Epson 4990 Scanner

[Morey Kitzman]

Interesting comment from a French discussion group:

Roughly translated: a French magazine "Photographe" latest issue did a review on the 4990 and found that 6 x 7 scans were indistinguishable from the Imacon Flextight 848.

Certainly has be interested for 4x5.

29 Jan 2005, 19:43
Epson 4990 aussi bien, voire mieux que Imacon Flextight 848 ?

Il y a un article assez élogieux sur le scanner Epson 4990 dans le dernier numéro du Photographe (n°1626 de février). Dans cet article, les scans 6x7 de l'Epson ne se distingue pas vraiment de ceux de l'Imacon Flextight 848 (pas vraiment le même prix ;-)

La résolution mesurée est de 2540 (50 cycles/s) au lieu des 4800 annoncée du constructeur. Suffisante donc pour les moyens et grands formats, mais juste suffisante en 24x36 pour un agrandissement 20x30 cm.

Un test comparatif publié par Galerie-Photo :

[Leonard Evens]

Morey,

My high school French is over 50 years old, so I'm not sure I got it all. It appears to say that the true resolution is 2540 ppi, which I find plausible, but what does "50 cycles/s" mean? I would ordinarily interpret that as 50 cycles per second, but that wouldn't make sense here. 2540 ppi would translate to 100 pixels per mm or equivalently 50 line pairs per mm. I suppose that is what was intended. In any event, it is quite good for such a scanner and might suffice for a lot of 35 mm work.

Perhaps the original French correspondent was being careless with his terminology, just as Duane was when he turned the plural "Americans" into the possessive "American's". Or perhaps he left out the subject of the "American's" possessiveness. One can only conjecture what that subject was. :-)

[QT Luong]

Here is the link that was missing at the end of the original post: http://www.galerie-photo.com/comparatif-scanner-epson.html (http://www.galerie-photo.com/comparatif-scanner-epson.html)

PS: Since we have a larger readership (LF is not that popular in France, a relatively small population compared the English-speaking world), why can't we have as much new editorial content as the site refered above ?