N
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
JWSM
It won't win on looks... I wish Epson would expand scanning area to
Foolscap length (only need a bit more plastic, glass, and scan track
extended an inch or two).
Hope it has a decent hinge for the lid.
Optical density is no different to 4990. But what I would like to know...
has its scanning capability improved for 35mm negs and slides. Wet scanning
is great for photos affected by sulfiding (mirroring), but some what scary
too (emulsions and bases vary so much).
J
Foolscap length (only need a bit more plastic, glass, and scan track
extended an inch or two).
Hope it has a decent hinge for the lid.
Optical density is no different to 4990. But what I would like to know...
has its scanning capability improved for 35mm negs and slides. Wet scanning
is great for photos affected by sulfiding (mirroring), but some what scary
too (emulsions and bases vary so much).
J
H
HvdV
See also the specs by way of:Noons said:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductCategory.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-8172
http://tinyurl.com/r2mc
Sounds too good to be true: very high DPI (oversampled CCD? -- good to
suppress grain aliasing), new optics, large batches for 35mm, high
reliability. As an owner of a just broken KM 5400-II I can value the latter.
As to speed they say 12.3msec/line. I saw the older 4990 does 17msec/line;
can anybody comment about the scan speed of the 4990 in practice, say for
4000dpi?
Anybody seen or tested one already?
-- Hans
K
k
| Noons wrote:
| > http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php
| See also the specs by way of:
| As to speed they say 12.3msec/line. I saw the older 4990 does 17msec/line;
| can anybody comment about the scan speed of the 4990 in practice, say for
| 4000dpi?
12,3ms/l - scanning a single 6x6 frame of film would take nearly 3 minutes
at 6400lpi, alost 5 min for a 4x5
I guess you'd double it if you're using the IR filtation?
k
| > http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php
| See also the specs by way of:
| As to speed they say 12.3msec/line. I saw the older 4990 does 17msec/line;
| can anybody comment about the scan speed of the 4990 in practice, say for
| 4000dpi?
12,3ms/l - scanning a single 6x6 frame of film would take nearly 3 minutes
at 6400lpi, alost 5 min for a 4x5
I guess you'd double it if you're using the IR filtation?
k
W
woods
Noons said:
aren't scanners almost becoming obsolete?
D
David J. Littleboy
woods said:aren't scanners almost becoming obsolete?
For anything less than 6x7, they're pretty meaningless for new work (if you
can afford a 5D).
But there are lots of old images left around to be scanned.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
R
rafe b
I guess you'd double it if you're using the IR filtation?
dICE on the 4990 is incredibly slow. But who's
complaining? The time it saves (compared to
cleaning up the scan in Photoshop) is still
enormous.
Otherwise, the 4990 seems very much "in the
norm" with regard to scan times, compared to
other film scanners I have used.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
R
rafe b
aren't scanners almost becoming obsolete?
For commercial purposes, pretty much.
There are still some crazy bastards (such
as myself) shooting MF and LF film.
And there may still be a few lazy bastards
sitting on piles of ancient slides and
negatives, and have yet to scan them.
As it stands today, a $3000 DSLR from
Canon can more or less match the quality
of a scan of the smallest medium-format
film area (6x4.5 cm).
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
B
Bart van der Wolf
"rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
SNIP
Most likely due to the inescapable exposure time constraints.
I've seen many people (not you) obsess with pure scan time, but it
takes a given amount of time to expose the sensor elements, no escape
possible unless one underexposes.
In general the integration time is long enough to not overstress the
interface to the computer, unless USB 1.1 is involved or the interface
needs to share bandwidth.
Finally, IR / ICE processing software will require lots of computer
power, so a bottleneck may need to be sought there.
Bart
SNIP
Otherwise, the 4990 seems very much "in the
norm" with regard to scan times, compared to
other film scanners I have used.
Most likely due to the inescapable exposure time constraints.
I've seen many people (not you) obsess with pure scan time, but it
takes a given amount of time to expose the sensor elements, no escape
possible unless one underexposes.
In general the integration time is long enough to not overstress the
interface to the computer, unless USB 1.1 is involved or the interface
needs to share bandwidth.
Finally, IR / ICE processing software will require lots of computer
power, so a bottleneck may need to be sought there.
Bart
N
Noons
woods said:aren't scanners almost becoming obsolete?
Well, the proof is in the pudding. So, for as long
as new models make it to this world, I think anyone
coming up with that one is on fumes...
N
Noons
rafe said:As it stands today, a $3000 DSLR from
Canon can more or less match the quality
of a scan of the smallest medium-format
film area (6x4.5 cm).
Yeah, but so far only Canon is in that ball
park. It's gonna take a long time before
other options become available. And not
everyone shoots that particular camera
or has the $$$ to spend on lenses capable of
making it shine.
D
Djon
The installed base of fine 35mm and MF and LF cameras is gigantic. The
photographic skills of DSLR users are not noticably superior, may not
be equal, to film users.
Litho and inkjet reproduction is the quality bottleneck, not the
cameras. For this reason existing prosumer DSLRs are plenty for most
commercial applications.
Grain is not universally considered a bad thing..DSLR users spend money
and labor to create it.
Some photography benefits by promiscuous snapping, other photography is
accomplished by deliberate use in which a digital file or 6X6 film
serves equally efficiently.
IMO it's likely that Epson's new scanners will breathe new life into MF
if the performance exceeds 4990 even somewhat... if Epson's new
scanners DO rekindle enthusiasm for 120 film it will prolong
availability.
photographic skills of DSLR users are not noticably superior, may not
be equal, to film users.
Litho and inkjet reproduction is the quality bottleneck, not the
cameras. For this reason existing prosumer DSLRs are plenty for most
commercial applications.
Grain is not universally considered a bad thing..DSLR users spend money
and labor to create it.
Some photography benefits by promiscuous snapping, other photography is
accomplished by deliberate use in which a digital file or 6X6 film
serves equally efficiently.
IMO it's likely that Epson's new scanners will breathe new life into MF
if the performance exceeds 4990 even somewhat... if Epson's new
scanners DO rekindle enthusiasm for 120 film it will prolong
availability.
M
Mr.T
Djon said:Grain is not universally considered a bad thing..DSLR users spend money
and labor to create it.
It is universally (or very, very near to it) considered to be a bad thing
*when* you don't want it.
It is universally considered to be a good thing to be able to choose when
you want it and when you don't.
However, both film and digital SLR's allow you to choose ISO speed.
Increased digital "noise" being the "equivalent" of increased grain as the
speed is increased.
MrT.
R
rafe b
Grain is not universally considered a bad thing..DSLR users spend money
and labor to create it.
They do? That's news to me.
Once or twice I considered adding noise to
digital captures to "simulate" grain... and
then I thought, who am I kidding? What am
I trying to hide?
I still shoot and scan lots of film, and am
no stranger to film grain, having shot many
hundreds of rolls of Tri-X in my day.
Back when I was doing optical enlargements,
I remember grain was my friend in at least
this regard: it was the surest way to check
the focus my enlarger.
Even now, when I see grain in my film scans,
I know I'm getting proper focus in my scanner.
I accept grain as an inherent quality of
film, but not necessarily a desirable one.
It doesn't upset me terribly, but on the
other hand I'd always rather have less,
not more of it.
Nowadays, the idea of adding "fake" grain
to digital capture strikes me as bogus and
dishonest.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
N
Noons
Djon said:IMO it's likely that Epson's new scanners will breathe new life into MF
if the performance exceeds 4990 even somewhat... if Epson's new
scanners DO rekindle enthusiasm for 120 film it will prolong
availability.
Well, and Fuji just introduced yet another new 400 film:
Provia 400X.
Apparently even better than 400F. Not bad for a media
that is dead, according to Kodak's ceo: three new emulsions
in as many years.
Must try it out as soon as available for 120! 6x7 with 400X, the
4990 or one of these new scanners will beat the crap off
any 35mm-style camera, digital or otherwise, for the price.
D
Djon
"It is universally (or very, very near to it) considered to be a bad
thing
*when* you don't want it. "
If you have the skills, you have grain or don't according to your
wishes. It's a matter of skill.
"It is universally considered to be a good thing to be able to choose
when
you want it and when you don't. "
Not at all. Most film photographers don't care that much, enjoying
their limitations. They make decisions and live with them. Most digital
photographers are also content to work within the limitations of their
technology, as for example with prosumer dslrs or digicams instead of
more serious equipment. Some film photographers always work with Leicas
and TriX/Rodinal, or restrict themselves to the narrow possibilities of
Velvia, or, as Ansel, using soft developers as an aesthetic choice.
Some digital photographers are content with 8MP dslrs in all
situations, despite or because of the fact that the images are usually
immediately identifiable as coming from that sort of camera, especially
in B&W.
"However, both film and digital SLR's allow you to choose ISO speed.
Increased digital "noise" being the "equivalent" of increased grain as
the
speed is increased. "
Speed and grain do not have a linear relationship in film except when a
person is unskilled or for his own reasons confines himself to limited
methods for various films. While many film photographers, galleries,
designers etc relish the look of whatever grain they choose to display,
its interesting that nobody seems to enjoy the look of noise in
digital. Thats probably because noise commonly looks mushy. When more
visually-oriented (vs technically oriented) photographers start to
explore digital printing, some will inevitably start to play with noise
as a positive characteristic.
My own 800ei Neopan 400 in Emofin (as opposed to the same film at the
same ei in Rodinal, which I also enjoy) is approximately as grainy as
typical silver 100ei films in their manufacturers' recommended
developers, for example...grain size and character is simply a
craftsperson's choice unless he's incompetent. If a person has grain
and doesn't like it, that is either his bad luck or his lack of skill.
thing
*when* you don't want it. "
If you have the skills, you have grain or don't according to your
wishes. It's a matter of skill.
"It is universally considered to be a good thing to be able to choose
when
you want it and when you don't. "
Not at all. Most film photographers don't care that much, enjoying
their limitations. They make decisions and live with them. Most digital
photographers are also content to work within the limitations of their
technology, as for example with prosumer dslrs or digicams instead of
more serious equipment. Some film photographers always work with Leicas
and TriX/Rodinal, or restrict themselves to the narrow possibilities of
Velvia, or, as Ansel, using soft developers as an aesthetic choice.
Some digital photographers are content with 8MP dslrs in all
situations, despite or because of the fact that the images are usually
immediately identifiable as coming from that sort of camera, especially
in B&W.
"However, both film and digital SLR's allow you to choose ISO speed.
Increased digital "noise" being the "equivalent" of increased grain as
the
speed is increased. "
Speed and grain do not have a linear relationship in film except when a
person is unskilled or for his own reasons confines himself to limited
methods for various films. While many film photographers, galleries,
designers etc relish the look of whatever grain they choose to display,
its interesting that nobody seems to enjoy the look of noise in
digital. Thats probably because noise commonly looks mushy. When more
visually-oriented (vs technically oriented) photographers start to
explore digital printing, some will inevitably start to play with noise
as a positive characteristic.
My own 800ei Neopan 400 in Emofin (as opposed to the same film at the
same ei in Rodinal, which I also enjoy) is approximately as grainy as
typical silver 100ei films in their manufacturers' recommended
developers, for example...grain size and character is simply a
craftsperson's choice unless he's incompetent. If a person has grain
and doesn't like it, that is either his bad luck or his lack of skill.
D
Don
"It is universally (or very, very near to it) considered to be a bad
thing
*when* you don't want it. "
If you have the skills, you have grain or don't according to your
wishes. It's a matter of skill.
Not quite. An image on film *is* grain. Therefore (appearance of)
grain can't be removed without at the same time removing image data.
Nothing to do with skill.
Don.
N
Noons
Don said:Not quite. An image on film *is* grain. Therefore (appearance of)
grain can't be removed without at the same time removing image data.
Nothing to do with skill.
Grain is not the same as pixels...
D
Don
Grain is not the same as pixels...
Yes, only this is not about pixels but about "skill" reducing grain.
The film image itself is composed of lumps of (analog) grain in the
film emulsion. This is then mapped to (available) pixels where
(depending on resolution) these lumps will be more or less visible.
No amount of "skill" can reduce the visibility (i.e. appearance of)
grain without at the same time reducing information (i.e. image data).
And this goes for both software (GEM, etc) and hardware (diffuse light
source) "solutions". Without going into detail both of them reduce the
amount of data i.e. make the image "soft" or, as call it, "fuzzify".
Indeed, by simply defocusing slightly the appearance of grain can be
reduced. And, self evidently, an out-of-focus image has less image
information/data than an in-focus image.
Don.
H
HvdV
Some people in this NG have mentioned that some defocussing might beIndeed, by simply defocusing slightly the appearance of grain can be
reduced. And, self evidently, an out-of-focus image has less image
information/data than an in-focus image.
beneficial to reduce grain aliasing because it reduces the spatial frequency
content of the image to better match the sampling rate of the scanner. This
is assuming that you're dealing with fine grained films like Portra 160.
The sampling rate of that new Epson scanner might be high enough to
completely capture the optical bandwidth, at least in one direction. On top
of that, if it has a sample distance 2x smaller than it's CCD cell size then
that is an anti aliasing filter in itself. Taken together we might see much
less grainy results from that scanner. Hopefully the optics are good enough...
-- Hans