Epson 4490 vs Plustek 7400 pics comparison

Well, I've used the coolscan v, plustek, minolta dual iv, and a variety of flatbeds (epsons included). The nikon is undeniably the best, having better dmax than the rest of filmscanners. Minolta and plustek are about on par, and then there is a huge dive in quality when you move to flatbeds. Not one flatbed of any make I've seen was anywhere close to any of the dedicated film scanners. Maybe it's just my bad luck, but it very much matches experience of the thread starter here.
 
bigeye said:
Brbo: That's more than I would expect from my v700. I'd like to get the scanner config for this image!
Click to expand...
Me, too! :)

This is not my scan. I wish I could produce scans half as good. On some other equally amazing scan...

R.I.P Portra 400vc. by Digital-Desertion, on Flickr

...this guy wrote:

The V700 is capable of very good results. Scanned as a Negative on the Epson software but everything else switched off including exposure correction. Then everything adjusted in Photoshop. Scanned at 6400 dpi then reduced using photoshop to a a 64MP image. No sharpening has been applied to this.

Good sharpness from a flatbed like Epson V700 is something that anyone can do (flattening the negative and finding the right distance of the holder relative to the glass), but getting colors right when scanning color negative is another story...
 
This pic looks impresive.

I would like to know if it's 35 mm or 120 format?

The other thing is that I compare 4490 (!!!!) not 4990 Scaner.

As far I as know V700 is the newer 4990 scanner?

Mike
 
I'm not 100% sure about the v-750 but my v600 was a pretty piss poor 35mm scanner. just didn't have the resolution, and amping up the resolution just gave you a bigger file with no more real resolution.
 
domagojs said:
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!
Click to expand...


I sharpen twice: Once directly after scanning and once for the desired output (printer or web).

I use a plugin for Photoshop CS3 which i am satisfied with and has all the options you will ever need.

You can download it for free here: http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/TLRProfessionalSharpeningToolkit.htm

If you can not use the plugin download the PDF at the end of the document anyhow. It is a good basic on sharpening in itself.

The software has specific settings for scanned images.


I should add: For scanning I use Epson scan with all processing options OFF: No sharpning, dust and scratch removal etc... just a straight scan!

In Photoshop i apply a contrastcurve and some sharpening and remove some dust and scratches if necessary: that's it.
 
Last edited:
I used to have both a Minolta Scan Dual II and an Epson Perfection 3200 Photo scanner. In the end I sold the former becase when compared to the flatbed, I really could not see an appreciable difference in the output for 35mm.

I'm more than willing to admit that this might reflect are rather low standard of acceptance on my part, or simply a lack of skill in wringing out the best performance from each device. However, for my purposes the differences that I saw at 100% viewing (both using the native software and Vuescan) simply didn't warrant worrying about.

A V700 would be very nice to play with.....

Best regards,
RoyM
 
mpedziwiatr said:
Now I see it's medium format...

Sorry but with medium format I can easily get such results even witm my Epson 4490...
Click to expand...


Ditto. I *never* scan anything other than medium format when scanning with my Epson 4490.

If you know what you're doing, you get the detail. Of course, if I had the Coolscan 9000 I would not be keeping the Coolscan 5000 nor the Epson 4490.
 
My two cents

My two cents

varjag said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Plustex is maybe 2400 DPI (same as the old entry level Canons, and Minoltas), the Epson 1400 to 1800 (as all the very best flatbeds since 1998). You need to get into a late model Minolta or Nikon to see a dramatic difference, and then neither can compete can compete with a drum.

The Plustek is okay considering they aren't SCSI.
 
Sorry to comment so late but I just want to add that for the Epson you need to get the neg's flat. I recently acquired a better scanning ANR 35mm insert and what a huge difference!! It is a bit finicky to work with. I added some cloth tape to the edge of the glass and that holds it down sufficiently to get really great scans. Wish I had know that before!
 
I have an Epson V700 and a Plustek Opticfilm 120. I have scanned quite a few images with each. I don't suppose I am a great expert in scanning, certainly the results bear ample witness to that! But I have learned a little bit along the way.

When I compare the results of scanning the same slide/neg with each, I can't help thinking the Epson is better - in the sense it provides an image I find more attractive. The Plustek can be too sharp, giving a result that brings out too much grain of a neg. I appreciate you can smooth things down, but you don't have to with the Epson. If you have a ISO400 grainy neg film, I rather think the Epson will give a better account of it than the Plustek.

I am not sure the Plustek, at 3 times the price, gives an image that is 3 times better.

It seems to be the fashionable thing to say that the Epson won't scan 35mm well, but unless you are pixel-peeping, I find it does. it also scans batches better.

As with everything, it comes down to what the individual prefers. The OP did a great test - it's up to him, as with all of us, which he prefers.

rjstep3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom