Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LS5000 vs V750 Pro 35mm Scans  (Read 13017 times)
mcmorrison
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« on: November 10, 2007, 11:23:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

I am wondering how scans of 35mm slides and other transparencies on the Epson V750 Pro scanner compare to those made on the Nikon LS5000. My questions are focused on issues of ghosting (at high contrast margins), shadow detail, sharpness, and speed, but other experiences are also welcomed!

Many Thanks,

Michael Morrison
Logged
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 553



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2007, 07:27:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is a comparison review, Epson V-750 vs Nikon LS9000:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interacti...V750/page_5.htm
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
mcmorrison
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2007, 11:37:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello Jerry,

Thanks! The review is helpful!

Best Regards,

Michael
Logged
Doug Fisher
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2007, 12:53:22 PM »
ReplyReply

If you goal is just scanning 35 mm, then the 5000 is the way to go.  The flatbeds produce OK 35 mm scans if the user has good scanning an post processing skills, plus it allows you to do multiple film formats, but the dedicated film scanner is still the way to go if you are only needing to scan 35 mm.

Doug
Logged

StephaneB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2007, 05:21:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi

I just posted an article  about this on y blog.
Logged


Stéphane

My Webpage

jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 553



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2007, 06:17:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi

I just posted an article  about this on y blog.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi StepaneB,

I just read your article and while I am not familiar with Vuescan software, you may have missed the fact that the V-750 is a two lens system. I am not sure that scanning at 3200dpi with Vuescan engages the high resolution lens that could improve your scan results. The High resolution lens is engaged when you scan using the negative holder at resolutions above 4800 dpi.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 06:21:32 PM by jerryrock » Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
MarcRochkind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2007, 11:45:58 PM »
ReplyReply

The review at www.photo-i.co.uk speaks highly of the Epson and even says it's close to the Nikon 9000, but only after much horsing around with the flim-holder height to get the focus right. Same with other reviews. If you get it right, you're OK; if you don't, it won't work. Third party outfits sell fancier holders with variable height adjusters, along with instructions about how to play with the height until it's right. And then the recommendation to readjust it from time to time.

To my way of thinking, this is unacceptable. The reality is that the Epson can't focus, and neither are manufacturing tolerances consistent enough to make a fixed focus work. So, the user has to experiment.

For me, the $1000 or so savings over a true film scanner that can focus isn't worth it. I find that when I struggle with my tools the pleasure isn't there, and soon I'm making no pictures.

This is not to say that equipment has to have lots of fancy features. Only that it has to work simply and consistently. On that score the Epsons fail.

So, don't be misled by the scans that can eventually be made on an Epson flatbed. You can push a rock up a hill with your nose, too, but that doesn't mean that's the best way of getting it there.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 11:46:17 PM by MarcRochkind » Logged
StephaneB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2007, 12:36:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi StepaneB,

I just read your article and while I am not familiar with Vuescan software, you may have missed the fact that the V-750 is a two lens system. I am not sure that scanning at 3200dpi with Vuescan engages the high resolution lens that could improve your scan results. The High resolution lens is engaged when you scan using the negative holder at resolutions above 4800 dpi.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm afraid this is not how it works. The double lens system is to provide two planes of focus: one on the glass and one on the film holders.

There is not much to gain by scanning above 3200dpi. Nevertheless, I am going to try and see what it does.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2007, 12:45:53 AM by StephaneB » Logged


Stéphane

My Webpage

StephaneB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2007, 12:45:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The review at www.photo-i.co.uk speaks highly of the Epson and even says it's close to the Nikon 9000, but only after much horsing around with the flim-holder height to get the focus right. Same with other reviews. If you get it right, you're OK; if you don't, it won't work. Third party outfits sell fancier holders with variable height adjusters, along with instructions about how to play with the height until it's right. And then the recommendation to readjust it from time to time.

To my way of thinking, this is unacceptable. The reality is that the Epson can't focus, and neither are manufacturing tolerances consistent enough to make a fixed focus work. So, the user has to experiment.

For me, the $1000 or so savings over a true film scanner that can focus isn't worth it. I find that when I struggle with my tools the pleasure isn't there, and soon I'm making no pictures.

This is not to say that equipment has to have lots of fancy features. Only that it has to work simply and consistently. On that score the Epsons fail.

So, don't be misled by the scans that can eventually be made on an Epson flatbed. You can push a rock up a hill with your nose, too, but that doesn't mean that's the best way of getting it there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Marc, if what you're trying to say is that productivity is the Epson weakness, you're right, of course. And that's exactly my point. For low volume and budget, a V750 can give really good results. A Nikon 9000 is not flawless either and its cost being dangerously close to a Canon 5D or Nikon D300 can raise other questions.

If the scanner price was not an object, I'd go for an Hasselblad Flextight  

Lack of focusing is the Epson's main flaw. On the other hand the focusing work takes about 20 minutes and in my experience it remains stable.
Logged


Stéphane

My Webpage

bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2007, 08:26:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hello,

I am wondering how scans of 35mm slides and other transparencies on the Epson V750 Pro scanner compare to those made on the Nikon LS5000. My questions are focused on issues of ghosting (at high contrast margins), shadow detail, sharpness, and speed, but other experiences are also welcomed!

Many Thanks,

Michael Morrison
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I own both of the scanners in question. The Epson is OK for the larger formats. I was very lucky and got one that the focus was spot on (a rare event as I understand) and it's used to scan sheet film (4x5). For large output, I would recomment a drum scan from a competent service.

The Epson is capable of getting to 2400 dpi (maybe a little less), above that there is no improvement, only larger file size.

The Nikon 5000 is capable of getting to the 4000 dpi spec and is a fine scanner for the price. I went through a number of scanners before settling on the Nikon. The Minolta was a disaster and i returned 3 to the store before switching to the NS5000.

Now I'd love to have a Creo IQ3, but the price is more than O can justify

Been happy ever since.

Bob
Logged
StephaneB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2007, 05:18:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi StepaneB,

I just read your article and while I am not familiar with Vuescan software, you may have missed the fact that the V-750 is a two lens system. I am not sure that scanning at 3200dpi with Vuescan engages the high resolution lens that could improve your scan results. The High resolution lens is engaged when you scan using the negative holder at resolutions above 4800 dpi.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, I tried and published the results. In a word, 2400dpi seems to be indeed the optimum. There is no benefit to going higher.
Logged


Stéphane

My Webpage

capital
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2007, 09:26:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hello,

I am wondering how scans of 35mm slides and other transparencies on the Epson V750 Pro scanner compare to those made on the Nikon LS5000. My questions are focused on issues of ghosting (at high contrast margins), shadow detail, sharpness, and speed, but other experiences are also welcomed!

Many Thanks,

Michael Morrison
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I purchased a Nikon Coolscan 5000 to scan my 35mm slides. I am really not satisfied with its ability to scan slides, specifically those that are high in contrast. A highly undesirable haloing or ghost image manifests itself perpendicular to the direction of travel of the scanner in the areas of higher contrast.

I contacted Nikon about this and they say that the behavior is normal, which I find hard to understand, given that it is marketed for its ability to render tones well.

I had gone to a local lab who has a Coolscan 5000, and their scanner exhibits the same issue, so I believe the issue is systemic.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2007, 09:27:54 PM by capital » Logged
spidermike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2007, 05:33:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I am also looking at getting a scanner to scan in a few hundred slides from my two years travelling - my choice would be the LS50 or the Epson V700/750.
One advantage I see of the Epson is that it can scan up to 12 slides (35mm) in one go which is a better throughput than the Nikon. And as I understand it, the next step up for the Nikon you have to buy the magazine accessory which costs a couple of hundred pounds - this (to my mind) makes the Epson better value for money.

Any comments or advice on this?
Logged
StephaneB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2007, 11:34:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am also looking at getting a scanner to scan in a few hundred slides from my two years travelling - my choice would be the LS50 or the Epson V700/750.
One advantage I see of the Epson is that it can scan up to 12 slides (35mm) in one go which is a better throughput than the Nikon. And as I understand it, the next step up for the Nikon you have to buy the magazine accessory which costs a couple of hundred pounds - this (to my mind) makes the Epson better value for money.

Any comments or advice on this?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes. The accessory you mention is only available for the LS-5000. It does not help on the value side. However, I am not sure what I found about B&W negatives stands for slides batch processing. Other factors will come into play:

- slides tax much more the scanner's dynamic range and I would expect the LS-5000 to be superior on that front.

- mounted slides present different curvatures and different mounts have different thickness. This can require a refocus for each slide, which rules out fixed focus scanners for that kind of job.

Stephane

[a href=\"http://gallery.lumieredargent.com]http://gallery.lumieredargent.com[/url]
Logged


Stéphane

My Webpage

N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 291


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2007, 03:16:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I am wondering how scans of 35mm slides and other transparencies on the Epson V750 Pro scanner compare to those made on the Nikon LS5000. My questions are focused on issues of ghosting (at high contrast margins), shadow detail, sharpness, and speed, but other experiences are also welcomed!

Many Thanks,

Michael Morrison
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

Michael,

I have owned various Nikon and an Imacon scanners. For 35mm slide film scanning I found the Epson V750 poor in comparison to my Nikon 5000. The V750 is cheap for a pro labelled scanner - you get what you pay for. I spent many hours trying to get the best performance out of the Epson V750 Pro scanner. Using various tray height adjustments and different manufacturers mounts (including pin registered types) the scans were no where near as sharp as the Nikon LS 5000. I owned a very sophisticated oil based 35mm ACT duping machine (sadly went to the tip!). From my extensive experience of immersing slides in oil I would expect Epson's oil mounting system to provide a 'slight' apparent edge in sharpness (probably micro contrast in reality), and be able to hide some minor defects such as feint scratches in comparison to dry scanning. The UK version of the Epson V750 didn't include the oil based tray so I didn't have a chance to test it.

The Espon 750 Pro has a serious problem with high contrast slides; especially yellow against black. The 35mm outer film holders result in severe blooming - top left position triple ghosting appears to the left; top right tray position triple ghosting appear to the right. The centre tray positions result in blooming (but not triple ghosting) that is slightly worse than the Nikon 5000. I reported the problem to Epson but it fell on deaf ears. Epson said that they were not aware of the issue, even though I reported it twice and sent sample images to highlight the problem. The replacement scanner suffered from identical problems. It is true to say that you will not see this with all types of images but it is unacceptable. Adding sharpening to make up for poor sharpness, as some reviewers have suggested, is not my idea of quality - you can't sharpen fine detail the scanner has failed to record! I returned the replacement V750 for a full refund.

If you apply ICE and multiple sample scanning, even low doses, forget the Epson as its painfully slow. On one occasion I drove down to the shops, and back (over 1 hour) and the scanner was still working away on the same 35mm image - in comparison the Nikon takes around 2 minutes per scan with ICE and Silverfast's MS (multi sampling). Whilst ICE technology is not perfect in any scanner the V750 caused more errors than the Nikon LS 5000, some ugly botched repairs. The benefit of the V750 is being able to load 12 slides and leave it running - however I can scan at least three times more slides in the same amount of time with the Nikon LS 5000 and to better quality standards, except that I have to spoon feed it of course.

For the best sharpness/resolution, the secret with scanners using AF systems is not to trust them and override the auto AF system by manually activating AF software options and repeating the AF procedure - similar to stabbing the AF button twice on a camera to make sure that the AF system has hit home.

Some users have suggested that the Epson V750 is a match for drum scanners, for 35mm it doesn't come close my LS5000, let alone a drum scan. An unintentional gain from the V750's softness, in comparison to Nikon LS series scanners, is less retouching, and less grain, but the downside is less resolution - grain can always be removed with high quality software such as Noise Ninja. The Nikon 5000 and 9000 employ completely different light sources, the 5000 a direct light source that picks up every defect and the Nikon LS 9000 a softer light source that is piped in from the side (not directly in line with the optics) and is therefore much kinder to damaged slides - I thoroughly tested my LS8000 (same light source as 9000) against my 5000. The LS8000 is sharper than the Espon V750 Pro but not quite as sharp as the Nikon LS 5000.

See attached the sample images that I fortunately still have kicking around. Please ignore the quality of the scans as I have trashed the majority of the Epson 750 tests, they are only intended as a guide to sharpness and the V750's ghosting errors - the image has been lightened to highlight the ghosting defect. I accept that I could make the ghosting disappear with a curves move.

Although the Nikon enlargement, of the golfers eye wasn't with ICE and the Epson used the lowest ICE setting, the scans are still representative of the difference in sharpness between the scanners. Two of images of the female (100% crops) didn't use ICE settings on either the Epson V750 or Nikon LS 5000 (Nikon version was auto AF). The other LS 5000 scan was focused using Silverfasts manual AF option (twice over) with ICE on its lowest setting, it is sharper than the auto AF Nikon without ICE.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 07:34:38 AM by Nick Walker » Logged

capital
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2007, 03:49:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I have attached an example in which the LS5000 / Super Coolscan 5000 erroneously introduces a halo.
[attachment=4442:attachment]

See the dark stalk, where the light thorn has a haloing / ghost image introduced.

See here:
[attachment=4443:attachment]


This was obviously introduced by the scanner, because if the same slide is reinserted so that is now rotated 90 degrees, the scanned image does not show the haloing/ ghosting in the same area.

See here:
[attachment=4444:attachment]
« Last Edit: December 28, 2007, 03:49:58 PM by capital » Logged
WombatHorror
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2010, 09:31:44 PM »
ReplyReply

this new thread has some 9000 vs. V comparisons:


It seems only the 9000 avoids flaring. It doesn't go as crazy with over-emphasizing grain or defects either.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45457.0
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad