Epson V350

naplam · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 271 Location: Spain

I just bought this scanner two days ago, it has an automatic feeder for strips of film so it's quite comfortable to use for batch scans.

Resolution-wise, i estimate it must be around 2000 dpi, maybe I'll make a real test to verify. Anyway, expected for this kind of flatbed scanner. That would be about 5 megapixels. The claimed 4800 is bullshit; 2400 and 4800 produce similar resolution, so I just scan at 2400 (faster) - i only tested one photo for resolution, I'll have to make more thorough tests. It takes one hour more or less to scan a 36-photo slide film.

Colours are very good, nothing is lost, tones do not look flat.

Shadows... well... totally suck if you have a high contrast velvia photo, but for most purposes it's ok.

For consumer negative film, the scanner can bring out all there is in the photo.

pros: auto feeder (strips of 6), flatbed for documents, transparency unit, faithful colours
cons: low resolution (good for viewing on the computer, forget about using it for big enlargments-which you wouldn't be making at home anyway), low dmax (it can destroy the shadows in high contrast slides), no adapter for medium format (only mounted slides and film strips)
_________________
Gear: Canon EOS 400D, Yashica FX-70, Contax 139Q, Canon EF-M,
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.7, MIR-1V 37mm f/2.8, Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f/2.4, Yashica ML 28mm f/2.8,
Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC macro, Canon EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6, Canon EF-S 18-55,
my flickr

Attila · Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 16431 Location: Budapest,Hungary

Did you try with slides ?
_________________

Olympus E-1,Bessa L,Bessa RF Skopar 10,5cm,Besa I Color Skopar 105mm,Olympus OM2n,Nikon FA,Yashica Eletro 35 GN,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Zeiss Jena:Flektogon 2.8/20mm,4/25mm,2.4/35,2.8/65mm,4.5/4cm Tessar, 8/500mm Fernobjektiv
Pancolar 1.4/55mm,1.8/50mm,1.8/80mm,Tessar 2.8/50mm,Biotar 2/58mm,1.5/75mm,1.5/7,5cm
Carl Zeiss: Sonnar 2.8/135,2.8/180mm,Tessar 4/135mm
Nikon: 3.5/20mm,2.8/28mm,1.4/35mm,1.4/50mm,1.2/50mm,2/50mm,1.8/105mm,2.5/105mm,4/200mm macro,4.5/300mm
Pentax: Pentax 1.2/50mm,1.8/85mm,4/200mm
Helios: Helios-40 1.5/8,5cm,Helios-44-1 2/58mm,Helios-44-2 2/58mm
Olympus OM: 3.5/18mm,3.5/21mm,1.4/50mm,3.5/55mm macro,2.8/135mm,2/90mm macro,35-70mm,60-250mm
Meyer: 4.5/35mm Primagon,Primoplan 1.9/58mm,1.9/75mm,2.8/100mm,Orestegor 2.8/135mm,4.5/40 Helioplan
Leica: 4/100 Macro Elmar,2.8/90 Elmarit last version
Please visit my Ebay shop to support my reviews !

montecarlo · Joined: 04 Apr 2007 Posts: 1578 Location: Romania

When you have time, could you please post some photos scanned with V350 and 100% crops too. I'm interested to see the results.
Thank you very much.
_________________
Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0
Porst Reflex TL , Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4 , Pentacon 50mm f:1.8 , Porst MC 135mm f:2.8 , Cosinon MC 200mm f:3.5
Konica Autoreflex TC,Hexanon 50mm f:1.7
Ricoh KR10, Petri MC 28mm f:2 , Chinon MC 28mm f:2.8 , smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Ricoh 50mm f:1.7 , Soligor T 135mm f:2.8 , smc Pentax-M 75-150mm f:4
Pentax K100D , smc Pentax-DA 18-55 , smc Pentax-FA 80-320

naplam · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 271 Location: Spain

Attila yes, i tried slides and negatives. It has a hard time with high-contrast situations in velvia, you lose pretty much everything in the shadows (they're full of nasty digital chroma noise), while you can still see detail in the slide with your eyes. But shots in which you don't have or need to have shadow detail are alright. With negatives it's quite good, I've found scanned negatives to be better in my computer screen than the corresponding automatic prints a lab made.

montecarlo,
the photos in this set in flickr were all done at 2400 dpi, you can see the original size as well. They're all high-contrast situations, sunsets with backlight stuff, so it's as bad as it can get regarding shadow detail. On the other hand, now that I think of it, 8 bits is not nearly enough to recover information from those shadows, they're far too dark, so i'll have to try scanning it again in 16-bit tiff or something to actually hit the limit of the scanner.

The photos in this other set were also scanned with the same scanner at 2400 dpi.

Can you suggest a test chart for resolution so I can shoot it and make resolution tests? I have a roll loaded in the camera right now with just a few photos left, I could have it developed pretty soon.
_________________
Gear: Canon EOS 400D, Yashica FX-70, Contax 139Q, Canon EF-M,
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.7, MIR-1V 37mm f/2.8, Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f/2.4, Yashica ML 28mm f/2.8,
Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC macro, Canon EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6, Canon EF-S 18-55,
my flickr

montecarlo · Joined: 04 Apr 2007 Posts: 1578 Location: Romania

Thank you very much.

Regarding the resolution test I don't know what kind of chart would be appropiate. Maybe this kind http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk20d/page33.asp but I don't know yet wher you can get one.
_________________
Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0
Porst Reflex TL , Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4 , Pentacon 50mm f:1.8 , Porst MC 135mm f:2.8 , Cosinon MC 200mm f:3.5
Konica Autoreflex TC,Hexanon 50mm f:1.7
Ricoh KR10, Petri MC 28mm f:2 , Chinon MC 28mm f:2.8 , smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Ricoh 50mm f:1.7 , Soligor T 135mm f:2.8 , smc Pentax-M 75-150mm f:4
Pentax K100D , smc Pentax-DA 18-55 , smc Pentax-FA 80-320

Rob Leslie · Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 753 Location: UK Swindon

To get more DR from your scans make two or even three scans with appropriate Histogram adjustments.
One hour to scan a 36 exposure film is rushing the job. With PP one can easily spend an hour on each. It should take at least a couple of minutes to adjust the scanner for each negative. Using auto settings don’t expect anything more than mediocre result but with care you can get quality good enough for excellent 10 X 8 prints from the 2400 dpi Epson flatbeds.
_________________
Pentax K10D & K100D. Many Tamron Adaptall SP lenses, Fujinon f4.5 400mm. A loved Lens Baby 2, Lubitel triplet +++ and many many film cameras. Mainly a Digital user.
http://roblesliephotography.blogspot.com

naplam · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 271 Location: Spain

Rob Leslie · Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 753 Location: UK Swindon

I don’t understand your reasoning on size/resolution.

Doing two adjustments in PS won't give the same result as two scans. You are only doing the same as using a few adjustment layers using that technique.

My Epson 2480 scans at 2400dpi which gives me a 3335 x 2152 pixels image from the average 35mmm frame.

The biggest problem with film scanning is time. A scan on the Epson takes 2 minutes per frame and it scans three frames. Three frames at a time are enough as I have to clean the neg, preview and adjust the settings for each then save the result. This all takes about 12/15 minutes, or 4-5 minutes per frame, or about 8 minutes for 3 BW frames. But I see no problem in spending half an hour or more scanning one negative in order to get the best from it. This is nothing compared to the time spent doing PP to each scan.
I find little difference between scanning Colour neg, BW or transparency, though colour neg requires more care and PP to get the best from it.
I also have an Epson 2580 which has an auto film loader. this doesn't give such good results as the loader doesn't hold the film flat.
(I have both scanners because the transformer packed in on my 2480 and the chepest way to get a new one was to buy another S/H scanner)
Scanning really is a pain in the neck!
_________________
Pentax K10D & K100D. Many Tamron Adaptall SP lenses, Fujinon f4.5 400mm. A loved Lens Baby 2, Lubitel triplet +++ and many many film cameras. Mainly a Digital user.
http://roblesliephotography.blogspot.com