"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote in message
...

My 4990 arrived today. I'm starting to get the feel
of it and getting over my (initially) very negative
reaction. A few sample scans he

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/mVe/

Epson 4990 v. Microtek 2500
Portra 160 NC. Lens: Nikon 90mm/8 (from 4x5 LF film)
625 x 625 pixels, ref spi: 2500
---
epson_tree.jpg // Epson downsampled to 2500 dpi
epson_tree_sharp.jpg // same, with USM in Epson TWAIN
microtek_tree.jpg // Microtek, 2500 native dpi

Epson 4990 v. Nikon LS-8000
Portra 160; Lens: Pentax SMC 45mm/2.8 (from 645)
1200 x 1200 pixels, ref spi: 4800
---
epson_motif.jpg // Epson, native 4800 dpi
epson_motif_sharp.jpg // same, with USM in Photoshop
nikon_motif.jpg // Nikon, upsampled to 4800 dpi


The Epson's resolution doesn't even match the Microtek's,
though it responds well to USM. That done, the result looks
quite like the Microtek's but chunky -- kinda like what Matt
showed us.

The Nikon scan was up-res'ed to 4800 dpi to match
the Epson.. Even so, without sharpening, the Epson
scan looks pretty lame. Again, the Epson responds
nicely to USM.

For me, scanning LF, the Epson's close enough to the
Microtek to get me back in business. But, a drum
scanner (or Nikon,) it ain't.


I take it you don't actually own the microtek? [grumbles] now I want one of
those... ;-)

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com