Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Scanner Information Base
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:25 am    Post subject: Scanner Information Base Reply with quote

I'd like to be so bold as to start a thread here about working with the flatbed scanners (and proprietary scanners as well, if you have one).

I see there are variations and lots of questions coming forth in other threads about the scanners.

I see that there is good luck in using the Epson 4490 and Epson 4990 scanners. I have an older model Epson 2450 that is giving me good results with some emulsions, and mediocre results with others.

1. Best scans for me have been transparencies, with Fuji Provia scanning very very nicely for "whatever reason". Shocked

2. For color print film, I have had wondeful results from Kodak 400UC and Fuji Reala.

3. For black and whites, I've used in-home developed HP5+, as well as machine-processed retail black and white film. I generally have to "work" the machine processed negative harder than the the HP5, and that might be just because the HP5 is such a great product with room for "error".

4. Frankly, on slides, I have had best luck with "Full Auto" and unchecking the "Sharpen" box. I almost always scan at 2400dpi for 35mm film.

5. The "sweet spot" for the Epson 2450 seems to be medium format (4.5x6, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9). I've scanned 4x5 and it is also good, although I have to cut down the dpi in order to have a workable file with my only moderately powerful processor chip on my computer (1.4GHZ chip and 1GB of RAM). SilverFast works well for medium format slides.

6. The depth of field for the 2450 is very critical, and I have had to"shim" the template off the platen by the thickness of two stacked postcards on the corners to achieve optimum focus. I understand that the 4490 and 4990 models have a better depth-of-field, which is wonderful.

7. I'll give a report on the Nikon proprietary scanner (LS-3) if I can somehow get the SCSI port to recognize the computer. (How come SCSI always has to be so "buggy"?)

Let me know if I can help, or attempt to help, with any questions. I'm no expert at all, but have been using the Epson 2450 from when I bought it new several years ago. The price then was $400, now they can be had for less than $100 - sometimes on the auction site for even just $40-$50.


Last edited by Laurence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:44 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just saw this thread, Larry, thanks for posting this, since I'm a fellow
2450 owner. I plan on getting the Epson V500 as I'm very impressed
with how it does 35mm negs, and 120 negs will be just that much better.

Since postcards are not all created equal (I'm looking at cutting up
some Dubai and Bahrain cards I never used, but notice a slight disparity
in thickness. Is there a way for you to mike the thickness of what you
use?

Bill


PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure Bill! I'll mic it tomorrow...
Cheers!
Laurence


PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Impressive results, Steve! Love the expression on your boy in the 3rd
shot, definitely wants to speak to the Tour Director! Laughing Does the
4490 do 4x5? Don't think it does if memory serves, and the V500 doesn't,
either. I vacillate on keeping the 2450 and getting the Plustek 7200 for
35mm, or simply getting the V500 that does a great job with medium
format and not too shabby with 35mm:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=665627#post665627

Epson Online has refurbed 4490's going for $109, ending today!

Bill


PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Katastrofo wrote:

Epson Online has refurbed 4490's going for $109, ending today!
Bill


This is terrific price for a good scanner, get it.

-


PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hummm, thinking, sale ends today:

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63060806


PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, bought it for $88.29 ( two 10% discounts off the $109) with free
ground shipping. Just got my order confirm while typing this!

Bill


PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
Sure Bill! I'll mic it tomorrow...
Cheers!
Laurence


Hi Bill! Congrats on a GREAT buy on the 4490!

I mic'd the cards at 0.82 millimeters.

Can't WAIT to see some scans comparisons after the adjustments.

Now I'm keeping my eyes open on either the 4490 or V700.

Cheers, Laurence


PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Larry, thanks for miking the thickness. I will probably hang on to the 2450
as a backup unit. The price on the 4490 went back to $98.10 with free
shipping from Epson (the link above). The V700 is an awesome scanner,
but will run "a few dollars more" to buy that one.

Bill


PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Katastrofo wrote:
Larry, thanks for miking the thickness. I will probably hang on to the 2450
as a backup unit. The price on the 4490 went back to $98.10 with free
shipping from Epson (the link above). The V700 is an awesome scanner,
but will run "a few dollars more" to buy that one.

Bill


Something interesting here, Bill. In the comprehensive scanner review for the V700, the author found that raising the default height of the scanner by .5 millimeters (default was 3.0, using the risers brought it to 3.5), he had MARKEDLY improved scans!

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_13.htm

So...it DOES make a difference to experiment with height adjustments, in fact it makes a substantial difference. Shocked

Now I wonder if the author might have even engaged a little more experimentation with height, that it might be even better yet.

Certainly something to try on a scanner, regardless of the model.

p.s. I also notice a slight improvement when he "turned over" a transparency and scanned it with the emulsion side down... Wink


PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Larry, good scanning technique is a subculture unto its own! Wink You
can go with variable height filmholders from BetterScanning.com, but
they are $80-plus almost what the 4490 cost me!

Bill


PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With my 120 film (unmounted) I used two coins at each corner, one above and one below the film, mainly to avoid Newtons rings, but they also helped with focussing.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

niblue wrote:
I've started using the Digital ICE on the 4490 when scanning 35mm film and while it means the scan takes longer the overall process to a printable image is shorter because I'm finding that the results need virtually no manual clean-up.


But the ICE softens the pictures visibly in my opinion.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
But the ICE softens the pictures visibly in my opinion.


I've heard this, and also loses detail, maybe it's the same thing. I wasn't
planning on using Digital ICE, Sliverfast, just the OEM software. It's all
I used with the 2450.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From what I've seen (in a demo show in Seattle), and read before, the Digital ICE does degrade the image a little bit. BUT, this is really "pixel peeping" down to the macro level on a small portion of the image.

I think that, in the larger "normal" size image, the trade-off is possibly well worth it, and I would guess that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in that case.

Then again, I could be just guessing totally wrong... Laughing