Discussion of Epson 4870 online

[Robert D Feinman]

I've added a discussion about the Epson 4870 to the tips section of my
web site. Since their have been several good reviews posted already I've
restricted myself to some comparisons of the resolution compared to
other scanners; specifically the Minolta 5400 and an older 1600 dpi
Epson flatbed.
So if you're looking for the answer to "should I upgrade from my older
flatbed?" I'm not sure I've answered your questions.
There are full sized samples as links that you can download and play
with if you wish.

Finally, let me say that the supplied epson scan software is only useful
for casual users (even in professional mode). There is also a copy of
Silverfast supplied which I'll try to get to soon.

I have tried Vuescan and it appears to work fine, but I'm still
struggling with the setup on how to mark multiple images on a flatbed.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

[Raphael Bustin]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:00:37 -0500, Robert D Feinman
> wrote:

>I've added a discussion about the Epson 4870 to the tips section of my
>web site. Since their have been several good reviews posted already I've
>restricted myself to some comparisons of the resolution compared to
>other scanners; specifically the Minolta 5400 and an older 1600 dpi
>Epson flatbed.
>So if you're looking for the answer to "should I upgrade from my older
>flatbed?" I'm not sure I've answered your questions.
>There are full sized samples as links that you can download and play
>with if you wish.
>
>Finally, let me say that the supplied epson scan software is only useful
>for casual users (even in professional mode). There is also a copy of
>Silverfast supplied which I'll try to get to soon.
>
>I have tried Vuescan and it appears to work fine, but I'm still
>struggling with the setup on how to mark multiple images on a flatbed.


How about scanning a very sharp section from a
real slide or negative -- 0.25 inch by 0.25 inch, let's
say -- so we can compare with other scans at

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

I'd be happy to post it on that page, alongside
scans from my Artixscan 2500. I've asked this
from a few 4870 owners but none so far have
been willing.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

[Robert Feinman]

In case you think the 4870 may be the answer to LF scanning,
there is a speed issue with ICE.
Epson quotes about 1 minute for 35mm film with ICE off and
over 8 minutes with ICE on.
The speed of the scan should be proportional to the size of
the film..
I did a scan of a 6x7 slide with ICE and on my 450 MHz machine
it took about 1 hour to process.
So you'll probably want to be very selective as to when you
use ICE.
I can usually spot an image in Photoshop in about 5 minutes..


--
Robert D Feinman

Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
http://robertdfeinman.com

[Leonard Evens]

Robert Feinman wrote:
> In case you think the 4870 may be the answer to LF scanning,
> there is a speed issue with ICE.
> Epson quotes about 1 minute for 35mm film with ICE off and
> over 8 minutes with ICE on.
> The speed of the scan should be proportional to the size of
> the film..
> I did a scan of a 6x7 slide with ICE and on my 450 MHz machine
> it took about 1 hour to process.
> So you'll probably want to be very selective as to when you
> use ICE.
> I can usually spot an image in Photoshop in about 5 minutes..

It usually takes me well less of that with 4 x 5 film. Partly it is
because the spots are smaller, and partly it is a matter of being in a
relatively dust free environment. I don't know about others, but for
me, with 4 x 5, ICE is an unnecessary luxury.

>
>

[MikeWhy]

"Leonard Evens" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Feinman wrote:
> > In case you think the 4870 may be the answer to LF scanning,
> > there is a speed issue with ICE.
> > Epson quotes about 1 minute for 35mm film with ICE off and
> > over 8 minutes with ICE on.
> > The speed of the scan should be proportional to the size of
> > the film..
> > I did a scan of a 6x7 slide with ICE and on my 450 MHz machine
> > it took about 1 hour to process.
> > So you'll probably want to be very selective as to when you
> > use ICE.
> > I can usually spot an image in Photoshop in about 5 minutes..
>
> It usually takes me well less of that with 4 x 5 film. Partly it is
> because the spots are smaller, and partly it is a matter of being in a
> relatively dust free environment. I don't know about others, but for
> me, with 4 x 5, ICE is an unnecessary luxury.

Doing just fine with a 3200. As you say, spots are not the same problem they
are on roll films, although I'm not sure how to explain that. I scan at 2400
and 3200 on both.

[Radio913]

>Doing just fine with a 3200. As you say, spots are not the same problem they
>are on roll films, although I'm not sure how to explain that. I scan at 2400
>and 3200 on both.
>

I was considering the 3200, but then the 4870 came out. I will be using
it with the Epson 4000 hopefully.

Someone mentioned that they had a homemade way to "oil-mount" the 4x5
transparencies during the scan, similar to the oil-mounting they do for a drum
scan.

Does anyone know the proper procedure for oil-mounting while scanning?

It's supposed to reduce the scratches and stuff, right?


S.

[Robert D Feinman]

In article >, radio913
@aol.com says...
> >Doing just fine with a 3200. As you say, spots are not the same problem they
> >are on roll films, although I'm not sure how to explain that. I scan at 2400
> >and 3200 on both.
> >
>
> I was considering the 3200, but then the 4870 came out. I will be using
> it with the Epson 4000 hopefully.
>
> Someone mentioned that they had a homemade way to "oil-mount" the 4x5
> transparencies during the scan, similar to the oil-mounting they do for a drum
> scan.
>
> Does anyone know the proper procedure for oil-mounting while scanning?
>
> It's supposed to reduce the scratches and stuff, right?
>
>
> S.
>
I don't think you'll enjoy the mess from oil mounting when scanning.
It's mostly valuable for the big enlargements from small frmae sizes
such as 35mm movies.
With 4x5 and a normal degree of enlargement 4x - 6x the defects won't be
that visible.
The new Epson 4870 also has defect removal capability which may solve
any spotting problems you have.
We are still struggling with processing time for this function.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

[evan clarke]

I just got the 4870. I tried to scan some 4x5 last night with the Digital
Ice and after no activity for about 10 minutes, I gave up. I see I should
have been more patient. I use the Polaroid dust and scratch utility and have
been happy with it, more so than the Silverfast dust and scratches..Evan
Clarke

"Robert Feinman" > wrote in message
...
> In case you think the 4870 may be the answer to LF scanning,
> there is a speed issue with ICE.
> Epson quotes about 1 minute for 35mm film with ICE off and
> over 8 minutes with ICE on.
> The speed of the scan should be proportional to the size of
> the film..
> I did a scan of a 6x7 slide with ICE and on my 450 MHz machine
> it took about 1 hour to process.
> So you'll probably want to be very selective as to when you
> use ICE.
> I can usually spot an image in Photoshop in about 5 minutes..
>
>
> --
> Robert D Feinman
>
> Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
> http://robertdfeinman.com
>