A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Epson 4900 Sample Scans vs. Microtek, Nikon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 31st 05, 06:04 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Epson 4900 Sample Scans vs. Microtek, Nikon


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.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
  #2  
Old December 31st 05, 11:51 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Epson 4900 Sample Scans vs. Microtek, Nikon

"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


  #3  
Old December 31st 05, 02:34 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Epson 4900 Sample Scans vs. Microtek, Nikon

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:51:22 GMT, "Matt Clara"
wrote:


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



I sold the Microtek a couple months ago.

It had a streaking/banding issue on 4x5 that I only
discovered after I'd been using it a couple of months.

OK, maybe I discovered it before then, but I kept
hoping I could fix it or deal with it somehow...

I got it in early 2004 for a cool $1K at closeout,
and sold it for 1/4 of that. Not one of my better
investments. (These puppies went for around
$5K new, about 5 or 6 years ago.)

It was a huge, noisy beast, 85 lbs in its shipping
carton, which was about the size of a Buick.
Sending it back to Microtek for service was
just not realistic.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
  #4  
Old December 31st 05, 03:47 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Epson 4900 Sample Scans vs. Microtek, Nikon

rafe b wrote:
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.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


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.

Scott

  #5  
Old December 31st 05, 05:22 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Epson 4900 Sample Scans vs. Microtek, Nikon

With out the USM the Epson looks very soft but as you point out is
sharpens up well.


True and a big factor in the outcome is the user's USM skills. There are a
lot of good USM tutorials on the net but if a user isn't the type to study
them they really should invest in a good sharpning package like FocalBlade,
Nik, etc. It can change a user's outlook on whether their Canon, Epson or
Microtek flatbed was worth purchasing.

Doug
--
Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format
film:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfishe...mainintro.html


  #6  
Old December 31st 05, 07:11 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Epson 4900 Sample Scans vs. Microtek, Nikon

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
  #7  
Old January 1st 06, 03:25 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Epson 4900 Sample Scans vs. Microtek, Nikon/A humble Suggestion.

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
  #8  
Old January 1st 06, 07:44 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Epson 4900 Sample Scans vs. Microtek, Nikon/A humble Suggestion.

"G- Blank" wrote in message
...
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.


You give me more credit than I'm due, but sure, I'm game.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com


  #9  
Old January 1st 06, 10:51 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Epson 4900 Sample Scans vs. Microtek, Nikon/A humble Suggestion.

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



  #10  
Old January 1st 06, 03:41 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Epson 4900 Sample Scans vs. Microtek, Nikon/A humble Suggestion.

In article ,
"MXP" wrote:

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


Hi Max;

I had read that review awhile back and appreciate its contents
for good thorough reporting. My film formats run from 35mm
to 8x10. I have not been happy with the 2450 for my 35mm
work. Most times for scanning the 120 film it does just alright,
not perfect.

My thought was that I could get a smaller Nikon ED scanner
and the 4990 for the MF and LF films,...but only if the scanner
does better for MF films than the 4990. Because I know I have to
have more resolution for 35mm-but at the same time want to have a
more current scanner able to do LF films.





--
"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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Epson 4870 RSD99 Large Format Photography Equipment 22 May 2nd 04 09:14 PM
FS: 8 Nikon lenses including 80-200 Nikkor 2.8 zoom and accessories Henry Peña 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 November 11th 03 07:20 PM
Nikon F4s, F90x, 20,60,85,105,35-70,80-200 tony 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 October 19th 03 10:17 PM
FS: Nikon F3 OF General Equipment For Sale 0 September 25th 03 04:13 PM
FS: Nikon F3 OF 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 September 25th 03 04:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.