 |
 | 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 / Medium format / November 2004Need MF Scanner Advice
I am an amateur who shoots mf (Mamiya 645E & RZ Pro) and digital (Fuji S2). I bought an Epson 4870 to scan my mf negatives and slides on the strength of a review I read which said one could get "professional quality" mf scans from the 4870. My mf scans on the 4870 are a little soft. I have tried various settings of scan resolution , sharpening, and grain reduction in the 4870 as well as USM in PS. I still can't produce prints as sharp as I can get from my S2. Is anyone getting sharp, "professional quality" scans from the 4870? If I can't get better results out of the 4870, I am considering replacing it with a dedicated film scanner. I am considering the Microtek 120tf, the Minolta DiMage Multi Pro, and the Nikon Coolscan 9000ED. Any thoughts on which of these three will produce the highest quality mf scans? Thanks, Bill >I am an amateur who shoots mf (Mamiya 645E & RZ Pro) and digital (Fuji S2). >I bought an Epson 4870 to scan my mf negatives and slides on the strength [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Thanks, > Bill Even with the 8000ED, scans are a little soft. Using manual focus helps, but can be time consuming. Still, "a little soft" at 4000 dpi on the Nikon is pretty good to excellent in print, particularly with some judicious unsharp mask. I picked mine up off of Ebay. It's a Nikon Factory Demo, and looks and runs like new. Cost $1000. That is ~twice what the Epson cost, but it is much more capable with both 35mm and medium-formats. Of course, now that I'm putting together a large-format camera, I'll need something like the Epson to scan 4x5s! Fortunately (?!) my old HP ScanJet 6200C just up and died a few months ago, so we need another flatbed in the house. You know, for documents and such... ;-)  SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >. I am considering the Microtek 120tf Bad idea. SignatureDuzz that A moose you ? > Bad idea. Could you be bothered to a little bit more specific? Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated April 29, 2004 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > > Bad idea. > > Could you be bothered to a little bit more specific? Ok "but it will have to wait till I get my money back from the CC company. SignatureDuzz that A moose you ? > My mf scans on the 4870 are a little soft. I have tried various settings of > scan resolution , sharpening, and grain reduction in the 4870 as well as USM > in PS. I still can't produce prints as sharp as I can get from my S2. Think of the 4870 as a 2400 dpi scanner. Scan at 4800 dpi. NeatImage if necessary. Sharpens lightly (optional, but I think it's the right thing), downsample to 2400 dpi. Sharpen like crazy. Print at A3. That should produce a much better A3 print than the S2, even from 645. > Is anyone getting sharp, "professional quality" scans from the 4870? Truth in advertising: I don't own a 4870. But the 2450 was a 1200 dpi scanner, and looked a lot better at A4 from 645 than the Sony F707 did. You may find that you like scans from color negatives better than scans from slides with the 4870. > If I can't get better results out of the 4870, I am considering replacing it > with a dedicated film scanner. I am considering the Microtek 120tf, the > Minolta DiMage Multi Pro, and the Nikon Coolscan 9000ED. I'd recommend the Nikon. But try the above first. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan "You may find that you like scans from color negatives better than scans from > slides with the 4870." "David J. Littleboy" I'll second David Littleboys reply but my Epson was the first incarnation 2450 and slide scans is where the Epson really failed to impress me. Negative film such as Portra 160 on the Epson was much better. I've moved on to a used Nikon LS 8000 and it really shines on the slide issue as well as everywhere else! It is a first rate scanner!! The Epson is great for the price and the 4x5 capability and I use my 2450 for 4x5 previews so I still use it often but 120 film is a Nikon exclusive for me !! So if 120 film is your #1 concern--my vote is for the Nikon without any hesitation! Joseph Burke >I am an amateur who shoots mf (Mamiya 645E & RZ Pro) and digital (Fuji S2). >I bought an Epson 4870 to scan my mf negatives and slides on the strength of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Is anyone getting sharp, "professional quality" scans from the 4870? You should be getting considerably better results that that. I'm using a 4870 with 6*6 and slides, and although the pixel-level results are soft at 4800 DPI, when I downsize the scan in PS to 2700 DPI, they blow the reuslts from my EOS 10D out of the water. The results from your S2 shouldn't be that different to the 10D, so there's something strange going on here. > >I am an amateur who shoots mf (Mamiya 645E & RZ Pro) and digital (Fuji S2). > >I bought an Epson 4870 to scan my mf negatives and slides on the strength of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > from my EOS 10D out of the water. The results from your S2 shouldn't be that > different to the 10D, so there's something strange going on here. Maybe it is the film. I'm no expert but I want to scan in medium format cheaply. If I have high-colour slide film then I have the feeling that the light of a flatbed scanner with a transparency hood is not going to be bright enough to get through the slide film properly and will maybe give poor results. I am guessing that if you use a flatbed with a transparency hood then you are better off using print film. But then I am just getting into this so I could be totally off the mark. >> You should be getting considerably better results that that. I'm using a >> 4870 with 6*6 and slides, and although the pixel-level results are soft at [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >print film. But then I am just getting into this so I could be totally >off the mark. That doesn't explain my results from the 4870, as I'm mostly shooting Velvia 50 and Provia 100F. > > >I am an amateur who shoots mf (Mamiya 645E & RZ Pro) and digital (Fuji S2). > > >I bought an Epson 4870 to scan my mf negatives and slides on the strength of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > from my EOS 10D out of the water. The results from your S2 shouldn't be that > > different to the 10D, so there's something strange going on here. How can you scan at 4800 dpi without spending half a day, or worse, having your computer freeze? I have 456 memory, but the file size is so large, that PS manipulation is impossible, and printing takes 20 minutes. I scan medium format at 600 dpi, then make 7 or 8 inch prints. The operation is time-wise easier to bear and the prints, at viewing distance are as sharp as standard enlargements. >> Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message >news:<firg72-p81.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > so large, that PS manipulation is impossible, and printing takes 20 > minutes. You have insufficient memory - if you're scanning at 16 bits per channel, the resultant 100 megapixel image is going to be 600 megabytes, and that's before you start doing things in Photoshop. I use a PowerMac G4 with 2 gigs of RAM, and it handles the 4800 dpi 6*6 scans without too much of a problem. Computer remains fast and responsive for other stuff during scanning. BTW, printing takes me a lot longer than 20 minutes, but that is for a 13*13 inch print on an Epson 1290, which isn't known for being a speed daemon. > How can you scan at 4800 dpi without spending half a day, or worse, > having your computer freeze? I have 456 memory, but the file size is > so large, that PS manipulation is impossible, and printing takes 20 > minutes. I have PS'd files of 1.2gb. Of course, lots of RAM helps, but having less than a gig is silly nowadays. > I scan medium format at 600 dpi, then make 7 or 8 inch prints. The > operation is time-wise easier to bear and the prints, at viewing > distance > are as sharp as standard enlargements. That works! >From: aldenphoto@aol.com (Ken Smith) >How can you scan at 4800 dpi without spending half a day, or worse, >having your computer freeze? I scan 6x7 cm at 4,000 dpi all the time, no problems. 16 bpc files are 550 MB or so, 8 bits are half that. Doesn't take long at all with the Nikon 8000 and a Firewire interface. >I have 456 memory, but the file size is > so large, that PS manipulation is impossible What is "456 memory"? Did you mean 512 or 768 MB or ? We have 1.5 GB on one machine and 2 GB on the second and Photoshop works fine with these large files on both machines. You need more RAM. >I scan medium format at 600 dpi, then make 7 or 8 inch prints. Kind of defeats the purpose of medium format, printing 8 inches ... > I scan 6x7 cm at 4,000 dpi all the time, no problems. 16 bpc files are 550 MB > or so, 8 bits are half that. Doesn't take long at all with the Nikon 8000 and > a Firewire interface. But... (see later) > [...] > We have 1.5 GB on one machine and 2 GB on the second and Photoshop works fine > with these large files on both machines. > > You need more RAM. That's it. And a fast processor too. Else the Nikon 8000, with Firewire, takes about 30 minutes, or even more, to scan one single frame. > > I scan 6x7 cm at 4,000 dpi all the time, no problems. 16 bpc files are > > 550 MB or so, 8 bits are half that. Doesn't take long at all with > > the Nikon 8000 and a Firewire interface. Unfortunately, 4800 dpi files are quite a bit bigger: 44% larger. 6x7 is 135 MP, 405 MB at 8 bits, and 810 MB at 16 bits. Since you need _twice_ the memory plus change to comfortable manipulate large files, you really need 2 GB to deal with 4870 6x7 files. Sigh. (I'd think that scanning should be OK at 1GB, but as soon as you do any processing, you'd like room for the original and the product of the processing.) > But... (see later) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Else the Nikon 8000, with Firewire, takes about 30 minutes, or even more, to > scan one single frame. You must be using a really old machine. On a 1 GHz machine with 1GB of memory, a 645 frame takes about 5 minutes and a 6x7 frame under 10 minutes (super fine, 1X, normal ICE). You can't buy a machine that slow nowadays, and Nikon explicitly states that the scanner requires 1GB, so if you are using less, you aren't following the directions. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > That's it. And a fast processor too. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You must be using a really old machine. Not anymore, no. But that's how i know that you need "a fast processor too". ;-) > [...] and Nikon explicitly states that > the scanner requires 1GB, so if you are using less, you aren't following the > directions. Do they? Missed that. But in my experience 1 GB isn't required. Half that will do fine. But it never hurts. >> [...] and Nikon explicitly states that >> the scanner requires 1GB, so if you are using less, you aren't following [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >But in my experience 1 GB isn't required. Half that will do fine. >But it never hurts. NikonScan has always been a memory and resource hog. But given enough memory and a real operating system it's fine. With PhotoShop, the conventional wisdom is you need about 3x more free system RAM than your image size in bytes. Memory is cheap these days. If you're scanning MF at the full resolution of the LS-8000 or (even worse, Epson 4870) you're dealing with massive files. Max out your memory, don't look back. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >From: aldenphoto@aol.com (Ken Smith) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What is "456 memory"? Did you mean 512 or 768 MB or ? My mistake, it's 448 MB. Went from 64 added 128, then 256 and still apparently that is not enough. Great. > We have 1.5 GB on one machine and 2 GB on the second and Photoshop works fine > with these large files on both machines. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Kind of defeats the purpose of medium format, printing 8 inches ... Well not really, seeing as my printing purpose is to catalog my work notebook style. I certainly could not get an 8 inch print from a 35mm to look this good. I also catalog my 4x5's using Azo contact prints. Prints on the wall don't interest me much,but I want the quality of larger film for reproduction. Chris, Do you do any sharpening in the scanner software, or do all sharpening later in PS? Thanks, Bill >>I am an amateur who shoots mf (Mamiya 645E & RZ Pro) and digital (Fuji >>S2). [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that > different to the 10D, so there's something strange going on here. >Chris, > >Do you do any sharpening in the scanner software, or do all sharpening >later in PS? I tend to sharpen later, after the image has been downsized to the final output size. |
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.