 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / April 2005Epson 4990 4x5 scanning experience?
Hi I have an Epson 4870 for scanning 4x5. I've been scanning at 3200 ppi, but there is some internal buffer that limits the scan length, so I must scan the 4x5's at this resolution in two pieces and put them together in Photoshop. Has anyone done a 3200 ppi or larger 4x5 scan with a 4990? If so, can you scan the whole image at 3200 ppi, at 4800 ppi? Any limits scanning 8x10 film? In general, how is your experience so far with the scanner? Roger > Hi > I have an Epson 4870 for scanning 4x5. I've been scanning at > 3200 ppi, but there is some internal buffer that limits the > scan length, so I must scan the 4x5's at this resolution > in two pieces and put them together in Photoshop. Has anyone > done a 3200 ppi or larger 4x5 scan with a 4990? Strange! Let's get to the bottom of this because I had planned upon buying a 4870. Fill us in some details - OS, RAM, and so forth. >>Hi >>I have an Epson 4870 for scanning 4x5. I've been scanning at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Fill us in some details - OS, RAM, and so forth. I don't have the 4870, but from the previous discussion of this issue, started by Roger, I think the following concluions were drawn. 1) If you scan at 3200, the hardware actually scans at 4800 and then scales down to yield 3200 ppi. 2) If you scan at 4800 (or 3200) and 48 bit color depth, the internal buffer of the scanner can't hold a full 4 x 5 scan. Hence, it is necessary to scan in two segments and merge them in a photoeditor. Alternatively, you can scan at 2400 ppi and 48 bit color depth or at 4800 (or 3200) ppi and 24 bit color depth to get the entire image in one scan. Roger seems to be reporting exceptionally good results from his scanner. Others have not reported such good results. I don't doubt what Roger says since he knows what is is doing, has high standards, and his web site is a reliable source of information. But if you get a typical version of this scanner and have typical skill at scanning, there doesn't seem to be much point is scanning at higher than 2400 ppi because the optical quality of the scanner doesn't appear to preserve detail better than that. By reading a variety of reports, it seems that the 4870 may yield something approaching 34 lp/mm when scanning 4 x 5, but not much higher. >>> Hi >>> I have an Epson 4870 for scanning 4x5. I've been scanning at [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > By reading a variety of reports, it seems that the 4870 may yield > something approaching 34 lp/mm when scanning 4 x 5, but not much higher. Yes, I think I got a lucky scanner. Previous scanners I've had, like the HP 7400: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/hp7400-drum_compare.html were definitely not as good as HP specs. Neither is epson's on the 4870, but at least it is getting close to the range that I want. I really want to scan my 4x5 Velvia images at about 3200 ppi 12 bits (meaning 16-bit)/channel. I want optical resolution in the 3000+ range. My 4870 is close to that, but not quite (slightly soft compared to 3300 ppi drum scans. My 4870 is quite acceptable though, except it takes a lot of time to scan two halves and put them together. Here is an example of 4 scans from 2 4x5 merged into one panorama: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.fall-colors/web/colorado.fall.c10.0 1.2003.L4.9536.a+b.c.700.html If the 4990 has similar resolution (at least no worse), but solves the buffer problem, I get it in a snap. A google search on the 4870 should find the discussion on the 4870 buffer problem. Someone else gave the technical buffer size limit details. It is a hardware limit in the scanner. I think if you do 8-bits/channel, you do not hit the limit. Roger Roger, that is correct - if you scan at 8bits/channel, this problem does not exist. I tried the same but as I am working with a rather "antique" computer, my computer gave up first - could not digest 1GB files. I got a new one most recently and when I am back from a project in Switzerland, I shall try this again - Rgds George N.Nyman (http://www.gnyman.com) >>>> Hi >>>> I have an Epson 4870 for scanning 4x5. I've been scanning at [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Roger I have a Epson 4990 and thought I'd run the test you have all been speculating about. I scanned a 4x5 transparency using Epson Scan using 4800dpi in 16bits per channel (48bit color). No other filters, sharpening etc. The scan took 9 minutes and resulted in a very nice 2.1GB file. I opened it up in Photoshop CS and it was fine. Once loaded it was no trouble to move around, zoom in or out, apply sharpening, or spot. My computer is home-built 3 GHz Pentium 4 with 2 GB RAM. So, in conclusion, the 4990 doesn't suffer from a "buffer" limitation at 3000 dpi and above when scanning 4x5 16 bit images. Regards, Dave Anderson > Hi > I have an Epson 4870 for scanning 4x5. I've been scanning at [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Roger > I have a Epson 4990 and thought I'd run the test you have all been > speculating about. I scanned a 4x5 transparency using Epson Scan using [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Dave Anderson I seem to recall you also said awhile back you felt it was a clearly better scanner than the 2450? How about with 35mm slides?  SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "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 I also have the Nikon 8000, and it is somewhat sharper than the 4990 for medium format work and noticeably sharper when scanning 35mm. I use the 4490 for 4x5 and 9x12 only and use the dedicated film scanner for the smaller formats. Sorry, no universal scanner out there yet that can compete with the quality of a dedicated film scanner for smaller film sizes. As to the different models, Epson differentiates the Pro model by providing Silverfast along with the basic scanner. I have found that Epson Scan is much improved and use it most of the time. >> I have a Epson 4990 and thought I'd run the test you have all been >> speculating about. I scanned a 4x5 transparency using Epson Scan using [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I seem to recall you also said awhile back you felt it was a clearly > better scanner than the 2450? How about with 35mm slides? > I have a Epson 4990 and thought I'd run the test you have all been > speculating about. I scanned a 4x5 transparency using Epson Scan using [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So, in conclusion, the 4990 doesn't suffer from a "buffer" limitation at > 3000 dpi and above when scanning 4x5 16 bit images. Dave, Thank you! This is great news. Now I see there are two versions of the 4990, one called 4990 PRO, and the other 4990 PHOTO. The PHOTO version is about $450, the PRO ~ $600. Which model was your test on? I did ask a question of Epson Tech Support. Their response was a parroting of the scanners specs--totally useless. (I found out about the different models after I asked the question.) Roger >>Hi >>I have an Epson 4870 for scanning 4x5. I've been scanning at [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >>Roger >> I have a Epson 4990 and thought I'd run the test you have all been >> speculating about. I scanned a 4x5 transparency using Epson Scan [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > useless. (I found out about the different models > after I asked the question.) In the past, the difference between the two versions was the additional software provided in the Pro version. > Roger > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> >>> Roger ... >> Dave, >> Thank you! This is great news. Now I see there are two [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > In the past, the difference between the two versions was the additional > software provided in the Pro version. The difference is in the supplied software, and reading the scanner specs will give this information. The scanner is the same. Steve |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.