I didn't use a resolution chart I find that as long as the height adjustment is done accurately, the scanner is a very good performer. That said, by no means is the true resolving power of the scanner output anywhere near a true ppi. Hey OP Wouldn't that help you? It sits in my closet unused call me lazy. Here is a scan from my deck overlooking the Olympic Mountains. I was testing a new lens for my Linhof. I did a mild bit of USM as I would for a print this size. The full image is the full frame of the 4x5 the black part on the left top is my roof To get an idea as to what it would look like as a real 40" print Without reduction, the crops represent about a 12 foot wide print.
Try that with a DSLR. Not bad for a flatbed. Now Springbok, as I know you don't own a V, by the tone of your post, it appears you were trolling for something Better luck next time! You'll find little difference in larger formats Is it worth the hefty price tag? We take a look at the Cine, the high-end model in this series. The Nikon Z9 is the company's first camera to feature a stacked CMOS sensor, which brings a raft of new features, including blazing speed and autofocus performance to the Z lineup.
Click through for our detailed first impressions of Nikon's latest professional ILC. The Sony a7 IV is the fourth generation of the company's core a7 full-frame mirrorless camera model, and it's the most advanced yet. Click through for an in-depth look at Sony's latest full-frame mirrorless ILC. Nik Silver Efex Pro 3, one of the standout components of Nik Collection 4, is a black-and-white conversion tool that goes far further than the grayscale or black-and-white tools built into all-in-one photo apps.
For some users, this app alone might be worth the cost of the whole collection — find out for yourself in our review. The Nikon Z mm F2. Get all the details in our full review. These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
If you're looking for the perfect drone for yourself, or to gift someone special, we've gone through all of the options and selected our favorites. We looked at cameras with selfie-friendly screens, wide-angle lenses, microphone inputs and great video quality, and selected the best. Submit a News Tip! Reading mode: Light Dark. Login Register. Best cameras and lenses.
All forums Open Talk Change forum. Started Oct 27, Discussions. Oct 27, First let me share what I'll be using it for: -First and foremost I'll be scanning all my old family print photographs to archive them, unedited at first, as TIFF files to a DVD or another storage device. Questions: -Does the anti-reflection optical coating applied to the CCD glass truly improve the image of prints or slide film scans, and if so, by how much?
Reply to thread Reply with quote Complain. Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain. Most of us who undertake a similar project are in the same shoes as you are. Regards, GordonBGood. Stay away from the inferior V Yes, slightly. Dave Luttmann wrote: You could also try one of the anti-static silicon cloth. I've used the cloth for nearly 30 years in darkroom and scanning and they work great! Eddaweaver wrote: -Does the anti-reflection optical coating applied to the CCD glass truly improve the image of prints or slide film scans, and if so, by how much?
I have the Film holders are a bit flimsy. No excuses! Far away from what whatever I was using before. There are some 3rd party products available so hopefully this summer I'll get time to test them. When you get your scanner, don't forget to 'calibrate it' by changing height adjusters! Can sound as a cheap trick but results are really worth trying. Yeah I had read both those sites on the film holders and that was why I wondered what your view was.
The better scanning holder looks alright but I think I've seen it over here for less. If I dont get the results I want I may invest. The height thing is pretty interesting. I read about it on the V review. Mind you I will be using the Nikon scanner I have for 35mm so that wont be a problem - think that has an AF system for the film in there.
Apr 13, So far very good communication and my items should arrive by end of this month. A big part of the scanning experience -- both frustration and thrill -- is the software.
As we noted, we confine ourselves to using VueScan and LaserSoft Ai, both of which get our recommendation, although we would really like to see better user interfaces.
Batch scanning with these applications has been a bit more trouble than with the manufacturer supplied software which knows just where the holders put the images. But LaserSoft Ai in version 6. And VueScan does have a batch scan option, although it isn't automated you have to crop each image individually. None of these solutions is perfect.
Sometimes annoyingly so, as when you meticulously crop a thumbnail preview only to get a misregistered high resolution scan. But you can learn to work around most of the imperfections. On the hardware side, scanning with the V is simple. You start by turning on the scanner using its Power button. Even though it has a large Start button, we prefer to control the scan from the software. There are previews and high resolution scans to do that which a simple button can't control.
The border of the glass platen is clearly marked to align reflective material. And the holder system uses plastic pins on the right side of the document bed to align the holders on the platen. Pin registration, in short. You mount film in various holders, place them on the glass, aligning the holder's pins to a couple of holes in the bed frame.
To scan film using the holders, you simply remove the white document mat from the lid of the scanner so it can backlight the film. Getting the film into the holder can be a bit of a trial, though. There isn't much of a margin on the film for the holder to grab.
And film tends to have a slight curve, the emulsion a bit tighter than the base. The Epson holders don't stretch the film flat as much as close tightly down on the film. So a curved emulsion stays curled. Slides were easier to mount and scan. There's very little curve to a single frame of 35mm film held captive by a slide mount.
Be careful not to scratch the slides as you slide them under the stiff plastic springs. It's not a great design for slide mounting, but it works. The medium format holder gave us the most trouble. You have to walk the frame down, pinching in each fastener one side at a time.
And still it's easy to miss a fastener. This one left the most curl in the film, too. But we did like the 35mm film strip holder. It held the strips flat and securely without much trouble closing the more flexible frame back down on them. And all of the holders have a convenient finger catch to lift the holder off the glass without touching anything. Height Adjuster. Note the different height of the bumps on the outside legs.
That's the secret. One bump engages the holder at one height. The other, when reversed to latch into the same hole, engages at another height. Information about the height adjusters is not easily discovered.
But they aren't hard to use. They are simply four or six feet that snap into place on each holder. They each have an embossed arrow on them to indicate which of two options they have been positioned in. If you look at the bottom of a film holder at either end of the slots for the height adjusters, you'll see two symbols: a plus and a circle.
They weren't left there by aliens. When installed with the arrow facing the plus, the holder rides 0. With the arrow facing the circle as shipped , the holder sits 0. With no height adjusters installed, the gap is 0. They are easier to push out than pull out and when you do, you'll see the small notches on either leg are not the same height. So when you turn them around, the notches click into the holder at a different depth.
Height Adjuster Installed. The holder is upside down note the pin at top center for registration to the bed and the installed height adjuster's embossed arrow points to the plus sign not the circle behind it. Note also the upside down thumb lift at top right for easy removal of the holder from the bed.
There's no magic height setting, we found. With two different lenses engaging without your control except for your decision about resolution , it isn't easy to know what to do. An autofocusing scanner would be the better solution to this issue, but at least Epson provides something. For what it's worth not much at all, frankly , we found the default setting to be sharpest. The holders also have white squares underneath them for registration of the holders in auto scan mode operation.
They can also do either dry or wet mounting and have infinitely variable height adjustments, although that's accomplished using nylon screws in the corners that have to be manually cranked a quarter turn at a time. Once you get your originals on the scanner, it's time to perform the actual scan. Both applications were careful to warm up the scanner light source before scanning the first image. After that, scans were really quite quick. In the course of our short marriage to the scanner, we scanned everything from prints to film.
I Shoot Film Join. Group Since Dec 14, Save Cancel Drag to set position! Overview Discussions Photos Members Map. I can't seem to figure out what the big difference is between the two.
I need one or the other for scanning 4x5 negs and large amounts of mm. Is the v worth the extra money? Anyone have any experience using both? Publish Preview. Post Reply Preview. Edited by inetjoker admin 11 years ago. Well you can always upgrade to the V from the V by getting the fluid mount and software that is sold separately but for what you sound like you want to do a V and a few holders from WWW. I think the light bulb in the V is different than the one in the V, in addition to the above comments.
JanneM 11 years ago. There's a couple of tests floating around; it seems that for the V the fluid mount makes just about no practical difference at all. The limiting factor for the scanner lies elsewhere. Edited by deaf mute member 11 years ago.
Review and examples of the V in this thread. If anyone has details for the , please post them over there. The is another one of those cheap flatbeds, right? I'll pass. The has superior optics. I got the fluid mount sent to me free by Epson, having purchased the I've never used it. It seems to be a lot of hassle, plus I don't even know where to get the fluid and acetate sheets here in the UK.
By all accounts, it is mainly for large format scanning. I agree with Trash-Star about the quality of the film holders, they could be a lot better. I purchased the V - and wish I didn't. KRM M Posted 11 years ago. Edited by KRM M member 11 years ago. Flatbed scanners have no business scanning film period.
I bought the thinking it would be a decent balance between quality and price, but it just ended up being a source of extreme frustration and disappointment. The scanner produces images that are very soft and lacking in detail, and that's after hours of height adjustments and tweaking settings. You can't USM your way to decent scans!
What's the point of shooting film if you can't share the unique aesthetic qualities ie. I'm not saying that scanning is the only way one can share their photographic work, but it's a critical part of sharing or printing your work digitally.
I ended up saving up and buying the Nikon Coolscan ED. While the scanner is roughly triple the cost of the , I think it's worth every penny. Also, I don't own an enlarger, so making good quality scans critical to getting decent prints. Minus the Coolscan, that is where I'm at when it comes to home scanning, and a reason the V is personally my worst purchase to date. The lack of detail was and is just so disappointing. That is the main disappointment; electing to have a process only, occasionally with prints, and NOT be able to share them.
I totally agreed with the above statement, it is ultimately a critical part of sharing or printing your work digitally. But it shouldn't have to be like that, yes, I believe some time and care should be put into scanning to an extent, but with flatbeds it's just another league.
But trying to get a Flatbed to yield decent results, is like getting a bird with clipped wings to fly properly. As noted Flat beds were never really made for scanning film and It is a haphazard area where one has to struggle, often in many cases for hours and hours of tedious stressful attempt after attempt only to pull out reasonable results. Old as the Coolscan is, the basics are still the same, and it is ultimately a film scanner. A flat bed is not, its just a horrible horrible make-shift compromise with a 'find your own path' approach, where some find it ok and others, like I truly struggle to get going in-light of hurdle after hurdle.
The fact it is considered the best is quite worrying and I'm not happy to pay for the fluid mount in order to get a smidge more detail, when that is not really the problem.
0コメント