Is the difference between the Epson 4870 and the "pro" version basically the
software? And what about that "pro" software?
Ivan

"Ivan" asked:
"...
Is the difference between the Epson 4870 and the "pro" version basically the
software?
...."

Yes.

also asked:
"...
And what about that "pro" software?
...."

The list is on Epson's web site. In my case, the included Monaco profiling software and
IT-8 Targets seemed to make up the difference in cost, and Silverfast AI (instead of SE)
was a real *requirement.*

Ivan, <(E-Mail Removed)> à écrit :
> Is the difference between the Epson 4870 and the "pro" version
> basically the software? And what about that "pro" software?
> Ivan

Just the sofware ! The hardware is the same !

--�
<> Daniel Rocha - Photographie <>
http://www.monochromatique.com

"RSD99" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:goHGc.25470$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Ivan" asked:
> "...
> Is the difference between the Epson 4870 and the "pro" version basically
the
> software?
> ..."
>
> Yes.
>
> also asked:
> "...
> And what about that "pro" software?
> ..."
>
> The list is on Epson's web site. In my case, the included Monaco profiling
software and
> IT-8 Targets seemed to make up the difference in cost, and Silverfast AI
(instead of SE)
> was a real *requirement.*
>
>
Okay, I googled the extra pro software. I'm going to assume those programs
will be over kill given my stage of useage and volume. Can or does
Silverfast replace manufacturers software such as digital ICE?
Ivan

>>Can or does Silverfast replace manufacturers software such as digital
ICE?<<

ICE is a hardware based dust and defect removal system. EpsonScan, VueScan
and Silverfast all are able to access and utilize this hardware feature.
FYI, you do have to download the latest free update to Silverfast in order
to be able to access the ICE feature.

The Pro software bundle is a decent deal IF IF you will actually make use of
the AI and Monaco software.

Doug
--
Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format
film:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfishe...mainintro.html

"RSD99" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<goHGc.25470$(E-Mail Removed)>...

<snip>

> And what about that "pro" software?
> ..."
>
> The list is on Epson's web site. In my case, the included Monaco profiling software and
> IT-8 Targets seemed to make up the difference in cost, and Silverfast AI (instead of SE)
> was a real *requirement.*

I strongly second the Silverfast comment. If you'll be doing any
exposure adjustments more complicated than "auto", plan on replacing
Epson Scan with Silverfast or Vuescan. When scanning negatives, the
auto-adjust usually clips too heavily by default, and worse, it
adjusts the individual channels so that tweaking the exposure screws
up the colors. I've always resorted to the manual adjustments, which
offer just enough control but require too much time for good results.

My most recent approach with negatives was to imitate the Vuescan
"advanced workflow". I scanned in the whole tray at once (versus
allowing Epson to auto-detect the frames). I "cropped" each frame in
sequence. I then sampled the black point between two frames for each
frame, followed by the best white point I could find among all the
images without wasting time zooming in and out (which requires further
"preview" scanning). This produced much better results than fiddling
with individual channels and took considerably less time than previous
methods. Then I made the mistake of clicking the "select all
marquees" button and watched all the exposure settings reset. :P As
far as I can tell, there's not any way to pass the histogram panel's
color corrections from one frame or selection marquee to the next.

ES is also clunky for cropping, zooming, rotation, color management,
and most other operations. I don't think this is a matter of too
little experience (though if I'm wrong, please correct me). It's just
a matter of time now before I replace it. As I indicated above,
"auto" exposure and rough manual adjustments can produce an acceptable
image. And negative scans are much harder to adjust than regular
reflective media scans. But don't expect a smooth ride if you're
going for maximum quality.

I might have bought the "pro" version but for two reasons: it hadn't
been released (I'd already been waiting much longer than I intended)
and I didn't have the experience to judge the added value of the
Silverfast AI package. Silverfast didn't have ICE back then, either,
though that didn't affect my choices.

And don't expect Silverfast SE to "come close" to AI. It's roughly
equivalent to Epson Scan minus the ICE (has this been added to SE
yet?)...though I'm aggravated enough by Epson Scan that I'm tempted to
give SSE points just for being something else.

Was any of this helpful?
false_dmitrii

"false_dmitrii" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "RSD99" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:<goHGc.25470$(E-Mail Removed)>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > And what about that "pro" software?
> > ..."
> >
> > The list is on Epson's web site. In my case, the included Monaco
profiling software and
> > IT-8 Targets seemed to make up the difference in cost, and Silverfast AI
(instead of SE)
> > was a real *requirement.*
>
> I strongly second the Silverfast comment. If you'll be doing any
> exposure adjustments more complicated than "auto", plan on replacing
> Epson Scan with Silverfast or Vuescan. When scanning negatives, the
> auto-adjust usually clips too heavily by default, and worse, it
> adjusts the individual channels so that tweaking the exposure screws
> up the colors. I've always resorted to the manual adjustments, which
> offer just enough control but require too much time for good results.
>
> My most recent approach with negatives was to imitate the Vuescan
> "advanced workflow". I scanned in the whole tray at once (versus
> allowing Epson to auto-detect the frames). I "cropped" each frame in
> sequence. I then sampled the black point between two frames for each
> frame, followed by the best white point I could find among all the
> images without wasting time zooming in and out (which requires further
> "preview" scanning). This produced much better results than fiddling
> with individual channels and took considerably less time than previous
> methods. Then I made the mistake of clicking the "select all
> marquees" button and watched all the exposure settings reset. :P As
> far as I can tell, there's not any way to pass the histogram panel's
> color corrections from one frame or selection marquee to the next.
>
> ES is also clunky for cropping, zooming, rotation, color management,
> and most other operations. I don't think this is a matter of too
> little experience (though if I'm wrong, please correct me). It's just
> a matter of time now before I replace it. As I indicated above,
> "auto" exposure and rough manual adjustments can produce an acceptable
> image. And negative scans are much harder to adjust than regular
> reflective media scans. But don't expect a smooth ride if you're
> going for maximum quality.
>
> I might have bought the "pro" version but for two reasons: it hadn't
> been released (I'd already been waiting much longer than I intended)
> and I didn't have the experience to judge the added value of the
> Silverfast AI package. Silverfast didn't have ICE back then, either,
> though that didn't affect my choices.
>
> And don't expect Silverfast SE to "come close" to AI. It's roughly
> equivalent to Epson Scan minus the ICE (has this been added to SE
> yet?)...though I'm aggravated enough by Epson Scan that I'm tempted to
> give SSE points just for being something else.
>
> Was any of this helpful?
> false_dmitrii

All of it was helpful. Thank you very much. The only thing that exceeds
the priceless knowledge of these photographic news groups is the patience
that MOST participants show for the rest of us who don't have as much
experience.
Thanks again,
Ivan