Flatbed or Nikon 9000?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alan Browne
  • Start date Start date
A

Alan Browne

Recently, I was led to a website showing comparisons between a drum
scanner (@3300 dpi) and a flatbed (Epson 4990) and the Epson acquitted
itself quite well.

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners/

So either the Epson was stellar for a flatbed or the dedicated scans
were badly done, but it causes me to hesitate between the US$2000 Nikon
9000 and the (IIRC) $600 or so Epson flatbed.

I have the DSE 5400, a very good scanner indeed, but if I do the deed
and get the 500CM or RZ67, then I'll need a MF scanner.

Comments on the latest and greatest flatbeds for negatives and reversal?

Cheers,
Alan.
 
Alan Browne said:
I have the DSE 5400, a very good scanner indeed, but if I do the deed and
get the 500CM or RZ67, then I'll need a MF scanner.

Comments on the latest and greatest flatbeds for negatives and reversal?
Click to expand...

You should be able to find the Epson for under US$500, and, IMHO, getting
the Epson and seeing if it does well enough for your needs before blowing
serious money on the Nikon is the right way to go. You should be able to
sell it for something if you don't like it, so your out-of-pocket will be
less than the cost of the glass carrier for the Nikon.

(Remember that despite what Kennedy says, the Epson scans are grossly soft
and have zero photographically significant detail in the upper octave of the
frequency space*, so you can noise reduce, sharpen lightly, downsample to
2400 ppi, and sharpen lightly again to produce images that are a lot more
sensible to work with than staying at 4800 ppi and blasting the printer with
800 ppi images to make a 6x enlargement.)

*: Actually, I've not seen a 4000 ppi or higher scan of a real frame from
any scanner that loses any _photographically significant_ detail if you
resample to 1/2 the resolution and then resample back. Film scanning's a bit
of a scam.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
Comments on the latest and greatest flatbeds for negatives and reversal?
Click to expand...

Like you I was very impressed with what the 4990 (and its predecessor
the 48something) can produce. Vincent Oliver did a review:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson 4990/Page 1.htm

There's some comparison to dedicated film scanners. Although the Epson
is still a bit soft and may lack the last detail a Nikon film scanner
or the Minolta 5400 can produce (let alone a drum scanner) the results
are superb and enough for the real world, where pixel count and "mine
is bigger" don't count much [pun intended].

Considering the number of photos which can be scanned at the same
time, I'd go for the Epson flatbed today - if I not already had a
Minolta 5400 and an Epson 2480 for prints and text.


PS: On Vincent's site you will also find a recent review of the new HP
flatbed scanner.
 
David said:
You should be able to find the Epson for under US$500, and, IMHO, getting
the Epson and seeing if it does well enough for your needs before blowing
serious money on the Nikon is the right way to go. You should be able to
sell it for something if you don't like it, so your out-of-pocket will be
less than the cost of the glass carrier for the Nikon.

(Remember that despite what Kennedy says, the Epson scans are grossly soft
and have zero photographically significant detail in the upper octave of the
frequency space*, so you can noise reduce, sharpen lightly, downsample to
2400 ppi, and sharpen lightly again to produce images that are a lot more
sensible to work with than staying at 4800 ppi and blasting the printer with
800 ppi images to make a 6x enlargement.)

*: Actually, I've not seen a 4000 ppi or higher scan of a real frame from
any scanner that loses any _photographically significant_ detail if you
resample to 1/2 the resolution and then resample back. Film scanning's a bit
of a scam.
Click to expand...

As usual David, a clear reply. Thanks. I'm not convinced of your *
statement, however I've failed to date to produce an undisputable test
image with sufficient scene detail to conclusively prove otherwise. And
this is on the taking side (best sharpness lens and film and detailed
scene), never mind getting to the actual scan phase.

I guess I neglected to state that with MF I will be aiming at prints up
to 36x24. This has become very ecomomical of late and is, in part,
driving my MF desires. 36" would require that the image be upsampled a
bit. (56mm / 25.4 * 4000 = 8820 pixels. /36 = 245, but I figure 22% is
a tolerable upsampling if the USM is done carefully afterwards).

So, with that restated, would you bother with the flatbed?

Cheers,
Alan
 
Alan said:
As usual David, a clear reply. Thanks. I'm not convinced of your *
statement, however I've failed to date to produce an undisputable test
image with sufficient scene detail to conclusively prove otherwise. And
this is on the taking side (best sharpness lens and film and detailed
scene), never mind getting to the actual scan phase.

I guess I neglected to state that with MF I will be aiming at prints up
to 36x24. This has become very ecomomical of late and is, in part,
driving my MF desires. 36" would require that the image be upsampled a
bit. (56mm / 25.4 * 4000 = 8820 pixels. /36 = 245, but I figure 22% is
a tolerable upsampling if the USM is done carefully afterwards).

So, with that restated, would you bother with the flatbed?
Click to expand...


Hi Alan...

If it makes your decision any easier for you, I'll offer
to help...

I have an Epson 3200 photo, and both the Epson scan software
and Silverfast SE. (Silverfast SE does not do 48 bit, the
Epson scan does)

So if you have an unimportant piece of film, or want to
prepare a piece and snail it to me (I'm in Winnipeg) I'll
be happy to scan it for you anyway(s) you like, following
your instructions precisely, burn them to a CD or DVD and
snail them back to you. Nothing wanted, expected, or
accepted other than thanks :)

Feel free to email for my home address.

Take care.

Ken
 
Alan Browne said:
I guess I neglected to state that with MF I will be aiming at prints up to
36x24.
Click to expand...

Hmm. That's a big print. That's bigger than I'd print from MF, so I'm a bad
person to ask. I like prints that I can walk up to and put my nose on, and
IMHO, 36x24 is getting outside the range MF is capable of. 645 and 6x6 make
a nice 11x14, 6x7 makes a nice 13x19.
This has become very ecomomical of late and is, in part, driving my MF
desires.
Click to expand...

That makes _lots_ of sense. The relatively cheap 13x19 printers drives my MF
desires.
36" would require that the image be upsampled a bit. (56mm / 25.4 * 4000
= 8820 pixels. /36 = 245, but I figure 22% is a tolerable upsampling if
the USM is done carefully afterwards).
Click to expand...

Ah, that means that you are using 645 or 6x6.

FWIW, I've made a couple of test A4 prints at 300 dpi from Nikon 8000 4000
dpi scans, and I didn't like what I saw. But big prints are a different game
than the smaller prints that I target, and tastes differ.
So, with that restated, would you bother with the flatbed?
Click to expand...

You are on your own here: my comments really are only valid for smaller
prints. What I would recommend doing is getting a quality lab scan of your
sharpest MF frame and making a print from that to give you an upper bound on
what you are going to be able to do yourself.

My guess is that 6x9 + 4990 would look better at 24x36 than 6x6 + pro lab
scan. (I.e. that 11x from the 4990 should be better than 16x whatever the
technology.)

There's also the problem that there may be nasty sample-to-sample variations
in the Epson consumer scanners. Some people loved the 2450, I thought mine
was a dog.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
Ken said:
I have an Epson 3200 photo, and both the Epson scan software
and Silverfast SE. (Silverfast SE does not do 48 bit, the
Epson scan does)

So if you have an unimportant piece of film, or want to
prepare a piece and snail it to me (I'm in Winnipeg) I'll
be happy to scan it for you anyway(s) you like, following
your instructions precisely, burn them to a CD or DVD and
snail them back to you. Nothing wanted, expected, or
accepted other than thanks :)
Click to expand...

That's very generous of you Ken. I'll pop a couple 6x6's in the mail
along with CD and return envelope and postage. This might take a few
days for me to put together (the slides are currently being "pressed" in
heavy books under a high stack of nat geos...) so it takes me a while to
dig out and find the right ones.

Cheers,
Alan.
 
Dear Ken,

SilverFast SE supports 48bit output format in general.
See the full list of SilverFast SE features here:

http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast-se/en.html

best regards

Karl-Heinz Zahorsky
Click to expand...

Hi Karl-Heinz...

Thank you for your correction; I hope that I haven't
offended your software by reporting it to be less than
it is. If so, I am ready to learn, and to offer my
apologies.

However, I've searched and searched, and the best I can
find is 48->24 bit. That is truly 24 bit (35mm x 3200dpi
= [about] 35 megs)

Should it matter, the version I have license to use is
the bundled copy that came with my Epson 3200.

And again, should it matter, my version is a little old;
build 1r16. I've tried in vain to update it, the closest
match I can find on your site is the update for the download
version. When I try to install it, it asks me to please
spell my name correctly (I think I can :) or to install
my CD. When I install the CD I again end up with 1r16.

Thanks, and take care.

Ken
 
Have you deleted your old version and all its leftover bits before updating?

You are correct in that your version is way outdated.

Doug
 
- said:
Have you deleted your old version and all its leftover bits before updating?

You are correct in that your version is way outdated.

Doug
Click to expand...

Hi Doug...

Thanks for your reply; much appreciated :)

Yep, I've totally removed it, then searched carefully for
anything left behind. Even searched the registry for
possible corruption of my name. :)

Wondering now - given that it insists that I spell my
name correctly (I'm old and stroke damaged, but think I
can still spell it :) or alternately insert the original
cd if it isn't thinking that perhaps I'm a a pirate?

Or possibly that the bundled version isn't entitled to
be updated? With any luck at all maybe Karl-Heinz will
let me know. :)

And on another subject, I looked at your site. Wondering
if you or anyone has a disc film template? After sending
the little ones many years ago off to camp with film
loading errors (really good film, took millions of pictures
and there's still some left - off course not threaded)
I bought them Kodak disc cameras. I know about the quality,
but nevertheless some are good memories worth preserving.

Then again, lots are landscape shots of grass, where there
may or may not be a bird half a mile away :)

Thanks, and take care.

Ken
 
Hi Ken -
Yep, I've totally removed it, then searched carefully for
anything left behind. Even searched the registry for
possible corruption of my name. :)
Click to expand...

I had an issue where it would not update correctly until I completely
removed everything from my system and then reloaded it. I was hoping that
would do the trick for you. It did ask me to re-enter all my data and key
code. This has worked fine for updates for three years, so you should not
have any problems either. Are you downloading the standalone version of
the SE software (not the photoshop plug-in version). When you then run the
program as stand alone, do you still show the same version?

Just some thoughts. Sorry I can't help more. Email Silverfast support.
They are usually very helpful and prompt.

Doug
 
Ken said:
Dear Ken,

SilverFast SE supports 48bit output format in general.
See the full list of SilverFast SE features here:

http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast-se/en.html

best regards

Karl-Heinz Zahorsky
Click to expand...

Hi Karl-Heinz...

Thank you for your correction; I hope that I haven't
offended your software by reporting it to be less than
it is. If so, I am ready to learn, and to offer my
apologies.

However, I've searched and searched, and the best I can
find is 48->24 bit. That is truly 24 bit (35mm x 3200dpi
= [about] 35 megs)

Should it matter, the version I have license to use is
the bundled copy that came with my Epson 3200.

And again, should it matter, my version is a little old;
build 1r16. I've tried in vain to update it, the closest
match I can find on your site is the update for the download
version. When I try to install it, it asks me to please
spell my name correctly (I think I can :) or to install
my CD. When I install the CD I again end up with 1r16.

Thanks, and take care.

Ken
Click to expand...


Dear Ken,

After you removed the older Sivlerfast version and downloaded the
latest one from our website, please insert your Silverfast SE-CD. If
the autostart comes up, please close it without installing the software
( as this will overwrite your new version again ). Launch the new
Silverfast as usual. Enter your serial number. Since you originally got
Silverfast SE with your scanner, your serial number does not check for
a particular name, but for the CD to be present in the drive.

The key here is to have the CD in the drive before actually starting
Silverfast. But to not install anything from the CD.

If you experience any more problems, please do not hesitate to contact
our fabulous support ;-)

Best Regards,

Martin L.
LaserSoft Imaging Inc.
Support Team
 
Silverfast said:
Ken said:
Dear Ken,

SilverFast SE supports 48bit output format in general.
See the full list of SilverFast SE features here:

http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast-se/en.html

best regards

Karl-Heinz Zahorsky
Click to expand...

Hi Karl-Heinz...

Thank you for your correction; I hope that I haven't
offended your software by reporting it to be less than
it is. If so, I am ready to learn, and to offer my
apologies.

However, I've searched and searched, and the best I can
find is 48->24 bit. That is truly 24 bit (35mm x 3200dpi
= [about] 35 megs)

Should it matter, the version I have license to use is
the bundled copy that came with my Epson 3200.

And again, should it matter, my version is a little old;
build 1r16. I've tried in vain to update it, the closest
match I can find on your site is the update for the download
version. When I try to install it, it asks me to please
spell my name correctly (I think I can :) or to install
my CD. When I install the CD I again end up with 1r16.

Thanks, and take care.

Ken
Click to expand...



Dear Ken,

After you removed the older Sivlerfast version and downloaded the
latest one from our website, please insert your Silverfast SE-CD. If
the autostart comes up, please close it without installing the software
( as this will overwrite your new version again ). Launch the new
Silverfast as usual. Enter your serial number. Since you originally got
Silverfast SE with your scanner, your serial number does not check for
a particular name, but for the CD to be present in the drive.

The key here is to have the CD in the drive before actually starting
Silverfast. But to not install anything from the CD.

If you experience any more problems, please do not hesitate to contact
our fabulous support ;-)

Best Regards,

Martin L.
LaserSoft Imaging Inc.
Support Team
Click to expand...


Hi Martin...

Thank you for your reply; I very much appreciate it! :)

After reading Doug's suggestion that I remove the previous
version I did so, including deleting every Silverfast and
Lasersoft reference in the registry. It then installed
perfectly, and I'm now current :)

It now shows 48 bit (though it's grayed out for some reason)
and I'd like to apologize to anyone I may have misled by
my erroneously stating that Silverfast didn't support it.

Thanks again, and take care.

Ken
 
Ken -

Have you looked down the bottom of the choice list? There you should see
the 48 bit HDR option. In SE, that is the only 48 bit output option. It is
similar to a "raw" type output (read up on this so you will know why the
output is a bit flat but how this can be advantageous). FWIW, my
understanding is that the 24>48 bit ouput option means it scans and
processes the file at 48 bits but then downsamples it to 24 bits as a last
step.

Doug
 
- said:
Ken -

Have you looked down the bottom of the choice list? There you should see
the 48 bit HDR option. In SE, that is the only 48 bit output option. It is
similar to a "raw" type output (read up on this so you will know why the
output is a bit flat but how this can be advantageous). FWIW, my
understanding is that the 24>48 bit ouput option means it scans and
processes the file at 48 bits but then downsamples it to 24 bits as a last
step.
Click to expand...

Hi Doug...

Now that one really got me going... it too was greyed out.
Then I played a bit, discovered that it was greyed when using
the twain driver, but available in the stand alone mode.

I know and use raw; do lots of digital photography. And I
surely do appreciate it. Leaves me wondering, though... how
much does the raw converter for this "tiff" named raw cost?

And to add to the frustration, somehow during the "why is it
grayed out" experimenting, I managed to get the twain
driver unregistered (and it refuses to accept my code)
Yet the stand alone is still fine.

Arghhh. I knew I was old and a stroke victim, but the plot
continues to thicken :) :)

Take care.

Ken
 
Now that one really got me going... it too was greyed out.
Then I played a bit, discovered that it was greyed when using
the twain driver, but available in the stand alone mode.
Click to expand...

When an option is disabled in the TWAIN mode but enabled in standalone
mode, all that means is that the host application (the one which uses
TWAIN) is unable to handle this option.

For example, my flatbed's TWAIN when used with an ancient Paint Shop 4
has the 48-bit mode disabled, but when TWAIN is used from Photoshop it
works in 48-bit mode just fine.

Don.
 
Back
Top