New Epson flatbed scanner...

[Ernst Dinkla]

Would be interesting.

It would also help if that person could scan a Slanted Edge test object,
such as a razor blade mounted in a 35mm slidemount at a slant of approx.
5-6 degrees (90 degree rotation for horizontal and vertical scan
resolution). I'm offering to quantify the effective limiting resolution
as can be deducted from an MTF curve that's calculated from a crop of
the slanted edge.

That would take a lot of speculation out of the discussions...

If that person happens to be located in the (central portion of)
Netherlands, we could use my Stouffer T4110 step wedge to test the
claimed 4.0 dynamic range, and improve the MTF result's accuracy.

Bart

Bart,

The V750-M will be available in May. In my experience add
another month for anything new coming from Epson. The other
model will be earlier but doesn't have the wetmount carrier
etc. The UK will probably have the first scanners for review
as London has the marketing headquarter for scanners I was
told by an Epson man some years ago.

I don't think Eindhoven falls in the central portion of the
Netherlands, certainly not last weekend

Ernst

--
Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
( unvollendet )

 

[HvdV]

The main design problems are; Flat plane projection, reduction of
aberrations, and (presumably) large physical aperture to reduce exposure
time. The tolerances are small and the projection result is 'magnified'
by the fine sampling by the sensor, so there are many lens elements
needed to reduce small amounts of residual aberrations from preceding
lens elements.

OTOH, the lens only needs to cope with a single object and image distance,
and maybe a somewhat more limited light spectrum as compared to a
photographic lens.
Compared to other scanners like the Nikon, the oversampled conditions allow
on the fly resampling to correct geometrical distortion in software, and a
more sensitive CCD combined with brighter light sources could lead to a
smaller aperture. In principle it is also possible to illuminate with
different light sources in rapid succession, eliminating the need for lateral
chromatic correction. Together, these things would lead to a vastly cheaper lens.

-- Hans

 

[Chris]

Chris wrote:




Perhaps if it is real 4800. Tricked up is not the same.




Oh, I can! At least with the 4990. When it's working: been in
warranty repairs at Epson for over a month now, they can't find
what's wrong with it.

I'm talking film scanner not comparing it with a flat bed.


Have a look at this page

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/dimage.shtml

They have in the review the Minolta scanning 6x6 at 3200 dpi and the
Epson Flatbed 1640 at 3200 dpi (half way down the page)

This is what I expect from a flatbed what ever.

 

[rafe b]

Have a look at this page

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/dimage.shtml

They have in the review the Minolta scanning 6x6 at 3200 dpi and the
Epson Flatbed 1640 at 3200 dpi (half way down the page)

This is what I expect from a flatbed what ever.

Aw, c'mon. Give Epson a *little* break. The 1640 SU (which
I own, and bought for $400 in Feb. 2001) was rated at 1600
dpi optical, and (in keeping with Epson tradition) probably
good for 1/2 of its rated resolution. It was the first of the
Epson "photo/flatbed" models.

You can see samples of the Epson 4990 output, compared
to other dedicated film scanners, on my scan snippets site:

<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/>

IMO, the 4990 rates about 2000 dpi or thereabouts.
It's no Nikon, but at $400, what do you expect? The
next step up is at least four or five times more expensive.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Rob]

Aw, c'mon. Give Epson a *little* break. The 1640 SU (which
I own, and bought for $400 in Feb. 2001) was rated at 1600
dpi optical, and (in keeping with Epson tradition) probably
good for 1/2 of its rated resolution. It was the first of the
Epson "photo/flatbed" models.

You can see samples of the Epson 4990 output, compared
to other dedicated film scanners, on my scan snippets site:

<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/>

IMO, the 4990 rates about 2000 dpi or thereabouts.
It's no Nikon, but at $400, what do you expect? The
next step up is at least four or five times more expensive.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Don't take it out of context by snipping.

 

[P. Taine]

I was actually impressed at the degree of attention
and technical detail given by Epson on the Epson-
Japan website. Eg., showing the lens arrangement,
down to elements and groups. Maybe that's a good omen.

Another good omen is their specific references to
wet-mounting. Unless Epson is just being devious
and cynical.

I can tell you that a "typical" flatbed scanner
has a lens on the order or 20 mm f/8 or so, and
that even the 4990 is probably not much better
than this. By comparison: the MF Coolscans use
a lens that's around 75mm f/4.

So, we'll just have to wait and see. If nothing
else, it's comforting that Epson still has not
given up film, and (most surprisingly) on medium-
and large-format film.

Apparently they've noticed a "hole" in the market
and decided to address it. I only wish Nikon would
try to compete in that same niche.

If it turns out that the new Epsons really offer
a significant upgrade to the 4990, I will probably
buy one. Even at $500 or $750, these are still
in what I'd call the "dirt cheap" category, for
a MF or LF film scanner.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

I am a novice, looking for a scanner for a collection of negatives. I've been leaning towards the 4990, but I have a (probably
dumb) question.

These negatives are in a wide range of sizes. Just to check, I have:

Standard 35mm, both color & b&w -- badly curled, as some are in full rolls that haven't been opened since the 1940's
35mm color, with widely spaced sprocket holes on one side only.
disk negatives
individual negative. Here I'm giving the image area, variable clear areas on the sides
6.9 x 11.3 cm
6 x 8.8 cm
8.8 x 8.8 cm
4.5 x 6.5 cm
6 x 8.3 cm
8.1 x 13.8
6.2 x 10.8
5.7 x 7.9
and quite a few other sizes
a number of glass negatives, of various sizes.

So -- after reading about Newton rings, differing focal planes, etc. What SHOULD I do? How does one hold these various (many
hand-cut) negatives flat and at the proper height, and how does one mask them? Or must I simply plop them down on the glass and
take what I can get?

Puzzled
P. Taine

 

[rafe b]

So -- after reading about Newton rings, differing focal planes, etc. What
SHOULD I do?

Relax and don't worry about it.

For your glass negatives, I'd just put a small shim under
each corner (or along two opposing edges) to keep the
two glass surfaces from making contact. Any thickness
of paper should do.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[rafe b]

Don't take it out of context by snipping.

Hmm. Did I miss the point? What *was* the point?


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[CSM1]

I am a novice, looking for a scanner for a collection of negatives. I've
been leaning towards the 4990, but I have a (probably
dumb) question.

These negatives are in a wide range of sizes. Just to check, I have:

Standard 35mm, both color & b&w -- badly curled, as some are in full rolls
that haven't been opened since the 1940's
35mm color, with widely spaced sprocket holes on one side only.
disk negatives
individual negative. Here I'm giving the image area, variable clear areas
on the sides
6.9 x 11.3 cm
6 x 8.8 cm
8.8 x 8.8 cm
4.5 x 6.5 cm
6 x 8.3 cm
8.1 x 13.8
6.2 x 10.8
5.7 x 7.9
and quite a few other sizes
a number of glass negatives, of various sizes.

So -- after reading about Newton rings, differing focal planes, etc. What
SHOULD I do? How does one hold these various (many
hand-cut) negatives flat and at the proper height, and how does one mask
them? Or must I simply plop them down on the glass and
take what I can get?

Puzzled
P. Taine

Here is a list of Kodak Still camera films from 1977-1978. This list has the
Kodak film type number and the size of the image.

http://www.carlmcmillan.com/Pdf/Still_Camera_films.pdf

Maybe this list will help identify the film you have. To know if a scanner
will handle the film you have, you measure the full width of the film
including the non-image area. Find in the scanner specs the maximum size
transparency image it will scan.

For instance the Epson Perfection 4990 PHOTO will scan up to a 8 inch X 10
inch transparency. (20.64 cm x 25.8 cm).
There are not many Consumer Scanners that will scan that large of a
transparency. (It may be the only one).

35mm color, with widely spaced sprocket holes on one side only.

That is probably 126 film.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

OTOH, the lens only needs to cope with a single object and image
distance,

Not if the flat surface of the glass platen and a (hopefully flat)
mounted slide are concerned. The 0.75 mm (depending of the particular
mount) difference is already noticable on my 'ancient' Epson 2450
Photo. One can only hope that the new 7xx models with their claimed
resolution have focus control.

and maybe a somewhat more limited light spectrum as compared to a
photographic lens.

There is only a restriction by the combined lamp / dye colors spectum,
and that spectrum seems to be quite wide if one considers the
"Ektaspace" profile chromaticities
(http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?WorkingSpaceInfo.html).

Compared to other scanners like the Nikon, the oversampled
conditions allow on the fly resampling to correct geometrical
distortion in software,

I was more referring to the natural behavior of lenses to produce
non-flatplane focus.

and a more sensitive CCD combined with brighter light sources could
lead to a smaller aperture.

Unfortunately, CCDs have a more or less fixed sensitivity.

In principle it is also possible to illuminate with different light
sources in rapid succession, eliminating the need for lateral
chromatic correction.

But would increase calibration problems and component cost. It would
still require the optical system to have identical correction for the
different spectra.

Bart

 

[Djon]

Maybe it'd be better if people stopped mistakenly describing scanner
output as "dpi."

dpi refers to printing, not scanning.

 

[Don]

"Djon's basic premise was that the amount of grain in a scan is a
function of "skill" which is wrong. Grain is a function (an intrinsic
part) of film image and reducing grain means reducing image data."

No, that intentionally twisted what I said.

Then, let's read what you wrote:

--- start ---

If you have the skills, you have grain or don't according to your
wishes. It's a matter of skill.

--- end ---

How does that differ from my paraphrasing it as: "Grain is a function
of skill"?

Film grain is itself a
function substantially of skill, with or without a scan.

No, grain is a function of film. The image on film is composed of
grain. It may be small grain, it may be big grain. But grain is always
there.

Before we go on do you agree with that? If not, why not i.e. if not
grain, then what is the image on film made of?

Scan results are irrelevant without considering reproduced images,
whether litho, print, or monitor display. And the qualities of all
those reproductions depend on skill as much as upon technology.

Photographers make images, not "image data."

Yes, they do! Analog images still contain image data: Analog image
data. Which is expressed as grain.

Grain was traditionally addressed in wet darkrooms by grain dissolving
developers such as D23, and by diffusion enlargers. Honorable,
beautiful methodology for people who liked grainless images.

The point is there is no such a thing. All analog images on film are
made of/contain grain. You can reduce its *appearance* but at a price.
That price is loss of information.

I preferred point light source, or at least optically coated Durst
condenser enlargers with glass carriers in the wet darkroom. That's
simply another approach, entailing different/equal skills. My work
showed sharp grain because I wanted to show it, was skilled enough to
show it sharply. Ansel's students didn't want to show it, were taught
how to avoid it: Skills that are just as applicable today, with
scanners, as they were in Ansel's day.

That's not really the issue but even in the analog paradigm reducing
grain artificially still loses information.

Human skills are crucial to photography.

Of course. But that has nothing to do with grain being recorded by the
scanner which is the subject matter.

Digital technology is not crucial to photography.

?

Analog technology is not crucial to photography either!

What does either of those statements prove other than acknowledging
there are alternatives?

Grain is controllable by skill.

Not without loss of information, be it in the analog or digital
domain.

Don.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

The UK will probably have the first scanners for review as London
has the marketing headquarter for scanners I was told by an Epson
man some years ago.

Could be the case, but AFAIK the general European headquarters are in
Germany.

I don't think Eindhoven falls in the central portion of the
Netherlands, certainly not last weekend

Not yet ;-)

Well, Eindhoven would be about an hour's drive from the Utrecht
region; in fact one could reach the furthest outskirts of the country,
worst case scenario, outside rush-hour by car in about 2 hours from
the Utrecht region. If it's a non-profit activity I'd prefer something
even closer ;-)

Bart

 

[P. Taine]

Here is a list of Kodak Still camera films from 1977-1978. This list has the
Kodak film type number and the size of the image.

http://www.carlmcmillan.com/Pdf/Still_Camera_films.pdf

Maybe this list will help identify the film you have. To know if a scanner
will handle the film you have, you measure the full width of the film
including the non-image area. Find in the scanner specs the maximum size
transparency image it will scan.

For instance the Epson Perfection 4990 PHOTO will scan up to a 8 inch X 10
inch transparency. (20.64 cm x 25.8 cm).
There are not many Consumer Scanners that will scan that large of a
transparency. (It may be the only one).

That is probably 126 film.

I know that the scanner has a large enough area, what I am worried about are the comments about the proper distance from the glass
(platen?) to the film (including not having them touch), and the importance of masking and of holding it as flat as possible.

I fear that the indicated web-site won't help me, as most of these are from the 1910's to the 1930's or 40's. The glass negitives
are probably earlier.

'P. Taine

 

[David J. Littleboy]

OTOH, the lens only needs to cope with a single object and image distance,
and maybe a somewhat more limited light spectrum as compared to a
photographic lens.

Nope: It has to handle through IR.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[David J. Littleboy]

Not if the flat surface of the glass platen and a (hopefully flat) mounted
slide are concerned. The 0.75 mm (depending of the particular mount)
difference is already noticable on my 'ancient' Epson 2450 Photo. One can
only hope that the new 7xx models with their claimed resolution have focus
control.

One of the claims is that the film holders support two distances off the
glass 0.5 mm apart.

There is only a restriction by the combined lamp / dye colors spectum, and
that spectrum seems to be quite wide if one considers the "Ektaspace"
profile chromaticities
(http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?WorkingSpaceInfo.html).

Again, these things need to focus IR as well, so the requirement is more
stringent than photographic lenses.

Unfortunately, CCDs have a more or less fixed sensitivity.

The new scanner _claims_ to have microlenses for the first time in an Epson
scanner.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Noons]

I'm talking film scanner not comparing it with a flat bed.

Well, you mentioned flatbed Epson scanners...

Have a look at this page
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/dimage.shtml

Thanks, I know it.

They have in the review the Minolta scanning 6x6 at 3200 dpi and the
Epson Flatbed 1640 at 3200 dpi (half way down the page)
This is what I expect from a flatbed what ever.

Well, there you go: I don't think the 1640 is anywhere
near the same class of scanner as the 4990. Completely
different animals.

Having said that, here is what I noticed so far from about
6 months using the 4990 flatbed:

1- Epson's fixed focus point on the glass surface
is useless at any rez >= 2400.
They need to have the focus at 1/64" ABOVE the
glass surface, not on it!

2- Noise with dark slides can be objectionable but
it's nothing that a dual or quad pass scan and
use of exposure controls can't fix.

3- Due to focusing problems, the scanner cannot fully
resolve normal slide film - although in principle 4800dpi
would be very close.

Others might differ.

 

[Ernst Dinkla]

I know that the scanner has a large enough area, what I am worried about are the comments about the proper distance from the glass
(platen?) to the film (including not having them touch), and the importance of masking and of holding it as flat as possible.

I fear that the indicated web-site won't help me, as most of these are from the 1910's to the 1930's or 40's. The glass negitives
are probably earlier.

'P. Taine

Unlike Ralf writes any thickness of carton will do I would use
1 mm thick or if you know where best focus is use that
thickness. That's on the 4990.

To get good masks and to clamp the different sizes you could
use the magnetic vinyl masks I use from time to time. But
most of the time I use wet mounting for film. You will
probably have difficulty with the glass negatives. Often they
have thick emulsion and little light gets through while the
dynamic range isn't that wide. There are solutions but that
goes a bit further than using a Stanley knife.

http://www.pigment-print.com/CTG_0049/target0.html

Ernst

--

--
Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
( unvollendet )

 

[P. Taine]

Unlike Ralf writes any thickness of carton will do I would use
1 mm thick or if you know where best focus is use that
thickness. That's on the 4990.

To get good masks and to clamp the different sizes you could
use the magnetic vinyl masks I use from time to time. But
most of the time I use wet mounting for film. You will
probably have difficulty with the glass negatives. Often they
have thick emulsion and little light gets through while the
dynamic range isn't that wide. There are solutions but that
goes a bit further than using a Stanley knife.

http://www.pigment-print.com/CTG_0049/target0.html

Ernst

Thank you for the comments and reference. I've saved the web-page for which you gave the link, and will look into emulating your
solution.

P. Taine

 

[HvdV]

Not if the flat surface of the glass platen and a (hopefully flat)
mounted slide are concerned. The 0.75 mm (depending of the particular
mount) difference is already noticable on my 'ancient' Epson 2450 Photo.
One can only hope that the new 7xx models with their claimed resolution
have focus control.

Still, the lens can be optimized for a single object/image distance, should
make life easier. Of course these object and image planes need to be flat
within the DOF for the aperture used.

Regarding the focus, hard to imagine they can manufacture so precisely that
no adjustment is ever needed.

BTW, how is chromatic aberration on your scanner? I noted that most snippets
on that website posted earlier are near the image center, except for one from
a corner, but that one was ill suited to spot chromatic aberration.

There is only a restriction by the combined lamp / dye colors spectum,
and that spectrum seems to be quite wide if one considers the
"Ektaspace" profile chromaticities
(http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?WorkingSpaceInfo.html).

Ok.
From a graph on the Epson site I gather that the blue CCD filter sensitivity
has been shifted further towards shorter wavelengths as compared to the
earlier model. On top of that as David Littleboy pointed out the need to
handle IR light (what wavelength?) makes it even harder. BTW, I wonder what
the imaging quality requirements as to this IR channel really are.I think that if it is possible to get away with a lower aperture by
increasing the overall sensitivity, including brighter lightsource, better
coatings on mirrors, lenses, fewer lens surfaces, engineers will go for it. A
lower aperture also means more tolerance with field flatness.

But would increase calibration problems and component cost. It would
still require the optical system to have identical correction for the
different spectra.

No, you can correct each separately, fairly standard practice in scanning
or CCD based microscopy. You are right in that it requires a calibration step
though.


-- Hans