aad
Not so new now.
OK, as I mentioned last week, I purchased a Minolta SDIV to compare with my Epson 4490. I've spent too much of the last week comparing the two, and I have some conclusions and a few web-ready shots, with more available if there are requests.
Workflow- all film was scanned at 3200 dpi to eliminate ant difference in result due to the Epson's higher resolution. In reality, the difference between 4800 and 3200 is indistinguishable on screen, and ultimate detail capture is limited by other factors I'll mention later.
No processing was done in the scanner software. All post processing was done in PS Elements 2. Files were saved as TIFF until getting ready to post. I see no image degradation after saving to JPEG 8, but I'm not sure what may have changed on those that I modified to post here.
Quick summary-
Black and white-both scanners captured pretty much the same detail but the Minolta looks harsher and has some scanner noise. I didn't do any multi-pass scans to try to eliminate it. The Epson looks smoother and has the same level of detail. I can make the Epson B&W look identical to the Minolta by over-sharpening, but it took a lot of work to make the Minolta look like the Epson.
Color negatives- The Minolta scans looked just about ready to go as scanned. the colors looked great and details were very sharp. There was some noise in the shadows, but not bad. The Epson came in a little washed out and required color-boosting as well as some USM to get it to a "print ready" stage, but final results were close, and you'd have to see them side-by-side to tell any difference, and even then may still be tough.
Slides- this was where things got interesting. The Minolta scans came in just about right, where the Epson scans had less color and were definitely soft. The colors were easy to fix, and USM brought in a lot more detail, but it never gets quite as detailed as the Minolta, especially with Velvia. The prints I've made off the Epson scans of Ektachrome are really nice, but I think if there's a lot of small detail, 5x7 is about the limit on slides from the Epson.
The epson software is much more developed. It never crashes. The Minolta needs more attention, and locks up often enough that the manual tells you how to re-start the scanner when it locks up. If you follow the procedure exactly, though, it usually works fine.
The Epson film holders are less fiddly than the Minolta's as well, except for the slide holder. The slide holder is simple to use.
My conclusions-the difference between the two scanners is much less than some would have you believe. Maybe older flatbeds were not so good, but the 4490 is pretty darned close to the Minolta film scanner. the higher density of slide film seems to scatter light, and the light source on the Epson just seems to get scatttered more than the collimated one in the Minolta. Edges get fuzzy, and though they can be fixed in USM, the actual detaail just can't be completely recovered, esspecially on Velvia.
If you shoot negatives all the time, the 4490 is probably better overall than the Minolta. If you shoot mostly slides, the Minolta is definitely better. Medium format on the epsson blows all the 35mm stuff out of the water!
Right now you can buy both of these together for less than either the Epson 4990 or the other film scanners. I'm keeping both of mine.
Following is a set of comparisons of Ektachrome, taken in 2002. The first two are Epson, the second are Minolta. both full-scene shots are followed by 100% crops. All post processing has been done. I may post some of the other results if there's any interest.
Workflow- all film was scanned at 3200 dpi to eliminate ant difference in result due to the Epson's higher resolution. In reality, the difference between 4800 and 3200 is indistinguishable on screen, and ultimate detail capture is limited by other factors I'll mention later.
No processing was done in the scanner software. All post processing was done in PS Elements 2. Files were saved as TIFF until getting ready to post. I see no image degradation after saving to JPEG 8, but I'm not sure what may have changed on those that I modified to post here.
Quick summary-
Black and white-both scanners captured pretty much the same detail but the Minolta looks harsher and has some scanner noise. I didn't do any multi-pass scans to try to eliminate it. The Epson looks smoother and has the same level of detail. I can make the Epson B&W look identical to the Minolta by over-sharpening, but it took a lot of work to make the Minolta look like the Epson.
Color negatives- The Minolta scans looked just about ready to go as scanned. the colors looked great and details were very sharp. There was some noise in the shadows, but not bad. The Epson came in a little washed out and required color-boosting as well as some USM to get it to a "print ready" stage, but final results were close, and you'd have to see them side-by-side to tell any difference, and even then may still be tough.
Slides- this was where things got interesting. The Minolta scans came in just about right, where the Epson scans had less color and were definitely soft. The colors were easy to fix, and USM brought in a lot more detail, but it never gets quite as detailed as the Minolta, especially with Velvia. The prints I've made off the Epson scans of Ektachrome are really nice, but I think if there's a lot of small detail, 5x7 is about the limit on slides from the Epson.
The epson software is much more developed. It never crashes. The Minolta needs more attention, and locks up often enough that the manual tells you how to re-start the scanner when it locks up. If you follow the procedure exactly, though, it usually works fine.
The Epson film holders are less fiddly than the Minolta's as well, except for the slide holder. The slide holder is simple to use.
My conclusions-the difference between the two scanners is much less than some would have you believe. Maybe older flatbeds were not so good, but the 4490 is pretty darned close to the Minolta film scanner. the higher density of slide film seems to scatter light, and the light source on the Epson just seems to get scatttered more than the collimated one in the Minolta. Edges get fuzzy, and though they can be fixed in USM, the actual detaail just can't be completely recovered, esspecially on Velvia.
If you shoot negatives all the time, the 4490 is probably better overall than the Minolta. If you shoot mostly slides, the Minolta is definitely better. Medium format on the epsson blows all the 35mm stuff out of the water!
Right now you can buy both of these together for less than either the Epson 4990 or the other film scanners. I'm keeping both of mine.
Following is a set of comparisons of Ektachrome, taken in 2002. The first two are Epson, the second are Minolta. both full-scene shots are followed by 100% crops. All post processing has been done. I may post some of the other results if there's any interest.
