How close (how far) do flat-beds get to (from) film scanners?

Epson 4870
Someone got up me for claiming it was at the leading edge of flatbed film scanners. I’ll add …for consumer hardware.
I had Epson 3200 I’ve just sold. I thought that was pretty good but having had the 4870 for several weeks, I can tell you this is better than many lower cost dedicated film scanners.

Douglas
—————-

"Branko Vukelic" wrote in message

Now, sorry for the long subject line.

I’m looking for a way to replace my old Mustek flat-bed, and at the same time become able to scan tons of negs that I have here (all of them 35mm).
I hear that flat-beds can yield decent (?!) results with, say, 6×6 negs

and

slides, but what about 35mm? I’d rather not have to purchase two pieces of equipment…

I would need only small-sized scans (to a max of A4) from my 35mm’s and I really need great scans from other things that usally go onto a flat-bed (photos, illusts, documents, etc).

Optionally I’d like to be able to scan small 3D objects (especially book covers that have holes and such in them) and shiny objects (like aluminum foils, silver and gold lettering on book covers, etc). These used to come out amazingly poor (and expectedly so) on my $25 Mustek.
Any suggestions?

Scanning transparencies and regular stuff are two different beasts Although some flatbeds offer an add-on to do the slides, they aren going to be near the quality of the scanner made for the job.

Flatbeds bounce light off opaque, slide scanners read light densitie through the film. The flatbed with a kit will still read the image b bouncing light. Maybe you can find some examples somewhere, if they ar good enough for what you want then go for it

–
supchak
———————————————————— ———– Posted via http://www.forum4designers.co
———————————————————— ———– View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message53233.htm

What your are saying Supchaka, was relevant in 1998. Recent advents in the technology have seriously closed to gap between flatbed film scanning and dedicated film scanners.
If I were to say: 4,800 lpi, 48 bit colour, ICE dust and scratch removal, auto colour balance of ANY film. What would you think I was describing? A high quality film scanner? Yes, an Epson 4870 PHOTO flatbed scanner. Makes the Canon dedicated 35mm film scanner look downright toyish. Doesn’t make many of the recent Nikon’s look too good either.

Douglas
————–

"supchaka" wrote in message

Scanning transparencies and regular stuff are two different beasts. Although some flatbeds offer an add-on to do the slides, they arent going to be near the quality of the scanner made for the job.
Flatbeds bounce light off opaque, slide scanners read light densities through the film. The flatbed with a kit will still read the image by bouncing light. Maybe you can find some examples somewhere, if they are good enough for what you want then go for it.

—
supchaka
———————————————————— ———— Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com
———————————————————— ———— View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message53233.html

Scanning transparencies and regular stuff are two different beasts. Although some flatbeds offer an add-on to do the slides, they arent going to be near the quality of the scanner made for the job.
Flatbeds bounce light off opaque, slide scanners read light densities through the film. The flatbed with a kit will still read the image by bouncing light. Maybe you can find some examples somewhere, if they are good enough for what you want then go for it.

I agree that dedicated filmscanners give better results (at least in my experience), but your second statement is not true for all scanners: the Canon 9900F allows you to remove the white background in the lid and behind that is a second light, allowing to scan trough the film.

Still the results are not as close as a dedicated consumer film scanner (like the Canon 4000 or Minolta 5400).

Waldo

In article <c2436u$sc5$ says…

Now, sorry for the long subject line.

I’m looking for a way to replace my old Mustek flat-bed, and at the same time become able to scan tons of negs that I have here (all of them 35mm).
I hear that flat-beds can yield decent (?!) results with, say, 6×6 negs and slides, but what about 35mm? I’d rather not have to purchase two pieces of equipment…

I would need only small-sized scans (to a max of A4) from my 35mm’s and I really need great scans from other things that usally go onto a flat-bed (photos, illusts, documents, etc).

Optionally I’d like to be able to scan small 3D objects (especially book covers that have holes and such in them) and shiny objects (like aluminum foils, silver and gold lettering on book covers, etc). These used to come out amazingly poor (and expectedly so) on my $25 Mustek.
Any suggestions?

I have a comparison of the Epson 4870 flatbed and the Minolta 5400 dedicated 35mm scanner on my web site.
Follow the tips link on the home page to read it.

—
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

Take a look at the Epson 3200 and the newer 4800
I have seen 35 mm neg scans that where as good as the Nikon 4000 film scanner

Bigcat

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:34:31 +0100, "Waldo" wrote:

Scanning transparencies and regular stuff are two different beasts. Although some flatbeds offer an add-on to do the slides, they arent going to be near the quality of the scanner made for the job.
Flatbeds bounce light off opaque, slide scanners read light densities through the film. The flatbed with a kit will still read the image by bouncing light. Maybe you can find some examples somewhere, if they are good enough for what you want then go for it.

I agree that dedicated filmscanners give better results (at least in my experience), but your second statement is not true for all scanners: the Canon 9900F allows you to remove the white background in the lid and behind that is a second light, allowing to scan trough the film.
Still the results are not as close as a dedicated consumer film scanner (like the Canon 4000 or Minolta 5400).

Waldo

____________________________________________________________ ___________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Accounts Starting At $6.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Another set of examples are at www.horsenhounds.com/alford under the scanner tests. I am reconfiguring the site, so I apologies for the clutter etc.

I conclude from Feinman’s great example that a dedicated scanner will generally beat the flat bed scanner. My results indicate the same, albeit with less thoroughness. I recently repeated the test with an new Epson 1670 (?) and the results are similar although the color fidelity was much better – the lack of fine focus on the slide results in the missing "dot" on the dial.

This question goes around and around. It all depends on how you value quality.

rma

"Robert D Feinman" wrote in message

In article <c2436u$sc5$ says…

Now, sorry for the long subject line.

I’m looking for a way to replace my old Mustek flat-bed, and at the same time become able to scan tons of negs that I have here (all of them

35mm).

I hear that flat-beds can yield decent (?!) results with, say, 6×6 negs

and

slides, but what about 35mm? I’d rather not have to purchase two pieces

of

equipment…

I would need only small-sized scans (to a max of A4) from my 35mm’s and

I

really need great scans from other things that usally go onto a flat-bed (photos, illusts, documents, etc).

Optionally I’d like to be able to scan small 3D objects (especially book covers that have holes and such in them) and shiny objects (like

aluminum

foils, silver and gold lettering on book covers, etc). These used to

come

out amazingly poor (and expectedly so) on my $25 Mustek.
Any suggestions?

I have a comparison of the Epson 4870 flatbed and the Minolta 5400 dedicated 35mm scanner on my web site.
Follow the tips link on the home page to read it.

—
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

Now, I would like to thank y’all for input.

As Robert says in his tips article, the Epson is a satisfactory solution to most people who are not too picky.

Robert, your article certainly apeals to my apetite for "perfect" scans… However, I really need a decent flat-bed, so I’ll definitely go for Epson. That is, if I can get a few more things cleared up…

What’s the price range for this scanner?

What are the system requirements? Will 256Mb RAM suffice for scanning 35mm negs at maximum resolution? (Naturally, I wouldn’t want to buy something and wating for a full PC upgrade before being able to use it… 🙂

Branko

"Robert D Feinman" wrote in message

In article <c2436u$sc5$ says…

Now, sorry for the long subject line.

I’m looking for a way to replace my old Mustek flat-bed, and at the same time become able to scan tons of negs that I have here (all of them

35mm).

I hear that flat-beds can yield decent (?!) results with, say, 6×6 negs

and

slides, but what about 35mm? I’d rather not have to purchase two pieces

of

equipment…

I would need only small-sized scans (to a max of A4) from my 35mm’s and

I

really need great scans from other things that usally go onto a flat-bed (photos, illusts, documents, etc).

Optionally I’d like to be able to scan small 3D objects (especially book covers that have holes and such in them) and shiny objects (like

aluminum

foils, silver and gold lettering on book covers, etc). These used to

come

out amazingly poor (and expectedly so) on my $25 Mustek.
Any suggestions?

I have a comparison of the Epson 4870 flatbed and the Minolta 5400 dedicated 35mm scanner on my web site.
Follow the tips link on the home page to read it.

—
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

Hi Branko…
You might care to hear what I have to say about high data flow rates on USB. before buying something that might be a problem. I still think the 4870 is the single best scanner in it’s range but there may be problems getting it to run properly.

I just unplugged the old 3200 and plugged in the new one. Then… My PC crashed whenever I tried to scan a negative. Epson (don’t you love people who are always right-Grrrrr) Told me to check out my hardware. I would probably find that was faulty, not the scanner. I did. New 450 watt power supply got the crashing fixed.

When I switched off the scanner while the PC was still on, the PC would reboot! I still can’t use Digital ICE and 48 bit mode at the same time and use more than 2400 dpi. I updated the BIOS of my (7 months old) PC and fixed the reboot problem.

I am absolutely positive USB 2.0 as applied by SIS (the chipset makers) is a dud under Windows. Even when you apply the (SIS) software patch, there is no guarantee it will work properly. Installed a firewire card. – Fixed!

As to your hardware?
512 RAM is better but 256 will do.
Make sure the motherboard does NOT have an SIS or VIA chipset. Make sure the power supply Unit (PSU) is over 350 watt capacity. Buy a firewire card and cable. Forget USB. It will give you grief. Flash up the BIOS on your mother board.

If this sounds like a lot of trouble… It is. Cost me $200 (AUD) over the cost of the scanner to get it working and My PC is only 7 months old!

Douglas
———————

"Branko Vukelic" wrote in message

Now, I would like to thank y’all for input.

As Robert says in his tips article, the Epson is a satisfactory solution

to

most people who are not too picky.

Robert, your article certainly apeals to my apetite for "perfect" scans… However, I really need a decent flat-bed, so I’ll definitely go for Epson. That is, if I can get a few more things cleared up…

What’s the price range for this scanner?

What are the system requirements? Will 256Mb RAM suffice for scanning 35mm negs at maximum resolution? (Naturally, I wouldn’t want to buy something

and

wating for a full PC upgrade before being able to use it… 🙂
Branko

"Robert D Feinman" wrote in message

In article <c2436u$sc5$ says…

Now, sorry for the long subject line.

I’m looking for a way to replace my old Mustek flat-bed, and at the

same

time become able to scan tons of negs that I have here (all of them

35mm).

I hear that flat-beds can yield decent (?!) results with, say, 6×6

negs

and

slides, but what about 35mm? I’d rather not have to purchase two

pieces

of

equipment…

I would need only small-sized scans (to a max of A4) from my 35mm’s

and

I

really need great scans from other things that usally go onto a

flat-bed

(photos, illusts, documents, etc).

Optionally I’d like to be able to scan small 3D objects (especially

book

covers that have holes and such in them) and shiny objects (like

aluminum

foils, silver and gold lettering on book covers, etc). These used to

come

out amazingly poor (and expectedly so) on my $25 Mustek.
Any suggestions?

I have a comparison of the Epson 4870 flatbed and the Minolta 5400 dedicated 35mm scanner on my web site.
Follow the tips link on the home page to read it.

—
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

That does sound like a LOT of trouble over a single piece of equipment, doesn’t it? My PC is over a year and a half old, and the chipset is VIA. The power supply seems to be well under 350W… I don’t even have USB 2.0 and, frankly, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to run the Epson on my system (not even with those minor hardware upgrades).

Hmm, what was 3200 like? Any good? Or should I be looking for a complete hardware upgrade before I get anything new?

I inherited the Nikon F from my dad. Also with 35mm F2.0 and 105 F2.5. Those lenses are so good I don’t think I’ll be replacing them for (another) 20 years. Too bad this philosophy can’t be applied to my PC. :p

Thanks for the tip, Douglas.

"Douglas MacDonald" wrote in message

Hi Branko…
You might care to hear what I have to say about high data flow rates on

USB.

before buying something that might be a problem. I still think the 4870 is the single best scanner in it’s range but there may be problems getting it to run properly.

I just unplugged the old 3200 and plugged in the new one. Then… My PC crashed whenever I tried to scan a negative. Epson (don’t you love people who are always right-Grrrrr) Told me to check out my hardware. I would probably find that was faulty, not the scanner. I did. New 450 watt power supply got the crashing fixed.

When I switched off the scanner while the PC was still on, the PC would reboot! I still can’t use Digital ICE and 48 bit mode at the same time and use more than 2400 dpi. I updated the BIOS of my (7 months old) PC and

fixed

the reboot problem.

I am absolutely positive USB 2.0 as applied by SIS (the chipset makers) is

a

dud under Windows. Even when you apply the (SIS) software patch, there is

no

guarantee it will work properly. Installed a firewire card. – Fixed!
As to your hardware?
512 RAM is better but 256 will do.
Make sure the motherboard does NOT have an SIS or VIA chipset. Make sure the power supply Unit (PSU) is over 350 watt capacity. Buy a firewire card and cable. Forget USB. It will give you grief. Flash up the BIOS on your mother board.

If this sounds like a lot of trouble… It is. Cost me $200 (AUD) over the cost of the scanner to get it working and My PC is only 7 months old!
Douglas
———————

The 3200 is a really good scanner. It doesn’t do colour correction anywhere near as accurately ar the 4870 and it only has rudimentry dust control. Frankly… I got pissed off using to healing tool of PS to get rid of dust. I bought the new one only because it had ICE.

Don’t bother with USB at all except for printing. Use firewire or SCSI scanners, preferably firewire. I just installed the 4870 on my wife’s Celeron 2,4 GHz with Windows 98 and it works properly. She has a VIA chipset an an MSI board. 256 Mb of RAM and Corel Photopaint. A 250 watt power supply too! It seems to work OK with that lot… Could it be my "top of the range" motherboard is a dud or is it Win 2k producing the problems?

I might load Win98 on a spare drive in my PC and see if it still gives the out of memory error. You’d think if it will work on 98 with 256 meg it would be OK on 2k with 1 gig… Hmmm. I’ll get back on that one. Might not be the hardware after all.

Douglas
————–

"Branko Vukelic" wrote in message

That does sound like a LOT of trouble over a single piece of equipment, doesn’t it? My PC is over a year and a half old, and the chipset is VIA.

The

power supply seems to be well under 350W… I don’t even have USB 2.0 and, frankly, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to run the Epson on my system

(not

even with those minor hardware upgrades).

Hmm, what was 3200 like? Any good? Or should I be looking for a complete hardware upgrade before I get anything new?

I inherited the Nikon F from my dad. Also with 35mm F2.0 and 105 F2.5.

Those

lenses are so good I don’t think I’ll be replacing them for (another) 20 years. Too bad this philosophy can’t be applied to my PC. :p
Thanks for the tip, Douglas.

"Douglas MacDonald" wrote in message

Hi Branko…
You might care to hear what I have to say about high data flow rates on

USB.

before buying something that might be a problem. I still think the 4870

is

the single best scanner in it’s range but there may be problems getting

it

to run properly.

I just unplugged the old 3200 and plugged in the new one. Then… My PC crashed whenever I tried to scan a negative. Epson (don’t you love

people

who are always right-Grrrrr) Told me to check out my hardware. I would probably find that was faulty, not the scanner. I did. New 450 watt

power

supply got the crashing fixed.

When I switched off the scanner while the PC was still on, the PC would reboot! I still can’t use Digital ICE and 48 bit mode at the same time

and

use more than 2400 dpi. I updated the BIOS of my (7 months old) PC and

fixed

the reboot problem.

I am absolutely positive USB 2.0 as applied by SIS (the chipset makers)

is

a

dud under Windows. Even when you apply the (SIS) software patch, there

is

no

guarantee it will work properly. Installed a firewire card. – Fixed!
As to your hardware?
512 RAM is better but 256 will do.
Make sure the motherboard does NOT have an SIS or VIA chipset. Make sure the power supply Unit (PSU) is over 350 watt capacity. Buy a firewire card and cable. Forget USB. It will give you grief. Flash up the BIOS on your mother board.

If this sounds like a lot of trouble… It is. Cost me $200 (AUD) over

the

cost of the scanner to get it working and My PC is only 7 months old!
Douglas
———————

Hmmm… My PC’s based around a Chaintech version of VIA. Pretty good mb. Hasn’t let me down so far. But I’m on WinXP, which is pretty much like Win2k as far as hardware compatibility goes. However, 2k’s been pretty unstable unpathced on the same machine… So I guess that, like Win98, WinXP might be a better bet than 2k as far as the Epson goes.

Wow, it’s still a bit risky, you know. I really don’t have the budget for a firewire AND the scanner…

When you find out more, be sure to post the findings in this thread, please. I’m planning on getting *a* scanner in next two or three month.

"Douglas MacDonald" wrote in message

The 3200 is a really good scanner. It doesn’t do colour correction

anywhere

near as accurately ar the 4870 and it only has rudimentry dust control. Frankly… I got pissed off using to healing tool of PS to get rid of

dust.

I bought the new one only because it had ICE.

Don’t bother with USB at all except for printing. Use firewire or SCSI scanners, preferably firewire. I just installed the 4870 on my wife’s Celeron 2,4 GHz with Windows 98 and it works properly. She has a VIA

chipset

an an MSI board. 256 Mb of RAM and Corel Photopaint. A 250 watt power

supply

too! It seems to work OK with that lot… Could it be my "top of the

range"

motherboard is a dud or is it Win 2k producing the problems?
I might load Win98 on a spare drive in my PC and see if it still gives the out of memory error. You’d think if it will work on 98 with 256 meg it

would

be OK on 2k with 1 gig… Hmmm. I’ll get back on that one. Might not be

the

hardware after all.

Douglas
————–

"Branko Vukelic" wrote in message

That does sound like a LOT of trouble over a single piece of equipment, doesn’t it? My PC is over a year and a half old, and the chipset is VIA.

The

power supply seems to be well under 350W… I don’t even have USB 2.0

and,

frankly, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to run the Epson on my system

(not

even with those minor hardware upgrades).

Hmm, what was 3200 like? Any good? Or should I be looking for a complete hardware upgrade before I get anything new?

I inherited the Nikon F from my dad. Also with 35mm F2.0 and 105 F2.5.

Those

lenses are so good I don’t think I’ll be replacing them for (another) 20 years. Too bad this philosophy can’t be applied to my PC. :p
Thanks for the tip, Douglas.

"Douglas MacDonald" wrote in message

Hi Branko…
You might care to hear what I have to say about high data flow rates

on

USB.

before buying something that might be a problem. I still think the

4870

is

the single best scanner in it’s range but there may be problems

getting

it

to run properly.

I just unplugged the old 3200 and plugged in the new one. Then… My

PC

crashed whenever I tried to scan a negative. Epson (don’t you love

people

who are always right-Grrrrr) Told me to check out my hardware. I would probably find that was faulty, not the scanner. I did. New 450 watt

power

supply got the crashing fixed.

When I switched off the scanner while the PC was still on, the PC

would

reboot! I still can’t use Digital ICE and 48 bit mode at the same time

and

use more than 2400 dpi. I updated the BIOS of my (7 months old) PC and

fixed

the reboot problem.

I am absolutely positive USB 2.0 as applied by SIS (the chipset

makers)

is

a

dud under Windows. Even when you apply the (SIS) software patch, there

is

no

guarantee it will work properly. Installed a firewire card. – Fixed!
As to your hardware?
512 RAM is better but 256 will do.
Make sure the motherboard does NOT have an SIS or VIA chipset. Make sure the power supply Unit (PSU) is over 350 watt capacity. Buy a firewire card and cable. Forget USB. It will give you grief. Flash up the BIOS on your mother board.

If this sounds like a lot of trouble… It is. Cost me $200 (AUD) over

the

cost of the scanner to get it working and My PC is only 7 months old!
Douglas
———————

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:03:37 GMT, "Douglas MacDonald" wrote:

When I switched off the scanner while the PC was still on, the PC would reboot! I still can’t use Digital ICE and 48 bit mode at the same time and use more than 2400 dpi. I updated the BIOS of my (7 months old) PC and fixed the reboot problem.

I am absolutely positive USB 2.0 as applied by SIS (the chipset makers) is a dud under Windows. Even when you apply the (SIS) software patch, there is no guarantee it will work properly. Installed a firewire card. – Fixed!
As to your hardware?
512 RAM is better but 256 will do.
Make sure the motherboard does NOT have an SIS or VIA chipset. Make sure the power supply Unit (PSU) is over 350 watt capacity. Buy a firewire card and cable. Forget USB. It will give you grief. Flash up the BIOS on your mother board.

If this sounds like a lot of trouble… It is. Cost me $200 (AUD) over the cost of the scanner to get it working and My PC is only 7 months old!
Douglas

I just want to emphasize the bit about USB. I’m about to buy a film scanner. I’m purchasing the Minolta Dimage 5400 in preference to the new Nikon Coolscan V simply because the Minolta is has a firewire connection (actually, it has both, but USB was, and still is, IMHO, nowhere near as stable as firewire).

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Branko Vukelic" …

Hmmm… My PC’s based around a Chaintech version of VIA. Pretty good mb. Hasn’t let me down so far. But I’m on WinXP, which is pretty much like Win2k as far as hardware compatibility goes. However, 2k’s been pretty unstable unpathced on the same machine… So I guess that, like Win98, WinXP might be a better bet than 2k as far as the Epson goes.

Wow, it’s still a bit risky, you know. I really don’t have the budget for a firewire AND the scanner…

When you find out more, be sure to post the findings in this thread, please. I’m planning on getting *a* scanner in next two or three month.

Another perspective on the Epson 4870 for you. My own experience with this scanner is largely favourable, bearing in mind its multi purpose use and its price a combination that surely isn’t bettered by any other scanner. I have a Nikon Coolscan IV to compare it against for 35mm scans and I have to say it comes close. It is softer than the Nikon, the appearance of a sharpened 4870 scan is similar to an unsharpened Nikon scan. Colourwise the Epson is possibly a bit more accurate straight from the scan. The trump card for the Epson is its touted 3.8 dmax, well I can’t quote figures but I can tell you it does a damn fine job of revealing detail in its scans, every bit as good as the Nikon on shadow detail and less prone to blow out highlights. You want recommendations of using the 4870 for 35mm up to A4 size, I’d say yes if your originals are up to it and if you always bear in mind it is a low priced scanner. If you want to see every last bit of detail needle sharp then it will probably disappoint.
I bought mine for medium format scanning for which it is a better choice but if you are wanting to scan 35mm film and prints then it’s a combination that makes the 4870 a good deal for you too.

Will it work on your system. Well at the risk of making folks shudder, the spec of my computer is likely as low as you’ll come across and I have had no problem using the scanner. I use it with USB2 as I have no firewire, my processor is an AMD K6-2 400mhz I do have 640mb of memory, which I’m assuming helps though any large file size scans are slowish to handle once in PS. The scanner itself installed flawlessly, the biggest problem I’ve had has been due to running out of space on my C drive where my OS and Programs are and I’m loathe to reinstal anything at present as I’m waiting for finances to recover so I can get my dedicated photoshop machine and relieve this old one of its burden. I made a bad partitioning decision some time ago the consequences of which I just have to live with for now. If your computer is free from these problems I think it should handle the 4870 alright. One thing though, I haven’t used ICE at all and I haven’t scanned at greater than 3200. Why have a nice new scanner with ICE and not use it? I do mostly black and white and ICE doesn’t work with conventional (i.e. non C41 processed) black and white. It doesn’t work with Kodachrome either which accounts for a fair bit of my 35mm colour. And no higher than 3200? For medium format the file sizes would be too big for a dubious improvement by going to 4800 and the 35mm I’ve done has been in comparison to my Nikon which scans at 2900.

I think you asked for price ranges on the 4870. Here in the UK the best deal I’ve seen is from Amazon for £299, or was it £295, with free delivery. In the States you’d pay a lot less (surprise, surprise) but you won’t get Epson Smart Panel (no big loss and certainly not worth the extra we have to pay).

I note you don’t have USB2 nor did I, but I added a USB2 card for about £10 to £15 off ebay some time ago that sorted that, you could do the same for USB2 or firewire. By the way the scanner will work on plain vanilla USB but will of course be slower. Your 256 mb RAM might slow things a little. One way to ease it might be to use the scanner as a stand alone rather than from within Photoshop so you don’t have the pair of them fighting for resources. The Epson isn’t as greedy as the Nikon in this regard, Nikon and PS open at the same time really bogs my computer, mind you it has its moments with Word. Chances are you’ll find your machine copes okay if mine does. Your memory problem will still be a problem with any other scanner you might choose so an upgrade might be in order regardless.

For your print and 3D object scanning this is a lot more scanner than you really need but add in your 35mm needs and it is probably made "just for you".

Brian
(the other one)

Hecate …

I just want to emphasize the bit about USB. I’m about to buy a film scanner. I’m purchasing the Minolta Dimage 5400 in preference to the new Nikon Coolscan V simply because the Minolta is has a firewire connection (actually, it has both, but USB was, and still is, IMHO, nowhere near as stable as firewire).

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

You might want to check the user reports on the 5400. The firewire improvement might be outdone by flaky software and build quality.

No first hand experience, it’s just that I believe everything I read 🙂
Plus I think you really need some Nikon gear somewhere in your life.

Brian
(the other one)
who wishes he’d got the Coolscan V instead of his IV. Never felt that way about the 5400. Conclusive or what?

On 6 Mar 2004 14:44:17 -0800, (mono) wrote:

You might want to check the user reports on the 5400. The firewire improvement might be outdone by flaky software and build quality.
No first hand experience, it’s just that I believe everything I read 🙂
Plus I think you really need some Nikon gear somewhere in your life.
Brian
(the other one)
who wishes he’d got the Coolscan V instead of his IV. Never felt that way about the 5400. Conclusive or what?

Thanks Brian. I’d just been going by reviews which were generally "they’re both just as good but the Nikon software is marginally better".

One thing I’ve found out since I posted this is that the Minolta can’t batch scan in the way the Nikon can – although the add-ons are expensive, the Nikon isn’t limited to the 4 slide, 6 tranny/neg holders that the Minolta is.

I’ll Google for some user feedback on the Minolta and see what happens.

BTW, I like some things Nikon. Funnily enough, although I’m a Canon user I’ve always wanted an FM2n since I tried one out in a Grays of Westminster (which will only mean something to people from the UK <g>).

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

One thing I’ve found out since I posted this is that the Minolta can’t batch scan in the way the Nikon can – although the add-ons are expensive, the Nikon isn’t limited to the 4 slide, 6 tranny/neg holders that the Minolta is.

–
Have you looked into the AGFA T2000XL

Large format reflective flatbed (12×18) –
and non glass transparent (up to 4×5) and glass mount
transparency scanning to 9×12.
Batch scanning up to 16 – 35mm transparencies.
Very high rez and excellent density.
Versitile solid software, all color managed – etc … etc.

MSD

Update on 4870 and out of memory problems..
I went out and bought a new mainboard last week. I only got around to installing it yesterday. The board is a Shuttle AV49PN and has a VIA chipset. It was half the price of an identical board with an Intel chipset so I thought I’d give it a go because it can use 800 MHz Front Side Bus (FSB) as well as 533 (my current processor).

It would seem that the MSI board with SIS chipset I previously had was the cause of the scanner’s miss behaviour. I scanned a single 6cm x 9cm negative at 4800 dpi in 48 bit colour with ICE enabled. No problem at all. Happy now!

Batch scanning is one area not previously mentioned in conjunction with the Epson scanner. Simply by drawing the selection tool over every one of the 24 frames in the preview and selecting ‘all’ before commencing a scan, will result in 24 seperate images being cascaded into Photoshop (CS) for manipulation or whatever. Between 4 and 9 minutes each scan, depending on ICE or no ICE.

FOr me, this might be a lot slower that the top Minolta or Nikon but I don’t have to keep changing film strips while it happens. I can go on with other chores. I think this is one of the better features of this really good scanner.

Douglas

"Hecate" wrote in message

On 6 Mar 2004 14:44:17 -0800, (mono) wrote:

sniped

One thing I’ve found out since I posted this is that the Minolta can’t batch scan in the way the Nikon can – although the add-ons are expensive, the Nikon isn’t limited to the 4 slide, 6 tranny/neg holders that the Minolta is.

sniped

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Okay, thanks. I can manage a USB 2.0. Have just read an article about USB
2.0 vs. Firewire. It states that Firewire doesn’t give you any significant
advantage if you’re not into video… So I guess USB 2.0 will be just fine for me.

I don’t need speed. I always take things as they come and I don’t try to rush things. So speed is really not an issue. As long as the scanner works…

"mono" wrote in message

"Branko Vukelic" wrote in message

news:<c28h8q$t4e$>…

Hmmm… My PC’s based around a Chaintech version of VIA. Pretty good mb. Hasn’t let me down so far. But I’m on WinXP, which is pretty much like

Win2k

as far as hardware compatibility goes. However, 2k’s been pretty

unstable

unpathced on the same machine… So I guess that, like Win98, WinXP

might be

a better bet than 2k as far as the Epson goes.

Wow, it’s still a bit risky, you know. I really don’t have the budget

for a

firewire AND the scanner…

When you find out more, be sure to post the findings in this thread,

please.

I’m planning on getting *a* scanner in next two or three month.

Another perspective on the Epson 4870 for you. My own experience with this scanner is largely favourable, bearing in mind its multi purpose use and its price a combination that surely isn’t bettered by any other scanner. I have a Nikon Coolscan IV to compare it against for 35mm scans and I have to say it comes close. It is softer than the Nikon, the appearance of a sharpened 4870 scan is similar to an unsharpened Nikon scan. Colourwise the Epson is possibly a bit more accurate straight from the scan. The trump card for the Epson is its touted 3.8 dmax, well I can’t quote figures but I can tell you it does a damn fine job of revealing detail in its scans, every bit as good as the Nikon on shadow detail and less prone to blow out highlights. You want recommendations of using the 4870 for 35mm up to A4 size, I’d say yes if your originals are up to it and if you always bear in mind it is a low priced scanner. If you want to see every last bit of detail needle sharp then it will probably disappoint.
I bought mine for medium format scanning for which it is a better choice but if you are wanting to scan 35mm film and prints then it’s a combination that makes the 4870 a good deal for you too.
Will it work on your system. Well at the risk of making folks shudder, the spec of my computer is likely as low as you’ll come across and I have had no problem using the scanner. I use it with USB2 as I have no firewire, my processor is an AMD K6-2 400mhz I do have 640mb of memory, which I’m assuming helps though any large file size scans are slowish to handle once in PS. The scanner itself installed flawlessly, the biggest problem I’ve had has been due to running out of space on my C drive where my OS and Programs are and I’m loathe to reinstal anything at present as I’m waiting for finances to recover so I can get my dedicated photoshop machine and relieve this old one of its burden. I made a bad partitioning decision some time ago the consequences of which I just have to live with for now. If your computer is free from these problems I think it should handle the 4870 alright. One thing though, I haven’t used ICE at all and I haven’t scanned at greater than 3200. Why have a nice new scanner with ICE and not use it? I do mostly black and white and ICE doesn’t work with conventional (i.e. non C41 processed) black and white. It doesn’t work with Kodachrome either which accounts for a fair bit of my 35mm colour. And no higher than 3200? For medium format the file sizes would be too big for a dubious improvement by going to 4800 and the 35mm I’ve done has been in comparison to my Nikon which scans at 2900.
I think you asked for price ranges on the 4870. Here in the UK the best deal I’ve seen is from Amazon for

"Douglas MacDonald" …

It would seem that the MSI board with SIS chipset I previously had was the cause of the scanner’s miss behaviour. I scanned a single 6cm x 9cm negative at 4800 dpi in 48 bit colour with ICE enabled. No problem at all. Happy now!

Was that with Epsonscan or Silverfast? And are you using the supplied film holders or third party? Mine won’t even touch a 6 x 9 at 4800 and 48 bit "without" ICE. Not a problem yet as my largest negs are 6 x 7 which do work but I’m lusting after a Fuji GSW690, so…

Batch scanning is one area not previously mentioned in conjunction with the Epson scanner. Simply by drawing the selection tool over every one of the 24 frames in the preview and selecting ‘all’ before commencing a scan, will result in 24 seperate images being cascaded into Photoshop (CS) for manipulation or whatever. Between 4 and 9 minutes each scan, depending on ICE or no ICE.

FOr me, this might be a lot slower that the top Minolta or Nikon but I don’t have to keep changing film strips while it happens. I can go on with other chores. I think this is one of the better features of this really good scanner.

Here, here. When I finally get a faster computer for Photoshop I’ll relegate this one to scanning duties so it can sit quietly getting on with batch scans. The actual scanning doesn’t appear to need a particularly cutting edge processor as the times I’m getting are very similar to what other people are listing.

Now then, where’s the mini review? With sample scans I hope.

Brian
(the other one)

The review is a little late coming. Getting the thing to work properly is the first consideration. The pagefile size under Windows 2k is part of the problem that causes "cannot allocate sufficient memory" errors.

The Silverfast supplied with the scanner is, IMHO a total dud. Someone suggested downloading the ‘real’ silverfast from their site but I have not done that. I did purchase Vuescan when I was having problems and this program worked… What it didn’t do is more important than what it did do.

Colour is the defining area here. There is no question at all that Epsonscan is first rate at ‘guessing’ the correct colour of a variety of film types. It’s so good, I can’t understand why anyone would not want to use it… Provided of course, they don’t get memory errors.

The scan times are identical with the scanner hooked up to a Celeron via USB (Win 98) and a P4 using Windows 2K with Firewire so yes, using this scanner on a low powered PC should not be a problem. Certainly my early scans suggest it is just as good with 35mm film as it is with 4×5 inch.

Douglas.

"mono" wrote in message

"Douglas MacDonald" wrote in message

news:<FEx2c.91037$>…

Was that with Epsonscan or Silverfast? And are you using the supplied film holders or third party? Mine won’t even touch a 6 x 9 at 4800 and 48 bit "without" ICE. Not a problem yet as my largest negs are 6 x 7 which do work but I’m lusting after a Fuji GSW690, so…
Here, here. When I finally get a faster computer for Photoshop I’ll relegate this one to scanning duties so it can sit quietly getting on with batch scans. The actual scanning doesn’t appear to need a particularly cutting edge processor as the times I’m getting are very similar to what other people are listing.

Now then, where’s the mini review? With sample scans I hope.
Brian
(the other one)