New Epson flatbed scanner...

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

  1. Noons

    Ernst Dinkla Guest

    Bart,

    The V750-M will be available in May. In my experience add
    another month for anything new coming from Epson. The other
    model will be earlier but doesn't have the wetmount carrier
    etc. The UK will probably have the first scanners for review
    as London has the marketing headquarter for scanners I was
    told by an Epson man some years ago.

    I don't think Eindhoven falls in the central portion of the
    Netherlands, certainly not last weekend :)

    Ernst

    --
    Ernst Dinkla


    www.pigment-print.com
    ( unvollendet )
     
    Ernst Dinkla, Mar 1, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Noons

    HvdV Guest

    OTOH, the lens only needs to cope with a single object and image distance,
    and maybe a somewhat more limited light spectrum as compared to a
    photographic lens.
    Compared to other scanners like the Nikon, the oversampled conditions allow
    on the fly resampling to correct geometrical distortion in software, and a
    more sensitive CCD combined with brighter light sources could lead to a
    smaller aperture. In principle it is also possible to illuminate with
    different light sources in rapid succession, eliminating the need for lateral
    chromatic correction. Together, these things would lead to a vastly cheaper lens.

    -- Hans
     
    HvdV, Mar 1, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Noons

    Chris Guest


    I'm talking film scanner not comparing it with a flat bed.


    Have a look at this page

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/dimage.shtml

    They have in the review the Minolta scanning 6x6 at 3200 dpi and the
    Epson Flatbed 1640 at 3200 dpi (half way down the page)

    This is what I expect from a flatbed what ever.
     
    Chris, Mar 1, 2006
    #43
  4. Noons

    rafe b Guest


    Aw, c'mon. Give Epson a *little* break. The 1640 SU (which
    I own, and bought for $400 in Feb. 2001) was rated at 1600
    dpi optical, and (in keeping with Epson tradition) probably
    good for 1/2 of its rated resolution. It was the first of the
    Epson "photo/flatbed" models.

    You can see samples of the Epson 4990 output, compared
    to other dedicated film scanners, on my scan snippets site:

    <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/>

    IMO, the 4990 rates about 2000 dpi or thereabouts.
    It's no Nikon, but at $400, what do you expect? The
    next step up is at least four or five times more expensive.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 1, 2006
    #44
  5. Noons

    Rob Guest

    Don't take it out of context by snipping.
     
    Rob, Mar 1, 2006
    #45
  6. Noons

    P. Taine Guest

    I am a novice, looking for a scanner for a collection of negatives. I've been leaning towards the 4990, but I have a (probably
    dumb) question.

    These negatives are in a wide range of sizes. Just to check, I have:

    Standard 35mm, both color & b&w -- badly curled, as some are in full rolls that haven't been opened since the 1940's
    35mm color, with widely spaced sprocket holes on one side only.
    disk negatives
    individual negative. Here I'm giving the image area, variable clear areas on the sides
    6.9 x 11.3 cm
    6 x 8.8 cm
    8.8 x 8.8 cm
    4.5 x 6.5 cm
    6 x 8.3 cm
    8.1 x 13.8
    6.2 x 10.8
    5.7 x 7.9
    and quite a few other sizes
    a number of glass negatives, of various sizes.

    So -- after reading about Newton rings, differing focal planes, etc. What SHOULD I do? How does one hold these various (many
    hand-cut) negatives flat and at the proper height, and how does one mask them? Or must I simply plop them down on the glass and
    take what I can get?

    Puzzled
    P. Taine
     
    P. Taine, Mar 1, 2006
    #46
  7. Noons

    rafe b Guest


    Relax and don't worry about it.

    For your glass negatives, I'd just put a small shim under
    each corner (or along two opposing edges) to keep the
    two glass surfaces from making contact. Any thickness
    of paper should do.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 1, 2006
    #47
  8. Noons

    rafe b Guest


    Hmm. Did I miss the point? What *was* the point?


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 1, 2006
    #48
  9. Noons

    CSM1 Guest

    Here is a list of Kodak Still camera films from 1977-1978. This list has the
    Kodak film type number and the size of the image.

    http://www.carlmcmillan.com/Pdf/Still_Camera_films.pdf

    Maybe this list will help identify the film you have. To know if a scanner
    will handle the film you have, you measure the full width of the film
    including the non-image area. Find in the scanner specs the maximum size
    transparency image it will scan.

    For instance the Epson Perfection 4990 PHOTO will scan up to a 8 inch X 10
    inch transparency. (20.64 cm x 25.8 cm).
    There are not many Consumer Scanners that will scan that large of a
    transparency. (It may be the only one).
    That is probably 126 film.
     
    CSM1, Mar 1, 2006
    #49
  10. SNIP
    Not if the flat surface of the glass platen and a (hopefully flat)
    mounted slide are concerned. The 0.75 mm (depending of the particular
    mount) difference is already noticable on my 'ancient' Epson 2450
    Photo. One can only hope that the new 7xx models with their claimed
    resolution have focus control.
    There is only a restriction by the combined lamp / dye colors spectum,
    and that spectrum seems to be quite wide if one considers the
    "Ektaspace" profile chromaticities
    (http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?WorkingSpaceInfo.html).
    I was more referring to the natural behavior of lenses to produce
    non-flatplane focus.
    Unfortunately, CCDs have a more or less fixed sensitivity.
    But would increase calibration problems and component cost. It would
    still require the optical system to have identical correction for the
    different spectra.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Mar 1, 2006
    #50
  11. Noons

    Djon Guest

    Maybe it'd be better if people stopped mistakenly describing scanner
    output as "dpi."

    dpi refers to printing, not scanning.
     
    Djon, Mar 1, 2006
    #51
  12. Noons

    Don Guest

    Then, let's read what you wrote:

    --- start ---
    --- end ---

    How does that differ from my paraphrasing it as: "Grain is a function
    of skill"?
    No, grain is a function of film. The image on film is composed of
    grain. It may be small grain, it may be big grain. But grain is always
    there.

    Before we go on do you agree with that? If not, why not i.e. if not
    grain, then what is the image on film made of?
    Yes, they do! Analog images still contain image data: Analog image
    data. Which is expressed as grain.
    The point is there is no such a thing. All analog images on film are
    made of/contain grain. You can reduce its *appearance* but at a price.
    That price is loss of information.
    That's not really the issue but even in the analog paradigm reducing
    grain artificially still loses information.
    Of course. But that has nothing to do with grain being recorded by the
    scanner which is the subject matter.
    ?

    Analog technology is not crucial to photography either!

    What does either of those statements prove other than acknowledging
    there are alternatives?
    Not without loss of information, be it in the analog or digital
    domain.

    Don.
     
    Don, Mar 1, 2006
    #52
  13. SNIP
    Could be the case, but AFAIK the general European headquarters are in
    Germany.
    Not yet ;-)

    Well, Eindhoven would be about an hour's drive from the Utrecht
    region; in fact one could reach the furthest outskirts of the country,
    worst case scenario, outside rush-hour by car in about 2 hours from
    the Utrecht region. If it's a non-profit activity I'd prefer something
    even closer ;-)

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Mar 2, 2006
    #53
  14. Noons

    P. Taine Guest

    I know that the scanner has a large enough area, what I am worried about are the comments about the proper distance from the glass
    (platen?) to the film (including not having them touch), and the importance of masking and of holding it as flat as possible.

    I fear that the indicated web-site won't help me, as most of these are from the 1910's to the 1930's or 40's. The glass negitives
    are probably earlier.

    'P. Taine
     
    P. Taine, Mar 2, 2006
    #54
  15. Nope: It has to handle through IR.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 2, 2006
    #55
  16. One of the claims is that the film holders support two distances off the
    glass 0.5 mm apart.
    Again, these things need to focus IR as well, so the requirement is more
    stringent than photographic lenses.
    The new scanner _claims_ to have microlenses for the first time in an Epson
    scanner.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 2, 2006
    #56
  17. Noons

    Noons Guest

    Well, you mentioned flatbed Epson scanners...
    Thanks, I know it.
    Well, there you go: I don't think the 1640 is anywhere
    near the same class of scanner as the 4990. Completely
    different animals.

    Having said that, here is what I noticed so far from about
    6 months using the 4990 flatbed:

    1- Epson's fixed focus point on the glass surface
    is useless at any rez >= 2400.
    They need to have the focus at 1/64" ABOVE the
    glass surface, not on it!

    2- Noise with dark slides can be objectionable but
    it's nothing that a dual or quad pass scan and
    use of exposure controls can't fix.

    3- Due to focusing problems, the scanner cannot fully
    resolve normal slide film - although in principle 4800dpi
    would be very close.

    Others might differ.
     
    Noons, Mar 2, 2006
    #57
  18. Noons

    Ernst Dinkla Guest

    Unlike Ralf writes any thickness of carton will do I would use
    1 mm thick or if you know where best focus is use that
    thickness. That's on the 4990.

    To get good masks and to clamp the different sizes you could
    use the magnetic vinyl masks I use from time to time. But
    most of the time I use wet mounting for film. You will
    probably have difficulty with the glass negatives. Often they
    have thick emulsion and little light gets through while the
    dynamic range isn't that wide. There are solutions but that
    goes a bit further than using a Stanley knife.

    http://www.pigment-print.com/CTG_0049/target0.html

    Ernst

    --

    --
    Ernst Dinkla


    www.pigment-print.com
    ( unvollendet )
     
    Ernst Dinkla, Mar 2, 2006
    #58
  19. Noons

    P. Taine Guest

    Thank you for the comments and reference. I've saved the web-page for which you gave the link, and will look into emulating your
    solution.

    P. Taine
     
    P. Taine, Mar 2, 2006
    #59
  20. Noons

    HvdV Guest

    Still, the lens can be optimized for a single object/image distance, should
    make life easier. Of course these object and image planes need to be flat
    within the DOF for the aperture used.

    Regarding the focus, hard to imagine they can manufacture so precisely that
    no adjustment is ever needed.

    BTW, how is chromatic aberration on your scanner? I noted that most snippets
    on that website posted earlier are near the image center, except for one from
    a corner, but that one was ill suited to spot chromatic aberration.
    Ok.
    From a graph on the Epson site I gather that the blue CCD filter sensitivity
    has been shifted further towards shorter wavelengths as compared to the
    earlier model. On top of that as David Littleboy pointed out the need to
    handle IR light (what wavelength?) makes it even harder. BTW, I wonder what
    the imaging quality requirements as to this IR channel really are.I think that if it is possible to get away with a lower aperture by
    increasing the overall sensitivity, including brighter lightsource, better
    coatings on mirrors, lenses, fewer lens surfaces, engineers will go for it. A
    lower aperture also means more tolerance with field flatness.
    No, you can correct each separately, fairly standard practice in scanning
    or CCD based microscopy. You are right in that it requires a calibration step
    though.


    -- Hans
     
    HvdV, Mar 2, 2006
    #60
    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.