Comparison Beoon/Rodagon 2.8 and Epson 850

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"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?

 

The 'inference' has been represented already in this thread by Steve Ricoh's belittling comment "I'm expecting the Epson to struggle, but it's probably OK for web viewing and maybe 10x8's." I can't blame him for saying it, the door was pushed wide open for him to infer that. 

 

Wouldn't it have been nice though to have a test where an effort had been made to do a representative comparison at greater than thumbnail quality? The 'inference' you are so touchy about is because anybody can come along and make a case against scanning if you give it to them on a plate.

Edited September 13, 2017 by 250swb

[250swb]

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

 

Dogs live in the moment, humans should have the capacity to think 'what comes next?' So it's entirely possible to predict a badly presented 'test', even if it comes down positively one way or the other (in this case scanning), is going to be negated by the quality of execution. It's called bad science.

[Advertisement]

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

[pop]

Ah, yes. Dogs bark while humans have the capacity of using reason to argue about things.

[Steve Ricoh]

The 'inference' has been represented already in this thread by Steve Ricoh's belittling comment "I'm expecting the Epson to struggle, but it's probably OK for web viewing and maybe 10x8's." I can't blame him for saying it, the door was pushed wide open for him to infer that.

No personal experience using the Epson 850, my remark was based on what I've read within the Leica forum. I'll paste and copy when I locate the reference.

[plasticman]

No personal experience using the Epson 850, my remark was based on what I've read within the Leica forum. I'll paste and copy when I locate the reference.

Steve - don't bother. I think the reason (the other) Steve is tired of all these threads is because a lot of essentially meaningless opinions get thrown around without much hard evidence. 

 

As I said elsewhere, I've been interested in the whole DSLR scanning thing for a couple years, but in spite of (often) repeated claims that it's better than all sorts of high-end dedicated film-scanners, what I've been disillusioned to see with my own eyes are some very funky colors, some very blocked shadows, some blown highlights, some harsh transitions - in other words, a lot of things that I don't like about digital cameras.

 

Believe me, I get disappointed when I see some of the digital artefacts of scanning with a dedicated film scanner, myself. But for me the drawbacks are balanced by output that I mostly really like, and details and color that (for the most part) really do reflect what I expect and want to see from glorious color films such as Portra, and black-and-white films like Tri-X. I'm not seeing that with camera-scanning at the moment (just my opinion).

 

I'm hoping DSLR scanning gets better because I have a feeling that's the way we're all going to go, when there are no alternatives left.

 

PS: take a look at A. Miller's scans in the "I like film..." thread for beautiful color and smooth, non-digital looking transitions.

Edited September 13, 2017 by plasticman

[Steve Ricoh]

Thanks Plasticman, I had a look for references in the likely places, but to be honest the comments are rather anecdotal and not worth repeating. In which case I retract my comment earlier, and yes I see the other Steve's point, there's a lot of meaningless unsubstantiated comment and in hindsight I'm sorry I got myself involved in this discussion.

 

With regard to scanning with a DSLR, or in my case an M240, is basically something I got into because I like 'playing', however the results so far look too much like the images taken digitally when using the camera to record the scene. However it could be down to technique, and maybe I should be prepared to post process in SEP2 to restore the film-like qualities, as suggested by Reeray earlier.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Steve Ricoh

[Reeray]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You can actually go some way to addressing the harshness of a digital scan by using Niks "Midnight" or "Glamour Glow" tools. Both are adjustable to taste and give a softer "glow type" rendition. Maybe worth a look.

[Doug A]

I hope the Nikon D850 scanner is successful because it could provide a benchmark for those of us messing around with digital camera scanning. Scanning with a scanner is a mature technology. Scanning with a digital camera is in its infancy. My guess is that, from a hardware standpoint, digital camera scanning can be very good indeed. And Nikon may show us what is possible with the software.

 

(My own experiments are not generally applicable because I only shoot B&W film and the X-Trans sensor in the Fuji camera I am using behaves differently from the bayer filter sensors in other digital cameras. (I would suggest however that anyone not getting good results with a Fuji X camera try developing the RAW files with Iridient X-Transformer before giving up.))

[Steve Ricoh]

With regard to 'scanning' using a camera equiped with a bayer filter, I notice the B&W film 'scans' imported into LR have traces of colour, which is not unexpected, agreed? Prior to exporting to PS, I hit the develop button in LR and do a convert to B&W, but i do not do any further processing until I 'round trip' the inverted image from PS (at this point I'm just using PS for inversion only as I'm extremely new to the software).

I don't think there's anything wrong in what I'm doing, but then again... please let me know.

[Reeray]

The colour is also what I see from the Fuji. Just desaturate is the easiest. For me I import straight into PS, invert, desaturate, auto tone as a starting mark and work from there with curves, levels and Niks plug in software. Only after all amendments do I import into LR, which I only use as a DAM tool. For me there's nothing in LR that I can't do in PS which in itself offers a great deal more.

 

Others will differ, but that's the way I work.

[Avatar]

Dogs live in the moment, humans should have the capacity to think 'what comes next?' So it's entirely possible to predict a badly presented 'test', even if it comes down positively one way or the other (in this case scanning), is going to be negated by the quality of execution. It's called bad science.

 

"Wouldn't it have been nice though to have a test where an effort had been made to do a representative comparison at greater than thumbnail quality? The 'inference' you are so touchy about is because anybody can come along and make a case against scanning if you give it to them on a plate."

 

If you actually read the thread you wouldn't think I was making a case against scanning. What are you even talking about?

 

I don't think there is much more I or anyone could do to get a better result with the Beoon. I am not predisposed on my desire for it to be better than the scanner or visa versa. 

 

You made a quite nasty snarky comment about me not spending 10 seconds to read the scanner manual. Clearly and obviously you are so pre determined to read what you think is being written.

 

The scanner to my eyes is easily superior. My comment seems to have triggered you that I am not expert at scanning. The comment was a bit tongue in cheek as I am proficient enough for this test. 

 

The only reason I posted some results was that others here have been generous and helpful to me and others benefit by reading and seeing real world results. If the 'thumbnail' so clearly shows a better result with the scanner, would it help you to see a larger file?

 

You commented that the Epson 850 is not great for 35mm negatives. My experience is different but by all means we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

I'm looking for best result.

 

The Beoon, serves an excellent purpose in terms of speed and quality. I lent it to a friend and set it up yesterday with him to use with an SL. The results were better than I expected.

 

Your 'bad science' comment does not apply to what I am doing unless you can tell me how to get a better image on the Beoon?

 

Scanner won the test for 35mm BW images shot on Tri Ex.

 

Not sure why your tits are all up in a knot.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Avatar

[Avatar]

I will add that since I did this test, I received a Componon S lens and the result is better than with the version I have of the Rodogon. I will be helping a friend use the Beoon with Kodachrone slides as well as black and white negatives using an SL.

 

Initial results were excellent. He won't be scanning as he has 250K slides..this is perfect use of the Beoon to get his stuff digitized.

[Steve Ricoh]

Thanks for the update Avatar. Good accreditation for the Epson 850, and for the Componon S.

I've spent all I want on scanning equipment, viz Plustek 8200 Ai and a BEOON and got myself a pup of a lens, the Nikkor 50 f2.8. One last throw for a Componon S now I'm assured the column doesn't run out of vertical adjustment, and has good optical performance.

[Avatar]

Thanks for the update Avatar. Good accreditation for the Epson 850, and for the Componon S.

I've spent all I want on scanning equipment, viz Plustek 8200 Ai and a BEOON and got myself a pup of a lens, the Nikkor 50 f2.8. One last throw for a Componon S now I'm assured the column doesn't run out of vertical adjustment, and has good optical performance.

 

The new condition Componon S easily beat the Rodogon 2.8 (at least my example which is not in same prime condition).

 

Only 'negative' about the Componon S is slight but when it's attached, the 'window' for F stops lines up with the Beoon column and is a bit hard to see..Also the color green of the background and small type add to it being hard to see but this is minor as it's not the kind of thing that is changed all the time.

 

But it's giving fantastic results already. It is great to hand off the Beoon to my friend.

 

I have no more patience to be comparing and testing and it's nice to have it out of my hair right now so I can concentrate on working!

 

I look forward to your experience with the Componon S. 

 

Would have been nice to have the acclaimed Focotar 2 but they are scarce and I am done! (for now) 

[250swb]

If you actually read the thread you wouldn't think I was making a case against scanning. What are you even talking about?

 

 

 

I didn't think you were making a case against scanning, but you jumped to that conclusion. Followed of course by the 'usual suspects' that didn't know what they were yapping about but felt compelled to bark anyway.

 

Possibly because you were over sensitive at my desire to see something that represented scanning in it's best light, after all not many people have both an Epson scanner and a BEOON. But yet again with this type of thread it plumbed the depths of 'what can I get away with', and we had plenty of those with film vs digital, early scanning debates, the Pakon scanner fad and now the BEOON. If I get frustrated it's because nobody wants to make an effort, but that sums up the Leica Forum these days.

[Avatar]

I didn't think you were making a case against scanning, but you jumped to that conclusion. Followed of course by the 'usual suspects' that didn't know what they were yapping about but felt compelled to bark anyway.

 

Possibly because you were over sensitive at my desire to see something that represented scanning in it's best light, after all not many people have both an Epson scanner and a BEOON. But yet again with this type of thread it plumbed the depths of 'what can I get away with', and we had plenty of those with film vs digital, early scanning debates, the Pakon scanner fad and now the BEOON. If I get frustrated it's because nobody wants to make an effort, but that sums up the Leica Forum these days.

 

I have left and come back to the forum for various reasons. I have never participated in any of these discussions about scanning, so I had no dog in the hunt and am completely unaware of any past debates although clearly I can imagine things getting hot and heavy as they did with my first encounter with the endlessly charming "Ned", when he made idiotic comments in a post I made in Street Photography.

 

The truth is that I did make an effort and did so as a way to 'pay back' to those who helped me. 

 

As I have said more than once in this thread, the result was in favour of the Epson for 35mm Tri Ex negatives. By far in my opinion. 

 

Your comment criticizing me for not spending 10 seconds reading a scanner manual, coupled with the comment that I have no idea how a scanner works was frankly nasty and uncalled for, although after reading what you just wrote, I can understand to an extent where you were coming from.

 

The reason I was baffled was that if the scanner result was better and the examples I posted showed that, why would you criticize me and say it's 'bad science'? I hazard to guess and you pretty much said it above that you are frustrated with some others who make claims and perhaps don't back up or back up with what you called bad science. After reading and seeing what I posted, I doubt very much you were pointing all that at me.

 

It's time to stop with  the back and forth about this. You have recently posted in a thread I made about film holders and I appreciate you sharing helpful information. Thank you for that.

 

Mark

 

PS: After all the time I have spent researching and experimenting with the Beoon, while i think it's perfect for some users and applications, it's not something I will be using or keeping.

 

I pretty much loaned it to someone who doesn't have much money and has over 250,000 slides and negatives. He was like a kid in the candy shot when I showed up with it and set it up for him. 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Avatar

[AntonioF]

I hope the Nikon D850 scanner is successful because it could provide a benchmark for those of us messing around with digital camera scanning. Scanning with a scanner is a mature technology. Scanning with a digital camera is in its infancy. My guess is that, from a hardware standpoint, digital camera scanning can be very good indeed. And Nikon may show us what is possible with the software.

 

(My own experiments are not generally applicable because I only shoot B&W film and the X-Trans sensor in the Fuji camera I am using behaves differently from the bayer filter sensors in other digital cameras. (I would suggest however that anyone not getting good results with a Fuji X camera try developing the RAW files with Iridient X-Transformer before giving up.))

 

I agree: Iridient X-Transformer helps a lot. I still use an Epson V600 for the scans but I have been playing around with camera scans lately and I use X-Transformer to convert the RAF to DNG before inverting and adjusting in Camera Raw / PS / LR.

[gauss]

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

 

03B15-19f700.jpg

 

03B15-19_700.jpg

 

TRI-X, M6, 35 mm CronASPH1

 

ich seh kaum oder keinen Unterschied ?

[fotomas]

ich seh kaum oder keinen Unterschied ?

das spart viel Geld

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[gauss]

vergleich einfach die Dateien..... du wirst staunen