, since we don't know the actual film areas involved
    in the hi-res samples.

    Have you ever seen the lens in one of these film/
    flatbed scanners? Have you ever looked at the lens
    in an LS-8000/9000?

    I really know very little about optics, and am
    seriously puzzled at the complexity of the Coolscan
    lens. According to Nikon, it has 14 elements in
    six groups, and six of those 14 elements use ED glass.

    Why? I mean, this is probably more sophisticated
    than any *camera* lens I own.

    In any case I can assure you that the lenses in the
    Epson 700/750 are nothing like this. Also, in the
    Epson, there are probably several mirrors in the
    path between the film and the imaging lens. Those
    extra reflections can't help the image quality.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 1, 2006
    #35
  16. Noons

    Ernst Dinkla Guest

    Rafe:

    Yes, I have seen the lens assembly in my Nikon 8000.
    Impressive lens. One mirror.

    The Epsons have a different concept and the lenses are not in
    competition with the Nikon lens. The use of the Matrix CCD +
    over-sampling + a lot of light, is another route. It would
    work with a pinhole lens if needed. I have wondered if they
    use the lens at diffraction to get the DOF needed, the wide
    angle covered, the light fall off compensated and keeping good
    geometry. You need sharpening at the end with all the
    ingredients of that concept. Now they emphasise in the V
    models the higher speed of the lens so I think they went for
    more sharpness and less DOF. At least for the longer lens.

    The Nikon uses it rows of CCDs for speed, the light is reduced
    if compared to the Epson and the sharpness of the scan is
    right there after the scan. There's no quality loss if only
    one row of the linear CCD is used. With the 8000 there's even
    less quality with all the CCD rows in action. Multi-sampling
    not counted.

    There is a picture of the Epson lenses at the Japanese pages:
    http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/colorio/scanner/gtx900/technology.htm

    I expect that the Nikon 8000/9000 still beats the Epson V750-M
    Pro in MF and 35 mm quality but the Nikon doesn't scan 4x5 and
    panorama sizes (and possibly 5x7's) at 3000 PPI, doesn't do
    reflective A4 and 8x10 film at 2000 PPI, doesn't come with wet
    mount carriers from the factory.

    The first German magazine tests of this scanner will tell
    more. Photo-i is always fast but not very consistent in its
    testing and it is also very manufacturer friendly. ISO
    standards tell more.

    On the test crops:
    Of the crane there is a full size pic in the 4990 review. It
    is a pity that he didn't use the same crop.


    Ernst

    --
    Ernst Dinkla


    www.pigment-print.com
    ( unvollendet )
     
    Ernst Dinkla, Mar 1, 2006
    #36
  17. Noons

    rafe b Guest


    I was actually impressed at the degree of attention
    and technical detail given by Epson on the Epson-
    Japan website. Eg., showing the lens arrangement,
    down to elements and groups. Maybe that's a good omen.

    Another good omen is their specific references to
    wet-mounting. Unless Epson is just being devious
    and cynical.

    I can tell you that a "typical" flatbed scanner
    has a lens on the order or 20 mm f/8 or so, and
    that even the 4990 is probably not much better
    than this. By comparison: the MF Coolscans use
    a lens that's around 75mm f/4.

    So, we'll just have to wait and see. If nothing
    else, it's comforting that Epson still has not
    given up film, and (most surprisingly) on medium-
    and large-format film.

    Apparently they've noticed a "hole" in the market
    and decided to address it. I only wish Nikon would
    try to compete in that same niche.

    If it turns out that the new Epsons really offer
    a significant upgrade to the 4990, I will probably
    buy one. Even at $500 or $750, these are still
    in what I'd call the "dirt cheap" category, for
    a MF or LF film scanner.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 1, 2006
    #37
  18. Noons

    Ernst Dinkla Guest

    There have been lens drawings on Epson's site for the older
    models. There's some difference visible between the lenses on
    the Japanese V700 site and Norman Koren's 2450 and up pages.

    Ernst


    --

    --
    Ernst Dinkla


    www.pigment-print.com
    ( unvollendet )
     
    Ernst Dinkla, Mar 1, 2006
    #38
  19. Would be interesting.

    It would also help if that person could scan a Slanted Edge test
    object, such as a razor blade mounted in a 35mm slidemount at a slant
    of approx. 5-6 degrees (90 degree rotation for horizontal and vertical
    scan resolution). I'm offering to quantify the effective limiting
    resolution as can be deducted from an MTF curve that's calculated from
    a crop of the slanted edge.

    That would take a lot of speculation out of the discussions...

    If that person happens to be located in the (central portion of)
    Netherlands, we could use my Stouffer T4110 step wedge to test the
    claimed 4.0 dynamic range, and improve the MTF result's accuracy.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Mar 1, 2006
    #39
  20. "rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
    SNIP
    The main design problems are; Flat plane projection, reduction of
    aberrations, and (presumably) large physical aperture to reduce
    exposure time. The tolerances are small and the projection result is
    'magnified' by the fine sampling by the sensor, so there are many lens
    elements needed to reduce small amounts of residual aberrations from
    preceding lens elements.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Mar 1, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.