As requested, a comparison between the Epson 4990 and the Nikon 8000ED using 120 film.

http://www.mattclara.com/misc/8000ED...ED-v-4990.html

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Matt Clara" wrote:

http://www.mattclara.com/misc/8000ED...ED-v-4990.html

Thanks!

That's less of a difference than I saw with Provia 100F (4870, not 4990).

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original

" won't be using the 4990 to scan medium-format film,"

Hmm. You can't print that Nikon 8000 image at 300 ppi and not barf, so I'm
not so sure about that.

Although I routinely get flamed for this, Provia 100F only holds up to 7x or
8x, and ISO 400 B&W isn't much good over 5 or 6x. Since 6x is 1800 ppi, if
you noise reduced both scans at the native resolutions and then downsampled
both to 1800 ppi, I wonder if you'd see a difference? Or with Provia 100F
downsampled to 2100 ppi?

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:01:20 GMT, "Matt Clara"
wrote:

http://www.mattclara.com/misc/8000ED...ED-v-4990.html


Interesting!

The 4990 resolves better than I was expecting.

But the noise is awful, compared to the Nikon.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
"Matt Clara" wrote:

http://www.mattclara.com/misc/8000ED...ED-v-4990.html

I do see a problem the crops are not exactly the same, probably not a
big deal but there never the less.
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

www.gregblankphoto(dot)com

In article ,
"Matt Clara" wrote:

http://www.mattclara.com/misc/8000ED...ED-v-4990.html

Btw thanks for doing the scans and comparison :-)
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

Recently, Matt Clara posted:

http://www.mattclara.com/misc/8000ED...ED-v-4990.html

Thanks for posting this comparison! Here's my take on it:

The scans are actually quite comparable w/r/t image detail. The Epson scan
has a lower contrast than the Nikon, and therefore shows greater tonality
in the shadow areas. This could be easily adjusted in post-processing to
suit, while the shadow areas in the Nikon scan may not have the detail to
work with. In that regard, I'd rather work with the Epson scan than the
Nikon! That said, the difference could really be in the scan settings,
rather than scanner performance.

Also, rather than "downsample" to show the same pixel dimensions in a
comparison -- a practice that I think is dubious -- it would be better to
show the same physical size, e.g. a .5" x .5" area at the respective
resolutions. Looking at the 4800 ppi scan, the details do seem to be
better resolved than in the Nikon scan (look at the shape of the smaller
shadows above the life bouy), and the downsampled version loses some of
this, making the two look more similar.

Regards,

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. net...
Recently, Matt Clara posted:

http://www.mattclara.com/misc/8000ED...ED-v-4990.html

Thanks for posting this comparison! Here's my take on it:

The scans are actually quite comparable w/r/t image detail. The Epson scan
has a lower contrast than the Nikon, and therefore shows greater tonality
in the shadow areas. This could be easily adjusted in post-processing to
suit, while the shadow areas in the Nikon scan may not have the detail to
work with. In that regard, I'd rather work with the Epson scan than the
Nikon! That said, the difference could really be in the scan settings,
rather than scanner performance.

Also, rather than "downsample" to show the same pixel dimensions in a
comparison -- a practice that I think is dubious -- it would be better to
show the same physical size, e.g. a .5" x .5" area at the respective
resolutions. Looking at the 4800 ppi scan, the details do seem to be
better resolved than in the Nikon scan (look at the shape of the smaller
shadows above the life bouy), and the downsampled version loses some of
this, making the two look more similar.

Regards,

Neil






Hmmm. Nope, the 8000ED clearly has better detail throughout--the epson
resolves the HP5 grain as golfball sized smudges, while the 8000ED resolves
the grain as grain! I agree that the differences in lightness and dark
could be resolved in the scanning software--that wasn't my focus for this
test, perhaps it should have been.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:28:58 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, Matt Clara posted:

http://www.mattclara.com/misc/8000ED...ED-v-4990.html

Thanks for posting this comparison! Here's my take on it:

The scans are actually quite comparable w/r/t image detail. The Epson scan
has a lower contrast than the Nikon, and therefore shows greater tonality
in the shadow areas. This could be easily adjusted in post-processing to
suit, while the shadow areas in the Nikon scan may not have the detail to
work with. In that regard, I'd rather work with the Epson scan than the
Nikon! That said, the difference could really be in the scan settings,
rather than scanner performance.

Also, rather than "downsample" to show the same pixel dimensions in a
comparison -- a practice that I think is dubious -- it would be better to
show the same physical size, e.g. a .5" x .5" area at the respective
resolutions. Looking at the 4800 ppi scan, the details do seem to be
better resolved than in the Nikon scan (look at the shape of the smaller
shadows above the life bouy), and the downsampled version loses some of
this, making the two look more similar.


That is a very strange interpretation , to put it mildly.

In no way is the Epson scan better than the Nikon.

The Epson sample is dominated by noise, and I
have a hard time explaining that. Perhaps there's
some post-processing going on that causes the
grain to appear far coarser than in the Nikon scan.

It's as if one image was a scan of Tri-X pushed
two stops, and the other of Pan-X.

How can the Epson, with 20% more spec
resolution, deliver chunkier grain from the
same film sample?

What the heck. Thanks to Matt for posting these.
My 4990 should be arriving soon, and I'll post
further samples, on different film types.

OTOH, Neil... if you prefer the Epson scan, that
is very good news for you, and may save you
a cool $1500 or so. Lucky guy.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
says...
http://www.mattclara.com/misc/8000ED...ED-v-4990.html


As has been mentioned many times a realistic work flow would include
some unsharp mask post processing (especially on the Epson).
So, perhaps you could add that as a final comparison. People think
this is "cheating", but it is not. Because the computer software
can apply "negative" density it can actually restore image detail.
A detail in the image that spills on to adjacent sensors can be
corrected by subtracting the spill over and boosting the density
of the central sensor. I have short description in my tips section.

Having said all that the Epson 4870/4990 are widely acknowledged to
be more like 3200 dpi resolution at the best. This is still enough
for a good 10x enlargement which should yield a 20x24 inch image
with no interpolation.

Just remember sharpening is really necessary for almost all digital
scans.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

rafe b wrote:

That is a very strange interpretation , to put it mildly.

In no way is the Epson scan better than the Nikon.

The Epson sample is dominated by noise, and I
have a hard time explaining that. Perhaps there's
some post-processing going on that causes the
grain to appear far coarser than in the Nikon scan.


The noise would seem to be more from the film base then the image
itself. You
can see the noise is differance between the two is much higher in the
shadow areas.
I would bet that in an area of d-min the Epson would still show a fair
bit of noise and the Nikon much less.

My guess is that the Nikon is using faster optics, this would make it
less susceptible to phase noise in the film. The film is not
perfectly homogenous, there is a fair bit of scattering of light that
passes through it. In a fast system the imaging lens captures all of
this light and you only image variations in the transmission of the
film, but a imaging lens with a smaller aperture can miss some of the
scattered light and begin to show it up. The illumination path can
also have a large impact on this as well, it is also possible that the
Nikon has a more controlled illumination system.

It would be interesting to run some of the unexposed part of the
negative throught both
scanners and compare the output.

Scott