Epson 4490 vs Plustek 7400 pics comparison

[mpedziwiatr]

Hi,

I just got my new Plustek 7400 and I must say I'm really glad of the scanner.

I still use Epson becaus it's faster, but the resolution is beter in Plustek

Have a look at pics below:

This is the whole frame:

And here you've got Epson (left) and Plustek (right) comparison.
I scanned both at 3600 dpi.

 

[gavinlg]

Wow... huge difference right there...

 

[Steve M.]

That's about what you'd expect when you compare a dedicated film scanner with a flatbed. For the life of me, I've never understood why anyone would use flatbeds for 35mm, unless it's just for proofing before deciding which image to take to the enlarger. For 120 film and up they work great, but at 35mm it's hopeless. Of course, unless you compare them side by side as you did, it's often difficult to see the difference.

Thanks for the no nonsense comparison.

 

[mpedziwiatr]

I used EPson for 120. But recently I bought Leica and was not happy with the results. That's why I had to buy also Plustek. Now I have quite good and fast combo. Epson does proofing and Plustek does the job 🙂

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I scanned both at 3600 dpi

That's the problem with some comparative tests: the Epson 4490's native resolution is 4800 dpi, which means that at 3600 you've implicitly asked the scanning software to downsample from 4800 dpi (or upsample from 2400dpi which is already a downsample from 4800dpi...depends on the implementation). Not to mention that if you use the bundled Epson scanning software, and didn't use the Advanced mode, it may have applied any combination of ICE settings (noise reduction and/or grain smoothing and/or IR-based filtering).

I'd compare a native dpi sample from each, using VueScan, with exactly the same settings (granted, with the different native dpi settings).

 

[mpedziwiatr]

Hi,

another comparison. This time 4800 dpi - Epson (top), Plustek (bottom) Even in native dpi of Epson I can still see the difference...

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I think the Epson gives you the option of pulling out more shadow and highlight detail. Resolution looks amazingly close between the two but the lower contrast of the Epson, in effect, increases the dynamic range of the image allowing you to play with it just a tiny bit more. My $.02 opinion, of course. I always opt for lower contrast images then change in post.

Good test though! Have you ever had a problem with film flatness or where to put the focus point on your images with 120 film using the Epson? That always confounded me and to fix it, I'd sleeve the negs and close them up in a binder for a week or two in order to get a little more flatness.

Phil Forrest

 

[brbo]

I think the Epson gives you the option of pulling out more shadow and highlight detail. Resolution looks amazingly close between the two but the lower contrast of the Epson, in effect, increases the dynamic range of the image allowing you to play with it just a tiny bit more. My $.02 opinion, of course. I always opt for lower contrast images then change in post.

I can't see much difference in resolution, either.

For the life of me, I've never understood why anyone would use flatbeds for 35mm, unless it's just for proofing before deciding which image to take to the enlarger. For 120 film and up they work great, but at 35mm it's hopeless. Of course, unless you compare them side by side as you did, it's often difficult to see the difference.

Thanks for the no nonsense comparison.

Some people get amazing stuff out of flatbed scanners even with 35mm format. Sadly, I am not one of them.

Browsing flickr you can find some awesome examples of good 35mm format scanning with flatbeds. I know the following example is low res, but for web I would say this is all you need.


New Portra 160 by Digital-Desertion, on Flickr

 

[varjag]

You will not resolve 4800 DPI with Epson even if your life depend on it. Likewise, Plustek's 7200 DPI is not there. Both figures are based just on mechanical resolution of stepper motors in the scanners, and have little to do with optical performance.

For Plustek it tops about 3600-3800, with Epson you'd be lucky to get over 1800.

 

[dave y]

I'm sorry but i prefer your Epson scan.
The low contrast church scene looks better and would come out very nice in post processing. It just needs more contrast and some sharpening.

 

[J. Borger]

I'm sorry but i prefer your Epson scan.
The low contrast church scene looks better and would come out very nice in post processing. It just needs more contrast and some sharpening.

+ 1.
The plustek scan has too much contrast accentuates noise/ grain and is oversharpened in my opinion.

 

[varjag]

If there is grain on film, I fail to see how that's a scanner's disadvantage. You can always run gaussian blur on the scan to get results closer to Epson.

 

[J. Borger]

If there is grain on film, I fail to see how that's a scanner's disadvantage. You can always run gaussian blur on the scan to get results closer to Epson.

You can also bump contrast and sharpen the Epson file to make it look more similar to the Plustek files.

Seriously: I can not speak for the Epson 4990.
But For the Epson 750 i can say the Plustek does not give significant better scans.
Otherwise i would jump on a Plustek for 35mm for the Euro 200 it costs.
Does not mean the Plustek is a bad choice if you only use 35mm film although i prefer the convenience of an Epson.
A lot of people complain about the flatbeds but simply lack the skills to properly proces the files. Which includes sharpening.

 

[mpedziwiatr]

Hi,

it is Tmax 400 in Xtol.

I scanned with auto-adjustments both in Epson scan (for Epson) and Silverfast (for Plustek).
To be honest these are my first scans in SF so I don't know the software at all.

The more I compare Plustek scans with my old scans from Epson the more I'm happy with the new scanner 🙂

Michal

 

[dave y]

I use Vuescan with my Epson and find this tutorial very helpful.
http://benneh.net/blog/2008/04/21/better-colour-neg-scanning-with-vuescan/

 

[thegman]

The Plustek is certainly sharper, but I'm not sure if it's actually pulling out any more detail/resolution, I just think what detail is there, looks sharper.

 

[varjag]

You can also bump contrast and sharpen the Epson file to make it look more similar to the Plustek files.

Sharpening will not give you detail that is not there. The grain of 400 iso film will not be resolved, nor a similar scale detail of slower, finer grain films.

 

[J. Borger]

Sharpening will not give you detail that is not there. The grain of 400 iso film will not be resolved, nor a similar scale detail of slower, finer grain films.

I can't deny that. Nor can i deny the Epson scan shown looks bad.
All i claim is that the Plustek scanners are not significcant better than an Epson 750 Flatbed for 35mm as long as you keep the film in the Epson flat and process the scans appropriate, which includes 2 stage sharpening.
By a better scan i mean a scan that gives you a more pleasing print or the possibility to print larger.

 

[bigeye]

I can't see much difference in resolution, either.

Some people get amazing stuff out of flatbed scanners even with 35mm format. Sadly, I am not one of them.

Browsing flickr you can find some awesome examples of good 35mm format scanning with flatbeds. I know the following example is low res, but for web I would say this is all you need.

It does look like res is a bit better with the Plustek, but comments about the contrast seem true to my eye, too.

Brbo: That's more than I would expect from my v700. I'd like to get the scanner config for this image! - Charlie

.

 

[domagojs]

All i claim is that the Plustek scanners are not significcant better than an Epson 750 Flatbed for 35mm as long as you keep the film in the Epson flat and process the scans appropriate, which includes 2 stage sharpening.

I have a flatbed scanner and I also find the sharpening of 135 scans to be the weakest step in my workflow. Especially when scanning C41 negs.

Can you please elaborate what do you mean with 2 stage sharpening? Could you give a pointer to a tutorial how to do it? TIA!