Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

A place to talk about photography, the meaning of life and anything that doesn't quite fit elsewhere
Post Reply
scovell001
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 10:17 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: isle of wight
Contact:

Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by scovell001 » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:19 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Hi all,

(this started as a request for some E6 processing over on the classified's section) You'll see in this post: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1794&p=11793#p11793

There's some comparisons of my Imacon 949 compared to the same transparency scanned on Bogdan's (thanks Bogdan) V750.

I dont want to sound like some sort of 'woah look at me, I have an expensive scanner, I'm the best - idiot' (thats not my style at all). But, I just wondered about peoples thoughts on the fact that they're shooting one of/if not 'the' highest resolution camera format. Then, they throw some of that resolution away at the digitisation stage, just because of the device they're using.

Whats the general consensus: a) I'm perfectly happy with what I'm getting from my scanner or, b) I'd like better scans but don't have the money etc etc. Or is the answer something else?

take care

dave_whatever
Forum Hero
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:36 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by dave_whatever » Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

I think the epson measures up pretty well considering the price differential. If I had the money for an imacon I'd take it, otherwise I'm happy with my 4990, afterall beggars can't be choosers.

I also don't worry about throwing away resolution - we're pretty much rolling in film real estate with 4x5" anyway. My computer struggles with 1200dpi scans from the epson as it is.....

Charles Twist
Founder
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:33 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: Cleveland
Contact:

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by Charles Twist » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:14 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

A bit more resolution never does any harm, but frankly up to A2-sized prints, one would be very hard pushed to distinguish one machine from the other. A2 and bigger, then it makes sense to go for the better system for full detail.
My main problem with the V700 is its poor handling of dark areas. Blacks come out black, but darks give a lot of green noise pixels, which organise themselves in to stripes. Again, not too noticible in prints. But looking at the print up close, this is far uglier than the softness problem. Some people actually like soft and buy old lenses just to achieve that - I can't imagine the same for this.
I also suspect that bit depth (sampling ratio) is a factor to consider. When scanning C-neg, everything is shades of russet. So I need a very high sampling rate of a very small part of colour space, to avoid getting digital grain (Nyquist threshold?). I suspect there are better machines than the V700...
For most applications, the reasons I make do, are financial and the fear of losing the original in the mail. But for larger prints, then I do send off the tranny. I think that one advantage of the large film area is that the scanner does not need to perform stellarly in order to give good results.
Hope that helps. Regards,
Charles

timparkin
Forum Hero
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:40 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by timparkin » Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:35 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

I've waited for quite some time to get my hands on a drum scanner because it pained me to invest a lot of time into post processing my large format transparencies based on a scan that wouldn't let be get good colour out of the shadows, that showed halation around high contrast edges and gave chromatic aberrations (blue/red edges on hard, high contrast boundaries).

For a small number of your 'top quality' portfolio shots, it makes sense to get higher quality scans. I've tried to recreate a post processing procedure on a picture that I have 'perfected' previously in post (perhaps pretending perfection possible) but to no avail - you end up with another interpretation..

I've uploaded a drumscan/epson comparison to the other thread ... quite remarkable differences.. spotting at 4000dpi sucks big time though... :-)

Tim
Waiting for the developing bill - 2 hours (and it's so small now!)

AbsolutelyN
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:53 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by AbsolutelyN » Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:05 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Very happy with what I'm getting from my scanner. I was never happy with Epson v750 scans though - as Tim points out - halation around high contrast edges, gave chromatic aberrations and impossible to get focus perfect. Here's a comparison with my Howtek 7500 vs an Epson v750. It's like getting a new pair of glasses.

Image
Last edited by AbsolutelyN on Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:14 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00, edited 1 time in total.

scovell001
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 10:17 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: isle of wight
Contact:

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by scovell001 » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:12 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

AbsolutelyN, now thats what I'm talking about!

You can't tell me people aren't going to notice that in an A3 print?

dave_whatever
Forum Hero
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:36 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by dave_whatever » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:46 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Whats an A3 print, like 12x16"? From a 4x5" transparency you probably wouldn't even need to scan at 1200ppi, I wouldn't expect the difference between drum and flatbed to be that pronounced (unless you're scanning an imaage which is really dark/underexposed or all shadow).

timparkin
Forum Hero
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:40 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by timparkin » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:48 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

dave_whatever wrote:Whats an A3 print, like 12x16"? From a 4x5" transparency you probably wouldn't even need to scan at 1200ppi, I wouldn't expect the difference between drum and flatbed to be that pronounced (unless you're scanning an imaage which is really dark/underexposed or all shadow).
Time for a test I suppose then...

Tim
Waiting for the developing bill - 2 hours (and it's so small now!)

Charles Twist
Founder
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:33 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: Cleveland
Contact:

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by Charles Twist » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:53 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

That looks about typical for the V700. It's very frustrating, but... I think you would get away with the A3 print. Let's consider that the tranny was scanned at 1200dpi; let's also consider the images are shown at 100% with 900 pixels displayed across 12" of monitor. What you're comparing above are prints that would be 60" by 75". An A3 is 25 times smaller. I think you get away with it even though looking at the screen is enough to weep.
Regards,
Charles

timparkin
Forum Hero
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:40 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by timparkin » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:59 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Managed to get my example working on the other post but thought I'd copy it here..
Image

A more interactive example comparison (including an Imacon scan) is hosted here..
http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/scannercomparison
Waiting for the developing bill - 2 hours (and it's so small now!)

scovell001
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 10:17 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: isle of wight
Contact:

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by scovell001 » Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:30 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Again, this is like night vs day. I can't believe people think they wouldn't notice this on an A3 size print. No amount of sharpening is going to bring out that complete lack of focus.

Thanks Tim.

michaelfinch
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:28 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: Lancashire, UK

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by michaelfinch » Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:49 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Maybe I've been lucky. I wouldn't argue that the Epson 700/750 will match the Imacon but I've been happy with my 750 for LF/MF. I haven't had and serious problems and certainly none concerning focus. Before I purchased the Epson, 12 months ago, I had my LF/MF scanned on Imacon and the results were excellent and not overly expensive. But for prints up to A2 I struggle to tell the difference. Maybe I need to get some really big prints done.
How do I upload a sample pic, please?

DJ
Site Admin
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:48 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: Norfolk

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by DJ » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:32 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

Everything is a compromise :?

An Epson V7x0 is cheap(ish), is a minimum of fuss and really does a pretty good job for the money, enough for many needs.

An Imacon produces visibly superior images to the Epson, again is fairly little fuss to use, but comes at a hefty price tag (several thousands 2nd hand).

A Drum Scanner is between the two price wise ( £1000-£1500 used ), produces higher image quality still than the Imacon, but is a lot of fuss to use and is slow.

I've an Epson V750 and a Howtek, I use both. The volume of shots I scan is minimal so I can take the trouble to drum scan them, and all the mucking about that that entails. I don't make a living at photography, I do this for fun, trying to get the best quality at every stage of the process is part of the fun of doing it, at least for me. If I were scanning large numbers of images consistently, using a drum scanner would become tiresome quickly, an Imacon scan might well be a better choice if budget allowed for it. For quick and dirty scans for posting on the web, I will most likely use the Epson, if I want to make a final image and a print, I would use the Howtek.

Different needs, different priorities & different budgets ......... lead to different choices :)

Joanna Carter
Founder
Posts: 1283
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:26 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Workshop Images: http://grandes-images.com/fr/Paysages/P ... _2009.html
Location: Plestin-les-Grèves, France
Contact:

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by Joanna Carter » Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:24 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

To those of you doing comparisons, are the Espon scans done with the Better Scanning holder or the Epson one?
Reassure yourself - stroke an Ebony

DJ
Site Admin
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:48 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
Location: Norfolk

Re: Epson V750 vs Imacon 949

Post by DJ » Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:40 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00

dave_whatever wrote:Whats an A3 print, like 12x16"? From a 4x5" transparency you probably wouldn't even need to scan at 1200ppi, I wouldn't expect the difference between drum and flatbed to be that pronounced (unless you're scanning an imaage which is really dark/underexposed or all shadow).
An Epson printers's native screening (turning pixels to ink dots) resolution is 360ppi, or 720ppi if you're printing at the full highest res (2880dpi etc). A 4x5" transparency scanned at 1080ppi (4320x5760 pixels) would be enough to cover 12x16" (ignoring borders etc) assuming printing at 360ppi (1440dpi). So technically Dave is right, you wouldn't even need to scan at 1200ppi to cover 12x16", but "cover" is all you'd really do. Scanning just enough data to cover an area is not the same as cramming as much data into that area as you can.

The quality of those pixels counts for a great deal, two images of the same resolution are not necessarily the same. As you can clearly see from the comparison examples posted in this thread, both images are the same size in pixels, but the content is very different, the same applies at higher resolutions too.

If you scan at much higher resolution and downsize to the appropriate printing size, you usually increase sharpness (localised contrast) and therefore detail, this effect applies regardless of scanners, film/digital. All scanners have a point of diminishing returns in terms of resolution and sharpness (amongst other things), with higher end scanners that point is much higher.

By way of example, I have a digital camera which can take a 21 megapixel image (5616x3744 pixels), that's enough to fill an A3 page ( 10x15 ish ) with no resizing (at 360ppi). I recently saw a couple of prints made on an old Epson 1290 (remember those?), they were made from a digital image, a 30 image stitched mosaic of about 245 megapixels, downsized to fit on an A3 page. The amount of detail in those prints was quite staggering, far exceeding what my 21 megapixel camera could achieve. The printer was given the same number of pixels to print with in both cases.

This is an easy test anyone can do themselves, there are very high resolution images available to download for free online, get one of these, downsize it to fit on a page for your printer, and print it, then get a similar image just big enough to fill a page of the same size, and print that. You will see the difference.

This is why I advocate the "scan once, use many" philosophy, make one scan, in the highest quality you can, and use that as your digital "master", downsize to print as required. :)

Post Reply