Epson 4490 Scanner - Tests and Settings.

[Noons]

I'm not Noons, but I own a 4490 and didn't get a 4990 because of the
$100 price difference. If you think you'd like to shoot large format
during the working life of the scanner (say next two to five years), get
the 4990. If your savings in Oz isn't equal to $100 or if that doesn't
matter to you, get the 4990. The main advantage of the 4990 is more
transparency scanner space. If you're shooting volume, being able to
scan twice as much film on automatic (Vuescan does a reasonably good job
with this; haven't tried the Epson software) would be nice. If you're
not shooting volume but are only scanning a couple shots out of every
roll, possibly not.

Or get the V700 now and add the wet scanning attachment later.

I'm Noons <G> and I'd say Rebecca is spot on, Eddie.
Yeah, there might be some Dmax diff between the two, but I for
one haven't found the 4990 that super in that department.
But it's darn good if you plan to go for larger formats.
Certainly better than other flatbed scanners, for sure.

The only area I'd disagree with Rebecca is in the V700:
I reckon the v750 is worth getting for the coated flatbed glass!

I've run a lot of tests on the 4990 with wedged targets in flatbed
mode to establish the best focusing point. In ALL of the tests,
the limiting factor of the 4990 was neither the resolution nor the
focusing (ideal at 4800dpi is < 1mm above glass, others
it doesn't really matter as dof is then large).

The biggest problem by far was the glare introduced by the thick
flatbed glass. That made for a soft result that then needs heaps
of USM sharpening with all its potential problems: halos, grain
"enhancing", making banding more noticeable, etcetc.

So, if I had to chose now of the V7x series, I'd go for the V750
in a jiffy: the flatbed glass here is coated and presumably that
does seriously reduce the glare factor. The wet mount would
be even better but the major factor IMHO would be to get rid
of that pesky glare.

Or get a flatbed scanner that doesn't use the flatbed for
film - isn't that what some of the Microtek scanners do?
But that will stop use of wet mounting, so there...

 

[Eddie]

I'm Noons <G> and I'd say Rebecca is spot on, Eddie.
Yeah, there might be some Dmax diff between the two, but I for
one haven't found the 4990 that super in that department.
But it's darn good if you plan to go for larger formats.
Certainly better than other flatbed scanners, for sure.

The only area I'd disagree with Rebecca is in the V700:
I reckon the v750 is worth getting for the coated flatbed glass!

I've run a lot of tests on the 4990 with wedged targets in flatbed
mode to establish the best focusing point. In ALL of the tests,
the limiting factor of the 4990 was neither the resolution nor the
focusing (ideal at 4800dpi is < 1mm above glass, others
it doesn't really matter as dof is then large).

The biggest problem by far was the glare introduced by the thick
flatbed glass. That made for a soft result that then needs heaps
of USM sharpening with all its potential problems: halos, grain
"enhancing", making banding more noticeable, etcetc.

So, if I had to chose now of the V7x series, I'd go for the V750
in a jiffy: the flatbed glass here is coated and presumably that
does seriously reduce the glare factor. The wet mount would
be even better but the major factor IMHO would be to get rid
of that pesky glare.

Or get a flatbed scanner that doesn't use the flatbed for
film - isn't that what some of the Microtek scanners do?
But that will stop use of wet mounting, so there...

Ta Noons, yes, was looking at the 4990 over the 4490 re number of slides etc
that it can handle at one time, and larger format negs.

And yes, I'd go for the V750 if I had the cash. sadly did not win the $AU22m
this week.

Glare seems a prob. Wonder if some form of polarisation could be done, but
then, we'd probably see no image at all!

Eddie

 

[Noons]

And yes, I'd go for the V750 if I had the cash. sadly did not win the $AU22m
this week.

Heh! Don't I know that. Got the same problem. Darn lotto only
happens to others, mate. Took me YEARS to save for the nikon!

Glare seems a prob. Wonder if some form of polarisation could be done, but
then, we'd probably see no image at all!

Hmmmm, that's a bloody good idea... I've got some BIG polas, will give

that a go later in the week: too busy with work at the mo.

 

[Raphael Bustin]

The biggest problem by far was the glare introduced by the thick
flatbed glass. That made for a soft result that then needs heaps
of USM sharpening with all its potential problems: halos, grain
"enhancing", making banding more noticeable, etcetc.
<snip?

Or get a flatbed scanner that doesn't use the flatbed for
film - isn't that what some of the Microtek scanners do?
But that will stop use of wet mounting, so there...

I've owned one of the "pro" series Microteks that you
speak of, specifically the Artixscan 2500. And yes, it
was noticeably sharper than my Epson 4990. But it
had other major problems. It was huge and heavy,
SCSI-only, and had serious problems with banding.

I don't think it's the platen that's causing the flare
that you speak of.

The glare may come from the fact that the image has
to bounce off mirrors several times between the film
and the lens in front of the CCD. It's a highly folded
optical path.

Plus, the lenses in these flatbed/film scanners are puny,
something like 25mm/f5.6. By comparison, the lens
in the 8000/9000 Nikons is approx. 75mm/f3.5 or so.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Neil Gould]

I've owned one of the "pro" series Microteks that you
speak of, specifically the Artixscan 2500. And yes, it
was noticeably sharper than my Epson 4990. But it
had other major problems. It was huge and heavy,
SCSI-only, and had serious problems with banding.

To offer another perspective, I also own one of the "pro" series of
Microteks (ArtixScan 1100), and it performs well without the banding
artifacts that plagued Rafe. They are SCSI-only, and I consider their
weight a plus. YMMV.

Neil

 

[Noons]

Hmmmm, that's a bloody good idea... I've got some BIG polas, will give

that a go later in the week: too busy with work at the mo.

Nope, it won't work. Cuts off the IR cleaning as well.
I think it'd need to be on the lens side to make any diff
and only for the normal light scan. Not game to open
the 4990 lens assembly to try this. Yet. ;-)

 

[Eddie]

Nope, it won't work. Cuts off the IR cleaning as well.
I think it'd need to be on the lens side to make any diff
and only for the normal light scan. Not game to open
the 4990 lens assembly to try this. Yet. ;-)

Pity, but then, I'm sure they would have thought of that. Now, I seem to
recall a solution that one could buy for super 8mm film that flowed into
scratches hiding them or something sim. Any ideas? Thinking about the 'wet'
option of 750.

And, bugger, got outbid for the 4990 on ebay. Forgot to increase my max bid
before I left to go to Billy Joel concert, and found I lost by $40! Grrrrr!
Any other day....any other day.....

Eddie

 

[Noons]

Pity, but then, I'm sure they would have thought of that. Now, I seem to
recall a solution that one could buy for super 8mm film that flowed into
scratches hiding them or something sim. Any ideas? Thinking about the 'wet'
option of 750.

Yeah, that's what wet mounting is all about.
There are classic fluids for that, used with the
drum scanners initally but I believe now available
in the wet mount option of the 750. I wonder if that
would fit the 4990?

Anyways, there is a guy in the pro scanner group in
yahoo who claims Johnson's Baby Oil works fine for him in
wet mounting and cleaning scratches! Not recommended of
course, but if you got a few trannys that need cleaning
and are not critical, worth a try I suppose. I suspect
it'll leave them with a nice smell as well...

And, bugger, got outbid for the 4990 on ebay. Forgot to increase my max bid
before I left to go to Billy Joel concert, and found I lost by $40! Grrrrr!
Any other day....any other day.....

They show up regularly at ebay, don't worry too much.

 

[Dana H. Myers]

In use, it's fantastic, at least compared to the compact. Still not as
much dynamic range as a film SLR, but they're stll good.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That really depends on whether you're shooting chrome film; the
modern DSLRs offer pretty much the same DR as chrome film. Negative
films just spoil us to death by comparison.

Dana

 

[Mal Franks]

I have just put my first results from the Epson 4490 scanner on the
following link. I have also included the settings I used on the scanner,
to help anyone struggling to set the scanner up. This is using the
supplied Epson Scan software, which as far as I can see, seems to be
doing a pretty good job.

http://www.photoscan.150m.com/

nice

good to see Epson Scan is working on your pc. we have the cheaper 4490
and Epson Scan regularly crashes both my pc and the missus's pc too.
ended up forking out some cash for Vuescan instead.

mal