Leigh, thanks for adding the new Epson scans.
I just saw this link
to a
Tango v. Epson comparison. The difference between the Tango and the Epson is much less
than in the images you posted. In fact, this difference appears minimal to my eyes ! Yet, your findings seem to indicate that the Epson is clearly inferior to the Tango (as I expected), and even to the Microtek. Comments ?
You see these things sometimes - people using an unsharp original to evaluate a scanner, or bad technique with a scanner, or whatever.
Having done MANY comparisons of Epsons vs Imacons and Drums, I find the differences easily visible in prints of A4 size even from medium and large format trannies. The Imacons and Drums are close (especially off a 949), the Epsons miles behind in sharpness when you scan an original that is actually sharp. (But 95% of people can't actually shoot sharp anyway!)
People with flatbeds are kidding themselves. It's easy to see it in real prints and unfortunately with the standards of testing floating around the web you just have to do the test for yourself to see it...
Jeremy, what makes you think that Clark's comparison is flawed ? If you take a tour around his site, you will
see that he writes a lot about image quality and goes into great details.
First and foremost, experience.
Scanning an obviously unsharp original is not a great way to test a scanner for one.
I have an Epson 4870 sitting next to an Imacon 949 on my desk, and a good friend owns a crossfield drum scanner. I've scanned over 100,000 transperancies over the last 4 years (professionally). I doubt too many people can say that (and I wish I couldn't as well!!).
I have learned, for instance, that the Imacon at 1600 PPI picks up more detail than the Epson 4870 at 4800PPI even though the files are vastly smaller (same way I know a Canon 1DS MK2 file has more detail than about 90% of people's 35mm trannies but a good shooter with faultless technique with Velvia still gets a much better print above A4 with the Velvia than the Canon, as long as the Velvia is scanned on a Flextight or a Drum).
It's a really easy test to do. Take a really good, ****sharp*** tranny with lots of deep shadows, and scan it on every scanner you can get your hands on. Then, scan it about 50 more times until you really understand each scanner. Profile the scanners if necessary (pref. with a Hutch target).
Then, take the files, do your very best with each one in terms of processing the files, and have each one printed at A4, A3, letter etc (sorry, thats roughly US letter, double US letter, more). Then, look at the prints. And then have a whole bunch of other people look at the prints.
Once you get above very small prints you will see - the Epson prints will have less real detail. Rock will look less three dimensional because the really fine detail has been obliterated by the piss poor optics. Fine blades of grass will not be as distinct. Tonal separation on the Epson prints will be inferior in a way that is hard to put your finger on but is very visible. The Epson prints will lack any real shadow detail and have a kind of clumpy mess look to it.
Incidentally, I have owned a 2450 before the 4870 and I do think they are good tools for the money - great for proof scanning multiple negs at a time etc. But don't kid yourself there up there for scanning high quality landscape trannies unless all you print is 10 by 8s.
Of course if you scanny a blurry, bad tranny then all the scans will be blurry too and the whole thing is moot.
I've read Clark, (and Koren, Reichmann etc) in detail and I'm certainly not anti-digital or even anti-Epson (all my commercial work is done on digital), but I personally shoot 6x12 and 4x5 and scan on the Flextight 949. I do this because I've tested it and at 20 by 40" the differences are night and day. Most prints I sell are 15 by 30" up, so that's what I look at.
So, in summary, the reason I think Clark's test is flawed is because I have, many times, done the same test and reached a vastly different conclusion - I'm 99.99% certain Clark is wrong on this one. I don't really care about all the other bunkum on signal-to-noise versus spatial etc, I just care what the prints look like. I'm very output centric because all I can sell it the output!
Maybe Clark has a freakishly bad drum or a freakishly good Epson somehow? I don't know, but having owned and extensibvely used several of the scanners in question, I know Clark's results are not the norm.
How does your 949 compares to known drum scanners (such as the ones in the test) on 4x5 ?
What about 5x7 ? I am always a bit worried by the decreasing resolution of the Imacons as film
format increases. Would you be willing to scan Leigh's tranny on it ? If so, please contact him.
In my experience, it compares very favourably. With 6 by 12s I've never felt a need for anything more than the 949 and I haven't met an operator who can consistently deliver me a better file than I can with the 949. The 949 is a big improvement over the earlier Precisions/Photos etc that are in that test.
I don't shoot 5 by 7 and I'm not sure there is a holdr for 5 by 7 for the Imacons in any case, sorry.
Very occasionally if I have call for a VERY large print of a 4 by 5 then I go for a drum scan, but that is the only time and its not very often I run out of pixels. The Imacon is so clean and sharp that even if you end up with 200PPI or so, you can still get a very nice print.
I'm happy to scan Leighs tranny...although I think the 'wack the levels up' shadow test at the end isn't very good.
Having done my own tests with the Epson vs. the Nikon 8000 and TANGO, I look forward to receiving Leigh's tranny. Regardless, I am also really impressed with the functionality of the website he has devised to compare the results. So much so that I can imagine only one way to improve upon it. If there were two columns of windows so that one could have two different scanners results side by side, it would be an excellent method to compare the results. Awesome effort regardless!
Keith, I've thought about that, but it's easy enough to open a second browser window.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm just back from holidays.
I'm aware of the comparison by RN Clark, but I don't really have any insight into his contradictory results. Inevitably the operator has some bearing on the scans, although perhaps more so with the high-end scanners than the flatbeds. Because our comparison has been performed by different operators under the control of a range of software, objective conclusions cannot really be drawn. I must admin that the results I have collated do fit with my own experiences and expectations a little more than RN Clark's, but I am by no means an authority on scanning -- I'm as much an interested observer in all this as the rest of you, and a sizeable proportion of my motivation in coordinating the study is the self-interested research of my next scanner purchase :-)
I do see a consistency in our results across the three Epson models -- the scans show an incremental rather than quantum increase in resolution from each model to its successor. But I also look forward to Keith’s version of the Epson 4870 scan, since his experiences seem to affirm that with operator expertise the Epson can approach drum scans.
I have now received a Howtek 7500 scan that I’ll process tomorrow night. In the next few days are ICG 350i and ICG 380 drum scanners.
If I get time over the coming weeks, I'll also look at alternative display options that might make comparison easier.
Cheers.
Leigh Perry
www.leighperry.com
Another browser window! Duh!
With QT's suggestion, Leigh, I wouldn't worry too much about a second column.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks