What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Which scanner for MF would you recommend

I made a test.
I scanned the same image size with 200 dpi and 100 dpi.
The print size from dpi is the same, but resolution is other.

I see the difference also by color and Bit rate per pixel.
Also lets say more dpi (by scan) serves better quality and higher resolution. Is it correct?

Please can you explain me which print size in best possible quality can I get with 6x6cm HB photo with scanner e.g. Canon V500 - max. dpi 6400?
I would like to know what is the maximum native print size medium format.

Is the quality limited by the dpi resolution of the scanner?
I think that print size is unlimited but the quality depends on dpi (scanner).

Thank you for short explanation.

33918.jpg
 
THIS IS NOT ABOUT SCAN - SORRY

Q.G. de Bakker (Qnu) wrote on October 26:

' 2007 - 9:46 pm,When this happens (and when this is the only time you ever get to deal with colour temperature) it is easy to start associating (too) high colour temperatures with too red images.
But what you are seeing is not colour temperature itself, but the result of wrongly compensating (or overcompensating) for a colour temperature that is assumed to be something it is not.
High colour temperature still means lots of blue, low colour temperatures still means lots of red. '
Click to expand...

Thank you so much Qnu - this is the kernel for me.
I had words with my photo buddy I said him what I have read here before also corectly blue - high, red low.
He had also right because he said: If I need to correct the color of my image and WB is not good - image too blue I must go high - bring warm to have it more red.

In this case it means correction -> higher number more red.
On this picture is the number 5200 value in Kelvin but as I wrote higher value makes more red.

33921.jpg
 
Jan,

> Also lets say more dpi (by scan) serves better quality and
> higher resolution. Is it correct?

Scanning at the optical resolution of the scanner will typically give the best results. The Epson V500 claims to have an optical resolution of 6400PPI. That's pretty impressive if it can deliver that resolution cleanly.

> Is the quality limited by the dpi resolution of the scanner?

To a degree. (but again, scanners do not scan dots, they scan pixels or s&les...so PPI or SPI for a scanner) But, like a digital camera, the resolution is only part of the equation. Comparing two 8MP cameras gives vastly differing results. There is a matter of image quality. Different scanners use different optics, and have different electronics, so the results of the scan quality will vary.

A dedicated film scanner of 4000PPI will probably give you a better scan than a flatbed will at 6400PPI. So, a higher PPI scan doesn't necessarily mean a better quality image.

What works for someone may not work for you, so I strongly encourage you to experiment on your own.

What will you be printing to?

Regards,

Austin
 
Jan,

Yes.
When you set a higher colour temperature (more blue), the software will start shifting the balance to red (minus blue), to keep/make the image neutral.
So a shift of the slider towards higher colour temperatures tells the software to correct more. The more you shift it towards the blue end = higher temperatures, the more it will shift the image towards the opposite end (the red end = lower temperatures).

What you are not (!) doing is shift the colour temperature (!) towards the high end. You're just instructing the software to correct as if the colour temperature would be/were higher.

Imagine a sound machine (CD player, iPod) that has instead of a volume knob, a slider with a scale that says "loud" and "soft".
When the music is too loud, you slide the thing towards "loud" and the volume level is reduced.

Silly, but that's what this correction thingy does: you tell it how it is, and it does its best to make things as they should be.
You do not instruct it to do something, you tell it how things are. And since it knows you want it to be neither loud nor soft, but perfect, it starts reducing the volume when you say it is loud.

That does not mean that, because you reduce the volume by telling the player the music is loud, that reducing the volume of the music is making it louder, does it?
wink.gif


"correction -> higher number more red"
= higher number -> need more red to push it towards desired middle number.
 
Thanks for the very helpful explanations, Austin and QG.

The question of DPI v. PPI is confusing and it does not appear to be helped by the manufacturers.

My new Epson V500 flatbed scanner specifically refers to dpi both on the label stuck on the top cover (6400 dpi) and in the software.

The software allows scanning from 50 to 12800(!) dpi and does not mention ppi. From what you say Austin, it seems as though the 6400 PPI is the native resolution and the one to use. It does produce huge files at this resolution though. I have Genuine Fractals and I have found in the past that scanning at a high resolution and then reducing in GF produces a good looking result.

I also have a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400. Again, this refers to resolution, both input and output, in the software as being in dpi. The Elite 5400 allows input resolution from 540 to 5400 dpi. Since the machine is called a 5400, I assume that the native resolution is 5400.

In fact I have just checked the manual again and it states among the specifications: "Optical input resolution: 5400 dpi" and "Image sensor: 3-line primary-color CCD with 5300 pixels/line". So there is a reference to pixels in the second quote.

Here is an extract from the manual:

"A resolution of 350 dpi, which is commonly used in commercial printing, means that an area of one square inch would use 122,500 pixels. The larger the resolution, the
greater the detail in the image. However, as the resolution increases, so does the file size.
The image resolution depends on the resolution of the output device. A printer with a resolution of
150 dpi will not be able to print a 300 dpi file any better than a 150 dpi file; the 300 dpi file will just
be four-times larger. Once the output resolution is determined, the input resolution can be calculated
from the magnification needed to match the output.
For ex&le, to make a 144 mm x 96 mm print at a resolution of 150 dpi from 35mm film (image
size: 36mm x 24mm), the magnification can be calculated by dividing the print dimensions by the
film dimensions: 96 mm / 24 mm = 4 times. The input resolution can then be determined from the
magnification factor: 150 dpi X 4 = 600 dpi."

The illustrations which accompany it would not copy unfortunately.

I think that the sentence I have highlighted in bold is telling in that it refers to both dots and pixels and confirms that it is pixels per square inch but they still use the phrase "dpi".

I am sorry that this is so long but it does maybe illustrate why we non experts (and for myself -not very tech) have problems.

It looks like the manufacturers take the line of least resistance but they are just adding to the confusion and need to get their act together.

Best wishes,
John
 
John

We had a discussion about this topic some time ago .
Q.G. supplied some good formulas . I can not find that topic again . Pherhaps Q.G. can remember and show us the thread . I would be interested in that thread as well .

Jürgen
 
John

We had a discussion about this topic some time ago .
Q.G. supplied some good formulas . I can not find that topic again . Pherhaps Q.G. can remember and show us the thread . I would be interested in that thread as well .

Jürgen
 
Hi John,

> The question of DPI v. PPI is confusing and it does not appear to be > helped by the manufacturers.

It shouldn't be that confusing, and you are correct, the marketing people (who create anything a consumer would see) are the ones primarily responsible for misusing terminology. The good news is, as long as everyone is on the same page we can still understand when talking about this subject from a high level.

I do believe that when talking about more technical aspects of the flow, from scanner to printer, it's important to understand the dot that the printer prints (in the case of a halftone printer) is NOT the same as the "dot" that the scanners scan, as there is a conversion at that point from pixels to dots, and mixing up the terms in this case causes confusion. So, IMO, keeping a consistent terminology throughout the process from scanner to printer helps clarify and comprehend the process.

> The software allows scanning from 50 to 12800(!) dpi...

That's what I was saying about flatbeds...they tend to allow a 2x over the native resolution. Film scanners I've used/designed/seen don't. It came from a time when flatbeds were much lower resolution, and it made them seem like they were higher. Marketing specsmanship.

> From what you say Austin, it seems as though the 6400 PPI > is the native resolution and the one to use.

That is my understanding from their spec sheet, that 6400 is the native optical resolution. I'd recommend scanning at that.

> It looks like the manufacturers take the line of least resistance but > they are just adding to the confusion and need to get their act > together.

They never will get their act together. Most people, especially the marketing departments, understand little about the significance of the difference (nor do they care about what you output to). And in all reality, it means little to the avarage consumer. If everyone currently specifies DPI (when they mean PPI or SPI, which is even more technically correct, but more technical...so less consumer friendly) then all new entries into the market will as well. They are competing...and they compete on the same spec, terminologically correct or not.

Another even more significant source of misinformation is pixel depth/max density. Most scanner manufacturers simply cite their datapath of 16 bits or a D of 4.8, when the scanner doesn't even come close. 12-14 bits at best. Some scanner group came up with a real way of specifying this spec, by actual testing...but few to none have adopted it since it would mean they would be specifying lower numbers for the same performance as other manufacturers who are specifying higher numbers.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Austin,

Thanks for your very helpful reply. It seems a sad state of affairs that marketing spiel rules to such an extent. It must be very frustrating for you who probably has to grit your teeth every time you see what has been put out, even while accepting the inevitable.

I can understand what you are saying though and the impossibility of getting the marketeers who write the blurb to care about whether it is right beyond their priority of achieving sales - which is of course also all important.

I also understand that it will only be a comparatively few of us who want to have it right and know what it means and how it works. Most people will simply want to press a button and have a good result. I can well identify with that but I like things to be right and I don't think it would do any harm to specify ppi rather than dpi where appropriate, with an explanatory note in the manual. Users might even begin to be educated about it despite years of the wrong terminology having been used. Even if they weren't, it wouldn't really matter that the scanner software now suddenly referred to ppi. Spi is probably a step to far.

I shall now scan at the native resolutions and ignore the other ones. The only trouble is the long scanning times and the huge files and the computer taking yonks to open them.

As for the loose 16 bit and D max interpretations, perhaps I was naive ever to expect that they might be correct, but what a shame. Still as long as the machines work as they are supposed to, perhaps it does not in the long run matter and maybe that is all we can expect.

Best wishes,

John
 
Hi Jan,

I just thought I'd let you know in case you haven't seen it already that in Amateur Photographer of which I received my weekly copy today there was test of the V500. AP is a very well respected weekly photo magazine in the UK.

They gave it 4 out of 5 stars and summed up their findings as follows:

"The days when scanners were heavy, ugly, grey boxes are long gone and the Epson Perfection V500 Photo is positively stylish. Fortunately, it is an excellent scanner, too, and fulfils its function as a bridge between the budget V350 and the 'professional' V750 extremely well. Although the resolution increase from 4800 to 6400ppi is unlikely to make much of a diffeence to the average home user, the vastly superior film holders alone are a good reason for choosing the V500 over the V350. Add to this much quicker operation Digital ICE and the facility to scan medium-format and panoramic film, and it is clear why the V500 costs around £100 more than the V350.
Serious film enthusiasts will still get more out the V750 with the optional fluid mount, or even a dedicated film scanner, but as a hybrid model for the home user the V500 is elegant, effective and very good value for money. I am surprised that Epson's Scan Utility takes such a matronly attitude to high-resolution scans of prints, but how many photographers need to make 10 inch plus prints at 300ppi? I know I don't."

The matronly comment was a reference to the software not allowing a scan of a 6x4 inch print at a higher s&ling resolution than 2400ppi.

Sounds good and so far I have found it good although I am still working my way around the software.

I am looking forward to trying scanning of some of panoramic slides and negatives.

One of the reasons I didn't go for the V750 was that the best scans from it are apparently obtained using the fluid mount and I couldn't be bothered with such hassle and it would take so long if you have many scans to do.

I think though that I still aspire to the Nikon Coolscan 9000ED when (if ever
sad.gif
) I can afford it.

Hope that helps.

Austin,

I was pleased to see that the tester referred to ppi appropriately and not dpi. Mind you I would expect that from AP.

Regards,

John
 
Hi Jan,

I think that's about what it costs in the UK too for having a scan done. I agree that that is a good alternative for special photos as it saves the expense of buying an expensive scanner and the hassle and time spent doing the job when we could be out photographing; also a professional who scans for a living should do a much better job.

The downsides as I see them are the trouble of packing up and posting the pictures off (there is no-one in our area who can do large scans at a reasonable cost), the risk of loss in the post and the risk of damage in the hands of the persion doing the scanning to our irreplaceable originals. I have found a couple of professional scanning firms that I thought I might try but I thought I would scan the pictures myself first with the V500 to be on the safe side, at least until I have gained confidence with them.

Cheers,
John
 
$9. USD for what resolution scan, and on what equipment? A high resolution professional drum scan in the US can be 10X that much.

Many of the flatbeds do a respectable job. None of them are great including the Epson 750V Pro (which I have and use for less demanding work, but never for 35mm, and rarely for 645).

Mostly use a flatbed for scanning existing silver prints, proofing, and creating quick internet images from film shots. Anything more than that and you are settling for less than what your Hasselblad kit and film is capable of.

Yes, some professional scan people are very good. However, many are not any better at it than you'd be with some practice. Once you set your preferences and profiles for what films you favor, and how you tend to shoot them, it's a lot faster, easier, and with neg film most certainly more interpretive because it's your work, not theirs.

If scanning is a hassle in terms of the time it takes, get more RAM, it's cheap. Then you can do other work while the scanner is working in the background ... or goof off on the internet : -)

While I no longer own the Minolta MultiPro MF scanner, scans from it are still far better than anything I can get from the Epson 750V. I sold that scanner a year ago for $900. and it's still going strong. It's discontinued but still serviced. It's occasionally available for sale. Other than that I'd recommend the Nikon MF dedicated scanner ... or for more cash, a smaller refurbished Imacon.

I bit the bullet and made a commitment to film long term by securing a Imacon 949 when they went on sale to blow them out of inventory ... replaced by the Hasselblad badged units. Specs are the same, just the cosmetics and name changed. In turn, it out does anything I was ever able to get from the Minolta MultiPro ... so I ended up re-scanning most of my negs.
 
I bought a Minolta Multipro second-hand a couple of years ago. I get very good scans from it (I prefer them to what I got from a Nikon 4000ED on 35mm, and they scan my MF trannies and negs), and the glass holder comes with the scanner. I make prints upto 22x17 (epson3800) and for me a print from a scanned 6x6 or 6x7 neg is preferable to one from my 10meg digital camera due to the delicacy in the tones, the colour gradation, and the resolution. I think the Minolta is a good deal if you can find one.

Marc I'm interested in your experience of the differences between the Minolta and the Imacon 949, how would you characterise them?

Nik
 
Hi Mark,

Here are links to the firms I am considering.

Easyretouch don't seem to have a note of their prices on their website. I did contact them a while ago but have lost their replies. I have written to them again. Applications through the library I use allow a 10% discount. I will let you know when I have a reply.

http://www.easyretouch.co.uk/

I think that R & K Photographic look enticing. They say that they use the Nikon scanner.

http://www.randkphotographic.co.uk/

Regards,

John
 
John Strain (Jsmisc) wrote on November 04:

' 2007 - 10:29 am,The downsides as I see them are the trouble of packing up and posting the pictures off'
Click to expand...

I agree John.
I will do the same, first scan at home with V 500 and than I will give my original negative out of my hand.
Maybe You can show us some ex&le of scan with V500.

Thanks Jan
 
"Marc I'm interested in your experience of the differences between the Minolta and the Imacon 949, how would you characterize them?"

It's something you have to see. My Hasselblad dealer is a shrewd salesman, he loaned me a 848 for a month and we did some side-by-side comparisons ... also printed on a Epson 3800. More of all the things that separated the Minolta scanner from my flatbed. First thing I noticed was the additional clean detail in the shadow areas, and better blue channel rendition.

The 949 was even better than the 848... it has a more diffused light source than the 848 ... similar to the Minolta Multipro alterations some people made to their light source.
www.scanhancer.com

More can be read about that in the link I provided below.

Other differences are: built quality (all metal no plastic), Speed, this is the fastest desktop scanner out there ... up to 200MB a minute @ 16 bit. ... simply amazing. I can hardly get the next shot ready before the previous one is done. Software: Flexcolor has gotten better and better with each upgrade. I haven't read if Hasselblad's new software (Phocus) will support the scanners. Hope so. Film flatness: The virtual drum concept really does work without the dust issues and hassle of glass carriers, or need for liquid mounts (big PITA). Edge to edge sharpness everytime.

The 949 can also be fitted with a multi flex-holder batch unit for production work. I may get this if I revert back to shooting weddings on film. I'm sick of processing 500 digital shots every Sunday, and prefer to let the lab do it ... while just scanning the 40 album selects to be printed afterwards.

Draw back is obviously commercial level cost. About the same as a mid-range MF digital back. But if film is your cup of tea, and you have an archive of a zillion negs/slides or can sell scans then it could be a possibility. If I weren't shooting commercial work that required a MF digital back, I would have stuck with film and a top scanner like this one. The film stuff simply looks better to my eye when printed.

Here's a pretty complete review of the 949 that I found parallels my experiences with it:

http://www.gt-photography.com/articles/Imacon%20949%20Review.pdf

(P.S., can you tell that I love this scanner? )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top