Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: 3200 Epson Pro Scanner versus the Non Pro Version for LF

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Forest Grove, Ore.
    Posts
    3,318

    3200 Epson Pro Scanner versus the Non Pro Version for LF

    Perhaps someone can help me. I'm going to purchase a 3200, and I'm trying to decide between the Pro versus the non-Pro systems. I know that the Pro comes with the following additional software. I have a Pentium PC.

    CD-ROM with LaserSoft® SilverFast® Ai 6 (Ai versus the standard edition.)

    CD-ROM with ArcSoft® Suite

    Monaco EZcolor™ Software and IT8 Targets

    Is this software worth the additional cost for the Pro version? What would be the advantages of the Pro version for LF photography?

    I'm thinking of getting the Color Vision color management software. Does this make sense, if I'm planning on getting one of the Epson UltraChrome printers. (2200 or 4000.) Would I be better off getting the Epson 3200 Pro, given that it would come with the Monaco EZColor™ Software and IT8 targets.

  2. #2

    3200 Epson Pro Scanner versus the Non Pro Version for LF

    Hi Neil, I'd buy the standard scanner and then the Color Vision software and of course the Spyder calibrator unit. It is not that hard to get excellent scans from the Epson software. You will then be able to work on a calibrated monitor that you can more or less trust to show you accurate colors. Adjust the scans to look as you think they should and print. From this point I think small tweaks in your printer drivers will get you very close. That's the most value for your money.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,217

    3200 Epson Pro Scanner versus the Non Pro Version for LF

    I've seen several discussions of this question. If you want something more elaborate than the full version of SilverFast, you should consider Vuescan (www.hamrick.com) instead. Many of us use it and are very happy with it. It costs considerably less than SilverFast or the $200 difference in price between the two versions of the 3200.

    On the other hand, some people have suggested that the color calibration targets and software that come with the Pro version alone may be worth the price. Others disagree.

    My general impression is that you can do as well or better getting the less expensive version and buying your own software separately. Also, if you are just starting out, calibration and similar issues might best be saved until you have more experience.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    7,797

    3200 Epson Pro Scanner versus the Non Pro Version for LF

    Another vote for VueScan over SilverFast.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    638

    3200 Epson Pro Scanner versus the Non Pro Version for LF

    I bought the pro-version.

    I found Monaco printer profiling to be ... well, to be honest, the verdict isn't in yet as I haven't done much color printing since then. For B&W, forget it, it doesn't work.

    Monaco scanner profiling seems to work OK, but I am not sure it is worth it. It may depend on what you do; for me, largely, it isn't that hard to post-adjust to taste. If you need accurate color (eg. product shots), it might be helpful, though I am not 100% confident it is good enough for that.

    Silverfast Ai gives good results. So far, scanning B&W, I have found them better then VueScan which gives, IMO, somewhat flat results. OTOH, although I am familiar with Vuescan, I haven't been doing B&W much in the past (use to scan trannies only). Actually, I think it is a matter of preference.

    IMO, the rest of the software is not worth the CD's they come on if you are -- or aspire to be -- a pro or fine are photographer.

    So, my conclusion: Probably not worth it, though it is close. Having the IT8 targets is nice, and I like having two good scanning options. It was quite a price increment, though.

  6. #6

    3200 Epson Pro Scanner versus the Non Pro Version for LF

    I think it's a fairly close call, too, but I'd vote for the standard 3200 instead of the pro model.

    In the tradition of Internet discussion forums, I'm going to suggest something entirely different than what you asked -- if time isn't critical, consider waiting for the new Epson scanner. Based on the early reports I've seen, it sounds like a 3200 but with holders to scan two 4x5s at the same time and with Digital ICE support. It also supposedly scans at a higher DPI, but since the 3200 isn't much of a resolution jump from the 2450, I kind of doubt it will give any more actual information at the higher DPI.

    I own a 3200, and IMO it's a tremendous value. But it seems like I spend a lot of time cloning out dust in my scans. I might even consider the new scanner down the road just because it has ICE.

  7. #7

    3200 Epson Pro Scanner versus the Non Pro Version for LF

    Neil: The first thing to do when considering the E3200 is forgetting. Forget the resolution claimed, it is as true as the tooth fairy. With 4X5 results can be tolerable but I fail to be impressed by it. I have both Vuescan and the Silverfast that came with the PRO version, and of the two I find Silverfast outstanding and extremely versatile, far more than Vuescan which by comparison is quite limited and a little crude. Yes, I seldom disagree with Leonard but here I will dig in my heels as I have had ample time to use both amd for me Silverfast is not only more intuitive but far more capable. Curve manipulation and histograms in Silverfaast are excellent and best of all, you seldom need them because the autoexposure feature in Silverfast 9 times out of ten hits the nail on the head. Color corrections and white and black point settings in Silverfast are most intuitive also. It has lots of other features like a sensitometer which are most useful, intelligently designed and easy to use. On one thing only I find Vuescan better, infrared cleaning. The GANE dust elimination in Silverfast softens the image excessively where in Vuescan it works without noticeable ill effects. As for the Monaco I find it great. My prints using the 1280 were usually great without custom profiles but with the 2200 they were a disaster until Monaco saved the day. The software is the best part of the offering with the E3200 Pro. Maybe you want to buy yourself a christmas present, but may I suggest, wait. Microtek is soon introducing a glassless flatbed film scanner with excellent DMAX and high resolution (3200) which I hope is more honest than Epson's. One member of this or the other LF forums saw it recently at a show and thought it was the one to get. It will be a little more expensive than the 3200 (~$1200)but if it has the better DMAX and true 3200 resolution it will be worth the wait. Epson also is coming with a 4800 but who knows if the numbers will be as fictitious as for the 3200 which most people claim was a soft upgrade to the 2450. Until the Epson scanner division learns to count I count myself out as an Epson scanner customer. I wish the Epson printer division would show them a thing or two.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    638

    3200 Epson Pro Scanner versus the Non Pro Version for LF

    One warning: ICE -- as it was implemented on my Nikon 8000 anyway -- did not work for traditional B&W films. For C-41 B&W I would expect it would work. For color work, it is a godsend. Actually, I never really realized how well it worked until I started using the Epson. (didn't do B&W on the Nikon).

    I believe it due to poor transmission of infrared (the fourth ICE channel) for B&W.

  9. #9
    Founder QT Luong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1997
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,275

    3200 Epson Pro Scanner versus the Non Pro Version for LF


    Here
    is a comparison between the new Epson 4800 and a 2900dpi Nikon scanner.
    The Nikon is clearly sharper, which confirms Julio's comment. By the way, will
    the Epson 4800 do 5x7 ? They announce all sorts of combinations of small pieces
    of film, but don't mention the actual scanning area. The announcement for the Microtek i900 clearly states that it is a 8x10 glassless transparency scanner.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Paris suburbs, France
    Posts
    124

    3200 Epson Pro Scanner versus the Non Pro Version for LF

    Counting the 24x36 frames at http://www.epson.com.au/products/corporate/perfection4870P.asp it looks like the actual scanning area of the Epson 4870 could be 13x22 cm If so , it would cover the 5x7 inches, but tightly in the width
    D.C.

Similar Threads

  1. Bought new Epson F-3200 transparent scanner...
    By Bernard Languillier in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 23-Jan-2005, 15:13
  2. Epson F-3200 film scanner
    By Joe Hunt in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22-Jan-2005, 12:25
  3. Epson F-3200
    By Eirik Berger in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17-Dec-2004, 11:06
  4. Scanner lid for Epson 3200
    By Eric Rose in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 9-Jun-2004, 06:57
  5. Epson 4870 vs 3200
    By Mark Erickson in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 18-Mar-2004, 07:41

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •