Comparison Beoon/Rodagon 2.8 and Epson 850

[Avatar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'll preface this post with a bit of background on this comparison I am sharing.

 

To be fair, I am not a pixel peeper by nature, nor do I do comparisons frequently.

 

This example is non scientific and I am sure some of the experts at scanning or the Beoon would know how to do more flat scientific testing.

 

As said I don't have the knowledge or inclination to do much of this in the first place but I know some of you will be interested in the results.

 

I shot a roll today and as the Epson was scanning (3200dpi), I used the Beoon with enlarger lens set at F8. Just as I know the scanner can be set better, possibly different F stops might improve the Beoon's performance.

 

I used an M246 and had good focus on the negative. I set the M246 to base ISO of 320 and used a 2 second timer to reduce shake. Shutter speeds were slow, guessing 1/2 of a second.

 

My scanning skills  are abysmal. I did try adjusting height but still I doubt I have it set 'right'. I unselected unsharp mask and used the supplied Epson software. 

 

I'll have to make two posts due to 500kb size restrictions.

 

I wasn't going to identify which is which but don't think it means a lot.

 

My original thesis was the Beoon was really good, super fast and convenient. I am even more convinced than ever of that! I was able to capture 36 frames in less than 10 seconds per!

 

For me this means, I can use the Beoon to see my images and the ones I really want to print or share, I probably would scan.

 

I will be using the Beoon later this week with an SL on a ton of Kodachrome slides from the 60's-80's. The Beoon is invaluable and I am excited to save time on this project as well. 

 

Oh, pictures taken with an M7 and 28mm Elmarit.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 11, 2017 by Avatar

[Avatar]

Here's the other..

 

I will do another better test tomorrow with an image that is less grainy,

 

All the images are shot on Tri-Ex metered 400, developed 800

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pop]

I see that for a preview scan, it's perfectly alright. The comparison is done well enough to see what it is about. After some reflection, I come to think that the first one was done with the BEOON and the second one with a scanner. If so, there are three "issues" still unresolved, none of which matters for preview scans or even for some sharing.

 

One: the first is a bit underexposed; that can be corrected in post.

Two: the copy does not cover all of the frame; this might imply that your scale is a bit more than 1:1. The second one does not contain all of the frame, either, but for other reasons.

Three: the bright line close to the bottom edge. I can't explain that; it might be the pane used for lighting the negative.

 

Good show.

[250swb]

So what have we learned so far, lets see. The OP admits to being rubbish at understanding how a scanner works, and insists on using a scanner well known for being bad at scanning 35mm. This therefore means...................well it's clear what the inference is going to be. The crucial figure in the comparison seems to be 10 seconds, so much too short a time to read a scanner instruction book.

[pop]

So what have we learned so far, lets see. The OP admits to being rubbish at understanding how a scanner works, and insists on using a scanner well known for being bad at scanning 35mm. This therefore means...................well it's clear what the inference is going to be. The crucial figure in the comparison seems to be 10 seconds, so much too short a time to read a scanner instruction book.

It's not a full moon right now, so do you have a particular reason for being rude today?

[Avatar]

So what have we learned so far, lets see. The OP admits to being rubbish at understanding how a scanner works, and insists on using a scanner well known for being bad at scanning 35mm. This therefore means...................well it's clear what the inference is going to be. The crucial figure in the comparison seems to be 10 seconds, so much too short a time to read a scanner instruction book.

"well it's clear what the inference is going to be"

 

Please enlighten me what the inference was?

 

I'm a bit baffled. Did you read my post in the same 10 seconds you suggest I spend to read the scanner manual?

Edited September 11, 2017 by Avatar

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've heard it said the Epson 850 is best for MF upwards, however I've not heard anyone singing the praises for 35mm.

As you have the neg, how sharp is it under the loupe, and how do you think the BEOON scan compares? I'm expecting the Epson to struggle, but it's probably OK for web viewing and maybe 10x8's.

 

I'm thinking if I owned the impressive M246 I might not bother with B&W film, possibly only for nostalgic reasons, or to process to get the grain visible.

[Guest Nowhereman]

There is an extensive review of the Epson 850 by Marc D. Segal in which he compares it to Nikon, Imacon and Plustek scanners, as well as to camera scanning; he also has an informative article on camera scanning. The 850 comes out very well in these articles with the conclusion that its performance can come close to the best of these scanners, but Segal is apparently the author of a book on the SilverFast software — I don't know whether he has any inherent bias towards the 850.

 

While he has favorable views on camera scanning, my feeling is that better performance can be coaxed from camera scanning than he presents. The articles, were available for free download on the Luminous Landscape website.

_________________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[Avatar]

I've heard it said the Epson 850 is best for MF upwards, however I've not heard anyone singing the praises for 35mm.

As you have the neg, how sharp is it under the loupe, and how do you think the BEOON scan compares? I'm expecting the Epson to struggle, but it's probably OK for web viewing and maybe 10x8's.

 

I'm thinking if I owned the impressive M246 I might not bother with B&W film, possibly only for nostalgic reasons, or to process to get the grain visible.

 

I think the Epson 850 is an outstanding scanner for 35mm and for Medium format.

 

I can only imagine that 250swb was expecting me to be predisposed of believing the Beoon would be better, that he was triggered that he didn't get the reason I mentioned I am not an 'expert' at scanning software.

 

I was self deprecating about my skills to make the point that to my eyes, the results of the scanning for 35mm BW were already superiour.  Further  tweaking of focus height and other means of effecting the outcome of the scan would only further prove that the Epson 850 results were better than the Beoon.

 

As far as the M246 vs film, it's true that it's an incredible camera and I have zero complaints about it.

 

I use and love them both. While I do prefer film for a few reasons, can't really argue about the convenience, quality low light performance and so much more with the M246. Good problem to be lucky to choose which one to use!

 

I'll post up other comparisons but make no mistake, the Beoon was an absolute pleasure to use. It was the first time I had it in the work flow and was better than expected and an absolute blast to be able to digitize a full roll, in the time the Epson had finished 2-3 scans at most.

 

This week I hope to compare color slide scans.

 

Oh, and spend another 10 seconds reading the scanner manual of course. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Avatar

[Avatar]

 

There is an extensive review of the Epson 850 by Marc D. Segal in which he compares it to Nikon, Imacon and Plustek scanners, as well as to camera scanning; he also has an informative article on camera scanning. The 850 comes out very well in these articles with the conclusion that its performance can come close to the best of these scanners, but Segal is apparently the author of a book on the SilverFast software — I don't know whether he has any inherent bias towards the 850.

 

While he has favorable views on camera scanning, my feeling is that better performance can be coaxed from camera scanning than he presents. The articles, were available for free download on the Luminous Landscape website.

_________________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

 

Thank you for the lead to the review by Marc Segal. Read it all in a little more than 10 seconds. 

 

https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-New-Epson-V850-Pro-Scanner-Final.pdf

 

I am still baffled by the comment that the Epson 850 is "known' to be bad at 35mm sizes. I think it's outstanding and I was fortunate two months ago to have access to a brand new Hasselblad X1. Along with a knowledgeable friend we scanned on the Hasselblad at full resolution and then scanned on my Epson 850. The results were interesting. I'd give the edge to the Hasselblad but it was much closer than we'd ever guess.

 

We then made prints using an Epson 3880 printer on Cranston Bartaya 13 x 19 paper. When we knew which file was from the Epson or Hasselblad we thought we could tell but truly, it was very difficult to say definitively which scanner produced which print. From any distance more than 2 feet, I'd say it is absolutely impossible to tell.

 

We were both impressed and even surprised at how close the Epson was to the Hasselblad. It is much more of a difference between the Beoon and the Epson.

 

If there's a much superior scanner to the Epson 850 for 35mm BW negatives, I'd love to know about it. 

 

Haven't heard from 250swb today. Perhaps he was busy extricating his foot from his mouth. 

Edited September 12, 2017 by Avatar

[Avatar]

I see that for a preview scan, it's perfectly alright. The comparison is done well enough to see what it is about. After some reflection, I come to think that the first one was done with the BEOON and the second one with a scanner. If so, there are three "issues" still unresolved, none of which matters for preview scans or even for some sharing.

 

 

Pop, you are correct. The first posted picture was with the Beoon and Rodogon 50mm 2.8 taken at F8.

 

Today I received a Componon S 50mm and took a couple of frames with the Beoon and right away, results are better than the Rodogon. To be fair, both are preowned and I have no way of knowing if the Rodagon is fully in spec. The Componon S appears in never used condition. I also noticed more focus room. 

 

This week I am going to lend the Beoon to a friend for him to use on his slide and film library. He literally has 250,000 plus images and an SL. He needs the Beoon more than I do!

[fotomas]

Epson V850 vs Imacon 848 (don't have a BEOON;-):

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

TRI-X, M6, 35 mm CronASPH1

[plasticman]

I downloaded and was quite excited about Mark Seagal's 'review' of the Epson850 when he first published it a couple years ago. I've re-read it many times now, and each time I'm disappointed to see how each of the comparisons, and the methodology described, tends towards presenting the 850 in the best light, and downgrading any advantages that the other scanners have.

 

Take a close look at the section comparing the Epson with the Imacon 848, for example - Seagal decides that the (to my eye, incredible) detail in the 848 scan is film grain which needs to be eliminated. He then presents a truly awful noise-reduced and sharpened version of the Imacon scan at 100% - which he calls reducing "the grain ever so carefully" - which looks like he passed the original through a blocky median filter and then sharpened it horribly - and comes to the conclusion "the apparent sharpness of the cleaned-up Imacon version is only slightly more distinct and slightly cleaner than that of the Epson V850 rendition without any grain reduction" and so on. Have a look for yourself at the images presented on p.55 of the PDF. This is unfortunately just one small example - the same tendency can be found in pretty much the entire document.

 

I'm afraid that, however good the Epson scanner is, the 'review' which Mark Seagal was invited by Epson to do is not (in my opinion) the place to find a truly objective comparison.

 

Here's a place to find some other comparisons of the scanner output - including the Imacon 949.

 

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/multiple-scans-of-black-and-white-film-compared/

[Steve Ricoh]

I can't see the point of shooting film if the objective is to reduce the look of grain, by doing so you're getting closer to the look of digital. If that's what Segal wants, why not shoot digital and simplify the process.

 

I'm slowly getting back into film and having read about camera BEOON 'scanning' here on the forum c.f. dedicated scanner. I was seduced by the time element, being able to camera-scan a roll of 36 in the time it takes to scan a few frames with a dedicated scanner. But now having digitised some of my B&W film, it's turning out to look very close to a pure digital frame. This is not what I'm after, I want the gritty look of film similar to the work produced by Ned (most will know his work on the street photography sub-forum).

 

So a question for you guys, please, how do I get the Ned look in my finished output. And is it possible with scanning or camera scanning, or is it only possible within a darkroom, and then scanning the resultant print.

 

Edit: I meant to say shooting film if the intention is to make look too perfect, like digital.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Steve Ricoh

[Reeray]

There's lots if tools available in the Niks Suite to modify your image to film taste. NIks SEFX Pro has pretty much all the film profiles to experiment with.

[plasticman]

This is not what I'm after, I want the gritty look of film similar to the work produced by Ned (most will know his work on the street photography sub-forum).

 

So a question for you guys, please, how do I get the Ned look in my finished output. And is it possible with scanning or camera scanning, or is it only possible within a darkroom, and then scanning the resultant print.

By all means you can capture the grainy look of film with a good scan. One thing you can start with is an inherently grainy film stock - I've pretty much only used Tri-X 400, although many people don't think it's "as good as it used to be" (I have nothing to compare it with) - and then expose it at 800 or 1600, and then finally push it those stops when developing. That grain (or at least the grain-aliasing or clumping) is very visible when scanned.

[Steve Ricoh]

There's lots if tools available in the Niks Suite to modify your image to film taste. NIks SEFX Pro has pretty much all the film profiles to experiment with.

Yes I've played with these with digital files, but not for long. I thought if I want the film look, then shoot film, and that's what I'm doing.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Steve Ricoh

[Reeray]

Yes I've played with these with digital files, but not for long. I thought if I want the film look, then shoot film, and that's what I'm doing.

But having shot film, then what do you do? You have two choices. Print it in a darkroom, hang it on the wall, and maybe digitise to share. Or digitise the neg only and share.

 

The reality is film was never meant to be digitised, it's prime purpose was to produce a print via an enlarger. As such, the modern action of digitising, with a scanner or camera, whether it be for for print or sharing, is a compromise and the deviation from its prime purpose should be accommodated and, to some degree, accepted as the modern vehicle. Using software to retain/reinstate the film look is no more "immoral" or false than the methods adopted in the darkroom to achieve the desired outcome.

 

Well, that's what I think anyway!

Edited September 12, 2017 by Reeray

[Guest Nowhereman]

...If there's a much superior scanner to the Epson 850 for 35mm BW negatives, I'd love to know about it...

 

My experience is with the Epson 850 vs the Imacon Precision III vs BEOON camera scanning with the M10/MM/M9 + Focotar-2: as I wrote in another thread, I had  a couple of Tri-X rolls scanned with the Epson 850 by a skilled technician at a Chiang Mai hand-processing lab, owned by two young women who are film enthusiasts, having first shot and developed film at university. Subsequently, when I got my Imacon going in early 2016, I rescanned some 15 frames: the results were obviously superior to the Epson 850 scans, in both resolution and dynamic range.

 

After that, the Imacon started having problems with the feed mechanism that resulted in either buckling of the film holder or loss of focus on the trailing edge of the frame. I then gave up on the Imacon and moved on to the BEOON. I rescanned some of the Tri-X frames that had been scanned with the Epson 850, using the BEOON + MM +  Focotar-2: the results were the same as those with the Imacon, clearly superior to the Epson 850 scans. As I only kept the best results, I don't have any of the Epson 850 scans for comparison.

 

Most recently, as stated in other threads, I digitalized 400+ slides, mainly Kodachrome with the BEOON + M10 + Focotar-2, and found the results at least as good as those of the Imacon. I write "at least as good" because the BEOON digitalizations, remarkably, have required less color and tonal correction than the Imacon scans, which surprised me.

 

It is on the basis of this experience that I have written in PMs and in another thread that, if you are using the BEOON and a good enlarger lens, you should be getting better results than with the Epson 850. As for the Segal articles that I mentioned, while they have some useful information, they cannot be considered as unbiased — and the conclusions certainly don't reflect my experience.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Edited September 12, 2017 by Nowhereman

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Steve Ricoh]

But having shot film, then what do you do? You have two choices. Print it in a darkroom, hang it on the wall, and maybe digitise to share. Or digitise the neg only and share.

The reality is film was never meant to be digitised, it's prime purpose was to produce a print via an enlarger. As such, the modern action of digitising, with a scanner or camera, whether it be for for print or sharing, is a compromise and the deviation from its prime purpose should be accommodated and, to some degree, accepted as the modern vehicle. Using software to retain/reinstate the film look is no more "immoral" or false than the methods adopted in the darkroom to achieve the desired outcome.

Well, that's what I think anyway!

Fair point. I was probably thinking along the lines of how digital representation inflicts damage on the analogue film look. I'm a member of a photo society and I have to bite my lips when I hear other's mentioning how they've photoshop'd the image we're collectively looking at to make it look like film, or to look like it's been taken through a scratched filter. Immoral is the word.

 

With this in mind, does a scanner like the bargain basement Plustek inflict more or less digital damage than camera scanning, eg M240 on a BEOON (the method of mounting the camera is irrelevant of course, but mentioned to set the context)?