chiba Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Just thought I'd post a scan, make of it what you will. First I scanned all 8 loaded slides at 72dpi, as kind of a contact sheet (to mainly answer an earlier question), then scanned one of the slides at 9600dpi, Digital ICE on, using Epson's own colour correction and unsharp masking. This yielded a 12767x8571 image, reduced to 510 across to be uploadable. Then I cut a 510 image from the original scan to give you an idea of the scanner's capabilities. If only I had a test slide - now I'm doubting my camera's autofocus!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiba Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 Here's one of the slides.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiba Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 And here's a section of the original slide.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Gavin; can you post a detailed comparison scan at 4800 "dpi"; ie the scanners actual optical resolution? <BR><BR>With my four Epson flatbeds; going above the optical resolution doesnt add any detail; and sometimes makes it worse. This is for Epson 1200U; 1250; 2450; and 3200 Flatbeds. Regards Kelly I will probably get one of these "4800dpi" units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiba Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 Well, the specs say 4800x9600. Maybe 4800 physical for X and but 9600 interpolated for Y? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Hi Gavin; the 4800 dimension is for the scan bar. When the scan bar moves one pixel at a time; the resolution along the long dimension of the scanner is 4800. When commanded to move in "half steps"; the stepper/motor is moving 1/9600 inch. The real actual gain in resolution maybe less; the same; or abit more; BUT your file size is going to be 4 times larger. Try some experiments; with scans at 2400, 4800; and 9600 "dpi settings". With my brood of flatbeds; there is little gain in going above the optical resolution of the scanner. This "half stepping" gambit sometimes helps; it is done on fax machines; when the "super fine" settings are used; this has been done for several decades.<BR>BR>Regards Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 With a fax machine; or flatbed; using the 1/2 step mode results in long scan times. Ones results vary with how the object is on the scanner. Slight increases in resolution sometimes occur in the 1/2 step direction; and none in the scan bar direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiba Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 OK, here are four 4800dpi scans of the same section of the original slide. No Photoshop, just Epson software adjustments. The scanner I like, but IMHO the Epson software isn't all that great! Or rather, it's a bit brutal...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiba Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 2 of 4<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiba Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 3 of 4<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiba Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 4 of 4<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johann_fuller Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Looks fuzzy to me - just like the scans from my 3200. The optics are unable to resolve film grain in the same way any 1/2 descent dedicated film scanner can. Thanks for the test though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oskar_ojala Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 If it actually resolved 4800 dpi, I would expect the grain to be much clearer. But it's a bit hard to say without comparisons, eg. having something scanned with a Minolta 5400 next to it would make evaluation easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_martin5 Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Your camera's focus is not the problem. I did scans of the same negative on an Epson 3200 and Minolta Scan Multi II film scanner of 35mm. The Epson scanned at 3200 dpi and the Minolta at 2820 dpi. Scan from the Minolta film scanner had detail that was not in scans of the same negative from the Epson 3200. The lens on the Epson scanner is fixed focus and can't resolve detail at the 3200 dpi level. Scans of medium format at 3200 dpi on the Epson compared to scans of the same negative at 1128 dpi on the Minolta Scan Multi II were about equivalent. I think the lens limits the acutal resolution to something less than 1500 dpi on the Epson 3200 and if the Epson 4870 does not have a lens that focuses, I think it will be in the same range. The Epson 3200 scanner generates 3200 dpi of data, but it's of a fuzzy image and that makes it not very useful. I think the Epson 4870 may do something equivalent. I plan on purchasing the Nikon 9000 when it's available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custom film holders for fl Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='tab-interval:.5in'> <p class=MsoNormal>Hopefully someone who owns a 3200 and upgrades to a 4870 will do a direct comparison scan from the exact same negative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That would really be a helpful comparison.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If Gavin or anyone with a 4870 wants to send me the positive/negative they used, I will be happy to make the comparison scan and post it here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Just contact me off list.</p> <p class=MsoNormal>Doug</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html">Doug�s �MF Film Holder� for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format film with flatbeds</a><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> </body> </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johann_fuller Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 This was my previous test; http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006dOa&unified_p=1 I won't be upgrading to the 4870 from my 3200 in th ehope I can do medium format - waiting for the Nikon 9000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiba Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 For me the big deal is that it can scan my growing pile of 6x6 and 4x5, and for 330 dollar equivalents the results are fantastic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_littleboy__tokyo__ja Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 "I think the lens limits the acutal resolution to something less than 1500 dpi on the Epson 3200" Maybe, but I think it's the CCD technology that's the core of the problem. Epson uses an "offset" CCD, that is actually two half-resolution CCDs offset by 1/2 the actual (half-resolution) pixel pitch. So the 3200 is really an "oversampled" 1600 dpi scanner. This "oversampling" does improve things slightly, but only slightly. IMHO, the 2450 was barely 1200 dpi, and the 3200 barely 1600 dpi, if that. Kodak ProPhotoCD scans (1800 dpi) were somewhere betweeen worlds and infinitely better than 2450 scans of Provia 645 slides. I suspect that taking a 4800 dpi scans from the 4870, sharpening lightly, bicubic downsampling to 2400 dpi, and sharpening lightly again would produce a fairly decent 2400 dpi image. Doing the same thing to a 4000 dpi Nikon 8000 image should produce a somewhat nicer 2400 dpi image. (I find all high-res scans, drum, Nikon 8000, whatever, grossly soft viewed at actual pixels.) Anyway, I don't think these scans are as bad as some people think. I'd bet that the 4870 will make quite nice A3 prints on an Epson 2200 from 645. I may be off the wall, but it looks to me that the Epson 4870 is quite close to getting enough of what's there that there's really not a lot of need for the Nikon 9000 for MF users. Of course, Contax G and Leica owners who use Provia/Velvia and a tripod will probably appreciate the Minolta 5400<g>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiba Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 I can live with real world 2400dpi, perhaps less. To be honest I don't expect much more than 8x10 prints from 35mm even from analogue, but 2400dpi will mean that, assuming Frontier-like 300dpi output, that I can print 18" square from 6x6, or 40" x 32" from 4x5. More than acceptable given the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbubba_motornapkins Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 <IMG SRC="http://members.rogers.com/saintjohnphotos/special/scan 0346_proc.jpg" /><br /><br />Full frame, 3200-ppi (3016w x 4499h) scan, reduced to 500-px high.<br /><br /><br /><IMG SRC="http://members.rogers.com/saintjohnphotos/special/scan 0346_sample.jpg" /><br /><br />500x350 scan sample at full 3200-ppi res.<br /><br />Scanned with ViewScan (much better than the Epson software) from minilab-developed Fuji Superia 800 @ ISO640. Extensively 'massaged' in Photoshop to pull up optimum shadow and highlight detail, saturation and sharpness.<br /><br />I do find that the 'microstepped' /interpolated 1600x3200ppi scan @ 48-bit yields significantly more information to work with than the native, 1600x1600 max resolution of the 1660. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johann_fuller Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 "there's really not a lot of need for the Nikon 9000 for MF users" I can't aggree with this at all - for critical work these flatbeds are quite a way off good film scanners and these samples show it. When I get drum scans or Imacon scans of 2 1/4 film can easily see the grain and at A3 the difference will show with subjects containing fine detail. I've done A4 from 2 1/4 on my 3200 and was not overly exited by the detail. I would caution anyone who is concidering one of these to do large prints from medium format. Now 5x4 is another matter - they are superb at this - 1200dpi is a fairly high res scan for 5x4 and they easily obtain this - next to a drum or Imacon scan and with a bit of USM there is not much in it. If the new Nikon delivers the goods at $2000 - it's quite a bargin IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel_braud Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 Hello, The fuzziness of the flat bed might be explained by the glass you lay the slide on. Microtek ArtixScan avoid that. I wish someone having one Artixscan 1800 or 2500 to give his feeling and post a few scan here. Though for sure it is not in the same price range than the Epson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raphael_bustin1 Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I have a page of scanner comparisons based on scanning 0.25" by 0.25" of film. I believe that's a fair way to compare scanners. Simply scan at highest resolution, using your best technique. Then figure out what image size represents 0.25" x 0.25". Eg at 4800 dpi, that would be a 1200 x 1200 pixel image. If someone would do that for the new Epson (along with an "overview" scan) I'll be happy to post it on my site: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis FWIW, I currently own a Nikon LS-8000 and am quite content with it, but am moving into LF work and the Nikon simply won't cut it for that. So... looking into my options for scanning LF. Oh, I also have an Epson 1640SU (photo) which I used briefly for scanning MF film. Suffice to say it is not used for film scanning any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stacey_bindman Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Hello, I thought I'd enter the conversation. I recently purchased the Epson 3200 after having "brooded" over whether to buy it or not for months. Anyway, by the time the holidays arrived, Dell was offering 10% discount on peripherals,with free shipping, and with the Epson rebate of 100.00 US, I purchased the scanner for $ 315.00 US plus taxes (they're about 16% here in Canada). Needlass to say, this was still a bargain, and great value. Now by the time I got it, Epson ddecided to release the Epson 4870 ,after having just releases it in Australia and New Zealand (of course after Japan). Don't expect to get the same results from a flatbed as from a direct enlargement from a darkroom elnarger, or from a $ 10,000.00 ++ Imacon Flextight, or even the Nikon 8000 or 9000ED - both dedicated film scanners. However, I just scanned a 2 1/4" x 2 1/4" colour (Canadian spelling - eh!) to 3200 dpi. This gave me a file of 139.7 Mb. I then reconfigured the image size to 16" x 16" @ 500 dpi, sharpened it to 94% and enlarged a section to 8" x 10". It was pretty good. I didn't expect miracles. I'll gladly send anyone a small file size to see the results. The original image was taken with a Hasselblad camera, 150 m lens, on a tripod, with a small lens opening. What I's like to talk about and ask for your solutions is this: The computer takes time to process the scanned images, especially when the file runs into 150MB, on top of the 500MB Photoshop file running in the background. I find the whole process CRAWLS AT A SNAIL'S PACE!. I have a Pentium 2.0 Gz CPU, 1 GB of RAM, a Radeon 8500 with 128 MB of memory, and 2 hard drives running @ 7200 rpms - one is 15 GB and the other is 30GB. I've tried to close down software that may run in the background such as Microsoft IE, Netscape Navigator, Norton's Antivirus,My firewall, and so forth. Yet, things are back to the late 1980's when you had a simple MAC and scanning was like watching paint dry on a wall. Can anyone help? Thanks, Stacey Bindman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_simmons Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 David Littleboy: I shoot "Velvia in a Leica/Leicaflex on a tripod." So for making the biggest prints my Canon will make - 8.5x14 - do I need to choose a Minolta 5400 instead of a Minolta Scan Dual IV? (This new-fangled Epson 4870 probably isn't any better for 35mm than the Dual Scan IV, huh?). The pure pixel count calculations say the DS IV should be fine, but... Thanks, Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now