New Epson flatbed scanner...

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by Noons, Feb 24, 2006.

  1. Noons

    Noons Guest

    Noons, Feb 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Noons

    JWSM Guest

    It won't win on looks... I wish Epson would expand scanning area to
    Foolscap length (only need a bit more plastic, glass, and scan track
    extended an inch or two).

    Hope it has a decent hinge for the lid.

    Optical density is no different to 4990. But what I would like to know...
    has its scanning capability improved for 35mm negs and slides. Wet scanning
    is great for photos affected by sulfiding (mirroring), but some what scary
    too (emulsions and bases vary so much).

    J
     
    JWSM, Feb 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Noons

    HvdV Guest

    See also the specs by way of:

    http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductCategory.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-8172
    http://tinyurl.com/r2mc

    Sounds too good to be true: very high DPI (oversampled CCD? -- good to
    suppress grain aliasing), new optics, large batches for 35mm, high
    reliability. As an owner of a just broken KM 5400-II I can value the latter.

    As to speed they say 12.3msec/line. I saw the older 4990 does 17msec/line;
    can anybody comment about the scan speed of the 4990 in practice, say for
    4000dpi?

    Anybody seen or tested one already?

    -- Hans
     
    HvdV, Feb 24, 2006
    #3
  4. Noons

    k Guest

    | Noons wrote:
    | > http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php
    | See also the specs by way of:



    | As to speed they say 12.3msec/line. I saw the older 4990 does 17msec/line;
    | can anybody comment about the scan speed of the 4990 in practice, say for
    | 4000dpi?



    12,3ms/l - scanning a single 6x6 frame of film would take nearly 3 minutes
    at 6400lpi, alost 5 min for a 4x5

    I guess you'd double it if you're using the IR filtation?


    k
     
    k, Feb 24, 2006
    #4
  5. Noons

    woods Guest

    woods, Feb 24, 2006
    #5
  6. For anything less than 6x7, they're pretty meaningless for new work (if you
    can afford a 5D).

    But there are lots of old images left around to be scanned.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 24, 2006
    #6
  7. Noons

    rafe b Guest


    dICE on the 4990 is incredibly slow. But who's
    complaining? The time it saves (compared to
    cleaning up the scan in Photoshop) is still
    enormous.

    Otherwise, the 4990 seems very much "in the
    norm" with regard to scan times, compared to
    other film scanners I have used.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Feb 24, 2006
    #7
  8. Noons

    rafe b Guest


    For commercial purposes, pretty much.

    There are still some crazy bastards (such
    as myself) shooting MF and LF film.

    And there may still be a few lazy bastards
    sitting on piles of ancient slides and
    negatives, and have yet to scan them.

    As it stands today, a $3000 DSLR from
    Canon can more or less match the quality
    of a scan of the smallest medium-format
    film area (6x4.5 cm).



    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Feb 24, 2006
    #8
  9. "rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
    SNIP
    Most likely due to the inescapable exposure time constraints.

    I've seen many people (not you) obsess with pure scan time, but it
    takes a given amount of time to expose the sensor elements, no escape
    possible unless one underexposes.

    In general the integration time is long enough to not overstress the
    interface to the computer, unless USB 1.1 is involved or the interface
    needs to share bandwidth.

    Finally, IR / ICE processing software will require lots of computer
    power, so a bottleneck may need to be sought there.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 24, 2006
    #9
  10. Noons

    Noons Guest


    Well, the proof is in the pudding. So, for as long
    as new models make it to this world, I think anyone
    coming up with that one is on fumes...
     
    Noons, Feb 25, 2006
    #10
  11. Noons

    Noons Guest

    Yeah, but so far only Canon is in that ball
    park. It's gonna take a long time before
    other options become available. And not
    everyone shoots that particular camera
    or has the $$$ to spend on lenses capable of
    making it shine.
     
    Noons, Feb 25, 2006
    #11
  12. Noons

    Djon Guest

    The installed base of fine 35mm and MF and LF cameras is gigantic. The
    photographic skills of DSLR users are not noticably superior, may not
    be equal, to film users.

    Litho and inkjet reproduction is the quality bottleneck, not the
    cameras. For this reason existing prosumer DSLRs are plenty for most
    commercial applications.

    Grain is not universally considered a bad thing..DSLR users spend money
    and labor to create it.

    Some photography benefits by promiscuous snapping, other photography is
    accomplished by deliberate use in which a digital file or 6X6 film
    serves equally efficiently.

    IMO it's likely that Epson's new scanners will breathe new life into MF
    if the performance exceeds 4990 even somewhat... if Epson's new
    scanners DO rekindle enthusiasm for 120 film it will prolong
    availability.
     
    Djon, Feb 25, 2006
    #12
  13. Noons

    Mr.T Guest

    It is universally (or very, very near to it) considered to be a bad thing
    *when* you don't want it.
    It is universally considered to be a good thing to be able to choose when
    you want it and when you don't.
    However, both film and digital SLR's allow you to choose ISO speed.
    Increased digital "noise" being the "equivalent" of increased grain as the
    speed is increased.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Feb 26, 2006
    #13
  14. Noons

    rafe b Guest


    They do? That's news to me.

    Once or twice I considered adding noise to
    digital captures to "simulate" grain... and
    then I thought, who am I kidding? What am
    I trying to hide?

    I still shoot and scan lots of film, and am
    no stranger to film grain, having shot many
    hundreds of rolls of Tri-X in my day.

    Back when I was doing optical enlargements,
    I remember grain was my friend in at least
    this regard: it was the surest way to check
    the focus my enlarger.

    Even now, when I see grain in my film scans,
    I know I'm getting proper focus in my scanner.

    I accept grain as an inherent quality of
    film, but not necessarily a desirable one.
    It doesn't upset me terribly, but on the
    other hand I'd always rather have less,
    not more of it.

    Nowadays, the idea of adding "fake" grain
    to digital capture strikes me as bogus and
    dishonest.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Feb 26, 2006
    #14
  15. Noons

    Noons Guest

    Well, and Fuji just introduced yet another new 400 film:
    Provia 400X.
    Apparently even better than 400F. Not bad for a media
    that is dead, according to Kodak's ceo: three new emulsions
    in as many years.

    Must try it out as soon as available for 120! 6x7 with 400X, the
    4990 or one of these new scanners will beat the crap off
    any 35mm-style camera, digital or otherwise, for the price.
     
    Noons, Feb 26, 2006
    #15
  16. Noons

    Djon Guest

    "It is universally (or very, very near to it) considered to be a bad
    thing
    *when* you don't want it. "

    If you have the skills, you have grain or don't according to your
    wishes. It's a matter of skill.

    "It is universally considered to be a good thing to be able to choose
    when
    you want it and when you don't. "

    Not at all. Most film photographers don't care that much, enjoying
    their limitations. They make decisions and live with them. Most digital
    photographers are also content to work within the limitations of their
    technology, as for example with prosumer dslrs or digicams instead of
    more serious equipment. Some film photographers always work with Leicas
    and TriX/Rodinal, or restrict themselves to the narrow possibilities of
    Velvia, or, as Ansel, using soft developers as an aesthetic choice.
    Some digital photographers are content with 8MP dslrs in all
    situations, despite or because of the fact that the images are usually
    immediately identifiable as coming from that sort of camera, especially
    in B&W.

    "However, both film and digital SLR's allow you to choose ISO speed.
    Increased digital "noise" being the "equivalent" of increased grain as
    the
    speed is increased. "

    Speed and grain do not have a linear relationship in film except when a
    person is unskilled or for his own reasons confines himself to limited
    methods for various films. While many film photographers, galleries,
    designers etc relish the look of whatever grain they choose to display,
    its interesting that nobody seems to enjoy the look of noise in
    digital. Thats probably because noise commonly looks mushy. When more
    visually-oriented (vs technically oriented) photographers start to
    explore digital printing, some will inevitably start to play with noise
    as a positive characteristic.

    My own 800ei Neopan 400 in Emofin (as opposed to the same film at the
    same ei in Rodinal, which I also enjoy) is approximately as grainy as
    typical silver 100ei films in their manufacturers' recommended
    developers, for example...grain size and character is simply a
    craftsperson's choice unless he's incompetent. If a person has grain
    and doesn't like it, that is either his bad luck or his lack of skill.
     
    Djon, Feb 26, 2006
    #16
  17. Noons

    Don Guest

    Not quite. An image on film *is* grain. Therefore (appearance of)
    grain can't be removed without at the same time removing image data.
    Nothing to do with skill.

    Don.
     
    Don, Feb 26, 2006
    #17
  18. Noons

    Noons Guest

    Grain is not the same as pixels...
     
    Noons, Feb 27, 2006
    #18
  19. Noons

    Don Guest

    Yes, only this is not about pixels but about "skill" reducing grain.

    The film image itself is composed of lumps of (analog) grain in the
    film emulsion. This is then mapped to (available) pixels where
    (depending on resolution) these lumps will be more or less visible.

    No amount of "skill" can reduce the visibility (i.e. appearance of)
    grain without at the same time reducing information (i.e. image data).

    And this goes for both software (GEM, etc) and hardware (diffuse light
    source) "solutions". Without going into detail both of them reduce the
    amount of data i.e. make the image "soft" or, as call it, "fuzzify".

    Indeed, by simply defocusing slightly the appearance of grain can be
    reduced. And, self evidently, an out-of-focus image has less image
    information/data than an in-focus image.

    Don.
     
    Don, Feb 27, 2006
    #19
  20. Noons

    HvdV Guest

    Some people in this NG have mentioned that some defocussing might be
    beneficial to reduce grain aliasing because it reduces the spatial frequency
    content of the image to better match the sampling rate of the scanner. This
    is assuming that you're dealing with fine grained films like Portra 160.
    The sampling rate of that new Epson scanner might be high enough to
    completely capture the optical bandwidth, at least in one direction. On top
    of that, if it has a sample distance 2x smaller than it's CCD cell size then
    that is an anti aliasing filter in itself. Taken together we might see much
    less grainy results from that scanner. Hopefully the optics are good enough...

    -- Hans
     
    HvdV, Feb 27, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.