It is rather difficult to recommend anything without knowing what you want to scan, film/ prints, what size film 35mm, 120, larger. And what is your budget?

I am wanting to scan in photos and 35mm. 120 would be great. I am wanting to start photo restoration business. i have a photography business I want this to go with it.

The Epson V7x0 series will do a fine job on everything from 35mm to 8x10 film. The main difference between models is the software that is bundled with them. If you have a large budget, there are also dedicated film scanners like the Nikon CS9000 that will handle both formats. While it costs five or six times as much, the difference in scan quality does not reflect the difference in price.

Of course the Epsons will also do prints, documents and anything else that will fit a flatbed.

Larry,

I would dispute your contention that the Nikon 9000 ED would provide a significant advantage. The 4000dpi optical resolution maximum is a severe disadvantage reproducing exaggeration of film graininess that is virtually eliminated by the Epson Perfection V700 and the new V500 6400dpi optical resolution.

Larry,

My apologies for rebuking what you posted so harshly. Let me explain why I took such issue with bringing in the Nikon, which in this dimension of graininess is no worse or better than a number of scanners like the Microtek 120 and 4000tf or the Minolta Multi - all film/and flatbed scanners with a 4000dpi optical resolution share the problem of grain exaggeration. I have not made an issue of this until recently because with consumer scanners (excepting the Imacon Perfection) there was no way to produce a comparison scan of the same original with a scanner with a higher optical resolution until the current Epson Perfection V series and the Plustek 7200i. But with the latter in particular the fact the 4000dpi sensor line array's characteristic of exaggerating film graininess due to the pattern interference phenomenon, which is also responsible for Moire effects with crossed screens at certain angles, can be demonstrated. Scanning the same exact film frame with a 4000dpi dedicated 35mm film scanner and then with the Plustek with its 7200dpi sensor resolution, the reproduction of apparent graininess is with the latter what you would expect in an analog print enlargement, while image from the 4000dpi scanner has a much stronger grain pattern, that also incidentally varies proportionally lesser and greater depending on image density.

It is not the actual resolution that is the decisive factor, but the actual size of the sensor cell involved and the matrix pattern it produces, relative to the grain clump size in the film, when put on top of each other creates a stochastic interference pattern that exaggerates the apparent graininess in the image. The result is not like a Moire because even though the scan cell matrix is a linear pattern the grain pattern in film is random producing what is referred to as a stochastic pattern that created an irregular density increase of some grain clumps making the grain pattern more apparent.

With the Epson Perfection V series scanner with 6400dpi the advantage of its smaller sensor cell size and matrix pattern is somewhat offset by the softening effect of this scanner's 6 line linear CCD array, compared to a dedicated film scanner (Plustek 7200i) 3-line sensor array configuration, that is even finer and inherently sharper.

I'm trying to decide between the Epson 4990 or the Epson V500. Has anyone bought the V500? I've read plenty of reviews on the 4990, certainly a very good scanner. Almost nothing on the V500 worth reading. With the new (ReadyScan LED technology) I was wondering if the V500 was better? Also if you have the V500 were you able to scan 645 negs? Thanks. Rio

That's interesting information. I had a couple of questions about the Plustek. I noticed that there is a Plustek 7200i and Plustek 7200i SE - is the only difference between these two the version of SilverFast that is included?
Also, when you compared the Nikon to the Plustek, did you use SilverFast for both scanners or did you use NikonScan for the Nikon? The reason I ask is I wonder if the differences you saw were partially due to a difference in scanning software. Also, do you find the Epson Perfection V series to give better results than a Nikon Coolscan even though the epson is not a dedicated film scanner?

Thanks,

Dan

The Epson Perfection 4990 scanner model is relatively old, and will probably disappear from the market as stocks are sold out. I just received a Perfection V500 for testing a couple of weeks ago, so I doubt anyone has had time to thoroughly test the scanner and produce a report for publication, which will not appear in print publications for awhile to come. The Epson Perfection V500 is capable of scanning all 120 film formats as well as 35mm film.

>>That's interesting information. I had a couple of questions about the Plustek. I noticed that there is a Plustek 7200i and Plustek 7200i SE - is the only difference between these two the version of SilverFast that is included?
Also, when you compared the Nikon to the Plustek, did you use SilverFast for both scanners or did you use NikonScan for the Nikon? The reason I ask is I wonder if the differences you saw were partially due to a difference in scanning software. Also, do you find the Epson Perfection V series to give better results than a Nikon Coolscan even though the epson is not a dedicated film scanner?<<

Both versions, if in fact they are different, probably refer to the first and version of SilverFast shipped with the Plustek 7200 scanner and possibly one shipped with a newer SE version of Silverfast.

With the scans done with both the Nikon CoolScan 5000 ED and the Plustek 7200, the software driver used was the latest version of Lasersoft SilverFast for each scanner.

The differences I specifically noted are entirely due to hardware, particularly the sensor site count and size, and in no way to the driver software.

As far as grain reproduction goes the current V Series Epson Perfection scanners with 6400dpi optical scan resolution provide no appreciable grain exaggeration artifacts, as is evident with a 4000dpi scanners.

Hmm - O.K. so the Epson doesn't show any grain exaggeration effects. However, does it give as detailed a scan as the Nikon? When I scan slow film ( ISO 50 or 100 ) I don't really see the grain exaggeration - I do see it when I scan 400 or faster film.

Thanks,

Dan

You would see the grain exaggeration, if as I have, you scanned the same ISO 100 film image at 4000ppi with the Nikon and at 7200ppi with a Plustek 7200i and made a 16x20 inch print of each file with a Canon image PROGRAF iPF 5000 printer.

If you can't see any grain in ISO 100 slide film scans, I would not be worried about getting sufficient detail in a scan at 6400ppi with an Epson Perfection V700.

Thanks for your responce. Can you tell us when you will take the V500 for a test drive? I'm itching to buy a scanner for my 35mm,645 negs,& slides. I have an old HP 6300C thats well pasted its sell buy date.
Epson scanners from what I have read are the best. Still I would like to hear from someone who has actually used it. Thanks. Rio

It's not that I don't see any grain - I just don't find it objectionable. What I do find objectionable is the softness I see in a scanned slide. When I use Digital ICE, the resulting scan is soft.
To be honest - and I am really not trying to be rude here, but rather than telling me what I should or should not worry about, I would really prefer that you give me your opinion on how the V700 compares to the Nikon for 35mm scanning. I have read elsewhere that while the V700 does a good job scanning 35mm film, a dedicated film scanner usually does better.

>>To be honest - and I am really not trying to be rude here, but rather than telling me what I should or should not worry about, I would really prefer that you give me your opinion on how the V700 compares to the Nikon for 35mm scanning. I have read elsewhere that while the V700 does a good job scanning 35mm film, a dedicated film scanner usually does better.<<

To answer your question you should consult the report on the Epson Perfection V750M Pro in the January 2006 issue of Shutterbug which you can access on this web site at:

http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/scanners_printers/1106epson/i...

One of the tests was a head to head 35mm slide scan comparison illustrated in the report between the Epson Perfection V750M Pro and a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II, which produces scans far superior to those of the Nikon CoolScan 5000 ED.

The Epson Perfection as used in the test performs the same as the Perfection V700, the V750M Pro simply has the added capability of fluid mount scanning.

I am doing the test scans on the V500 presently. My initial impression is that the physical performance closely matches the V700, but the V500 does not of course have the advantage of really effective software pre-scan image adjustment, which I am sure is missing due to its very modest price.

A complete and detailed report will be sent to Shutterbug shortly, but it will be several issues hence when you will see it in print I am afraid.

Thanks EFX. That was very helpful for me. Especially (pre-scan image adjustment) Looks like I will have to save for the V700. In your humble opinion do you think the V700 is a wiser way to go? Will you be able to give us a hint on the V500 when your done testing it? Thanks again . Rio

I fully expect Lasersoft SilverFast will have an SE version for the Epson Perfection V500 available before long. At the low SE price added to the low V500 price it should be fully as functional as the pricier V700, but of course with some minor limitations still. No free lunch quite yet.

I fully expect Lasersoft SilverFast will have an SE version for the Epson Perfection V500 available before long. At the low SE price added to the low V500 price it should be fully as functional as the pricier V700, but of course with some minor limitations still. No free lunch quite yet.

With some minor limitations? How important is the Dual Lens

If you check the specifications for both scanners on the Epson web site you will see both the V500 and V700 have the same optical resolution maximum of 6400, but the Dmax for the V700 is 4.0 and the V500 3.4, In the V500 specs no mention of a Dual Lens however, but it does specifies a 12 line CCD sensor, and the number of lines of the V700 sensor is not specified.

However there is a $300 difference in list price, a good part of which involves a lesser software bundle with the V500.

Until I do a lot more scanning with the V500 and my report is published in Shutterbug, I can't supply any more information simply because I don't know anything more than what has been released by Epson.

Thanks for the pointer to the article. I'll be sure to take a look at it.
Wouldn't you consider the difference in Dmax from 3.4 to 4.0 to be very siginificant? Especially for scanning slide film like Velvia?

Dan

>>Wouldn't you consider the difference in Dmax from 3.4 to 4.0 to be very siginificant? Especially for scanning slide film like Velvia?<<

It is a consideration, but not all that significant from my perspective. I think if you actually measure the image high and low density points in slides made of all subjects, you will not find many examples that actually utilize the full density potential of the film, which is probably less by a couple of points than 3.4. And second, in the last 2-3 years new scanners I have tested produce relatively less shadow noise than scanners of the past. The first test scans I did with the V500 were Kodachromes with subjects with higher subject brightness ranges, and the results of the scans were of surprisingly good quality and not lacking in shadow detail or any evidence of noise. So even in less expensive flatbed scanners today the linear CCD array quality is appreciably better.

Are you planning to test with 4x5 film? This is the main reason I'm interested in a flatbed scanner - I have 4x5 Velvia Transparencies that I have no way to print. I'd love to do Ilfochrome, but it's very expensive and I can't get the chemistry. The only place I know of that sells it is B&H photo and they won't ship it.

If as you indicate your need for a scanner is to scan 4x5 transparencies, the Epson V500 was not delivered with a 4x5 film holder and the specifications do not indicate the scanner supports scanning 4x5 inch film.

The scanner I would put at the top of my list for scanning 4x5 film is the Microtek ArtixScan 1800f. It has glassless scanning of film and a very high quality CCD. There is a detailed review done when this model was new at:
http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/scanners_printers/1103sb_micr...

The price is now considerably lower than when it was reviewed so I would check the Microtek web site and PriceGrabber.com for a current street price.

Hi EFX, Any news yet on the V500? Finished testing it yet? Thanks. Rio

I am still working with the V500 along with a host of other things to deal with like the Apple OS 10.5 upgrade. The V500 does function a little differently than the V700, but so far for the price the performance is very encouraging.
Otherwise I am afraid I will not make a fuller report on the Epson Perfection V500 in this context, so you will have to I am afraid for in-depth detail until my report is published in Shutterbug. Sorry about that, but don't have the time to do both.

Thanks, I completly understand. I was just wondering. I did not realize you were that busy. I'm not in a hurry to buy. Something came up and now my nest egg for the scanner amounts to about $1.50! lol. Never mind. I'll get there. Thanks again. Rio