Epson 4870 vs. ???

[kirk_]

I am needing a new scanner. I have outgrown my CanoScan and am needing a
more professional scanner.

I mostly scan photos, but occasionally would scan a slide, neg or 4x6
transparency.

I have been looking at the Epson 4870 and it looks like what I need. I have
gone searching on the internet for a comparison of that scanner with other
similar scanners. I haven't found any good reviews.

What other scanners should I take a look at in this feature and price range?

I saw a post in this newsgroup about a scan taking 16 minutes. This sounds
incredibly slow. Is this the type of scan time I can expect with a higher
resolution 48 bit scanner?

Thanks,

Kirk

 

[-]

Here is Vincent's review of the 4870:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson 4870/page_1.htm

Also, look at his comparative review between the 3200 and Canon 9900f in his
archives for examples. The 4870 and 3200 produce very similar results.

Doug

 

[kirk_]

Thanks,

Good review. Makes it sound like the best thing since sliced bread.

Kirk

 

[-]

Makes it sound like the best thing since sliced bread<<

Just to make sure everything is in proper perspective, it is a good value
when the price to performance equation is evaluated and you need to do
medium format or larger films. I think most people who have used it would
agree that if you are not going to scan larger than 35mm, you would be
better off with a low priced dedicated film scanner plus an inexpensive
flatbed. Additionally, you can get better medium format and large format
scanners, but decent ones will cost you quite a bit more.

Doug

 

[Christian Wasmeier]

Just to make sure everything is in proper perspective, it is a good value
when the price to performance equation is evaluated and you need to do
medium format or larger films. I think most people who have used it would
agree that if you are not going to scan larger than 35mm, you would be
better off with a low priced dedicated film scanner plus an inexpensive
flatbed. Additionally, you can get better medium format and large format
scanners, but decent ones will cost you quite a bit more.

Doug

Hi Doug,

I must agree: I owened an EPSON 3200 Photo til two days ago, now I have
the new 4870 Photo:
ICE is the thing I wanted to have included in a flatbed that is also cabable
of film-scanning.
as far as the i-photo.uk - review is concerned:
the 4870 really is slowlier and louder than the 3200 especially with
slide-scanning.
this must be the construction of the new TPU, which looks more robust and is
heavier than that
of the 3200.
ICE scanning of a 35 mm slide last for 7 Minutes, that is really slow for a
35 mm scan in
comparison to a dedicated film-scanner. But it works fine...
I am in need to scan old medium format b&w- negatives from the 1940-s,
so ICE would not help me, but the resolution (it has been measuered from
german
Fotomagazin with genuine 1700 ppi (therefore a new DIN has just been
released for measuring
the real resolution of scanners...) -
therefore: for medium-format or large-format it is REALLY worth it and plus
you have a 35 mm scanner with ICE built in in addition.
but for the purpose of scanning medium or large format the "old" 3200 would
be enough and
cheaper...

btw: Silverfast SE was shipped with the 4870, but it is a version from
september 2003 and
therefore does NOT work with ICE... I have left a request there at the
lasersoft user forum
for that item....

best to you all:

typestar

 

[-]

Christian -

I actually left you a reply in their forum about your problem. You should
have received a flyer in your box asking you to download a new version from
the Silverfast site to get ICE capability. Unfortunately, the flyer's
directions don't match reality. In short, you need to go ahead and download
the "bundle" update of SE from their site's normal location, then completely
remove all traces of any version now on your computer and then install the
download. If you don't remove the old version first, it will not upgrade on
top of it.

For those who are reading this have not installed anything yet, you DO NOT
need to install the old version from the included disk. Just download the
latest version from Silverfast and use your serial number when it asks for
it.

When downloading the update, get the version that includes both the
Photoshop plug-in and the stand alone version. Many times it is best to use
the stand alone version since this will leave more resources free (since
Photoshop won't be running underneath).

Doug

 

[Christian Wasmeier]

Hig Doug,

thankyou very much for the fast response...
just try to download it....

my question for a special - perhaps new to develop - filmholder:

I could have some very important old glas-negatives from the 20-'s,
they are in both 9x12 cm and also 13 x 18 cm size...

So therefore I would be in need of a real stabile filmholder, where I can
give
2 negatives in (2 times 9x12 cm or 2 times 13x18 cm).
But: the Epson Original filmholders are made just for "modern" chemical
film,
not for the old, thick glas-negatives...

Would it be possible for you to construct 2 of such special filmholders.
I know there should have been hundreds and hundreds of interested
foto-collectors
(or even museum-responsibles)
that would be in need of such special made filmholders for flatbed-scanners,
which will work for them...

The negatives should be easily to be put in the holder, must not directly
touch the glas,
but have also small part, where it is fixed...

Do you think this would be worth for you to "develop" or construct... ?

Thankyou for a short response...

Best regards:

Christian Wasmeier

 

[-]

Hi Christian -

Please check your private email for information on the LF holder.

Doug

 

[Kirk_]

Doug,

I hear what you are saying. I need a high quality 48 bit photo scanner, but
also have a need to occasionally scan 35 mm negs and 4x5 slides and
transparencies. This seems like a good fit.

I don't usually need the 35 in really high quality, many times it would be
for speed and availability. (don't have time to take film to be printed
just so I can scan for a photo on a website.) When I do need higher
quality, it would be for a calendar that I publish every year and the photo
size would need to be 9x13. Do you think the 4870 would give disappointing
results for this size?

95% of my scans will probably be from photos.

Thanks,

Kirk

 

[-]

It all depends on your own tastes and needs for sharpness. My guess is that
the average "advanced amateur" and pro photographer would find 35mm scans
from the 4870 "soft" when blown up to 13x19. What is soft for one person
may be fine for another. For web work, it will probably be just fine. A
lot will have to do with how good you are in regard to your scanning and
Photoshop skills (especially unsharp masking).

I am sure others will jump in with their own experiences and opinions.

Doug

 

[kirk_]

Ok, what if I just forget about the film scanner part of it, and look only
at the photo scanner part. Is there another photo scanner that can compete
with the feature set of the 4870? I am really interested in Digital Ice.

Thanks for all the help.

Kirk

 

[Raphael Bustin]

Ok, what if I just forget about the film scanner part of it, and look only
at the photo scanner part. Is there another photo scanner that can compete
with the feature set of the 4870? I am really interested in Digital Ice.

Thanks for all the help.

There are a couple of mid-end Microtek
flatbeds that now have dICE.


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

 

[kirk_]

Thanks,

I will take a look at those too.

Kirk

There are a couple of mid-end Microtek
flatbeds that now have dICE.


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

 

[Douglas MacDonald]

Unfortunately Kirk...
Digital ICE works by tilting the angle of light passing through the negative
and picking up the subsequent dust (and some scratches) with an Infra red
light. It works alongside the scanning process and only works on film.
Douglas

 

[-]

It works alongside the scanning process and only works on film.<<

The latest version includes a process that works on prints via a different
process. Microtek also has this on a few of their flatbed models.

(A different) Doug

 

[Leonard Evens]

Doug,

I hear what you are saying. I need a high quality 48 bit photo scanner, but
also have a need to occasionally scan 35 mm negs and 4x5 slides and
transparencies. This seems like a good fit.

I don't usually need the 35 in really high quality, many times it would be
for speed and availability. (don't have time to take film to be printed
just so I can scan for a photo on a website.) When I do need higher
quality, it would be for a calendar that I publish every year and the photo
size would need to be 9x13. Do you think the 4870 would give disappointing
results for this size?

My guess is that it would be disappointing to a careful observer, but
many people would think it looked fine.

 

[David R]

From the pages of www.asf.com comes an explanation on how digital ice
for prints on a flat bed works. The Canon with FARE 2.0 does similar
things but I understand it's not as impressive as Digital Ice.

DIGITAL ICE Photo Print Technology automatically removes surface
defects, such as dust and scratches, from a scanned image. DIGITAL ICE
Photo Print Technology uses differential shadowing technology and
proprietary software algorithms to identify the precise locations of
physical defects, or visual "noise" on a print being scanned. DIGITAL
ICE Photo Print Technology quickly and automatically eliminates the
unwanted defects, producing a scanned image file that improves upon
the original print.

 

[Douglas MacDonald]

Yeah... Grin.
I guess I should have looked further in to it. My earlier ICE experience
clouded my judgement... Oh well we all get it wrong sometimes!
Douglas