LaserSoft Imaging

Hello,

So I got my Epson V800 yesterday and started using it and comparing it to the Canon 9000F MkII which I had previously, and which didn't impress me.
Currently I'm scanning a roll of Ilford XP2 Super 400 6x6 film. I'm using the following settings:

Transparent Scan
Negative Scan (further below configured as Ilford XP2 Super 400)
16bit to 8bit Grey
JPEG output, Maximum Quality (100), Progressive
3200 ppi
Auto Sharpening / More Sharpening (Strength between 270 and 345)

Now comes the funny part. I scanned the first 11 frames with the above settings, and ALL were somewhere between 25-28 MB.
Then the last (12th) frame scanned to a file around 14 MB, which is half of the information in the file. I tried verifying the settings, made more tests, without changing anything, and these were again 14 MB.
It's really driving me crazy, and I cannot understand for the life of me why 11 frames with the above settings all output 25-28 MB files, and the last frame only outputs half of the information.

The only differences that I can tell so far:
- the first 11 frames were always a set of 3 on a sheet of film (due to how the film was cut at the lab), one sheet has a "blank" frame
- this last (12th) frame is alone on its sheet of film, cut independently
- due to the fact that I can align a sheet of 3 frames almost perfectly in the film holder, I don't have to crop almost at all, so the output resolution is around 7150 x 7150 pixels (2.25 inches @ 3200 ppi does equal to 7200 pixels)
- due to the fact that this last (12th) frame is cut independently, I cannot align it perfectly (it's ever so slightly rotated), so I have to crop it a bit, so the output resolution is around 6950 x 6950 pixels

I suspect there's an issue rather with the compression than with the scanner, but I cannot figure it out.
Please help.
Many thanks in advance.

Dear user,

have you compared uncompressed image formats?
Some image sizes and content can be compressed better then others. So this can not be compared correctly.

Kind regards,
Arne.

Hello,

many thanks for your reply.

I admit that I haven't compared uncompressed sizes, but I do have an almost identical shot on the same film roll, which was scanned to the "normal" ~26 MB size.

I restarted my PC and the scanner and made another test, with results which I deem as "interesting".
I made four scans, one after the other, w/o changing any setting and w/o even opening the scanner's lid. Basically I just clicked on "Scan" four times in a row (waiting for the scan to finish in between).
1st scan: 20.5 MB
2nd, 3rd and 4th scans: 14.5 MB

There's definitely something strange going on here.

Dear user,

Do you have any issue with the actual image content?
The size of the file has no relevance and can vary.

Kind regards,
Arne