Epsion 4990 best resolution?

[Rider]

I finally got my new refurbished 4990 scanner from Epson. Thanks to those who recommended it--so far it seems like a great buy (I used my epsonsettlement funds to really bring down the price!).

From the couple of scans that I've done so far, I see an improvement going from 600 dpi to 1200 dpi, but going higher seems to yield bigger files without much more detail. Is this anyone else's experience? What do you do to get the utmost out of this printer. So far, I've only used Epson Scan, haven't tried the Silverfast SE that comes with it.

I wish I could edit the title. Epsion. Sheesh.

[Ron Marshall]

That is pretty much what I have found as well. I only print at max 13x19 at 360 dpi so 1200 is all that I need. When I plan to crop I will scan at 1600.

Up to 3x enlargement the results are great for the price.

[Ted Harris]

You should be able to scan at around 2000 spi and still see improvements; that is the approximate actual optical resolution of the scanner. Any more than that is overkill.

[Bob Jones]

Have you tried playing with the spacing of the neg above the glass? The Epsons I've used seem to come to best focus a millimeter or two above the glass.

[Chris Strobel]

You should be able to scan at around 2000 spi and still see improvements; that is the approximate actual optical resolution of the scanner. Any more than that is overkill.

Does anymore than that hurt anything or just waste space?

[Ted Harris]

just wastes space and takes longer

[audioexcels]

What is the consensus on the best Epson for wet-mounting every scan? In other words, take the three scanners: 4990/V700/V750, use the same software, and scan them using the wetmount method. Would one see a difference between any of these scanners?

[Rider]

Have you tried playing with the spacing of the neg above the glass? The Epsons I've used seem to come to best focus a millimeter or two above the glass.

I have only used the supplied holder. How do you change the spacing of the neg above the glass? Does this flatbed scanner focus, the way a dedicated film scanner does?

[sanking]

What is the consensus on the best Epson for wet-mounting every scan? In other words, take the three scanners: 4990/V700/V750, use the same software, and scan them using the wetmount method. Would one see a difference between any of these scanners?

I believe the consensus is that the difference in results one would see between these three scanners using a good wet-mount system would be quite small, assuming care is taken to place the material to be scanned at the best plane of focus. The V750 and V700 scan faster than the 4990 and give slighly better results, but you probably would not see the difference in scans of LF negatives printed at 2X-4X.

The Epson consumer scanners (4870, 4990, V700 and V750) do not focus. For that reason it is important to test and find the plane of best focus, which varies slightly with different scanners. Some of the wet mounting stations provide a mechanism which allows one to adjust the height of the station above the scanner glass to obtain optimum focus. Doug Fisher's mounting station has small plastic screws which can be turned to vary the distance of the station over the glass by several millimeters. Most people find that the optimum distance is 1mm - 3mm above the scaner glass. One could obtain similar adjustments by gluing or taping spacers (small washers, for example), to the bottom of the glass wet-mounting station.

You will also get best results if the negative or transparence to be scanned is wet-mounted to the bottom of the mounting station so that the light from the negative to the CCD passes only through the glass of the scaner itself, not through the glass of the mounting station.

Sandy King

[Ted Harris]

One more point on Sandy post ... not only does the plane of best focus vary by model it varies from individual machine to individual machine .. they are not manufactured to terribly tight tolerances.

[Capocheny]

Hi Sandy,

I'm not quite visualizing how one can adjust their glass mounting stations to optimize the scanning distance and, since I'm just looking to purchase one of these scanners... does anyone have any pictures of their glass mounting station that they wouldn't mind posting here for us to see?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers



I believe the consensus is that the difference in results one would see between these three scanners using a good wet-mount system would be quite small, assuming care is taken to place the material to be scanned at the best plane of focus. The V750 and V700 scan faster than the 4990 and give slighly better results, but you probably would not see the difference in scans of LF negatives printed at 2X-4X.

The Epson consumer scanners (4870, 4990, V700 and V750) do not focus. For that reason it is important to test and find the plane of best focus, which varies slightly with different scanners. Some of the wet mounting stations provide a mechanism which allows one to adjust the height of the station above the scanner glass to obtain optimum focus. Doug Fisher's mounting station has small plastic screws which can be turned to vary the distance of the station over the glass by several millimeters. Most people find that the optimum distance is 1mm - 3mm above the scaner glass. One could obtain similar adjustments by gluing or taping spacers (small washers, for example), to the bottom of the glass wet-mounting station.

You will also get best results if the negative or transparence to be scanned is wet-mounted to the bottom of the mounting station so that the light from the negative to the CCD passes only through the glass of the scaner itself, not through the glass of the mounting station.

Sandy King

[Gordon Moat]

What is the consensus on the best Epson for wet-mounting every scan? In other words, take the three scanners: 4990/V700/V750, use the same software, and scan them using the wetmount method. Would one see a difference between any of these scanners?

This one:

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?oid=46048262&ref=wcr

I doubt you would find consensus though this is the lowest cost Epson I would recommend to anyone. Basically find out what lab or service bureau scans cost, multiply by how many scans you expect to do in two years, then this should be your budget amount towards buying a scanner.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[sanking]

Hi Sandy,

I'm not quite visualizing how one can adjust their glass mounting stations to optimize the scanning distance and, since I'm just looking to purchase one of these scanners... does anyone have any pictures of their glass mounting station that they wouldn't mind posting here for us to see?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers

Go to http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html for a look at Doug Fisher's wet mount system. You might also look at the wet-mount forum on Yahoo moderated by Julio, who also markets a fluid-mount station. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/?yguid=300049323

However, the concept is so simple a picture might acutally complicate understadnding. Basically you have the scanner glass. You don't want to mount the negative directly on the scanner glass because, 1) it likely will not be at the plane of best foucs at that point, and 2) it is messy to mount directly on the scanner glass.

So, you use a second piece of glass (plain window glass is fine), to which you place spacers on the bottom to elevate the station above the scanner glass. You determine how much elevation is needed by scanning at high resolution target with the mounting station glass at different heights above the scanner glass, say from 0.5mm to 4-5mm. You then blow the images up in Photoshop and compare resolution.

Remember, the negative is mounted on the underside of the mounting station, i.e. the side that has the spacers. To mount, you pour a small puddle of mounting fluid on the mounting station, place the negative over the fluid, and gently push or roll the fluid to the edges to remove all of the bubbles. Then tape the negative on all four sides, using a tape that will not leave residue. I use the blue-line masking tape that is available at home supply stores like Home Depot and Lowes. Wipe away excess fluid so it will not drop on the scanner glass.


Some people take a further step and sandwich the negative with a layer of thin mylar, and taping this to the station. I have not found this improves scan quality very much with LF negatives, but it would probably be worth the effort with medium format and smaller negatives.

Hope this makes sense.

Sandy King

[Josh Z.]

I personally found there to be a significant difference between 1900dpi and 2400dpi. Maybe that's just me though. I always scan at 2400dpi now (mostly Velvia 50 & 100), and have excellent results printing up to 16x20". I believe the results even at 20x25" would be satisfactory for me (I'm picky but I don't take a loupe to the print) but have yet to try it.

[sanking]

This one:

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?oid=46048262&ref=wcr

I doubt you would find consensus though this is the lowest cost Epson I would recommend to anyone. Basically find out what lab or service bureau scans cost, multiply by how many scans you expect to do in two years, then this should be your budget amount towards buying a scanner.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

There is no question but that the Epson 10000 is better built than the consumer level scanners (4990, V700, V750), and if memory serves it also has an auto-focus system, which is a desirable feature. However, unless you need the tabloid size I personally don't believe that it offers much over the consumer level scanners for LF negatives up to 8X10. Some months ago I did a comparison scan of a 5X7 negative with the 4990 and 10000, using Silverfast and a resolution of 2400 dpi with both scanners. I looked at the scans closely and to my eye the one made with the 4990 was at least as good as the one made with the 10000. I actually thought the one made with the 4990 was better, but will settle here for "at least as good."

And if there is no difference in the quality of the scane the price of the 4990, which can be purchased reburbished from Epson at about $280, is sure attractive compared to the $3000+ for an Epson 10000 with TMA.

Sandy King

[audioexcels]

Go to http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html for a look at Doug Fisher's wet mount system. You might also look at the wet-mount forum on Yahoo moderated by Julio, who also markets a fluid-mount station. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/?yguid=300049323

However, the concept is so simple a picture might acutally complicate understadnding. Basically you have the scanner glass. You don't want to mount the negative directly on the scanner glass because, 1) it likely will not be at the plane of best foucs at that point, and 2) it is messy to mount directly on the scanner glass.

So, you use a second piece of glass (plain window glass is fine), to which you place spacers on the bottom to elevate the station above the scanner glass. You determine how much elevation is needed by scanning at high resolution target with the mounting station glass at different heights above the scanner glass, say from 0.5mm to 4-5mm. You then blow the images up in Photoshop and compare resolution.

Remember, the negative is mounted on the underside of the mounting station, i.e. the side that has the spacers. To mount, you pour a small puddle of mounting fluid on the mounting station, place the negative over the fluid, and gently push or roll the fluid to the edges to remove all of the bubbles. Then tape the negative on all four sides, using a tape that will not leave residue. I use the blue-line masking tape that is available at home supply stores like Home Depot and Lowes. Wipe away excess fluid so it will not drop on the scanner glass.


Some people take a further step and sandwich the negative with a layer of thin mylar, and taping this to the station. I have not found this improves scan quality very much with LF negatives, but it would probably be worth the effort with medium format and smaller negatives.

Hope this makes sense.

Sandy King

Thanks Sandy. You are a wonderful contributer to say the very least. I'm only going to be scanning "odd sized" film or if I get an 8X10 back onto the camera, will have a normal sized negative. I will be scanning 4X5 for color and a wee bit of b/w. To the contrary of my use of 4X5, I will be doing my odd sized (whole plate/4X8/6X8) in B/W with some in color. I will have to see what kind of detail I am getting with my color images with 4X5 vs. the whole plate size. If there is enough difference, I won't even bother shooting 4X5. I like to have 4X5 as a cheaper route for color work, though with paper for 8X10 (expired to even 2006) not being much different in price to new 4X5 paper, I don't see why it makes too much sense to shoot in 4X5 especially if a difference can be seen. However, if I decide to go with the HP printer, that eliminates the amount of enlargening I can do and so it may not be even possible to see a difference with the 4X5 and larger sizes in a 12X18 print or a 13X19. I'm very curious why the barrier/threshold of potential enlargements with these Epsons and HPs has that set figure of 13X19, no different than today's standard LF formats of primarily 4X5and 8X10. As one said, for 50 years in UK, Whole Plate was the primary/standard for photographers. Would be nice to see something for the price of the HP that can do 30X40 "maximum" prints (Of course 80X100 would be wonderful, but I think they could put out a machine that can do 30X40 which is basically 2 times the size of print that is currently possible with them).

Regarding wet mounting...The only kit of the two you mentioned that will do 8X10 is the scanscience? one. Doug's can do something close to 8.5 by 6 which isn't too exciting to me considering it eliminates all formats larger than 5X7 w/only exception in my case that would be scanning 4X8's or even 3.5X8.5.

[sanking]

Regarding wet mounting...The only kit of the two you mentioned that will do 8X10 is the scanscience? one. Doug's can do something close to 8.5 by 6 which isn't too exciting to me considering it eliminates all formats larger than 5X7 w/only exception in my case that would be scanning 4X8's or even 3.5X8.5.


If any of the fluid mount stations don't fit your needs it would be a simple matter to assemble your own for either the 4990, V700 or V750. Just have a piece of window glass cut to a size that will fit snugly over the scanner glass, then adjust height over the glass to the optimum plane of focus of the scanner via spacers. Then cut a mask with the same external dimensions as the mounting glass, with the frame cut to match the scanning area of the format. To use simply place the mounting glass over the frame, fluid mount and tape the negative on the under size of the mounting glass (side with the spacers), then flip and place the mounting glass, spacers down, on the scanner glass. This should allow you to scan the full area allowed by the scanner, whatever that may be.

Sandy King

[Chris Strobel]

I have the scanscience 4x5 and 8x10 kits for my 4990.They work quite well, however you could easily make up your own holders for A LOT less money.The holders are just black picture mats cut to size and glued.

[Jiri Vasina]

I personally found there to be a significant difference between 1900dpi and 2400dpi. Maybe that's just me though. I always scan at 2400dpi now (mostly Velvia 50 & 100), and have excellent results printing up to 16x20". I believe the results even at 20x25" would be satisfactory for me (I'm picky but I don't take a loupe to the print) but have yet to try it.

From a mathematical (or digital) standpoint, it's not wise to choose any resolution. The scanner has a physical number detectors (I don't know the exact number for this scanner, but let's assume it's 4800 per inch). If you select a resolution such that if you divide the physical resolution you get a whole number, the output quality is better. If you choose a different resolution, there has to be an interpolation of data between the detectors (hardware interpolation) that would (IMO) degrade the resolution. So if you choose a resolution like 2400, 1200, (maybe 3200, depends on the algorithm, if it does interpolation, or omission of 1 sensor of 4).

The in-computer/in-photoshop resampling algorithms are much better than the ones in the scanner hardware. So IMO (and from what I have read so far elsewhere) it's better to scan at 2400dpi and then resize to desired size - it could be the first step to speed the remaining steps...

[David Luttmann]

From a mathematical (or digital) standpoint, it's not wise to choose any resolution. The scanner has a physical number detectors (I don't know the exact number for this scanner, but let's assume it's 4800 per inch). If you select a resolution such that if you divide the physical resolution you get a whole number, the output quality is better. If you choose a different resolution, there has to be an interpolation of data between the detectors (hardware interpolation) that would (IMO) degrade the resolution. So if you choose a resolution like 2400, 1200, (maybe 3200, depends on the algorithm, if it does interpolation, or omission of 1 sensor of 4).

The in-computer/in-photoshop resampling algorithms are much better than the ones in the scanner hardware. So IMO (and from what I have read so far elsewhere) it's better to scan at 2400dpi and then resize to desired size - it could be the first step to speed the remaining steps...

The scanner doesn't have a resolution. Stepper motors "sample" the image. As such, there is no interpolation of the image whether you use 2400, 3200, or 4800 settings. I find good results for MF & LF at 3200 and then downrez in Photoshop or SAR.

[neil poulsen]

. . . Remember, the negative is mounted on the underside of the mounting station, i.e. the side that has the spacers. To mount, you pour a small puddle of mounting fluid on the mounting station, place the negative over the fluid, and gently push or roll the fluid to the edges to remove all of the bubbles. Then tape the negative on all four sides, using a tape that will not leave residue. I use the blue-line masking tape that is available at home supply stores like Home Depot and Lowes. Wipe away excess fluid so it will not drop on the scanner glass. . . .


Sandy,

Do you mount with the emulsion facing the scanning glass, putting the fluid on the reverse side of the emulsion? That would prevent the image from passing through the mylar base. It would also keep the fluid away from the emulsion. Even though I'm sure the fluid is designed not to hurt the emulsion, I like the idea of having the fluid on the opposite side. Not so sure about placing the tape on the emulsion side though, even if only at the corners.

How does mounting the extra piece of mylar improve the image? I would have thought that the less between the emulsion and the scanning sensor, the better. (Whole reason for mounting on the underside of the glass.)

Thanks for the info and the tip on Doug Fisher's system. It looks like a good investment.

[sanking]

Sandy,

Do you mount with the emulsion facing the scanning glass, putting the fluid on the reverse side of the emulsion? That would prevent the image from passing through the mylar base. It would also keep the fluid away from the emulsion. Even though I'm sure the fluid is designed not to hurt the emulsion, I like the idea of having the fluid on the opposite side. Not so sure about placing the tape on the emulsion side though, even if only at the corners.

How does mounting the extra piece of mylar improve the image? I would have thought that the less between the emulsion and the scanning sensor, the better. (Whole reason for mounting on the underside of the glass.)

Thanks for the info and the tip on Doug Fisher's system. It looks like a good investment.

Neil,

I fluid mount with the mylar base facing the glass, and the emulsion down facing the CCD. I have found no problem in taping the emulsion side down with the blue-line tape as the tape does not leave any residue.

The theory behind fluid on both sides is that it fills in between the grain on the emulsion side, and fills in small scratches on both sides. This minimizes the amount of corrections that have to be done in Photoshop, and minimizes grain. However, minimizing grain is not much of an issue with LF film, though it may be with roll film and 35mm.

Sandy

[Jiri Vasina]

Sandy, surely the "resolution" in the direction of movement of CCD (or whatever) is dictated by the stepper motors. No doubt. But in the line arrangement of the sensors, they do not move, and in this direction they do have a physical resolution. And as you usually want square pixels (no distortion :) ) - no setting of different resolution in each direction - it's reasonable to omit the stepper motors from resolution judgments...

But from what I get we agree on one think - to scan in higher resolution and then downsample with whatever program/algorithm is appropriate (could be PhotoShop with it's bicubic algorithms...)

[Rider]

But from what I get we agree on one think - to scan in higher resolution and then downsample with whatever program/algorithm is appropriate (could be PhotoShop with it's bicubic algorithms...)

It may have been a good a idea back in the day when 300 spi was the max, but not now that your major issues are focus, film flatness and the like. At least that's what I've read here and elsewhere.

[David Luttmann]

It may have been a good a idea back in the day when 300 spi was the max, but not now that your major issues are focus, film flatness and the like. At least that's what I've read here and elsewhere.

I'm not sure where you've read that it is good to scan at the same size you are printing for....but I can tell you that flatbeds benefit from scanning at higher resolutions and downsampling from there.

[Rider]

I'm not sure where you've read that it is good to scan at the same size you are printing for....but I can tell you that flatbeds benefit from scanning at higher resolutions and downsampling from there.

I didn't say that all. I started this thread to find out what the optimal resolution for this scanner is. Epson says it's 4800x9600. I found that very doubtful. Consensus seems to be around 2000 spi max. I don't understand the reasons fully, but it seems reasonable when you're scanning through glass and not even focussing properly, that the extra bits will be more or less superfluous at some point. Basically, 4800x9600 is marketing hype, which is fine--they all do it.

[sanking]

I didn't say that all. I started this thread to find out what the optimal resolution for this scanner is. Epson says it's 4800x9600. I found that very doubtful. Consensus seems to be around 2000 spi max. I don't understand the reasons fully, but it seems reasonable when you're scanning through glass and not even focussing properly, that the extra bits will be more or less superfluous at some point. Basically, 4800x9600 is marketing hype, which is fine--they all do it.

I am somewhat confused by the term "optical resolution" as used by others so I always test for my own purposes with a high resolution lppm target. What I have found is that the Epson 4990 is capable of maximum resolution of about 35 lppm, if you scan at 4800 dpi. You will get *almost* as much real resolution scanning at 2400 dpi as at 4800 dpi (and at great savings in disk space), so for all practical purposes there is no reason to scan at a dpi of more than 2400 with LF film.

Compared to other Epson consumer scanners the 4990 gives a tad more resolution than the 4870, and a tad less than the V700 and V750. For scanning LF film the difference between these scanners in resolution is of little or no consequence IMO.

Sandy King

[Frank R]

I always test for my own purposes with a high resolution lppm target.

Which target do you use? Where can I get one?

[sanking]

Which target do you use? Where can I get one?

I use a chrome on glass 3X3" USAF target, bought from Edmund Optics. The target is available as both a positive and negative. Edmund also sells less expensive 2X2" targets of the same type.

These targets test resolution up to about 225 lppm, well beyond the limits of most scanners.

The results are not industry standard, but they are useful in a relative sense when comparing different scanners.

Sandy

[Stephen Sample]

Hi, I have two questions. How much better is the Fischer Dry mount system than the Wet Mount sytem? If I use the wet mount scanning on my Epson 4990, does anyone know how to clean up the negative after it has been wet mounted? Does the wet mount ruin the negative for future scanning? Maybe there is a web page that describes the cleaning of the negative? Thanks. This was a wonderfully helpful thread!

[Brian Vuillemenot]

[QUOTE=Stephen Sample;252543 If I use the wet mount scanning on my Epson 4990, does anyone know how to clean up the negative after it has been wet mounted? Does the wet mount ruin the negative for future scanning? [/QUOTE]

Scanning fluids are volatile hydrocarbons that evaporate off of the film after scanning. You just hang the film to dry, and most of them dry up without leaving any residues. The film is not ruined by the process.

[claudiocambon]

Scanning fluids are volatile hydrocarbons that evaporate off of the film after scanning. You just hang the film to dry, and most of them dry up without leaving any residues. The film is not ruined by the process.

Somehow "volatile hydrocarbons" sound like the last thing that I would want to put on my film, but I'll take your word for it! :D

Where does one by scanning fluid? Any tips on using the stuff, and especially, any pitfalls to avoid?

[sanking]

Somehow "volatile hydrocarbons" sound like the last thing that I would want to put on my film, but I'll take your word for it! :D

Where does one by scanning fluid? Any tips on using the stuff, and especially, any pitfalls to avoid?

I use Kami mounting fluid, which you can buy at Aztek. http://store.aztek.com/servlet/StoreFront

Some people prefer Prazio mounting fluid. http://www.prazio.com/mounting.shtml

After use you just wipe the fluid off the negative with a clean rag and hang to dry, which only takes a minute or so. If there is any residue left on the film you can easilly remove it with a film cleaner.

It is best to use a separate mounting station because if you mount directly on the glass of the scanner some excess fluid may find its way into the scanner.

Sandy King

[Doug Fisher]

>>Where does one by scanning fluid?<<

When shipping and minimum order charges were all included, I found the most reasonable place to order Kami fluid was from Pitman graphics supply. I was able to put together a fluid mounting kit for about $60. Here is my "how to" page in regard to how/where I acquired it all:

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/cheapfluidmounting.html

For the people new to fluid mounting, here is page with some links that help explain/show a few approaches to fluid mounting:

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/fluidresources.html

Doug

[sanking]

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/fluidresources.html[/url]

Doug

The message by Ernst Dinkla is especially interesting, and very much to the point IMHO.

When I first tested Doug Fisher's mounting station the feature that impressed me the most was the mechanism it offers for adjusting the mounting station to the best plane of focus. My first impression was that fluid mounting the negative on the under side of the mounting glass did not improve the quality of the scan. However, after careful testing with several dozen scans it is clear that this feature does give a better scan, assuming of course that the station has been placed at the plane of optimum focus.

Sandy King