Epson 4990 compared to ED 500 film scanner

[Douglas]

I'm about to buy a couple or one new scanner. Currently I have an Epson 4870
and a ED 500 Nikon coolscan. Someone recently suggested the new Epson 4990
could scan 35mm film as well as the Nikon film scanner. If this is correct,
I only need to buy that scanner, instead of 2 new ones.

Can anyone who has one of these scanners confirm this please?

DJ.

 

[-]

For 35 mm, the Nikon will be best (I am assuming you meant a V or 5000?).
The 4990 won't be any sharper than your 4870.

Doug

 

[rafe b]

I'm about to buy a couple or one new scanner. Currently I have an Epson 4870
and a ED 500 Nikon coolscan. Someone recently suggested the new Epson 4990
could scan 35mm film as well as the Nikon film scanner. If this is correct,
I only need to buy that scanner, instead of 2 new ones.

Can anyone who has one of these scanners confirm this please?

I've got the 4990 and a Nikon LS-8000.

They're not in the same league. I use
the Epson for scanning LF film, the
Nikon for everything else (MF and 35mm.)


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Douglas]

"rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
:
: >I'm about to buy a couple or one new scanner. Currently I have an Epson
4870
: >and a ED 500 Nikon coolscan. Someone recently suggested the new Epson
4990
: >could scan 35mm film as well as the Nikon film scanner. If this is
correct,
: >I only need to buy that scanner, instead of 2 new ones.
: >
: >Can anyone who has one of these scanners confirm this please?
:
:
: I've got the 4990 and a Nikon LS-8000.
:
: They're not in the same league. I use
: the Epson for scanning LF film, the
: Nikon for everything else (MF and 35mm.)
:
:
: rafe b
: www.terrapinphoto.com

Thanks Rafe. Doug earlier, as you have now, confirmed my suspicion that film
scanners and flatbed scanners are not equal in 35mm scans. I too use the
flatbed for 120 and 4x5 film with good results but the Epson has never
pleased me with it's 35mm and slide scanning. Pity.

 

[rafe b]

Thanks Rafe. Doug earlier, as you have now, confirmed my suspicion that film
scanners and flatbed scanners are not equal in 35mm scans. I too use the
flatbed for 120 and 4x5 film with good results but the Epson has never
pleased me with it's 35mm and slide scanning. Pity.

I'd rate the Epson as "equivalent" to about 2000 dpi.

It's a bit soft compared even to a couple of excellent
(but old) 2500 dpi film scanners that I've used.

The one saving grace of the Epson is that the scans
are relatively low noise, and respond well to
unsharp-masking.

I've got sample scans at the "snippets" site -

www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

where you can see the Epson scans compared to
a Leafscan 45 or Microtek 2500 (both rated at
2500 dpi.)


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Douglas]

"rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
:
: The one saving grace of the Epson is that the scans
: are relatively low noise, and respond well to
: unsharp-masking.
:
: I've got sample scans at the "snippets" site -
:
: www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
:
: where you can see the Epson scans compared to
: a Leafscan 45 or Microtek 2500 (both rated at
: 2500 dpi.)
:
:
: rafe b
: www.terrapinphoto.com

Your site is enjoyable to read, thanks.
Last year I bought the ED 5000 Coolscan after Bret Douglas told me of the
reliability problems he had with his Minolta scanner. Generally I've been
satisfied with all but the interface Nikon provide. I'm now about to open
another studio and need to duplicate my gear (It's a 1000 Klm away).

I'm less than impressed with some of my previous purchases. Given that film
is reaching a specialist area and the bulk negative scans are few and far
between, the new scanner will be working on a slide to CD process rather
than a film to print one. Would you by any chance be willing to make a
recommendation for a trannie film scanner?

DJ.

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

I'm about to buy a couple or one new scanner. Currently I have an Epson 4870
and a ED 500 Nikon coolscan. Someone recently suggested the new Epson 4990
could scan 35mm film as well as the Nikon film scanner. If this is correct,
I only need to buy that scanner, instead of 2 new ones.

Can anyone who has one of these scanners confirm this please?

DJ.

Douglas,

You mean the ED 5000 I guess. Doubt that the 4990 will compete
with that one, based on my Epson 3200 and Nikon 8000 that I
have and I used them to their limits.

However there are two new Epson scanner models announced with
dual lens systems that will bring 35 mm scans on flatbed
scanners to a new level. I think that's a better answer if you
want to replace both the 4990 and the Nikon Coolscan with one
scanner. May still not be at the 5000 level but close.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php

First impression after reading the specs:

Wet mounting holder included Higher resolution up to 4x5
thanks to a dual lens system, the 8x10 will not have the
higher resolution I think as it probably will be scanned on
the scanbed itself and use the same lens + focus that is used
for reflective originals. The 8x10 item is called area guide
instead of holder so that's what I base my assumption on.
Quite smart as it still will be a fixed focus system but this
time the wider lens will focus at the scanbed only and the 4x5
and smaller filmholders use the other lens with the higher
resolution and focus at 1 mm above the bed where the film is
in the holders. One would expect less DOF in the lens systems
and sharper scans than we were used to in the older models but
the oversampling CCD matrix sensor of Epson will still need
sharpening at some stage. I think a true optical resolution
above 3000 PPI for 4x5 and smaller isn't impossible. 4 Dmax is
claimed, but that has always been a bit high though, 3.2-3.4
should be possible with multi-sampling.


Ernst

 

[rafe b]

However there are two new Epson scanner models announced with
dual lens systems that will bring 35 mm scans on flatbed
scanners to a new level. I think that's a better answer if you
want to replace both the 4990 and the Nikon Coolscan with one
scanner. May still not be at the 5000 level but close.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php

Very interesting find, Ernst. This may be the
ticket for LF scanning. It figures that these
would be announced shortly after I broke down
and bought a 4990.

Dual-lens isn't completely new, but IMO is
very logical in this class of machine.

The Microtek 2500, and I think the Umax Powerlook
3000, both had a dual-lens system.

The Microtek, if not dual-lens, was able to
reconfigure its optical path to provide 2x
resolution over half the width of the scan
bed -- ie., just enough to scan 4x5" film
at 2500 dpi. A very old design, which now
appears to be out of production.

Of course, from previous history we've learned
to take Epson's dpi claims with a grain of salt.

I'm pleased to report that (so far) my Epson
4990 does not have any of the streaking or
banding issues of the Microtek. It's not
as sharp as the Microtek, though.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

Very interesting find, Ernst. This may be the
ticket for LF scanning. It figures that these
would be announced shortly after I broke down
and bought a 4990.

It is always like that. You could have bought an Epson 4800
printer two days ago and then the Canon Pixma 5000 is
announced. Would be worse in my opinion

Dual-lens isn't completely new, but IMO is
very logical in this class of machine.

The Microtek 2500, and I think the Umax Powerlook
3000, both had a dual-lens system.

The Microtek, if not dual-lens, was able to
reconfigure its optical path to provide 2x
resolution over half the width of the scan
bed -- ie., just enough to scan 4x5" film
at 2500 dpi. A very old design, which now
appears to be out of production.

Of course, from previous history we've learned
to take Epson's dpi claims with a grain of salt.

I'm pleased to report that (so far) my Epson
4990 does not have any of the streaking or
banding issues of the Microtek. It's not
as sharp as the Microtek, though.

Doing the maths again and starting from the 2000 PPI true
optical resolution estimation of Rafe's 4990.

A straight 6400/4800 x 2000 PPI (true optical resolution as
estimated by Rafe for his 4990) would give 2666 PPI true
optical resolution. But the max scan area for high resolution
is 150 x 247 mm ( Effective pixels data) which probably means
the windows of the twin 4x5 holder are not in the length. The
216 x 297 mm area for the lower resolution used means that if
there's 2000 PPI true optical resolution on the total width of
the bed ( Rafe's estimation for his 4990) the high resolution
should be about 2880 PPI true optical resolution (216/150 x
2000). The smaller angle of the lens and the less DOF needed
with the dual lens system may get it over the 3000 PPI mark.
If the twin 4x5 holder had the windows lengthwise then the
stroke of the lens for higher resolution doesn't have to be
wider than 95 mm (4 inch minus the unexposed borders). That
could have brought the resolution near 4500 PPI. All based on
one axis calculation. There are probably other (optical)
limitations though that make this wishful thinking.

Ernst


--
Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
( unvollendet )

--

--
Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
( unvollendet )

 

[rafe b]

There are probably other (optical)
limitations though that make this wishful thinking.

That is the nub of it, as you well know, Ernst.

To get anything like 4000 dpi "effective" resolution,
focus would need to be perfect -- as you know from your
experiments on the Nikon 8000/9000.

And sharp focus across a 4x5 transparency has never
been easy. That's why it's exciting to see Epson
(of all companies) explicitly discussing the wet-
mount capability of the V750.

3000 dpi "effective" resolution would be excellent.

That is about what we get from our Coolscan 8000 or
9000 (again, my "gut feel") and probably good enough
for 99% of all real photographs on real film.

Real achievable MTFs are probably higher with
smaller film formats. The same film-flatness
issues apply in the image-taking stage as in
the scanning, of course.

And lens MTFs almost surely go down with larger
image circles, so the captured resolution with
LF surely is lower than that for 35mm or MF.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com