Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / September 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

1200 DPI

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz - 13 Sep 2005 18:42 GMT
I have an Epson 2450 scanner and I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to
upgrade to say a 4990. Most of my prints are through a 1280 printer,
and and I can "borrow" time on 4000 for a few prints. So as I do a
simple calc...  (300 dpi x 16" print)/4 inch neg = 1200 dpi. It looks
like I'd be comparing quality between scanners at 1200 dpi. So do these
scanners show much difference in quality when downsized to (or scanned
at) 1200 dpi?

Jay Wenner
Mike - 13 Sep 2005 18:58 GMT
This same question has been asked on photo.net and testimonials from users
with both scanners all seem to say that the 4990 is a significant
improvement over the 2450 w.r.t. shadow detail and sharpness.

> I have an Epson 2450 scanner and I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to
> upgrade to say a 4990. Most of my prints are through a 1280 printer,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Jay Wenner
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz - 15 Sep 2005 13:19 GMT
> This same question has been asked on photo.net and testimonials from users
> with both scanners all seem to say that the 4990 is a significant
> improvement over the 2450 w.r.t. shadow detail and sharpness.

I guess I didn't search the correct key words, because the posts I saw
were mainly about 120 film scanning, and I didn't get the feeling from
the posts it was worth upgrading. A number of 4990 users really liked
their scanners, but didn't mention improvements on the 2450. When I
look at Q.-Tuan Luong's page, I don't really see any difference
bewtween the 3200 and the 4990 scans. (The 2450 is not compared.) I
also get the feeling that some scanners are real klunkers, or the users
must be doing something odd to get poor scans.

Jay
Mark McGilvray - 19 Sep 2005 17:09 GMT
>> This same question has been asked on photo.net and testimonials from
>> users
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Jay

I got the 4990 recently and,  for the money, it is amazing. If you are
serious about using this scanner for realistic output, be sure to get a
scanner profiling package as well. I use mine largely on 120 and 4x5
transparencies and am very pleased with it. The unit's results on prints are
even better. The 4990 has paid for itself already sorting transparencies
that would have otherwise been sent out for Scitex flatbed scans or drum
scans of second rate stuff. Scans above aout 1200 dpi take FOREVER, and I
have a new machine with 4GB ram.
Mike - 20 Sep 2005 05:28 GMT
>>> This same question has been asked on photo.net and testimonials from
>>> users
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> scans of second rate stuff. Scans above aout 1200 dpi take FOREVER, and I
> have a new machine with 4GB ram.

I just did a 1200dpi scan in about 30 seconds.  This is with my temporary
machine of 512MB RAM, USB 1.1, and an Athlon 2100XP.  

Why do yours take so long?

Also, about profiling-- what do you recommend as the best way to calibrate
for the least amount of money?  I'm not doing anything professional and
just want reasonable output with an online printer (like ofoto.com or
ezprints.com).  These online places have ICC profiles to "soft proof".
Mark McGilvray - 21 Sep 2005 00:05 GMT
>>>> This same question has been asked on photo.net and testimonials from
>>>> users
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Why do yours take so long?

I did a scan in Silverfast of a a 4x5 trans @ 2000dpi that took forever. My
1200 dpi scans are pretty quick, although I haven't timed them.

> Also, about profiling-- what do you recommend as the best way to calibrate
> for the least amount of money?  I'm not doing anything professional and
> just want reasonable output with an online printer (like ofoto.com or
> ezprints.com).  These online places have ICC profiles to "soft proof".

You need to calibrate your monitor and your scanner or the scanner profile
is a waste of time. I am using Gretag Macbeth Eye-One Photo for monitor and
scanner and it is really good. It is also about $1,400. There are other
packages out there. I you want to go budget, then just use silverfast with
the calibration module, and whatever you like for the monitor.
Larry Heath - 21 Sep 2005 00:29 GMT
>>>> This same question has been asked on photo.net and testimonials from
>>>> users
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>>
>>> Jay

>> I got the 4990 recently and,  for the money, it is amazing. If you are
>> serious about using this scanner for realistic output, be sure to get a
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> just want reasonable output with an online printer (like ofoto.com or
> ezprints.com).  These online places have ICC profiles to "soft proof".

I just did a full 4x5 trans at 1200 dpi, 48 bit color, for about 123 Mb of
file, using Epson's software. This is with none of the bells and whistles
turned on, no ICE, unsharp mash, dust, ect., on my 4990 using a new Dell
9100 3 Ghz Pentium with 4 Gig memory on a USB 2.0 port, it took just under 4
minutes and that is with two instances of Seti at Home running at 100% in
the background. Task Manager showed that the system was loaded at 100% CPU
usage and a total of 64 processes were running.

I do know that the SilverFast scanner software that came with the scanner as
a value added add-on package scans much slower, I'd say about three times
longer as it seems to scan the trans three separate times to produce a file.
I assume that using the twain channel to scan directly from the scanner to
CS might add a tiny bit of time but I don't seem remember any added time
between the two. But it is good in doing B&W negatives which have no
shoulder, so that the shadows don't block up.

I use the MonacoEZcolor 2.6 again that came with the Epson 4990 scanner as
part of the Pro package. All in all I paid about $75 to $100 over the street
value of the scanner alone. The MonoacoEZ package works very nicely for me,
I have profiled the scanner and my monitors and a number of combinations of
paper and ink for my Epson 4000 printer. I can tell you that the system
produces very pleasing results in both color and B&W. I couldn't get a
decent B&W print to save my life, using pre-packaged profiles for the papers
in use and the Epson printer with ultrachrome inks. The package goes for
about $200, give or take. The monitor profiling device is about another
$200. I did the eyeball monitor profile with the package and it does a good
job, unless your needing to color match down to a few thousands of color, I
really don't see the need. I haven't a clue if there is anything cheaper on
the market, but I surely would pay the $200 for the package if I had to, it
has saved at least that much in paper and ink to get great prints without
having to print a dozen proofs to get what I need on the print. It takes
about 20 or 30 minutes to get a good usable profile for a given paper and
ink combo, for that feature alone, I'd pay the $200.

Later Larry
Mark McGilvray - 21 Sep 2005 16:40 GMT
snip

> I just did a full 4x5 trans at 1200 dpi, 48 bit color, for about 123 Mb of
> file, using Epson's software. This is with none of the bells and whistles
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> Later Larry

I forgot to mention I was scanning 48 bit on the Epson 4990 using the TWAIN
interface and Silverfast AE (w/o the profiling/color calibration module).  I
profile my devices using Gretag Macbeth Eye-One Photo. The scan times Larry
mentions are about what I recall. As for monitor "eyeball" calibration I am
color challenged and use the Eye One
 
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.