«

"Toni Nikkanen" <> wrote:
> "Psygnosis - Silent Running" <> writes:
>
>> Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
>> haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.
>
> Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
> for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
> desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.

I don't know what gives with "i-photo" but they never seem to find much
difference between the flatbeds and the Nikon 8000/9000. Here's what I saw
with one of the first 4800 ppi Epsons that handled medium format, again,
that i-photo found to be close to indistinguishable from the 8000/9000.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Toni Nikkanen" <> wrote:
>> "Psygnosis - Silent Running" <> writes:
>>
>>> Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
>>> haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.
>> Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
>> for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
>> desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.
>
> I don't know what gives with "i-photo" but they never seem to find much
> difference between the flatbeds and the Nikon 8000/9000. Here's what I saw
> with one of the first 4800 ppi Epsons that handled medium format, again,
> that i-photo found to be close to indistinguishable from the 8000/9000.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
For some more examples:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...atbed-scanners

I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
glass adds reflections and reduces contrast. However, scanning
at 16-bits/pixel it is easily corrected. Also, there is a little
more work involved in careful unsharp masking to improve
the scans on the flatbeds. A dedicated film scanner does a better
job with less total user time (I use a sprintscan 4000 for 35mm).
But for large format, the flatbeds are very good and saves a lot of
money.

Roger

"Psygnosis - Silent Running" <> wrote in message
news:470bf5b8$0$84926$...
> "Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote in message
> news:3YOOi.384$...
>>
>> "Tony" <> wrote in message
>> news:. ..
>>> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've
>>> read the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you
>>> use a little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the
>>> sensor that the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If
>>> that's true it may be quite good enough for most users.
>>>
>>> But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900
>>> and (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think
>>> the Epson has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of
>>> these, but I was wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or
>>> a few of these to tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
>>>
>>
>> No flatbed I've ever used can touch a Coolscan 8000. I use an Epson V750,
>> and while it is good, it's only about 60% of the Coolscan, at best.
>>
>
> Apparently you don't know how to use it then.

Gee. Maybe you could come by and show me?

God, what a stupid comment.

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> writes:

> I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
> it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
> I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
> glass adds reflections and reduces contrast.

I'd add two other points:
- Flatbeds don't have an autofocus mechanism (not that I know of; height-
adjustable film holders do exist, though)
- Flatbeds don't seem to read RGB and IR channels in the same pass; this
contributes to the factor that Digital ICE doesn't work as well as in
a dedicated film scanner


Also, flatbeds have 2 more glass surfaces to keep clean. Of course,
using the glass carrier of the Nikon or Minolta Multipro means you
have four extra glass surfaces to keep clean!

"Tony" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
>
>>
>
> You may not have seen this, but take a look here

I did see that, and it doesn't really apply to me. I've done quite a few
comparisons (not lately) between the V750 and my old Coolscan 9000, and
they're on different planets. However, the Epson was good enough for my
purposes and I sold the Coolscan. I had a Coolscan 8000 before that, but
wore it out.

Anyway, Even that test shows (to me) that the dedicated film scanner is
better.

>
> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...750/page_5.htm
>
> at the V750 crop after USM. Also read the text.
>

On Oct 9, 3:58 pm, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> My experience with flatbeds for 35mm has not been good. I suspect that
> even an old LS-2000 or LS-30 does a better job for 35mm negatives.
> Optical resolution is definitely not the issue. An LS-30/2000 is only
> 2,700 dpi, but that translates into 10 megapixels and, in TIFF format
> from the LS-2000, a 50 megabyte file. That's as much resolution or file
> size as I would want, even if more were available.
>
> Tony wrote:
> > For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
> > the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
> > little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
> > the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
> > quite good enough for most users.
>
> > But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
> > (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the Epson
> > has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but I was
> > wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of these to
> > tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.


My LS-2000 is sitting on a shelf after I bought the V700, other than
convienience the dynamic range of the V700 beat the LS2000 hands down,
sharpness was about equal on the screen. I had much better shadow
detail with the V700. Against my Minolta Dimage Multi again the V700
has bettter dynamic range but the Minolta is sharper, the Minolta
can't do the res the V700 can either. I would think with the
improvements Nikon made in their scanners from the LS2000 to the
LS5000 or the LS8000/9000 the Nikons should be better. Scans I have
made on the V700 have printed very well to 16x20, it is nice to have
the range of resolution to scan to print size.

Tom

"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news: ...
>
> "Toni Nikkanen" <> wrote:
>> "Psygnosis - Silent Running" <> writes:
>>
>>> Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
>>> haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.
>>
>> Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
>> for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
>> desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.
>
> I don't know what gives with "i-photo" but they never seem to find much
> difference between the flatbeds and the Nikon 8000/9000. Here's what I saw
> with one of the first 4800 ppi Epsons that handled medium format, again,
> that i-photo found to be close to indistinguishable from the 8000/9000.

You're not the only one who gets radically different results than the guy in
England. I made the same comparison between the Epson and a Coolscan, and
found that they're on different planets for film scanning.

>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
message news:...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Toni Nikkanen" <> wrote:
>>> "Psygnosis - Silent Running" <> writes:
>>>
>>>> Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
>>>> haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.
>>> Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
>>> for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
>>> desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.
>>
>> I don't know what gives with "i-photo" but they never seem to find much
>> difference between the flatbeds and the Nikon 8000/9000. Here's what I
>> saw with one of the first 4800 ppi Epsons that handled medium format,
>> again, that i-photo found to be close to indistinguishable from the
>> 8000/9000.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
>> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan
>>
>>
> For some more examples:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...atbed-scanners
>
> I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
> it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
> I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
> glass adds reflections and reduces contrast. However, scanning
> at 16-bits/pixel it is easily corrected. Also, there is a little
> more work involved in careful unsharp masking to improve
> the scans on the flatbeds. A dedicated film scanner does a better
> job with less total user time (I use a sprintscan 4000 for 35mm).
> But for large format, the flatbeds are very good and saves a lot of
> money.

For large format, what other choices do you have?

>
> Roger

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:54:36 -0400, "Tony" <> wrote:

>For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
>the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
>little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
>the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
>quite good enough for most users.
>
>But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
>(not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the Epson
>has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but I was
>wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of these to
>tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.

Hi. I have also been looking for something to scan a wide variety of
things but mainly a large quantity of photographs, but also quite a
number of slides and negatives too.

I've come to the conclusion, based on a lot of advise from people in
this group as well as my own research, that as good as the V700/750
is, it is still not going to beat a dedicated film scanner, even one
that is a number of years old and doesn't have the same stats or
resolution, is still going to beat the V700/750/4990 when it comes to
scanning slides and negatives etc.

I believe the best compromise, and one that will also save you money,
would be to buy a Canon Flatbed Photo Scanner with Qare for scanning
all your photographs. Models like the Canoscan 8800F, 8600F, 9950F
etc. These are a lot faster at scanning than the Epsons with Digital
Ice and the quality is no different. For slides and negatives I think
the best thing is to buy one of the Nikon Coolscans. Would be quite
expensive maybe £500 but there would be a noticeable difference in
quality over the flatbeds for doing this sort of stuff.

You don't have to keep it though, you could scan everything you needed
to, all your slides and negatives and then sell it. You would still
get a good price for it because they are in demand, and one that was
really new and had only scanned a small number of things since it had
been bought you would get quite a lot back from what you paid for it
when you then sold it on after you'd scanned everything you needed to.

I am going to get a Canoscan 8800F to scan all my old photos. I
believe it will cost around £150. A lot less than the 4990 £250 and
V700/750 £350+. Plus it scans faster and has LEDs instead of lamps.
V500 also worth mentioning as that would be good for scanning photos
as well. Not sure what the speeds would be like though, if the past is
anything to go by the Canon probably still wins, plus the V500 is a
bit more expensive than the 8800F. Will be keeping the 8800F once I
get it. Once I've scanned all my old photos though I'll be getting a
Coolscan to scan all my slides and negatives with. Once that's done
sell it on ebay or something but I'll keep the flatbed for other
stuff.

Cheers

John

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:08:55 +0300, Toni Nikkanen
<> wrote:

>
>I'd like to add that I have no experience on the other scanner models
>mentioned, except I don't think the Canoscan 9950F will be able to
>beat the V700 in any respect, though the difference isn't likely huge.

The Canon will blow the Epson out of the water in terms of speed and
the results wont be much better as the 9950F as far as
photographs/transparencies go if at all. You'll be three times more
productive with the Canon and get more done whereas with the Epson
you'll be waiting until the cows come home if you need to do a lot of
scanning with dust removal.

The 9950F has been one of the better scanners Canon have made. The
Epson with Ice you will be waiting several minutes whereas the Canon
with Qare only a couple. See here (bottom of page):
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...0F/page_14.htm

Essentially it is the same thing as the V700, its the same ICE, and
the same cold cathode fluorescent lamp. I wouldn't be able to comment
on the V500 because I don't know how much the speed would improve with
LEDs, but I would guess compared to the 8800F from Canon also with
LEDs, that the Canon would always probably still win in terms of speed
with dust removal turned on.

V700/750 is very good, one of the best flatbeds you can buy. I just
don't think it is good value based on its price premium and only small
gain. I think you'd be better off buying a Canon like the 8800F,
8600F, 9950F etc for a lot less, then the extra £200+ you would have
otherwise spent on the V700/750 put that towards a Nikon Coolscan for
your slides etc. You would already nearly have half the cost of the
Coolscan by not buying the V700/750 and getting a Canon with Qare for
your photographs and transparencies instead.

John