aad
Not so new now.
Well, because I care about you all, I'm going to go out on a limb-
I ordered a refurbished Minolta Dualscan today-should be here Monday or Tuesday. After I get the procedures down, I'll run some direct comparison scans with the 4490 on several slide and negative 35mm shots. I'll post samples here-or on a new thread.
If anyone has suggestions let me know.
If the Minolta is worse, or the same, or insignificantly different, I'll offer the scanner on RFF cheap. If it's better, I'll keep it and the 4490 since I need the medium format capability.
I'm doing this because I've read too many web pages asserting one thing or another on this subject without any indication of a direct comparison with a new Epson.
Any bets on the outcome?
I ordered a refurbished Minolta Dualscan today-should be here Monday or Tuesday. After I get the procedures down, I'll run some direct comparison scans with the 4490 on several slide and negative 35mm shots. I'll post samples here-or on a new thread.
If anyone has suggestions let me know.
If the Minolta is worse, or the same, or insignificantly different, I'll offer the scanner on RFF cheap. If it's better, I'll keep it and the 4490 since I need the medium format capability.
I'm doing this because I've read too many web pages asserting one thing or another on this subject without any indication of a direct comparison with a new Epson.
Any bets on the outcome?
wrenhunter
RF newbie
Bertram, that's a great scan (and a nice photo).
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Thanks, glad you liked it ! I found it stunning, did not expect such a result from a 35mm flatbed scan ! A bit work on brightness, contrast and USM is necessary, but that is not more than a filmscanner needs too. I'd expect even a 20X30 jet print looking good enuff for my purposes.wrenhunter said:
bertram
aad
Not so new now.
I'm thinking you may be right, Bertram, but I'm too curious.
aad
Not so new now.
Bertram, is that scan a scan of 35mm?
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
I have scanned in close to 500 rolls of 135 on my Epson 3200 Flatbed scanner. This model only holds two strips of negatives for a max of 12 frames per go.
Dust is a problem so I blow compressed air before placing the holder on the bed. Nevertheless, the scanner accumulates dust under the glass plate which I cannot clean.
I spend a lot of time in Photoshop to clean up spots.
My next scanner will be a Nikon Coolscan 5000 with the film roll adapter. After 500 rolls I can now say for sure that I would rather be spending that time doing something else.
If you plan on scanning more than 250 rolls of 135 I suggest any solution other than a flatbed scanner.
Dust is a problem so I blow compressed air before placing the holder on the bed. Nevertheless, the scanner accumulates dust under the glass plate which I cannot clean.
I spend a lot of time in Photoshop to clean up spots.
My next scanner will be a Nikon Coolscan 5000 with the film roll adapter. After 500 rolls I can now say for sure that I would rather be spending that time doing something else.
If you plan on scanning more than 250 rolls of 135 I suggest any solution other than a flatbed scanner.
JohnR
Member
Say, would anyone happen to know if this is still the case with the 4990? My cheapo Canon printer/scanner has some sort of residue on the underside which I can't clean, I don't want to be in the same boat if I spring for a 4990Kevin said:
Last edited:
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
aad said:
<<...did not expect such a result from a 35mm flatbed scan !>>
That's what i said , and I really meant it !
I wasn't clear enuff I think.Bertram
matti
Established
aad said:
Interesting! It would be nice to see 100% crops as well as whole frames.
/matti
aad
Not so new now.
Yes, I think the crops are the only way to see subtle differences on a post such as this. I have Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Velvia and Agfachrome for slides.
I've seen the dust under the glass, and I know one (positive) review of the 4990 by Ken Rockwell mentioned it as well, but neither he nor I can see the effect on scans.
I've seen the dust under the glass, and I know one (positive) review of the 4990 by Ken Rockwell mentioned it as well, but neither he nor I can see the effect on scans.
iñaki
Well-known
Great scanns Bertram.I have this scanner, but my results are far from yours. :bang:Bertram2 said:
Would you mind sharing your scanning process? Unsharp mask, grain reduction...
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
iñaki said:
Scan always at 4800dpi, which is the best non-intertpolated res value of this scanner.
Scan in professional mode, and don't use ANY of the scanner's pre-settings !
Resizing, color, contrast, brightness and USM at PS only.
The output of a scanner is always not more than someting like a "RAW" file,
digitzing a neg or print always changes the pic, more or less, depends on the scanner. To get on the monitor what you see on the print you need adaequate postprocessing.
bertram
iñaki
Well-known
Bertram2 said:
Thank you Bertram, I´ll try. Could you recomend me some "numbers" for the USM?
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
iñaki said:
80 -200 / 0,5 / 1 , mostly. Do that as the very last step before saving. IF it makes the pic to bright or to contrasty don't take the USM back but adjust Contrast and/or brightnes again
bertram
wdenies
wdenies
Attached 2 scans from 35mm done with the Epson 4870.
Wiil the Nikon give better quality justifying the price difference?
Wiil the Nikon give better quality justifying the price difference?
aad
Not so new now.
I put this on another thread-this was one of the first scans I did after taking Bertram's advice a few weeks ago. I like to think I've got better.
iñaki
Well-known
Bertram2 said:
Thank you Bertram
sunsworth
Well-known
All the parameters for the dedicated film scanner are better than the flatbed.
I've never noticed a difference between 2400 dpi and 4800 dpi on my flatbed. Sure you get more pixels, but there doesn't seem to be any increase in definition.
Try applying USM with parameters of 15%, 55, 1 to give the scans a 'lift'.
Steve
Steve
I've never noticed a difference between 2400 dpi and 4800 dpi on my flatbed. Sure you get more pixels, but there doesn't seem to be any increase in definition.
Try applying USM with parameters of 15%, 55, 1 to give the scans a 'lift'.
Steve
Steve
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
sunsworth said:
Steve ,
were the 4800 a hardware resolution or a interpolated value ?
anyway I had the impression that a 35mm neg scanned with 4800 and resized to the 700X500 monitor size looked clearer than a 2400, also resized to the same values. I haven't really tested it tho precisely by a 5x crop.
Of course the flatbeds aren't a comparable to dedicated film scanners, but for those who want to scan MF negs or prints too and who scan 135 film for the monitor only or for small jet prints with max. 13X18cm they are a reasonable compromise I'd say.
In my case it pays itself, i had to pay the lab CDs with 4 Euro each, and i got poor 1100X1600 scans only. After 55 rolls this 4490 begins to make money !
Best,
Bertram
sunsworth
Well-known
Bertram, the 4800 is a hardware resolution.
I agree that compared to the small scans that standard mini-labs produce the flatbed is better.
Steve
I agree that compared to the small scans that standard mini-labs produce the flatbed is better.
Steve