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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |