Alternative to Epson 4870

[Richard Martel]

Found this link to be of interest. Hope you will too.


http://www.gnyman.com/Personal/Epson3200vsEpson4870vsCanon9900F.htm

[Julian Boulter]

Thanks very much to everyone who replied here - paulr, your reference to wet mounting and float glass sent me off in a whole new direction and I eventually unconvered a product called SCAN+ from Scanmax Technical Graphics.

It appears to be a kit for the Epson 3200 and 4870 which comprises of several items to help improve scan quality including shims, glass plates, masks, and mounting fluid.

Just wondering if anyone has used one of these kits before and what their experiences were? It seems quite expensive but I'll give it a try if others report good improvments.

Thanks

[Kirk Gittings]

I can find nothing about SCAN+ from Scanmax Technical Graphics when I google the names. Where can I find out more about it?

[Julian Boulter]

Ok, just found the link:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/gluemax/ScanMax/scanmaxbrochure4.pdf

Julian

[Kirk Gittings]

Actually my memory is failing here. I did find that a few months ago but couldn't get any response from them. They may be out of business.

[Julian Boulter]

Kirk,

I mailed them for information and they have been very responsive so they appear to be very much in business.

Everything they say about the kit seems to make perfect sense and it costs $95 which is quite expensive but if the improvement is significant I am willing to give it a go.

[eric may]

I am wondering if anyone bought this kit and if I could hear some feedback on the kit? Do you feel it has been worth the cost of the kit? Thanks in advance, I am trying to find a kit that will accomadate polaroid negatives (665 and type 55). Does anyone have any suggestions for others kits that will accomodate these negatives?

eric may

[Keith S. Walklet]

I don't have any experience with the wet mount kits for flatbeds, but I have been doing some tests to determine, given the improvements in scanner technology, whether the common approach of "not sharpening at the scan stage" still makes sense. I am particularly intrigued with comparisons between drum scans, a Nikon 8000 and the Epson. No argument that the drums are the best. Still, the results were surprising, especially when comparing the Nikon 8000 to the Epson 4870.

What I found was when scanning with the Epson, I obtain a file that was nearly identical in all respects with Nikon when I applied the scanner's Epson Medium USM setting.

I also wanted to put a number on the Epson's sharpening levels compared to the sharpening achieved in Photoshop, to see what the baseline was. My subjective tests show that the USM on the Epson approximates Photoshop as follows:

Epson Low: 350/3
Epson Medium: 400/3
Epson High: 400/4

True, in Photoshop, one has far greater control over sharpening, but, if one starts in the same place with a Medium USM Epson scan as one would with an unsharpened Nikon 8000, why not use the Epson's built-in sharpening?

I'm curious to hear other's observations on this, as if scanner comparisons aren't confusing enough.