Epson 4490 or 4990

T

tomh2008

Newbie
Local time
3:24 AM
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
7
Hi

Can anyone tell me the subtle differences between these 2 scanners? Apart from price of course...

I have an old dedicated film scanner (Dimage Scan Multi ii), which I'm thinking of putting up on the bay as I really haven't been happy with the prints made from scans from it.

I think I'm going to replace it with a flatbed for scanning my 6x9s.

The 4490 can be had for about £150 here in the UK new, and the 4990 for about £350, although I haven't actually seen any in stock anywhere.

Is the 4990 worth twice as much as the 4490?

Which models do you people have, any recommendations?

Or should I really save up and head for the V700 or 750?

It's just £150 for the 4490 is really tempting - how big a decent print do you think this could manage from a 6x9 neg/tranny?


Thanks in advance for any suggestions
 
Ive had both, but I currently use the 4490 (thanks to the postal service for breaking the 4990). The difference between the two is subtle. I could be crazy, but I feel that the 4990 gave me a little more detail in the blacks.

Both of them are great for black and white negatives and color slides. Sadly, neither of them look too hot for color negatives.

If money is no object, go for the 4990. Otherwise, get the 4490.

You can view my flickr page for results. As a note, I scanned and edited my images on a mac. When I view my flickr on PCs the quality looks awful. I assume that would be due to the different gamma of the monitors(?)
 
You did ask for recommendation, I use the Microtek Scanmaker i800 for MF and LF scans. Same Dmax (claim) as 4990 (and V700) but can scan negatives/slides up to 8x10. Shop around, I got mine around 200 USD, depends on where you are, of course.
 
I have the 4490. Although the scans are very soft compared to a good film scanner, I find it fine for medium format negatives. I wouldn't recommend it for slides. Particularly with Velvia and Kodachrome it struggles with deep shadow areas, which come out very noisy and with not a lot of detail.
 
I have the 4990 and really like it. Never used the 4490, so I can't compare. And I don't have any problems scanning negative film on the 4990. Just let the scanner pick the defaults and do its thing. The results are fine.

/T
P.S. Both of these scanners have been discontinued by Epson, so they should be available at bargain prices.
 
I have the 4490 and would like something better for slides, but for negatives it's fine.
Have to work at getting the colour right in post processing if the original is not a "normal" looking shot with good exposure.
Here's one from 35mm Portra VC160.

Cheers, Robin
 

Attachments

  • foxgloves.jpg
    foxgloves.jpg
    87.8 KB · Views: 0
Interesting. With the 4990 I find that there is almost nothing I can do in post processing to significantly change the image, short of completely ruining it. It seems to be one of the main differences between digital and analogue. Digital is infinitely malleable while scanned film is WYSIWYG.

/T
 
Tuolumne said:
Interesting. With the 4990 I find that there is almost nothing I can do in post processing to significantly change the image, short of completely ruining it. It seems to be one of the main differences between digital and analogue. Digital is infinitely malleable while scanned film is WYSIWYG.
/T
Click to expand...

Well you really confused me with that, what program(s) do you use on the scan once it's saved?
I always scan 48bit colour and save as a .tif. If the image looks like it needs a lot of work I'll use CS3's "open as" command and open the .tif in ACR to make some basic adjustments before going on to more subtle stuff like sharpening and grain removal.

Cheers, Robin
 
I can never keep all of the confusing Minolta names right but if that is the updated version of the scanner model that will do both medium format and 35 mm, I would not sell it until after you have tested a flatbed model to compare. The later Dual Scans were very decent scanners. You may find the Minolta is all you need.

Doug
 
Robin P said:
Well you really confused me with that, what program(s) do you use on the scan once it's saved?
I always scan 48bit colour and save as a .tif. If the image looks like it needs a lot of work I'll use CS3's "open as" command and open the .tif in ACR to make some basic adjustments before going on to more subtle stuff like sharpening and grain removal.

Cheers, Robin
Click to expand...

Sometimes I save as a tiff, sometimes as a jpg. I really don't see that much difference between a tiff and a first generation, high res, low compression jpg. In fact, I see none. I usually edit with Picassa or CS3, depending on how ambitious I am feeling. I scan with all default settings, letting the scanner decide on all levels. Usually no sharpening or dust removal.

/T
 
Tuolumne said:
Sometimes I save as a tiff, sometimes as a jpg. I really don't see that much difference between a tiff and a first generation, high res, low compression jpg. I
/T
Click to expand...
It's important to save as 16 bit .tif if you want to do subsequent processing - a .jpg will fall apart very soon if you try to modify it.

Back to the original topic - the choice of scanner depends on what the destination of the scanned file will be (print, small/large, or web) and whether you'll be shooting to scan or already have stuff you want to scan.
IMHO if you're shooting to scan then colour neg and a flatbed will do but if you also want to project or already have slides then you'll need a dedicated film scanner.

Cheers, Robin
 
xvvvz said:
I can never keep all of the confusing Minolta names right but if that is the updated version of the scanner model that will do both medium format and 35 mm, I would not sell it until after you have tested a flatbed model to compare. The later Dual Scans were very decent scanners. You may find the Minolta is all you need.

Doug
Click to expand...


Mine is the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II, not the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro which is much much better apparently. Mine is only 1128 dpi on the medium format lens, and I really havent been that happy with the results. Slow SCSI interface. Very poor software. Ground ANR glass neg holder gives very grainy scans (seeing the texture of the ANR glass and not the film grain).

The scanner must be 10 years old at least, I think it's time I moved onto some 21st Century technology. It's such a shame to have such clean clear crisp negs and transparencies, and not manage to get a decent scan from them. I spend so long tweaking all the settings in the poor Minolta software, and I just get nowhere. :bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom