[help] Rollei DiaScan VS Epson 4490

[gandalfk7]

hi,
I need an advice on a pair of scanners,
I own an Epson 4490 that I like,
i have the opportunity to buy at a fair price another scanner:
Rollei DiaScan (http://www.rcp-technik.com/typo3/index.php?id=rollei-scanner&L=1, the last one).

Is the Rollei worth it?

I read that it does not really scan the frame,
actually it photographs the frame because it has an integrated
camera (5MP) and a lightboard behind the negative.

I was very unpleased with colour-scans with my 4490 but I think
I have reached a slight balance and I can be a slightly satisfied.

Anyone has the Rollei?


thank you


Matteo

 

[ZeissFan]

I often wondered when the industry would move toward this type of scanner. It's roughly the computerized version of the old slide copier systems that used bellows and a macro lens.

From a technical standpoint, there's no reason why it wouldn't work, especially if you're final output is intended for Web display or a modest-sized enlargement (8x10).

The negative holder looks very sturdy and appears that it would keep the film flat.

It's always tough to judge image quality purely by specs, right? The specs often lead you to believe that image quality will be great, but real-world performance often is lacking.

I'd love to get my hands on one for a test run.

 

[sevo]

Don't get irritated by the "Rollei" on it, that thing is the same Chinese OEM scanner as the no-name ones sold on ebay - the brand name Rollei for consumer products was purchased by a importer of cheap electronics years ago.

Technically these scanners are on the right track - duplication could outperform 35mm film, just like any other scanning technology. So far, these scanners are all limited by poor optics and cost-cutting electronics - and given how rarely anybody bothered to build flatbed or slide scanners matching film quality in the past, I won't hold my breath for their impovement...

 

[bmattock]

I have no experience with the 5mp digital 'scanner' cameras (the Rollei is just a brand name pasted on a cheap 'Pakon' camera, the real Rollei is bankrupt and gone). However, I have a 4490 and I am generally pleased with the results from it. My suggestion would be that you either have higher standards than I do or you're doing something wrong with your 4490. In any case, if you are not happy with the 4490, I am reasonably sure you won't be happy with the Pakon (Rollei) camera thing.

 

[sevo]

I have no experience with the 5mp digital 'scanner' cameras (the Rollei is just a brand name pasted on a cheap 'Pakon' camera,

Not really. Pakon is a Kodak brand for the high volume line scanners usually installed in minilabs - rather a different class of device in scope, size and price.

 

[bmattock]

Not really. Pakon is a Kodak brand for the high volume line scanners usually installed in minilabs - rather a different class of device in scope, size and price.

Yes, you're right, my bad. For some reason, I thought the brand name I had most often seen on these cheap-n-cheesy camera/scanners was 'Pakon', but that's clearly wrong. Veho is one, ION is another, and etc. Good catch, thanks for correcting my statement.

 

[FPjohn]

How about some data? Does anyone have an image from one of these units to show?

yours
FPJ

 

[bmattock]

How about some data? Does anyone have an image from one of these units to show?

I've been looking for any results from anyone who has used one, but so far, I have only heard anecdotal evidence from people who have used one and say "it looks fine." Yeah, well, that doesn't mean much - some of these guys scan 4x6 prints and claim they 'look fine' too. I suppose someone will have to take one for the team and buy one and test it. I'd chip in a couple bucks towards someone doing that, just to find out, if a bunch of people also did. But for me personally, I don't really have a burning desire to confirm what my suspicions tell me - that this thing pretty much sucks for enthusiast use.

 

[historicist]

Slightly OT, but in a japanese camera magazine recently there was a comparison between a film scanner (Epson V700 IIRC) and a duplicating type set up involving a Nikon DSLR and a macro lens;.

I can't read Japanese but they printed some sample scans, and the ones from the Nikon had much worse dynamic range, obvious even printed small in a magazine, and in some cases strange colour casts. I'd imagine these kind of things would be even worse because they presumably use some cheap compact camera or mobile phone sensor.

 

[rogue_designer]

historicist - you hit the nail on the head. Their weaknesses seem to be the same that plague most digital sensors. Insufficient dynamic range, and noisy shadow detail.

If you have low contrast color negs and BW to scan - they probably will be ok for small prints. But if you shoot any slides, they are going to have a hard time diving into the shadows.

I'd personally go with the Epson - if only because it gives you Medium and large format options at the same time - and better film holders are available in the aftermarket. Maybe look into investing in different scanning software to work on your color scan issues?

 

[bmattock]

I'd personally go with the Epson - if only because it gives you Medium and large format options at the same time - and better film holders are available in the aftermarket. Maybe look into investing in different scanning software to work on your color scan issues?

The 4490 doesn't do LF, but it does a fine job on MF. I have an older 2400 with the optional light overhead for LF, which works fine.

 

[gandalfk7]

Thak you,
I think I'll stick with my 4490,
it does not make sense to have another scanner..

this made me think twice:

In any case, if you are not happy with the 4490, I am reasonably sure you won't be happy with the Pakon (Rollei) camera thing.

however, I was interested in that Rollei not for the name on it but
because I have never tried such "technology".

and I forgot I am looking for a MF and that scanner cannot
handle it, it is worthless at this point.


thank you


Matteo

 

[rogue_designer]

The 4490 doesn't do LF, but it does a fine job on MF. I have an older 2400 with the optional light overhead for LF, which works fine.

Ah - my mistake. I thought it would do at least a single 4x5 like the old 3200 did.