Epson 4900 Sample Scans vs. Microtek, Nikon

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:25:24 -0500, G- Blank
wrote:


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----------}



If you have stuff you'd like me to scan, no problem.
(My snail-mail address is on my website.)

Yes, we could do a small scan-around, like the one Neil
Snape organized (which appears on my site) or the one
Leigh Perry organized (now on the LF site.) It doesn't
matter to me whose images we use so long as they're
good and sharp.

My LS-8000, like Dave L's, is getting old. It doesn't
quite match up to MXP's LS-9000. There are at least
a few other LS-8000 users here. Stacey, for one.

I expect Neil's Microtek 120 to be very close to the
LS-8000 in most regards. I already have a couple
of 120tf samples on my site (by Karl Winkler.)

Portra 160 is generally available in either 120 or 4x5.
I prefer Reala (ISO 100) but I haven't seen it in 4x5.

My 4900 is giving me fits at the moment... nearly random
results (color-balance wise) from the Epson driver. Weird.

The Silverfast SE driver is only a bit better (it's seriously
hobbled) and VueScan is... what it is.

If it's any interest to anyone, I could probably come up
with lots of A:B comparisons between the Epson 4990
and original scans off my old Polaroid SprintScan 35+,
on 35mm.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

If you have stuff you'd like me to scan, no problem.
(My snail-mail address is on my website.)

Yes, we could do a small scan-around, like the one Neil
Snape organized (which appears on my site) or the one
Leigh Perry organized (now on the LF site.) It doesn't
matter to me whose images we use so long as they're
good and sharp.

My LS-8000, like Dave L's, is getting old. It doesn't
quite match up to MXP's LS-9000. There are at least
a few other LS-8000 users here. Stacey, for one.

I expect Neil's Microtek 120 to be very close to the
LS-8000 in most regards. I already have a couple
of 120tf samples on my site (by Karl Winkler.)

Portra 160 is generally available in either 120 or 4x5.
I prefer Reala (ISO 100) but I haven't seen it in 4x5.

My 4900 is giving me fits at the moment... nearly random
results (color-balance wise) from the Epson driver. Weird.

The Silverfast SE driver is only a bit better (it's seriously
hobbled) and VueScan is... what it is.

If it's any interest to anyone, I could probably come up
with lots of A:B comparisons between the Epson 4990
and original scans off my old Polaroid SprintScan 35+,
on 35mm.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Anyone who wants to participate can.

Once I get the originals shot, I'll forward them to Matt
and then he can send them to you. If anyone else wants
to join, you can forward the originals to them.

Anyone else can jump in after you.

--
"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

"G- Blank" wrote in message
...

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.

snip


Thinking about this a bit more...

I don't know exactly what exactly you want to achieve,
but if you want to include the LS-8000 and/or LS-9000
in this comparison, you need to include some MF originals
or LF that's been cut down to 120 film-width.

Yesterday evening I did just that, on a negative shot with
that Symmar 240/5.6. Results are not surprising. With
generous USM, the Epson 4990 can be made to look
almost as good as the Nikon scan, when both are down-
sampled to 2400 dpi. At "max dpi" there's simply no
contest.

Another experiment I tried yesterday was comparing Epson
scans to those from a LeafScan 45, on MF, at 2400 dpi.
Again, the Epson falls down, but can be "rescued" to some
extent by USM. (I evaluated the Leaf before I bought my
Nikon scanner, and still have the test scans and the originals.)

The good news about the Epson is that it's quite low noise,
so one can apply lots of USM before noise becomes a
problem - even on scans of C41.

I suppose the other "good news" is that LF really doesn't
benefit from resolution 2500 dpi the way that MF or
35 mm might. The MTF on the film is likely to be lower.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"G- Blank" wrote in message
...
In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

Once I get the originals shot, I'll forward them to Matt

http://tinyurl.com/b2yxl

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"G- Blank" wrote:

However -Maybe David would like to suggest a color negative film that
is 120 & 4x5? (Well would ya?)

The new Fuji PRO160NC (or whatever it's called in the states) is looking
interesting. Electric greens for the Velvia fans, and quite a bit better MTF
for the detail fans.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"G- Blank" wrote:

However -Maybe David would like to suggest a color negative film that
is 120 & 4x5? (Well would ya?)

The new Fuji PRO160NC (or whatever it's called in the states) is looking
interesting. Electric greens for the Velvia fans, and quite a bit better MTF
for the detail fans.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Ok I'll add that one, comes in 120 & 4x5.


--
"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