New Epson Scanner ?

[Ken Lee]

Is a new version of the Epson 700 scanner under development, or already available ?

[Brian Ellis]

There has been talk for about three years of an Epson 900 as a replacement for the 700/750 series. I don't think it's ever come to market, at least not in the U.S., but I could be wrong, I don't keep up with scanners very much. If you Google on "epson 900" you can find some information about it.

[Kirk Gittings]

I haven't heard even a whisper from Epson on this in what two years?

[David E. Rose]

I am getting ready to buy a 700. The 900 should be announced a week or so after I order!

[Brian Ellis]

I am getting ready to buy a 700. The 900 should be announced a week or so after I order!

I think you're safe. There was a flurry of excitement a few years ago and then as Kirk says, nothing in several years. If they haven't produced it in all that time it seems doubtful they ever will. Film scanners aren't exactly a growth industry.

[Tom Monego]

First heard about an Epson 900 about a year an a half ago, got tired of waiting and bought aV700, was sure the 900 would come out a week later. Hasn't yet, have had the V700 for 6months.

Tom

[Frank Petronio]

I wonder what they would improve if anything?

I imagine that even after the "Singularity" our Cyborg replacements will still need to have a flatbed scanner that does as well as the Epson 750, at least if they are at all interested in human anthropology.

[Marko]

I wonder what they would improve if anything?

Maybe they'll optimize it for Ilford and forget about Kodak? Just to keep up with the times... ;)

[Bob McCarthy]

Are they selling enough 700/750's to justify delivering another scanner with minor/marginal improvements. They havent changed the rgb sensor for quite a few generations, so what else is likely, high dollar lenses, or more sturdy platform. All of these would cost major $$'s.

Be happy with the 750/700/4990, they are all equally capable, no need to buy a new scanner for updated plastic.

bob

[Frank Petronio]

Well it would be nice if someone made a run of $2500 professional scanners like a Scitex Creo Kodak Eversmart lite or something... but I guess the higher resolution and quality scanners need a heavier chassis, finer micro-motors, better lens, etc. so you probably jump up to $15K very rapidly if you try to use all quality components.

After twenty years of buying scanners I still find that the inexpensive Epsons are quite amazing for what they are. You have to figure a lightweight housing isn't going to be as precise as a rigid one, the motors are already amazing in how fine they can move, the depth of field and lens quality is pretty darn good for what it is.... etc. So Epson did a good job with design and engineering to come up with something so good for only a few hundred bucks.

[Nathan Potter]

The Epson 700 series is amazing considering it is a pretty flimsy collection of low cost OEM parts with embellishments, especially when you compare it to some very expensive industrial machinery or even high end scanners. I recently got hold of a scrap 700 and disassembled it in wonderment. That lens and drive mechanism boggles - its really crap. But there is a lot of really good low cost engineering throughout. The subsystems packaging however seems very awkward and not well thought out.

A new version of the Epson is all about the market for such. I think to achieve a significant improvement in performance there would need to be all new design and development. They have to recoup those costs and they can't do it by selling paper and ink - like printers.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Ken Lee]

My old Microtek 2500 had a large weight in the bottom, to add stabilization. It may have been a piece of stone. Seriously.

I wonder if holding down an Epson, or surrounding it on all sides, would dampen vibration significantly.

[Frank Petronio]

I guess the question is do the museums, archives, Google books, government bureaucracies feel comfortable that their current stock of scanners will last another millennium or two? If you're going to make the "last" scanner, it ought be a good one that will run for 50-100 years....

[John NYC]

There are still zillions of old things to scan. They aren't going to stop making scanners, especially flatbeds.

[Dave Jeffery]

It still seems to me that another "one size fits all" scanner design would still be marketable to a lot of photographers.

Now that stitching software has advanced it seems to me that a scanner like the Nikons (4000 spi) that opened like a flatbed, and which was retrofitted to be able to scan a medium format sized, or larger, section of large sheet films would still be viable. Every time Vaughn posts about stitching medium format film I wonder why a scanner is not built that will scan sections of 4x5 sheet films and on up. A scanner of this design would handle any film size from 35mm upward.

Computers are getting better and are able to handle the large file sizes more easily and the stitching software should also still continue to improve making a process of this style more automatic.

It seems to me that the design problems of sheet film holders and focusing heights seems to be better understood now. If sheet film holders could be made that effectively hold sections of large sheet films flat, and the holders were easliy adjustable to the optimal focus height in a scanner, and the film could easily be repositioned in the holders, a new scanner design should be viable.

If a very user friendly wet mount holder could be designed and the scanner was waterproof from the top it would be a huge success.

The scanning would have to be automated to the point where once all the initial testing and focusing was done that a sheet of film could be easily placed in the scanner, push a button, do something else, reposition the film at the next position, hit the button, do something else, and then an advanced version of Photomerge or similar would automate the stitching.

The scanner would be

1. better than the Nikons because it could scan any film size.

2. better than an Epson flatbed because of the resolution

3. better than the Imacons because of resolution and price (Dmax??)

4. cheaper than the IQ Smarts

5. much cheaper and less hassle than drum scanners


Thoughts???

[Ken Lee]

Stitching hasn't ever been a problem: it's the precision optics and stepper motor that cost money.

[Brian C. Miller]

Gear reduction goes a long ways for increasing positional precision. The optics would be cheaper if the scanner was a larger unit. Since a lot of the problem is with film position, a scanner which tracked the film position would go a long ways to improving its focus. Perhaps if the scanner made some focusing passes before doing the actual scan, we'd get better results.

[Eric Rose]

Sounds like the days when being an audio junkie meant taking your Thorens TD 160 or Rega and chucked the stock bases for some cement pillar you made yourself and then tied it into your basement cement floor with rebar.

Dampening vibrations and sonically tuning turntables was as much voodoo as science in the 70's and 80's.

Maybe we should start a whole photophile movement? Oh wait we already have. It's called large format photography.

[SURF]

It really looks like that. :)

[SURF]

The scanner would be...

Expensive.

[Bob McCarthy]

Its called buying a Screen Cezanne 5000 on the used market for under $2k.

bob


It still seems to me that another "one size fits all" scanner design would still be marketable to a lot of photographers.

Now that stitching software has advanced it seems to me that a scanner like the Nikons (4000 spi) that opened like a flatbed, and which was retrofitted to be able to scan a medium format sized, or larger, section of large sheet films would still be viable. Every time Vaughn posts about stitching medium format film I wonder why a scanner is not built that will scan sections of 4x5 sheet films and on up. A scanner of this design would handle any film size from 35mm upward.

Computers are getting better and are able to handle the large file sizes more easily and the stitching software should also still continue to improve making a process of this style more automatic.

It seems to me that the design problems of sheet film holders and focusing heights seems to be better understood now. If sheet film holders could be made that effectively hold sections of large sheet films flat, and the holders were easliy adjustable to the optimal focus height in a scanner, and the film could easily be repositioned in the holders, a new scanner design should be viable.

If a very user friendly wet mount holder could be designed and the scanner was waterproof from the top it would be a huge success.

The scanning would have to be automated to the point where once all the initial testing and focusing was done that a sheet of film could be easily placed in the scanner, push a button, do something else, reposition the film at the next position, hit the button, do something else, and then an advanced version of Photomerge or similar would automate the stitching.

The scanner would be

1. better than the Nikons because it could scan any film size.

2. better than an Epson flatbed because of the resolution

3. better than the Imacons because of resolution and price (Dmax??)

4. cheaper than the IQ Smarts

5. much cheaper and less hassle than drum scanners


Thoughts???

[Jeremy Moore]

Epson did update their lower model scanner with an LED-based lamp (v500 I think), but I haven't heard anything about updating the 700/750 to a new scanner.

[sngraphics]

Hello all.
Just found this thread after Googled a search for any info on new/updated Epson scanners to replace their top end V750 Model.
Any news or info would be much appreciated.

[Brian Ellis]

Making new scanners isn't exactly a growth industry.

[Kirk Gittings]

No but it should be and should be subsidized by the film manufacturers. A top notch scanner around say $1500 would help preserve the film market significantly. IMO

[MisterPrinter]

Making new scanners isn't exactly a growth industry.

With digital cameras getting better every day perhaps scanners will soon give way to them, all it takes is a frame and lighting. Add a motorised transport for the originals and software controlled camera and you could have a very fast bulk scanner.

[Lenny Eiger]

No but it should be and should be subsidized by the film manufacturers. A top notch scanner around say $1500 would help preserve the film market significantly. IMO

Kirk,

That's what Howtek 4500's cost these days.

At one point, I did ask the boys at Aztek why their newer scanners cost as much as they do. I can't really divulge anything, but the parts are quite expensive. Still, I just saw a DPL 8000 go for under 10K recently (right here), with all the trimmings.

I see the film market getting much smaller. It's a pretty good bet that Kodak will be out of film pretty soon. Ilford will still be there to pick up the slack. The market may be large enough to support them for a while. How long? Who knows.

However, what that says to me is that anyone that makes substantial investments in film services is nuts. It would provide only a short term return. I don't think we will see a new scanner, certainly not a high end one, any time soon.

Lenny