Epson 4870 vs. 2450 - the verdict

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

I hereby grant the Epson Perfection 4870 my personal "bluff of the year"
award.

The difference between both scanners in sharpness/resolution at 2400 dpi
is somewhere between marginal and non-existant.

The 4870 is about twice as fast* as the 2450 when both are connected via
Firewire and driven by Vuescan.

The 4870 has a little less noise in its scans.

The 4870 is back in the mail.

Please don't ask for numbers, times, samples, or further details. I'm
(a) somewhat frustrated and (b) extremely busy. Already lost half a day
with this exercise. Thank you.

Ed H. please note: all things being equal, Vuescan takes considerably
longer to process the data from the 4870 once the actual scanning stage
has been completed.

Ralf

*) time between hitting the 'scan' button and the carriage returning to
its resting position

 

[Wilfred van der Vegte]

I hereby grant the Epson Perfection 4870 my personal "bluff of the year"
award.

I'm not surprised. In a recent test in MacUP, A German Macintosh
magazine, they measured scanner resolutions based on new ISO standards.
According to this test, the effective resolution of the Epsdon 4870 was
(if I remember correctly) only 1300 pixels per inch. The testers
commented that the microprism CCDs that are used in this scanner are far
inferior to regular CCDs.

 

[Raphael Bustin]

I'm not surprised. In a recent test in MacUP, A German Macintosh
magazine, they measured scanner resolutions based on new ISO standards.
According to this test, the effective resolution of the Epsdon 4870 was
(if I remember correctly) only 1300 pixels per inch. The testers
commented that the microprism CCDs that are used in this scanner are far
inferior to regular CCDs.

I found the "reviews" confusing. Most of them
when viewed objectively showed relatively
poor sharpness but there was one that compared
the Epson "favorably" to an LS-2000 film scanner.

I'm glad I didn't hold out for this one. I found a
very good deal on a new Microtek (Artixscan)
2500. Scans from that do indeed compare to
film scans at 2700 dpi from my old Polaroid
SprintScan Plus. But the Microtek is one
monster of a scanner. I mean, it's huge.

A very old design and probably will be out
of production soon.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Jeff]

Since I don't own either (presently using the Scanmaker 5900) I'll have to
decide if the 4870 would be suitable for scanning 645. I could do a test scan at
a local dealer.

Otherwise, selling my RF645 outfit and going DSLR is a possibility.

Jeff.

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Since I don't own either (presently using the Scanmaker 5900) I'll
have to
decide if the 4870 would be suitable for scanning 645. I could do
a test scan at
a local dealer.

The 4870 is no more or less suitable for scanning 645 than its two
predecessors. Get a second-hand 2450. You won't be able to tell the
difference. Just takes a tad longer. That's all.

Noone would dare offer an ordinary Golf as having 500 HP and doing 200
mph if in fact it wouldn't run any faster than a battered old beetle.
That's exactly what Epson are doing with the 4870. I think they need a
lesson.

Ralf

 

[David J. Littleboy]

I hereby grant the Epson Perfection 4870 my personal "bluff of the year"
award.

The difference between both scanners in sharpness/resolution at 2400 dpi
is somewhere between marginal and non-existant.

Huh? You bought a 4800 dpi scanner, ran it at 2400 dpi, found that it wasn't
any better than a 2400 dpi scanner, and returned it?

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Huh? You bought a 4800 dpi scanner, ran it at 2400 dpi, found that it wasn't
any better than a 2400 dpi scanner, and returned it?

Quite so. I've tested a 4800 dpi scanner that, as everybody knows,
doesn't quite resolve 4800 dpi to find out if it would at least deliver
significantly more resolution at half its advertised rating than a
well-known Epson 2400 dpi scanner that, as everybody knows, doesn't
quite reach its advertised resolution of 2400 dpi.

Ralf

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

The 4870 is no more or less suitable for scanning 645 than its two
predecessors. Get a second-hand 2450. You won't be able to tell the
difference.

I find that a bit hard to believe, as I just saw a test image that indicated
something like a 20% higher limiting resolution than the 2450. Granted, it's
not double the resolution, but notably better nevertheless.

I understand your frustration, but perhaps your scanner was out of specs.

Bart

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

I understand your frustration, but perhaps your scanner was out of specs.

Oh sure. Maybe it has produced only 1270 dpi instead of 1300 like the
others... :-/

Ralf

 

[John Eyles]

Huh? You bought a 4800 dpi scanner, ran it at 2400 dpi, found that it wasn't

Quite so. I've tested a 4800 dpi scanner that, as everybody knows,
doesn't quite resolve 4800 dpi to find out if it would at least deliver
significantly more resolution at half its advertised rating than a
well-known Epson 2400 dpi scanner that, as everybody knows, doesn't
quite reach its advertised resolution of 2400 dpi.

Wouldn't a better test have been to scan at 4800dpi and then
downsample the resulting image to 2400dpi and compare against
the 2450 ?

John

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Wouldn't a better test have been to scan at 4800dpi and then
downsample the resulting image to 2400dpi and compare against
the 2450 ?

I've done this, as well, and it doesn't change a thing. You gain a
little in noise performance but not much.

The optical resolution still is the limiting factor and I'm afraid that
hasn't changed at any appreciable rate since the 2450.

Ralf

 

[Steve Hoffmann]

It looks like the 4870 I tried out was not a "dog" after all. My experience
was the same as Ralf's. I actually thought the new scanner was a little
worse at 2400 dpi. Took it back next day

Steve Hoffmann
http://www.sphoto.com
Gallery and Digital Imaging Information

 

[Gene]

I've done this, as well, and it doesn't change a thing. You gain a
little in noise performance but not much.

The optical resolution still is the limiting factor and I'm afraid that
hasn't changed at any appreciable rate since the 2450.

Ralf

Just curious... Given a proper scanner, how much resolution can you
use on 35 mm negative film before you see grain or loss of detail?

Gene--

 

[Douglas MacDonald]

I've spent the morning experimenting with my new 4870 and I can tell you
without word of a lie... It is THE BEST flatbed scanner I have come across.
The reason why so many people have not come to the same conclusion is the
God awful software Epson supply with it.

I was at my wits end trying to justify spending the price of a new PC on
replacing my 3200 scanner. Then another Photographer in Canada (I think)
suggested Vuescan might be a better thing to use than the Silverfast or
(worse) Epson software. I did 2 scans with the demo version and bought the
Professional version right off.

I scanned a night shot I have always had difficulty with. A 6cm x 9cm Fuji
NPS negative with scratches and dust embedded in the emulsion. The scan at
4200 dpi took 5 minutes and another 6 minutes to process the 51 MB, JPG
file. The first thing I noticed about the scan was it's "correctness" to
look at. I ran Digital GEM over it to reduce the grain. Unsatisfied with
that, I ran grain surgery over it, used Photoshop's 'bandaid' healing tool
to pick up the dust spots and the image ended up at 30" x 20" (500 dpi).
Halving the resolution and sending it to a Durst "Lambda" equipped Lab will
yield a high quality photograph of truly majestic proportions 40" wide by 5
foot long!

The whole operation from scan to soft proof took me about 1.5 hours to
produce. I can now print out orders for this image and not have to worry
about the crappy DMax from my old 3200 ruining the shadows. I am one happy
camper, I can tell you. This scanner just paid for itself!

So... Just like when you buy a camera, you have buy other stuff to get the
results. IMHO Vuescan rates as one of the all time best products in the
world (photographically speaking). Throw away the software Epson provided
and cough up $80 (US) for the real thing. The scanner comes alive with it.

Incidentally... It took the Silverfast driver 25 minutes to scan the same
image and it looked like crap. The Epson "Digital ICE" driver got rid of the
dust pretty well but 40 minutes to scan and process the image is over the
top!

Douglas
-----------------------------------

 

[Ed Hamrick]

Ed H. please note: all things being equal, Vuescan takes considerably
longer to process the data from the 4870 once the actual scanning stage
has been completed.

Is this comparing VueScan with SilverFast when writing uncompressed
TIFF files? One difference is that a lot of computing happens during
the scan with SilverFast and Epson Scan, and more of it happens
after the scan (from memory) with VueScan.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

 

[John Eyles]

I've done this, as well, and it doesn't change a thing. You gain a
Whew, guess I'm vindicated for finally springing for the Nikon 8000.

Although maybe I blew it by not waiting for the 9000 - only $150 more
than the 8000 (after the 8000's rebate) - and apparently at least
slightly superior.

John

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Is this comparing VueScan with SilverFast when writing uncompressed
TIFF files?

No, Ed, this is comparing the 4870 vs. the 2450 both with Vuescan at
identical resolution/bit depth settings. Especially the 'color' step
takes a good while longer with the 4870.

Ralf

 

[Douglas MacDonald]

I'll add my bit to that:
A 6x9 cm negative scanned with Silverfast at 4800 DPI takes 19 minutes from
start to edit.
The same negative under vuescan takes 5 minutes to scan and 6 minutes to
process the data after the scan on a P4, 2.66 GHz with 1.5 G of RAM. 13
minutes to edit (including Photoshop loading)

I am in the process now of carrying out definitive comparisons of software
options for the new 4870, being totally cheesed off at it's performance and
buying vuescan which reversed my attitude. Early in March the reviews will
be posted on www.technoaussie.com

Congratulations Ed... Vuescan is at the top of the pile right now. If I can
just figure out how the dust and scratch removal works, it might get a real
rave review - it does have that, doesn't it Ed?

Douglas.

 

[Ed Hamrick]

If I can
just figure out how the dust and scratch removal works, it might get a real
rave review - it does have that, doesn't it Ed?

No, not yet. I found the Epson documentation on how to get the
infrared channel from the scanner, and have produced a test version.

I bought one, and it gets delivered Monday, so it shouldn't be long
until I get the the infrared cleaning working.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

 

[Ed Hamrick]

No, Ed, this is comparing the 4870 vs. the 2450 both with Vuescan at
identical resolution/bit depth settings. Especially the 'color' step
takes a good while longer with the 4870.

I'm really puzzled by this, since I can't imagine anything in
the 'color' step that's dependant on the type of scanner. The
length of time in this step should be purely dependant on
the number of pixels. I'll bet there's some sort of bug
that's related to the optical dpi of the scanner instead of
the scan dpi.

I'll add this to my list of things to look into, and will be
getting a 4870 Monday to work with.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick