I think this review is quite good:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...0/Page%208.htm
It should point to the page where the 4990 is compared with a Nikon LS4000.
The Nikon scanner captures much more details. This was the reason for me to
swap the Epson 3200 to a LS9000. There are not much improvements from the
3200 to the 4900. Seems to be about same poor optics in the Epson scanner.
What I found much improved when using the LS-9000 was:
Much better details especially in the dark areas.
Much cleaner in the dark areas (low noise. LS-9000 can do multi-sampling).
Much better shadow details.
Much lower color fringle in high contrast transitions.
If you don't need 4x5" then just go for a LS-9000. It cost no more than a
good lens.
People talk and talk about these Epson scanners. But if you really what to
make
quality prints from 24x36 or from 120 film a Espon flatbed will not show the
qualities
in high qualities film captures. This was my conclusion after trying both.
I have deleted all my Espon 3200 scans after seeing the differences.
Max
"G- Blank" skrev i en meddelelse
...
In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:
On 31 Dec 2005 06:47:23 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:
In some ways I think the Epson did better then the Nikon.
In the nikon_motif image look at the building on the right where the
roof and wall come together, in the shadow, there is a lot of noise in
the Nikon image that I don't see in the Epson image.
With out the USM the Epson looks very soft but as you point out is
sharpens up well.
You are correct about the Nikon noise.
The Nikons are kinda noisy. But then, noise
always follows *real* bandwidth, doesn't it?
The Nikon scan noise corresponds to the
thinnest portions of the negative. What do you
make of that?
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Maybe you me and Matt should collaborate on a scan comparision
of a medium & LF format transparencies. Since Matt and Myself both are
avid LF photographers and your a wanna be in that regard & since Your
opinion is held in high regard (at least by me) concerning technical
issues related to scanners I think it might be a fun ordeal-or positive
lesson for us all.
Here 's what I propose.
Since I have Matt beat on longevity in terms of my film (photography)
experience and claim to be a Professional (Like Matt) I'll make the
initial film originals.
I'll scan the originals. I'll send them to Matt, he scans them and
sends them to you. We post them on our web pages and link the
sites for comparison.
My reason: To see just how much improvement truly there has been between
the 2450 and the 4990 in 4x5 and 120-6x6. I could buy the 4990 but my
results might not hold so much weight, and knowing what I know and who I
might know- i can get the results published with all our names included.
Also it will show how the 4990 , 2450 and the 8000 compare when different
users do the scanning.
Plus it will nail down some criteria for the following films in both
formats.
Will use Provia 100F
Will use Velvia 100 -New Saturated.
These selected films hopefully will placate David (who by nature of
distance -only) is being omitted.
However -Maybe David would like to suggest a color negative film that
is 120 & 4x5? (Well would ya?)
Btw if Gordon and Neil Gould would like to contribute they can
scan with their gear and I'll be willing to work out the logistics of
that. (That is if everybody feels confident that I can make sharp enough
originals
This will help me decide whether I want to invest in a Nikon 9000
or go the easy route and buy into another Epson flat bed.
{Politics aside----------}
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
greg_____photo(dot)com