4870 review.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeff
  • Start date Start date
I bought one on Friday afternoon hoping to get a significant increase in
image detail over the scans from my Epson 2450. I returned it on Saturday
morning. The dang thang had horrible focus and no depth of field. I'm not
even sure it equaled my 2450 in 'actual' resolution at 2400 dpi. Also the
medium format film holder is designed for strips about 4 to 5 inches long.
It does a horrible job of holding cut single frames unless they are
perfectly flat. I cut my 6X9 film into single frames. I scanned one 4X5
Provia F transparency at 1200 dpi and the scan was not nearly as detailed as
a 1200 dpi scan from my 2450. I'm NOT talking about sharpening but actual
detail when viewed at 100 to 200% magnification. The 4X5 chrome was flat and
in the holder perfectly. Maybe I got a defective unit but I didn't feel like
trying another. I will say that the 4870 had MUCH better dynamic range than
my 2450. There was almost no noise in dark areas of the scans.

A while back I saw a press release for a new Microtek 9000 series that does
'glassless' scanning of 35mm to 4X5 film at 3200 dpi. I think I'll try that
one when it becomes available....I want GOOD focusing capabilities..:^)
There is a lot of detail in my medium format and large format film. 4800 dpi
is useless unless the scanner can focus on the film.....
 
Steve Hoffmann said:
A while back I saw a press release for a new Microtek 9000 series that does
'glassless' scanning of 35mm to 4X5 film at 3200 dpi.
Click to expand...

I've had a glassless scanner (Agfa Duoscan) and lots of trouble with it.
Besides the alleged benefits, glassless also means open for all kinds of
fluff and dust and you'll go bonkers trying to keep the mirrors clean.

Ralf
 
Steve Hoffmann said:
I bought one on Friday afternoon hoping to get a significant increase in
image detail over the scans from my Epson 2450.
Click to expand...

What about the difference in speed, if any, especially while scanning
film?

Ralf
 
--
I had Microtek ScanMaker 4. It wasn't very difficult to open the box and
clean the underside of the glass, mirrors and the lens...Only had to do it
once.
 
My 2450 is installed as FireWire. I installed the 4870 as USB 2.0. I didn't
notice too much increase in speed in scanning at 1200 dpi and 2400 dpi. The
4870 may be somewhere between 10 to 20% faster. However, I didn't do any
actual scan time comparisons. The above is just a guess...I didn't try it at
4800 dpi as I don't need that much res for my LF and MF films.
 
Jeff said:
The 4870 review at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ is now complete, but it
looks a bit schmaltzy.

I would like to hear from the recent purchasers of this scanner.

Cheers,
Jeff Tokayer.
Click to expand...

I've now seen two or three reports by people who recently purchased a
4870. One said it was definitely better than the Epson 3200, but Steve
Hoffman here reports it is definitely worse than his 2450. If I were a
billionaire, I would buy one just to find out for myself. I think you
will have to wait a month or two for reports to trickle in. Most of
them will probably be from people who don't have the 2450 or 3200, and
they will probably be pretty enthusiastic. The question is if it is
worth buying this scanner or buying instead a 3200 at lower cost.
 
FYI, the 4870 has a new optical system in its lid. The translucent fixed
lighting system has been replaced by a scanning lamp. My limited experience
with the 4870 seemed to indicate that this new system does not have the
great depth of focus that the 2450/3200 had. I too, am interested to see
what others who 'upgrade' from a 2450 or 3200 find when they do some
comparison scans. I may have got a defective unit. The English reviewer did
quite a bit of sharpening in his example scans. I turned off the scanner's
sharpening for my scans. Nonetheless, I know the difference between optical
resolution and a sharpened image.
 
Yikes! I have had a 4870 sitting here unopened for a few days. I hope it
isn't a poor performer like Steve's example unit :( With so many people
reporting problems with the Newsoft software (they wrote the software for
Epson) for the 3200, I have been a bit gun-shy on the installation since my
3200 works well. I only bought the 4870 for business reasons, and from what
I have seen from the scans on the net, I don't think a person will be
motivated to upgrade from a 2450 or 3200 based solely on a large increase in
true resolution with the 4870. I wish I had access to one of the Air Force
test target slides or some sort of standardized accurate resolution
slide/film so that I could post a comparison scan from both my 3200 and
4870. I find it hard to judge true resolution based on slides of normal
everyday subjects.

Doug
 
- said:
Yikes! I have had a 4870 sitting here unopened for a few days. I hope it
isn't a poor performer like Steve's example unit :( With so many people
reporting problems with the Newsoft software (they wrote the software for
Epson) for the 3200, I have been a bit gun-shy on the installation since my
3200 works well. I only bought the 4870 for business reasons, and from what
I have seen from the scans on the net, I don't think a person will be
motivated to upgrade from a 2450 or 3200 based solely on a large increase in
true resolution with the 4870. I wish I had access to one of the Air Force
test target slides or some sort of standardized accurate resolution
slide/film so that I could post a comparison scan from both my 3200 and
4870. I find it hard to judge true resolution based on slides of normal
everyday subjects.
Click to expand...

You will often find patterns in everyday scenes which can substitute for
resolution test patterns. If you display the image using pixels as the
ruler units of measurement, it is not too hard to calculate the actual
resolution, given the scanning resolution. If you can't figure out how
to do it, let me know, and I will tell you.

Also, you can look for small text in distant or license plates. For
example, scanning at 2400 ppi on the 2450 or 3200, text taking up less
than 5 pixels can't be read, but text taking up 10 pixels can be.
 
Back
Top