🚀 go-pugleaf

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 

Noons wrote:
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php
See also the specs by way of:

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

"HvdV" <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote in message
news:16fb0$43fec511$3e3aaa83$18681@news.versatel.net...
| 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

In article <1140762568.191486.83070@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
 "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php
> 
> Sounds yummy...
> 
> Comments?

aren't scanners almost becoming obsolete?

"woods" <noreply@none.com> wrote:
> "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php
>>
>> Sounds yummy...
>>
>> Comments?
>
> 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

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:27:59 +0800, "k" <fellafel@PING.com> wrote:


>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

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:50:37 +1100, woods <noreply@none.com> wrote:


>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

"rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote in message 
news:inrtv193fj570n49k281a64btd0tsvb56g@4ax.com...
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 

woods wrote:
>
> 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...

rafe b wrote:
>
> 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.

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.

"Djon" <jtk@channelsynergy.com> wrote in message
news:1140885791.963753.238880@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> 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.

On 25 Feb 2006 08:43:12 -0800, "Djon" <jtk@channelsynergy.com> wrote:


>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

Djon wrote:

> 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.

"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.

On 26 Feb 2006 05:38:17 -0800, "Djon" <jtk@channelsynergy.com> wrote:

>"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.