Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson Scan Software  (Read 7439 times)
TonyW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2014, 01:04:15 PM »
ReplyReply

...
One puzzle that's still in the back of my mind is the quality difference between wet mounted scans and dry mounted scans.

Some of the comparison images I've come across on the internet seem to show differences of an order of magnitiude which are very similar to the differences between unsharpened Nikon 8000 scans and unsharpened Epson V700 scans. However, other comments suggests the differences in detail and sharpness are very small and hardly worth the extra trouble that wet mounting involves.
Hi, Ray
I have never tried fluid mounting but it was something I looked into some years ago and my conclusion was based on the opinions of the majority of articles I read was that it should offer benefits.  Certainly it should minimise after work on the scanned image for scratches for instance and could conceivably improve apparent sharpness and contrast.  Are the benefits large enough to warrant the extra steps I do not know?  Like you I have seen some net buzz, good, bad and indifferent.

If I had a better flat bed scanner and was doing a lot of film work  I would have no hesitation in buying the BetterScanning  mounting station and adapting to fluid mount workflow
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/msfluid.html
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/cheapfluidmounting.html

Anyway I think I have found the solutions for you ditch the Epson and Nikon and find a Kodak EverSmart Supreme  Grin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nvXW7ZG2b6o
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2014, 09:35:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, Ray
I have never tried fluid mounting but it was something I looked into some years ago and my conclusion was based on the opinions of the majority of articles I read was that it should offer benefits.  Certainly it should minimise after work on the scanned image for scratches for instance and could conceivably improve apparent sharpness and contrast.  Are the benefits large enough to warrant the extra steps I do not know?  Like you I have seen some net buzz, good, bad and indifferent.

Tony,
I've searched again for the site I recall that had a vivid comparison of the differences between fluid-mount scanning and dry scanning. I've found it. http://www.scanscience.com/index.html
http://www.scanscience.com/files/PL09c.pdf

However, I find it difficult to believe that the differences could be so great. The attached scans were done on the Epson V750. Can we assume there's a little bit of advertising hyperbole taking place here?  Wink

Nevertheless, I think I owe it to myself to explore the benefits of fluid mounting. I wasn't aware that fluid mounting was an option available for the Nikon 8000 ED. Will I be able to resist going through this whole comparison process again, this time using fluid mounting on the two scanners? Someone please dissuade me.  Grin

Logged
TonyW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


« Reply #42 on: January 30, 2014, 05:33:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray,
The difference is quite marked and along similar lines to other claims and comparisons I have seen - well only those on the net!  I feel that there is sufficient positive evidence against the negative (no pun intended!) to say that this method does offer potential quality improvement with the obvious caveat that the original must contain sharpley resolved detail to get the maximum benefit.

Just to throw something else into the pot, there is another method that you may want to consider.  Before digital time most of us had to copy reflective and transmissive media using a film camera, sometimes with sophisticated equipment such as Bowens illumitran or even an inverted enlarger colour head or less sophisticated tape image to a window and shoot it!

Now we have DSLR's with high mega pixel count and excellent macro lenses we can do the same but with a twist to capture the most detail.  Shoot the original using a macro lens in sections and stitch together in PS or other software.  Without even trying this method I am pretty confident that it works very well and with a little practice would become second nature although the time to do each image is a huge downside - perhaps best reserved for the very best of you images?

One example I have seen posted using the simplest of setups:
Comparison of flatbed, drumscan and Canon with macro
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/23/why-you-should-digitize-your-film-using-a-camera-instead-of-a-scanner/

How to
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
Logged
artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280


WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2014, 05:40:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm very mistrustful of this last demonstration. They claim the V700's film-holder height has been calibrated, but I never see such poor results from my V750 using the betterscanning holder. I suspect they are using the OEM holder with its crude three-step height adjustments. Better than nothing, but not by much.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #44 on: January 31, 2014, 07:02:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Now we have DSLR's with high mega pixel count and excellent macro lenses we can do the same but with a twist to capture the most detail.  Shoot the original using a macro lens in sections and stitch together in PS or other software.  Without even trying this method I am pretty confident that it works very well and with a little practice would become second nature although the time to do each image is a huge downside - perhaps best reserved for the very best of you images?

One example I have seen posted using the simplest of setups:
Comparison of flatbed, drumscan and Canon with macro
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/23/why-you-should-digitize-your-film-using-a-camera-instead-of-a-scanner/

How to
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/

Tony,
I'm motivated to try to get the best scanning results from the equipment I already have, but I'm not sure I want to spend more money on additional equipment to achieve what might be only a marginal improvement in the detail that I can already get scanning MF film with my Nikon 8000 ED.

I do have a Nikon D800E DSLR, which I imagine would be able to bring out more detail than the 8000 ED scanner, when using that camera with a 1:1 macro lens on MF film and stitching together a number of images as described in your links. However, I don't have any Nikkor macro lenses. I'd have to buy one. And by far the greater proportion of the old films I have for scanning are 35mm format, so I would need to use a macro lens with extension tubes and/or extender to give me a greater magnification than 1:1, if I wanted to extract the greatest amount of detail from 35mm film through the stitching process.

I'm not sure I want to get involved in such complications, and decisions about which macro lens to buy. I have looked at the option of the Nikon ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter, which seems the easiest option. However, a lot of my old films are negatives. The ES-1 adapter seems to be designed for 35mm positives in a frame. As one reviewer of the ES-1 that I came across mentioned, "Another pain with the ES-1 are the two harsh metal springs depressing the slide to the device, what prevents its use with uncut film, and may even damage your slide. This is really a big, major, crying out loud issue with this device: How in heaven shall we copy uncut film?"


Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #45 on: January 31, 2014, 07:17:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm very mistrustful of this last demonstration. They claim the V700's film-holder height has been calibrated, but I never see such poor results from my V750 using the betterscanning holder. I suspect they are using the OEM holder with its crude three-step height adjustments. Better than nothing, but not by much.

Artobest,
You might be right, but ScanScience do state on their home page, "The optimum focus of V scanners is known to vary so we first determined the optimum elevation for our unit by scanning the new ScanScience target. It turned out to be 2.6 mm, so all scans including the dry scans were run at 2.6 mm. (The negative was very flat so the un-sharpness of the dry scan was due solely to the inadequacies of dry scanning, which throws away much of the quality.)"

Now, according to the Epson V700 scanner guide, the elevation of the Epson film holder without adjusters is 2.5mm, and with adjusters is either 3mm or 3.5mm. There's no 2.6mm option, so I presume they used their own calibrated adapters.

Also, in the ScanScience catalogue and price list specific to the Epson V scanners they state, "Turn Key Kits (TKK) and Supplemental Kits (SK) include a calibrated adapter which is grouped with the calibrated shims to achieve optimum elevation and sharpest focus. With our system there are no screws to turn, or turns to keep track of. "

Now I'm not implying that the ScanScience mounts for the V700 and V750 are better or more accurate than the BetterScanning mounts. How would I know!  For me the issue is whether or not it's going to be worth my trouble getting involved in the complexities and trouble of the fluid-scanning process.

However, it does seem a reasonable assumption that achieving all the conditions of a perfectly flat negative, an optimum elevation for accurate focus, fewer marks and scratches, better tonality and contrast as a result of the fluid, might all add up to a worthwhile improvement that justifies the extra trouble taken. But I'm open to dissuasion.  Grin

Logged
artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280


WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 02, 2014, 09:46:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm sorry, Ray, but those are out-of-focus scans, whatever the blogger says.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #47 on: February 02, 2014, 09:30:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm sorry, Ray, but those are out-of-focus scans, whatever the blogger says.

Artobest,
It certainly looks like it. That is, the dry scan shown on the front page was out-of-focus. This is the sort of thing one expects in advertisements; exaggeration to grab one's attention. However, the additional comparisons in the following section of the site at http://www.scanscience.com/Pages/SampleScans/Scans.html  are much more moderate in their display of differences and therefore more credible.

There's another aspect of fluid mounting which I think could sometimes have benefits. I have a lot of Kodachrome slides in glass mounts. Some years ago when I first began scanning some of these old slides, I was occasionally puzzled why I had been so sloppy in the framing when taking the original shot, sometimes cutting off the hand on an outstretched arm towards the edge of the frame, or someone's foot at the bottom of the frame.

Investigating the matter, I was both surprised and dismayed to discover that the opening in all of my slide mounts, including Kodak cardboard mounts, was smaller than the 35mm format, which should be 24mm x 36mm.

The opening of all my mounts appear to be approximately 22mm x34mm.

Assuming the slide is centrally mounted, that represents a 1mm crop of the image on all four sides. Perhaps not a big deal in most cases, but the attached, unadjusted images show what can happen when the slide is not centrally mounted. One might find that a full 2mm has been cropped off one edge of the image.

I generally don't remove the slide from its mount for scanning purposes, and the glass mounts have the advantage of ensuring the film is flat. I presume the fluid-mount method will not only ensure a totally flat film but will also avoid the cropping which unavoidably takes place with my current method of scanning slides in their mounts.


Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1195



« Reply #48 on: February 03, 2014, 03:37:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I generally don't remove the slide from its mount for scanning purposes, and the glass mounts have the advantage of ensuring the film is flat. I presume the fluid-mount method will not only ensure a totally flat film but will also avoid the cropping which unavoidably takes place with my current method of scanning slides in their mounts.

FYI, I have been using Wess glassless registration slide mounts for scanning.  The plastic mounts tend to both tend to hold the film flatter (there are registration pegs that go into the sproket holes of the film) and have very close to a full frame opening (made possible because of the registration).  http://www.wessmounts.net/id3.html  I was able to buy a box of them direct from the manufacturer.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #49 on: February 03, 2014, 05:52:44 PM »
ReplyReply

.. and have very close to a full frame opening (made possible because of the registration).  http://www.wessmounts.net/id3.html  I was able to buy a box of them direct from the manufacturer.

Thanks for the tip, but just how close to full frame is that opening? I have no trouble getting replacement slide mounts in Australia, if I don't wish to use the glass mounts, or if I want to replace the cardboard mounts from Kodak.

The problem is that all of the slide mounts that I've checked, or have enquired about, seem to have approximately the same opening of 22mm x 34mm. In the specific example I showed above, which was the first time this problem had come to my attention, I transferred the slide from its glass mount to a plain plastic mount with a hinged front section and a few tiny pegs along the two long edges to hold the film in position.

The result was an improvement because at least I was able to centre the film in its holder, but it was still apparent that a degree of cropping was taking place. In order to overcome this, so I could scan the entire scene that I'd captured, I had to trim off a millimeter or so around the 4 edges of the opening of the slide mount, using a Stanley knife. Very tedious!

When we buy a new camera, we are not too pleased if the viewfinder coverage is only 95%. We'd prefer it to be 100%. But supposing a manufacturer were to offer a 35mm DSLR which had a viewfinder coverage of 115.5% with no markings to show the actual size of the image to be captured. There'd be howls of protest, surely.  Grin
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1195



« Reply #50 on: February 04, 2014, 11:04:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the tip, but just how close to full frame is that opening?

Ray, I dug out the electronic calipers and measured the opening, it's 24.5 x 35.9 mm (rounded up to one decimal place), so it does show the full frame.

If I recall the OM series had 97% coverage of the frame, which is just slightly larger than the area of a cardboard mount.  When I switched to the F3 I had to crop in my head to take the mount into account since the viewfinder showed 100% of the frame.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #51 on: February 04, 2014, 07:50:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray, I dug out the electronic calipers and measured the opening, it's 24.5 x 35.9 mm (rounded up to one decimal place), so it does show the full frame.

Alan,
Thanks for taking the trouble to measure those dimensions. 35.9 mm is close enough to full frame. I'm now making inquiries if a particular German company is able to ship a box of these slide mounts to Australia. I've been unable to locate any supplier in Australia.

Best Regards,
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1195



« Reply #52 on: February 04, 2014, 08:33:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray, you can always try emailing the company directly, I think there's a link on the web site, or telephone them.  As I said I bought a box of 100 mounts directly from them (to my suprise), the international shipping would be only a little more complicated than shipping in the US, so you never know.  More expensive, obviously.  Good luck!
Logged

artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280


WWW
« Reply #53 on: February 05, 2014, 07:23:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Artobest,
It certainly looks like it. That is, the dry scan shown on the front page was out-of-focus. This is the sort of thing one expects in advertisements; exaggeration to grab one's attention. However, the additional comparisons in the following section of the site at http://www.scanscience.com/Pages/SampleScans/Scans.html  are much more moderate in their display of differences and therefore more credible.



Ray, as far as I can see those further examples aren't made on Epson V700/750 scanners.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #54 on: February 05, 2014, 06:33:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray, you can always try emailing the company directly, I think there's a link on the web site, or telephone them.  As I said I bought a box of 100 mounts directly from them (to my suprise), the international shipping would be only a little more complicated than shipping in the US, so you never know.  More expensive, obviously.  Good luck!

Have done so. I shall now wait for the best quote. Thanks again.  Smiley
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #55 on: February 05, 2014, 06:42:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray, as far as I can see those further examples aren't made on Epson V700/750 scanners.

Artobest,
It doesn't matter. It is assumed that the benefits of wet-mounting will apply whatever the scanner used. In other words, if one finds that a Nikon 8000 ED at 4000 dpi produces a better dry scan than an Epson V700 dry scan at 6400 dpi, one might find that 8000 ED probably won't produce a better dry scan than a V700 wet scan.

But an 8000 ED wet scan should still be better that a V700 wet scan.

The issue for me is the extra work and stuffing around involved with the fluid-mount process. I'm getting the impression that I'd be turning my work area into a laboratory and slowing down the entire scanning process.

Using the Wess slide mounts with a Nikon ES-1 slide-copying adapter appears as though it could be a much quicker process that might even produce more detailed results, or at least better in some respects, than a wet scan on a dedicated film scanner,  provided one were to use a good macro lens such as the Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8, and a high resolution DSLR such as the Nikon D800E, which also has a dynamic range which is much greater than the DR of positive film, thus ensuring that all the details in the shadows on the slide are retrieved without added noise.
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1195



« Reply #56 on: February 06, 2014, 01:18:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Using the Wess slide mounts with a Nikon ES-1 slide-copying adapter appears as though it could be a much quicker process that might even produce more detailed results, or at least better in some respects, than a wet scan on a dedicated film scanner,  provided one were to use a good macro lens such as the Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8, and a high resolution DSLR such as the Nikon D800E, which also has a dynamic range which is much greater than the DR of positive film, thus ensuring that all the details in the shadows on the slide are retrieved without added noise.

Ray, you may know this, but you will need some extension tubes to extend the ES-1 further from the front of the 60mm (you can get a set of generic threaded extension tubes and use step-up/down rings on the end to hit the correct filter diameter).  The ES-1 is designed to go on the front of the 55mm Micro-Nikkor which has a slightly shorter working distance and the lens assembly is deep set from the filter threads as well.  If you were going to pick up a macro lens for duping, you could check out the 55mm AIS or autofocus 55mm F.28 which should give you about the same quality and cost significantly less.  I find that I can more or less equal the output of a Coolscan V with the ES-1, D800E and 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor.

Or you can go whole hog and use a bellows + slide copy attachment and a dedicated 1:1 macro lens like the Olympus 80mm f4 or Rodenstock Rodagon D 75mm f4 APO, but now you are talking about around $500 US to get into the game.  Plus the Nikon bellows rail is not long enough to dupe slides with a longer than 60mm or so lens, so you need the extension rail which as well as being hard to find is expensive as hell.  I am playing with using this type of setup (using an Olympus auto bellows which has a superior method of incorporating the slide holder and is designed to work with the longer focal lengths, with an Oly to Nikon adapter) to stitch a mini pano of 5 shots at around 1.75:1 but have not yet had time to really get into it. 
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #57 on: February 07, 2014, 03:36:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray, you may know this, but you will need some extension tubes to extend the ES-1 further from the front of the 60mm (you can get a set of generic threaded extension tubes and use step-up/down rings on the end to hit the correct filter diameter).  The ES-1 is designed to go on the front of the 55mm Micro-Nikkor which has a slightly shorter working distance and the lens assembly is deep set from the filter threads as well.  If you were going to pick up a macro lens for duping, you could check out the 55mm AIS or autofocus 55mm F.28 which should give you about the same quality and cost significantly less.  I find that I can more or less equal the output of a Coolscan V with the ES-1, D800E and 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor.

Hi Alan,
As I understand, I don't need an extension tube with a 60mm macro lens on a full-frame DSLR, according to the following website. But I do need a BR-5 adapter ring.  http://www.scantips.com/es-1c.html

The advantage of an extension ring with the 60mm macro, such as the PK-13, is that it would allow me to get a greater magnification than 1:1 and enable me to to make a stitch of a 35mm slide, perhaps doubling the size of the file, and allowing me to extract more detail, if such detail exists on the slide, which is doubtful.

Some years ago when I was using Canon equipment, I bought the EF-S 60/F2.8 macro because it got rave reviews for being ultra sharp. I never used it much. However, whilst searching for it just recently, I discovered I also have a portable transparency viewer, the Visual Plus VP-5050V. I must have bought it about 15 years ago, or more, and forgot that I had it.

This transparency viewer makes it easy for me to experiment with the 60mm macro on my highest resolution Canon DSLR, which is the 15mp 50D. Because the 50D is a cropped format, I'm able to stitch together a couple of shots (or 3 shots with big overlap) to produce a file size of around 190 MB in 16 bit, which is pretty close to that of the Nikon D800.

Using the same slide that I used to compare the Nikon 8000 ED scanner with the Epson V700 flatbed, I've found that the unsharpened stitched image from the 50D is as close as matters to the unsharpened scan from the Nikon 8000 ED.

If one were to put a very fine point on it, comparing 200% crops, the unsharpened 50D stitch, after downsampling to the Nikon 8000 ED file size, is a tad sharper.

Since this stitched 50D image is indicative of the sort of quality I could expect from the D800E, I'm wondering if it is worth splashing out $500 on a Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8G ED. The advantage should be, I will be able get the same quality that the 8000 ED scanner produces, but with a single click; no need to stitch.

Furthermore, the absence of an AA filter on the 800E might produces results at 200% which are two tads sharper.  Cheesy

Another consideration is the significantly higher DR of the D800, compared with the Canon 50D. The DR of slides is not that great, maybe about 6 stops. However, the DR of B&W negatives can be as high as 11 stops. Using my 50D to photograph such B&W negatives would not only require stitching, to get the best quality, but also exposure bracketing. I think I've just talked my self into getting a Micro-Nikkor 60mm/2.8.  Grin


Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1195



« Reply #58 on: February 07, 2014, 09:06:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray, I meant an extension tube between the front of the lens and the ES-1 to achieve the right slide to lens working distance, as you said, the 60mm (like the autofocus 55mm) will get to 1:1 without lens-camera extension tube. (Edit: I am talking about lens in non-reversed position; looks like the graphic is talking about reversing ... Which might end up getting you better corner performance assuming that the 60 is optimized for less than 1:1)
« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 09:11:04 AM by AFairley » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #59 on: February 07, 2014, 03:48:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray, I meant an extension tube between the front of the lens and the ES-1 to achieve the right slide to lens working distance, as you said, the 60mm (like the autofocus 55mm) will get to 1:1 without lens-camera extension tube. (Edit: I am talking about lens in non-reversed position; looks like the graphic is talking about reversing ... Which might end up getting you better corner performance assuming that the 60 is optimized for less than 1:1)

Alan,
You've got me a bit of confused here.  Smiley

As I understand, an extension tube or ring attaches to the camera body. The term ring in this context is misleading. However, a reversing ring, such as the BR-2A, must have a thread in order for the lens to be attached to the camera in reverse position. An extension tube doesn't have a thread.

As I understand again, the front filter of the Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8 lens is 62mm. However, the thread on the ES-1 slide copying adapter, which attaches to the front of the lens like a filter, is only 55mm. I would therefore need an adapter ring to step down from the 62mm thread to a 55mm thread. Such an adapter is the BR-5.

I understand also from the information provided at http://www.scantips.com/es-1c.html  that I should be able to use the ES-1 with the Micro-Nikkor 60mm lens fitted in the normal position, without extension tubes, provided the lens is attached to an FX camera. But I would need the BR-5 adapter ring to screw the ES-1 to the 62mm filter thread of the lens. Is this not correct?

If I were to use an extension tube, such as the PK-13, I would increase the lens magnification ratio to 1.6. Without extension tube, the maximum magnification would be 1:1, which would be sufficient  to capture a 36mp image of a 35mm slide using the D800. Is this not correct?
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad