I
Ivan
Is the difference between the Epson 4870 and the "pro" version basically the
software? And what about that "pro" software?
Ivan
software? And what about that "pro" software?
Ivan
Ivan said:Is the difference between the Epson 4870 and the "pro" version
basically the software? And what about that "pro" software?
Ivan
Okay, I googled the extra pro software. I'm going to assume those programsRSD99 said:"Ivan" asked:
"...
Is the difference between the Epson 4870 and the "pro" version basically the
software?
..."
Yes.
also asked:
"...
And what about that "pro" software?
..."
The list is on Epson's web site. In my case, the included Monaco profiling software and
IT-8 Targets seemed to make up the difference in cost, and Silverfast AI (instead of SE)
was a real *requirement.*
And what about that "pro" software?
..."
The list is on Epson's web site. In my case, the included Monaco profiling software and
IT-8 Targets seemed to make up the difference in cost, and Silverfast AI (instead of SE)
was a real *requirement.*
false_dmitrii said:"RSD99" <[email protected]> wrote in message
I strongly second the Silverfast comment. If you'll be doing any
exposure adjustments more complicated than "auto", plan on replacing
Epson Scan with Silverfast or Vuescan. When scanning negatives, the
auto-adjust usually clips too heavily by default, and worse, it
adjusts the individual channels so that tweaking the exposure screws
up the colors. I've always resorted to the manual adjustments, which
offer just enough control but require too much time for good results.
My most recent approach with negatives was to imitate the Vuescan
"advanced workflow". I scanned in the whole tray at once (versus
allowing Epson to auto-detect the frames). I "cropped" each frame in
sequence. I then sampled the black point between two frames for each
frame, followed by the best white point I could find among all the
images without wasting time zooming in and out (which requires further
"preview" scanning). This produced much better results than fiddling
with individual channels and took considerably less time than previous
methods. Then I made the mistake of clicking the "select all
marquees" button and watched all the exposure settings reset. As
far as I can tell, there's not any way to pass the histogram panel's
color corrections from one frame or selection marquee to the next.
ES is also clunky for cropping, zooming, rotation, color management,
and most other operations. I don't think this is a matter of too
little experience (though if I'm wrong, please correct me). It's just
a matter of time now before I replace it. As I indicated above,
"auto" exposure and rough manual adjustments can produce an acceptable
image. And negative scans are much harder to adjust than regular
reflective media scans. But don't expect a smooth ride if you're
going for maximum quality.
I might have bought the "pro" version but for two reasons: it hadn't
been released (I'd already been waiting much longer than I intended)
and I didn't have the experience to judge the added value of the
Silverfast AI package. Silverfast didn't have ICE back then, either,
though that didn't affect my choices.
And don't expect Silverfast SE to "come close" to AI. It's roughly
equivalent to Epson Scan minus the ICE (has this been added to SE
yet?)...though I'm aggravated enough by Epson Scan that I'm tempted to
give SSE points just for being something else.
Was any of this helpful?
false_dmitrii