Epson 4490 Scanner - Tests and Settings.

I have just put my first results from the Epson 4490 scanner on the
following link. I have also included the settings I used on the scanner,
to help anyone struggling to set the scanner up. This is using the
supplied Epson Scan software, which as far as I can see, seems to be
doing a pretty good job.

http://www.photoscan.150m.com/

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:33:24 -0400, Harry Stottle
wrote:

I have just put my first results from the Epson 4490 scanner on the
following link. I have also included the settings I used on the scanner,
to help anyone struggling to set the scanner up. This is using the
supplied Epson Scan software, which as far as I can see, seems to be
doing a pretty good job.

http://www.photoscan.150m.com/



I enjoyed this

Harry Stottle wrote:

I have just put my first results from the Epson 4490 scanner on the
following link. I have also included the settings I used on the scanner,
to help anyone struggling to set the scanner up. This is using the
supplied Epson Scan software, which as far as I can see, seems to be
doing a pretty good job.

http://www.photoscan.150m.com/

Nice, I already have this scanner myself, and find it very good value
indeed. I'm currently rescanning all my old photos off the negatives
with it, and you can easily see the difference between a scan from a
print and a negative. A well worthwhile purchase.

--
Andy Hewitt
http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:51:17 +0100,
(Andy Hewitt) wrote:


Nice, I already have this scanner myself, and find it very good value
indeed. I'm currently rescanning all my old photos off the negatives
with it, and you can easily see the difference between a scan from a
print and a negative. A well worthwhile purchase.


In a way this is a sad situation.
I mean -- I've been there and done that.

I've got some slides and negatives that
have been through three generations of
film scanners.

If you ever see one of your sharp negatives
or slides scanned on (say) an LS-9000 or a
drum scanner -- you're going to want to re-scan
all your old stuff one more time.

The 4990 is a great value but not in the same
league.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Raphael Bustin wrote:

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:51:17 +0100,
(Andy Hewitt) wrote:


Nice, I already have this scanner myself, and find it very good value
indeed. I'm currently rescanning all my old photos off the negatives
with it, and you can easily see the difference between a scan from a
print and a negative. A well worthwhile purchase.


In a way this is a sad situation.
I mean -- I've been there and done that.

I've got some slides and negatives that
have been through three generations of
film scanners.

If you ever see one of your sharp negatives
or slides scanned on (say) an LS-9000 or a
drum scanner -- you're going to want to re-scan
all your old stuff one more time.

In my case, that isn't likely to happen.

The 4990 is a great value but not in the same
league.

Indeed not, it wasn't being compared to any such, or anything else come
to that, it was being shown for its own merits. If you can't afford to
spend a four figured sum on a 'Pro' scanner, or indeed simply don't have
the need to, then the 4490 is quite adequate for modest needs.

A lot of my old negatives are now pretty shabby anyway, and I feel I've
probably got the best I can out of them anyway. They are definitely
better than the equally old prints I have, and scanning at higher
resolutions isn't going to improve them much.

For perfect picture quality, I now use a DSLR.

--
Andy Hewitt
http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/

"For perfect picture quality, I now use a DSLR."
I found your picture nice.
What kind of DSLR are you using?

"Andy Hewitt" wrote in message
news:1hnyzfh.luh6ur132u0uuN%wildrover.andy@googlem ail.com...
Raphael Bustin wrote:

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:51:17 +0100,
(Andy Hewitt) wrote:


Nice, I already have this scanner myself, and find it very good value
indeed. I'm currently rescanning all my old photos off the negatives
with it, and you can easily see the difference between a scan from a
print and a negative. A well worthwhile purchase.


In a way this is a sad situation.
I mean -- I've been there and done that.

I've got some slides and negatives that
have been through three generations of
film scanners.

If you ever see one of your sharp negatives
or slides scanned on (say) an LS-9000 or a
drum scanner -- you're going to want to re-scan
all your old stuff one more time.

In my case, that isn't likely to happen.

The 4990 is a great value but not in the same
league.

Indeed not, it wasn't being compared to any such, or anything else come
to that, it was being shown for its own merits. If you can't afford to
spend a four figured sum on a 'Pro' scanner, or indeed simply don't have
the need to, then the 4490 is quite adequate for modest needs.

A lot of my old negatives are now pretty shabby anyway, and I feel I've
probably got the best I can out of them anyway. They are definitely
better than the equally old prints I have, and scanning at higher
resolutions isn't going to improve them much.

For perfect picture quality, I now use a DSLR.

--
Andy Hewitt
http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/

"The 4990 is a great value but not in the same
league"
I hear you. Your photos gallery is impressive. Let see your league and
compare it with the 4990 histogram for histogram.


"Raphael Bustin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:51:17 +0100,
(Andy Hewitt) wrote:


Nice, I already have this scanner myself, and find it very good value
indeed. I'm currently rescanning all my old photos off the negatives
with it, and you can easily see the difference between a scan from a
print and a negative. A well worthwhile purchase.


In a way this is a sad situation.
I mean -- I've been there and done that.

I've got some slides and negatives that
have been through three generations of
film scanners.

If you ever see one of your sharp negatives
or slides scanned on (say) an LS-9000 or a
drum scanner -- you're going to want to re-scan
all your old stuff one more time.

The 4990 is a great value but not in the same
league.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:19:23 GMT, wrote:

"The 4990 is a great value but not in the same
league"
I hear you. Your photos gallery is impressive. Let see your league and
compare it with the 4990 histogram for histogram.


??? What exactly would you like to compare?

IMO, there's no point comparing histograms,
because color content is so variable and subjective.
Lack of skill or care can easily screw up a histogram,
even with the best of scanners. Furthermore (to
some extent) histograms can be messed up (or
fixed up) in post-processing.

There is some point to comparing sharpness and
resolution, which I have done (see URL below.)


rafe b
scan snippets:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

old Franka folding camera at f16

The old Franka is doing itself proud at 50 years!

Doug
--
www.BetterScanning.com - Custom Film Holders and Accessories for Agfa,
Microtek and Epson Scanners

??? What exactly would you like to compare?

A picture taking by the same camera and scanned with your scanner and then
with the 4490.
Also an old 120 black and white negative previewed at 8 bits and 16 bits
gray scale And then scan at 600 - 2400 dpi and then enlarged. The quality
of the enlargement should provide ground for discussion between both
scanner.
BTW, I am not trying to denigrate your scanner. The purchasing cost of the
4490 is much lower. If I use cost to evaluation quality then the 4490 is of
a lower quality. At this time, I cannot evaluate the dependability of the
4490. It may only last a year of two or better? The other question is what
is quality and how do we describe it. When designing or buying how much
should I spend for more quality. If I spent 50% more and only get 10% more
in quality it becomes a matter of preference.





"Raphael Bustin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:19:23 GMT, wrote:

"The 4990 is a great value but not in the same
league"
I hear you. Your photos gallery is impressive. Let see your league and
compare it with the 4990 histogram for histogram.


??? What exactly would you like to compare?

IMO, there's no point comparing histograms,
because color content is so variable and subjective.
Lack of skill or care can easily screw up a histogram,
even with the best of scanners. Furthermore (to
some extent) histograms can be messed up (or
fixed up) in post-processing.

There is some point to comparing sharpness and
resolution, which I have done (see URL below.)


rafe b
scan snippets:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/