Nikon Coolscan V or Epson 4490

[John]

The Coolscan V costs about $750 Can up here. The 4490 is about $270 after rebate. They both can scan at 4000 dpi. Both come with a version of ICE which is supposed to be very useful and recommended. I will scan 35 mm colour negatives.

I have read scanner 101 and other articles. These flatbed specs keep improving. Is their any chance I would be satisfied with the Epson? Is anyone else out there satisfied with an Epson 4490 or 4990 for scanning 35 mm? I want to be. I do not want to wait till the Coolscan V is $270, (unless it is within 6 months). :) :)

[bmattock]

Would you be satisfied with the flatbed? Hard to say, depend on what your criteria for acceptance is. Dedicated scanners are miles better. With that said, if you are also going to do medium format or even large format, and you can only afford one, then the flatbed is the way to go. If you're going to do 35mm only, I don't see the comparison - night and day.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[John]

The 4490 is a flatbed scanner. One of the specs is 4800 x 9600 dpi. The 9600 is an interpolated number but the 4800 is supposed to be real optical resolution. Still if the 35 mm film scans don't measure up I'll be out that money and still want the real thing.

[aad]

The 4490 will do great on black & white, pretty darned good with color negatives, and a decent job on 35mm slides (with a little work). It does very well on medium format. I can't compare directly with the Nikon, but my negative scans are better than Frontier scans from the local lab. The slides are a close call, with some trade-off.

[paulfitz]

I never had good luck with the 4490, took it back after a week of trying to get the film scans to be sharp. Film holder or flat on the glass, I could not get them to be has sharp as I remember from my old Coolscan III. So I took it back and got two old Coolscan III's off ebay for less money. Cleaned all the optics on one, did nothing to the other and the scans are great - very sharp. But it is only 2700dpi. It will old me until I can get the Coolscan V.

[John]

Glad to hear that aad. I would be starting with colour negative about 95%. I might delve into b&w someday. The odd neighbour might need slides done, but I am not going to start shooting them. I would not have considered a flatbed a few years ago, but things change sometimes.

Do you like the ice feature for colour? :)

[Stephanie Brim]

I would actually go ahead and get the better version of this scanner, the 4990, if you planned on spending more for the other scanner. If you plan to get into medium format at any time, the Epson would be a better buy. If you plan on sticking with 35mm only for a couple years or so, the Nikon may suit you more.

[Iyidin_Kyeimo]

I'm sat within reach of my new 4490 and I'm afraid to say I haven't been bowled over by its performance with 35mm. I'm shooting a lot of medium format lately and it handles that no problem. However, I'm seriously considering getting a Coolscan IV or similar to supplement on the 35mm side... (Would still be a lot cheaper than getting a deticated film scanner that can take MF.)

[GeneW]

I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that there's no comparison between a flatbed and a dedicated scanner for 35mm work. But a flatbed is adequate if you only want to post images on websites or make small prints.

I have an old Epson 2450 I use for my 6x6 negatives, and sometimes I'll scan a 35mm neg on that when I want a 'vintage' soft look to an image. Kinda like using a soft-focus lens ...

Gene

[Bryan Lee]

This is only about the hundreth thread on this subject but here goes. If you are woking in color 35mm negatives get them scanned when you process along with the negatives. If your working in black and white about any old dedicated scanner will work and ICE is not needed. If you are printing off your computer and you need to scan 35mm color in low batch high qaulity get the best dedicated 35mm scanner you can afford. If you are uploading lots of 35mm to the internet then a flatbed with ICE is great for color, but if youre working in B&W only the bigger the light in the top of the scanner the more pictures you can scan at once and again save your money and get one of the older scanners and newer software.

The only option for under a thousand dollars for medium and large format is a flatbed scanner and you will pay around 200 dollars extra for a scanner with ICE. I chose the HP4890 and paid 200 bucks for it as my primary use is large format B&W and it came with a bonus of a Photosmart 325 a one hundred dollar small printer that can operate without a computer and with battaries so it makes a cool toy but was not a factor in my decision of the purchase. Im just learning how to use it now but so far Ive been impressed.

Another cost are secondary puchase of negative holders to make the negative flat upon scanning and possibly adding vuescan or silverfast as the software. Dont expect to buy one scanner to cover all formats or even color and B&W for that matter.

[JoeFriday]

Would you be satisfied with the flatbed? Hard to say, depend on what your criteria for acceptance is. Dedicated scanners are miles better. With that said, if you are also going to do medium format or even large format, and you can only afford one, then the flatbed is the way to go. If you're going to do 35mm only, I don't see the comparison - night and day.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
Bill said exactly what I was going to say

other thoughts.. I don't personally think it's worth spending another $300 on the 4990 over the 4490.. if you really care that much about image quality, get the Coolscan (I own one and love it)

ICE is a 'must have' feature for scanning C41 images.. but worthless for b&w film

I'd suggest getting the Coolscan unless you already know you'll be scanning medium format in the future.. but you can get a 'cheap' flatbed for that when the need arises

[Fred]

I have an 'old' Epson 2450 which is good for MF work but I find it can struggle with MF slides (velvia). For 35mm I also use a Coolscan IV (not made for a couple of years now) and its far better than the Epson on 35mm, but it also struggles with Velvia slides. Both improve loads using Vuescan software.

If I had the cash (which I don't cos I just blown it on a motor cycle) I'd look at the Konica Minolta 5400 II. Thats supposed to be the quadrupeds genitals (don't ask, means the best in class) for scanning 35mm on a (large) budget.

[John]

I am going to wait and get a film scanner. A "deal" will appear someday and I can jump on it. KEH has the Coolscan for $515. I presume it would last for years to come. :) :)

[JoeFriday]

I just looked up a few specs on the Epsons, and was reminded of a few things I had forgotten

the 4490 has a Dmax of 3.4 and is USB 2.0 only
the 4990 has a Dmax of 4.0 and is USB and firewire (IEEE)

keep in mind that the 4490 has a $50 rebate offer through March, which means you can get them for about $170 after the rebate... but I wonder why they're offering the rebate for that unit when it has only been on the market a few months.. unless they're planning to announce something even better next month and want to clear out their inventory first

[dcsang]

Film scanners are far superior (from a cost perspective) as long as you're only scanning 35mm film. Once you jump to scanning medium format film it becomes a bit more cost restrictive for most folks - even used Nikon 8000 ED's can above $1000 USD and new Nikon 9000 ED's are upwards of $1,900 + USD. At that point, the epsons can produce very good Medium format scans at a lower cost factor but you lose the ability to focus the neg/chrome that you would normally.

I have both a dedicated film (Minolta Scan Elite II) and flatbed (Epson 2450) scanner. Both have their benefits and drawbacks and together both cost a lot less than one single dedicated Medium Format/35mm scanner.

Cheers
Dave

[Bryan Lee]

Flatbeds for 35mm are useless for anything outside of internet posting and burning pictures to discs to give away or something. If you have a photolab around see if you can make some special deal or even get a partime job there so you can use their gear. Dont believe any of the numbers shown for flatbed scanner resolution as they are mostly just confusing sales hype, Your own eyes have to be the final judge.

[Fred]

Bryans post is probably right on the button for most flatbed scanners are concerned. However the better specified ones that can do MF (Epson 2450 fits in here and its two later derivatives) are probably more than OK if all you need to print is say A4 or Letter size from a colour negative. No the image quality will not be as good as a dedicated film scanner but for a print to stick in an album or behind glass and viewed from 'normal' distances you should be fine.

If you want to scan a positive for a library, there is probably no real alternative to a dedicated film scanner......... or a real traditional RA4 or chrome wet print. Now that 'can' be hard to do and expensive to do at home.

[aad]

In belated answer, John, the color negative performance on the 4490 is about indistinguishable from the Frontier scans that come from the lab. Prints made from them (up to 5x7) are as good as lab scan/prints as well under a 10x loupe. I don't have a Coolscan or Minolta to compare. Slides will come out good but take a lot of work. For 8x10 or larger, I imagine a dedicated scanner may be better, but I think I'll either have those done outside, or shoot MF. Either is cheaper than spending money on scanners or lenses for my purpose.

[wdenies]

At least can someone prove with examples that the Nikon gives superior results with 35mm
compared to the Epson?

Wim

[Bertram2]

The 4490 will do great on black & white, pretty darned good with color negatives, and a decent job on 35mm slides (with a little work). It does very well on medium format. I can't compare directly with the Nikon, but my negative scans are better than Frontier scans from the local lab. The slides are a close call, with some trade-off.

I own the 4490 since a while and this would have been exactly my answer too.
Assumed an adaequate postprocessing in PS 35mm scans are good enuff for prints up to 13X18 IMO at least.

bertram

This is all 4490, 6X6 and 35mm BW, an scanned prints

Epson 4490 (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5521)

Andthis is a Provia slide:

[aad]

Well, because I care about you all, I'm going to go out on a limb-

I ordered a refurbished Minolta Dualscan today-should be here Monday or Tuesday. After I get the procedures down, I'll run some direct comparison scans with the 4490 on several slide and negative 35mm shots. I'll post samples here-or on a new thread.

If anyone has suggestions let me know.

If the Minolta is worse, or the same, or insignificantly different, I'll offer the scanner on RFF cheap. If it's better, I'll keep it and the 4490 since I need the medium format capability.

I'm doing this because I've read too many web pages asserting one thing or another on this subject without any indication of a direct comparison with a new Epson.

Any bets on the outcome?

[wrenhunter]

Bertram, that's a great scan (and a nice photo).

[Bertram2]

Bertram, that's a great scan (and a nice photo).
Thanks, glad you liked it ! I found it stunning, did not expect such a result from a 35mm flatbed scan ! A bit work on brightness, contrast and USM is necessary, but that is not more than a filmscanner needs too. I'd expect even a 20X30 jet print looking good enuff for my purposes.
bertram

[aad]

I'm thinking you may be right, Bertram, but I'm too curious.

[aad]

Bertram, is that scan a scan of 35mm?

[Kevin]

I have scanned in close to 500 rolls of 135 on my Epson 3200 Flatbed scanner. This model only holds two strips of negatives for a max of 12 frames per go.

Dust is a problem so I blow compressed air before placing the holder on the bed. Nevertheless, the scanner accumulates dust under the glass plate which I cannot clean.

I spend a lot of time in Photoshop to clean up spots.

My next scanner will be a Nikon Coolscan 5000 with the film roll adapter. After 500 rolls I can now say for sure that I would rather be spending that time doing something else.

If you plan on scanning more than 250 rolls of 135 I suggest any solution other than a flatbed scanner.

[JohnR]

Nevertheless, the scanner accumulates dust under the glass plate which I cannot clean.
Say, would anyone happen to know if this is still the case with the 4990? My cheapo Canon printer/scanner has some sort of residue on the underside which I can't clean, I don't want to be in the same boat if I spring for a 4990 :(

[Bertram2]

Bertram, is that scan a scan of 35mm?

<<...did not expect such a result from a 35mm flatbed scan !>>

That's what i said , and I really meant it ! :D :D I wasn't clear enuff I think.

Bertram

[matti]

Well, because I care about you all, I'm going to go out on a limb-

I ordered a refurbished Minolta Dualscan today-should be here Monday or Tuesday. After I get the procedures down, I'll run some direct comparison scans with the 4490 on several slide and negative 35mm shots. I'll post samples here-or on a new thread.


Interesting! It would be nice to see 100% crops as well as whole frames.
/matti

[aad]

Yes, I think the crops are the only way to see subtle differences on a post such as this. I have Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Velvia and Agfachrome for slides.

I've seen the dust under the glass, and I know one (positive) review of the 4990 by Ken Rockwell mentioned it as well, but neither he nor I can see the effect on scans.

[iñaki]

Thanks, glad you liked it ! I found it stunning, did not expect such a result from a 35mm flatbed scan ! A bit work on brightness, contrast and USM is necessary, but that is not more than a filmscanner needs too. I'd expect even a 20X30 jet print looking good enuff for my purposes.
bertram
Great scanns Bertram.I have this scanner, but my results are far from yours. :bang:
Would you mind sharing your scanning process? Unsharp mask, grain reduction...

[Bertram2]

Great scanns Bertram.I have this scanner, but my results are far from yours. :bang:
Would you mind sharing your scanning process? Unsharp mask, grain reduction...

Scan always at 4800dpi, which is the best non-intertpolated res value of this scanner.
Scan in professional mode, and don't use ANY of the scanner's pre-settings !
Resizing, color, contrast, brightness and USM at PS only.

The output of a scanner is always not more than someting like a "RAW" file,
digitzing a neg or print always changes the pic, more or less, depends on the scanner. To get on the monitor what you see on the print you need adaequate postprocessing.

bertram

[iñaki]

Scan always at 4800dpi, which is the best non-intertpolated res value of this scanner.
Scan in professional mode, and don't use ANY of the scanner's pre-settings !
Resizing, color, contrast, brightness and USM at PS only.

The output of a scanner is always not more than someting like a "RAW" file,
digitzing a neg or print always changes the pic, more or less, depends on the scanner. To get on the monitor what you see on the print you need adaequate postprocessing.

bertram

Thank you Bertram, I´ll try. Could you recomend me some "numbers" for the USM?

[Bertram2]

Thank you Bertram, I´ll try. Could you recomend me some "numbers" for the USM?


80 -200 / 0,5 / 1 , mostly. Do that as the very last step before saving. IF it makes the pic to bright or to contrasty don't take the USM back but adjust Contrast and/or brightnes again

bertram

[wdenies]

Attached 2 scans from 35mm done with the Epson 4870.
Wiil the Nikon give better quality justifying the price difference?

[aad]

I put this on another thread-this was one of the first scans I did after taking Bertram's advice a few weeks ago. I like to think I've got better.

[iñaki]

80 -200 / 0,5 / 1 , mostly. Do that as the very last step before saving. IF it makes the pic to bright or to contrasty don't take the USM back but adjust Contrast and/or brightnes again

bertram

Thank you Bertram :D

[sunsworth]

All the parameters for the dedicated film scanner are better than the flatbed.

I've never noticed a difference between 2400 dpi and 4800 dpi on my flatbed. Sure you get more pixels, but there doesn't seem to be any increase in definition.

Try applying USM with parameters of 15%, 55, 1 to give the scans a 'lift'.

Steve


Steve

[Bertram2]

All the parameters for the dedicated film scanner are better than the flatbed.
I've never noticed a difference between 2400 dpi and 4800 dpi on my flatbed. Sure you get more pixels, but there doesn't seem to be any increase in definition.
Try applying USM with parameters of 15%, 55, 1 to give the scans a 'lift'.
Steve
Steve

Steve ,
were the 4800 a hardware resolution or a interpolated value ?
anyway I had the impression that a 35mm neg scanned with 4800 and resized to the 700X500 monitor size looked clearer than a 2400, also resized to the same values. I haven't really tested it tho precisely by a 5x crop.

Of course the flatbeds aren't a comparable to dedicated film scanners, but for those who want to scan MF negs or prints too and who scan 135 film for the monitor only or for small jet prints with max. 13X18cm they are a reasonable compromise I'd say.

In my case it pays itself, i had to pay the lab CDs with 4 Euro each, and i got poor 1100X1600 scans only. After 55 rolls this 4490 begins to make money !
:D

Best,
Bertram

[sunsworth]

Bertram, the 4800 is a hardware resolution.

I agree that compared to the small scans that standard mini-labs produce the flatbed is better.

Steve