- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,723
Even if you suspended the 8x10 film 3mm above the glass and chose the High Resolution lens, it would still not cover the area of the film
-
Thank You For Visiting... Please Click Here and sign up to contribute and reply to posts and download the resources.
Optically clear glass
- Thread starter soupdragon
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2023
- Messages
- 432
If I understand what you are saying, the scanner high resolution lens cannot traverse 8 inches horizontal.
That is garbage.
Sorry, not you, Epson.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,723
Here s an excerpt from my eBook I wrote on the scanner. Its all to do with the available scanning area per lens.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 255
As others have pointed out, since all the consumer epson models - from the 4990 and older right up to the recent ones - struggle to actually resolve more than 2000-2400-ish of detail regardless of the resolution and filesize they will output, depending on your exact model and how optimal you can nail the focus. You can test this yourself - scan some 5x4" film at both 4800 and 2400, then upscale the 2400 x2 to the same size as the 4800 and you'll likely find it won't find it having any less detail than the native 4800 scan.
You do gain a bit of an advantage for, say, 5x4" by scanning at a higher res then downsampling in the scanning software (Vuescan will do this, for instance), as it'll cut some of the noise in denser areas, like underexposed E6 film. But yes, you can't get it to do the full bed with the higher res setting, and I assume this is a hardware limitation since none of the available software, even third party ones, have ever changed this. The lower res option for 10x8" is totally ample anyway. If you need (as opposed to want) to scan 10x8" at higher res then find an old pro flatbed (usually A3 or larger, some Epson, some other high-end brands. Or rig a way of using a DSLR to stitch. But I'd use the Epson with the normal flatbed res first before deciding it's not enough.
You do gain a bit of an advantage for, say, 5x4" by scanning at a higher res then downsampling in the scanning software (Vuescan will do this, for instance), as it'll cut some of the noise in denser areas, like underexposed E6 film. But yes, you can't get it to do the full bed with the higher res setting, and I assume this is a hardware limitation since none of the available software, even third party ones, have ever changed this. The lower res option for 10x8" is totally ample anyway. If you need (as opposed to want) to scan 10x8" at higher res then find an old pro flatbed (usually A3 or larger, some Epson, some other high-end brands. Or rig a way of using a DSLR to stitch. But I'd use the Epson with the normal flatbed res first before deciding it's not enough.
On my V800 I use the 8x10 transparency mode which sets the focus to the glass, I place it emulsion side down, no problems getting super detailed scans. I think Ben Horne made a custom holder out of a dog feeding mat for 8x10. 400 Mpixels is plenty for me, I doubt the lens or my focusing is capable of matching this anyhow.
Last edited:
Sorry, I've recently updated my iMac to a Mac Mini and my guide seems to have gone off with the iMac. Shouldn't be difficult to work out and then cut a piece of card.
You are wrong in saying that there's a better lens in the enclosure. Whatever its resolution, it doesn't have the coverage you need, so it's actually a worse lens for 10x8. The image circle of lenses is a well-known and important feature of all optics. You cannot select either lens independently. I believe these points have already been mentioned by others, above.
If you have a need to persist in your quest, then multiple scans of sections of your 10x8 neg seems to be the only solution. It does seem a lot of trouble. If you're willing to spend the money, it might be good idea to get a higher-res drum scan done and compare the results with your own.
May I ask what size prints you are proposing to make?
You are wrong in saying that there's a better lens in the enclosure. Whatever its resolution, it doesn't have the coverage you need, so it's actually a worse lens for 10x8. The image circle of lenses is a well-known and important feature of all optics. You cannot select either lens independently. I believe these points have already been mentioned by others, above.
If you have a need to persist in your quest, then multiple scans of sections of your 10x8 neg seems to be the only solution. It does seem a lot of trouble. If you're willing to spend the money, it might be good idea to get a higher-res drum scan done and compare the results with your own.
May I ask what size prints you are proposing to make?
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2023
- Messages
- 432
Hello.
All interesting stuff.
I'd like to be able to make fence panel sized prints although I do not know of anyone or company that can do this.
Perhaps I should consider viewing distance as opposed to print resolution.
I just want to extract as much detail as I can from an 8X10 transparency.
A very quick Google search brought up this:
metroimaging.co.uk
They mention prints “on any substrate” up to ten by eight feet, which sounds like fence-sized. They offer drum scanning, too. I haven’t looked any further on the site, not even at prices.
It does seem sensible to begin at the result you want and work out what you need to achieve it, rather than the other way round.
My Epson 850 will resolve grain (on Foma 400) and any further increase seems pointless, although a friend remarked that it didn’t resolve the shape of the individual grains. He was quite right, of course. I have a dim recollection that very large prints use 240dpi, rather than the 360dpi of ordinary printers, which might influence your thinking. Makes sense, considering the likely viewing distance and the unwieldy file sizes.
There is also software which promises to improve fine detail, but I have no experience of using it.
Large Photo Printing
For large photo printing, Metro are the service leaders when it comes to supersizing your images for exhibitions, museums or the home. CPick from C Types, Giclée, Direct to Media or Vinyl and we'll produce award winning prints, just for you.
metroimaging.co.uk
They mention prints “on any substrate” up to ten by eight feet, which sounds like fence-sized. They offer drum scanning, too. I haven’t looked any further on the site, not even at prices.
It does seem sensible to begin at the result you want and work out what you need to achieve it, rather than the other way round.
My Epson 850 will resolve grain (on Foma 400) and any further increase seems pointless, although a friend remarked that it didn’t resolve the shape of the individual grains. He was quite right, of course. I have a dim recollection that very large prints use 240dpi, rather than the 360dpi of ordinary printers, which might influence your thinking. Makes sense, considering the likely viewing distance and the unwieldy file sizes.
There is also software which promises to improve fine detail, but I have no experience of using it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2023
- Messages
- 432
Thanks for that.A very quick Google search brought up this:
Large Photo Printing
For large photo printing, Metro are the service leaders when it comes to supersizing your images for exhibitions, museums or the home. CPick from C Types, Giclée, Direct to Media or Vinyl and we'll produce award winning prints, just for you.
They mention prints “on any substrate” up to ten by eight feet, which sounds like fence-sized. They offer drum scanning, too. I haven’t looked any further on the site, not even at prices.
It does seem sensible to begin at the result you want and work out what you need to achieve it, rather than the other way round.
My Epson 850 will resolve grain (on Foma 400) and any further increase seems pointless, although a friend remarked that it didn’t resolve the shape of the individual grains. He was quite right, of course. I have a dim recollection that very large prints use 240dpi, rather than the 360dpi of ordinary printers, which might influence your thinking. Makes sense, considering the likely viewing distance and the unwieldy file sizes.
There is also software which promises to improve fine detail, but I have no experience of using it.
All information is invaluable to me.