3200 Epson Pro Scanner versus the Non Pro Version for LF

[neil poulsen]

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.

[Henry Ambrose]

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.

[Leonard Evens]

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.

[Ken Lee]

Another vote for VueScan over SilverFast.

[Paul Kierstead]

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.

[Brian Kennedy]

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.

[Julio Fernandez]

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.

[Paul Kierstead]

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.

[QT Luong]

Here (http://www5e.biglobe.ne.jp/~longnose/scanner_test.html) 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 (http://www.microtekusa.com/images/i900.pdf) clearly states that it is a 8x10 glassless transparency scanner.

[Dominique Cesari]

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

[Andreas Schmidt]

Tuan, that Epson 4800 is actually called Perfection 4870 in western countries and GT-X700 in Japan. Don't ask me for the logic behind the naming... It will do 5x7", but it does not come with film holders for that format. The actual film scanning area is about 6x10.5".

[Mark Windom]

In reading the info on the Microtek i900 it states that the scanner comes with Digital Ice Photo Print technology. Am I correct in assuming that this digital ice is meant only for prints and not for transparencies?

[Ken Lee]

Mark -

Digital ICE reads the infra-red channel, on color slide/negative film, and compares it against the R, G, and B channels. This doesn't work well on B&W neagative film.

[QT Luong]

Andreas, thanks for the precision. Please keep us updated if you have any noise,dmax, or dynamic range comparisons in the future.

[Andreas Schmidt]

Tuan, when I find the time I will do some more tests of the 4870. But until the market introduction of this scanner in the US I still have plenty of time, I think ;-)

[John Hennessy]

My vote, assuming you have decided on the 3200, is the pro version unless you can buy Silverfast separately cheaper.

Any scanner without the ability to calibrate itself, as the 3200 is not as it comes out of the box, is as useless as a guitar that cannot be tuned.

Silverfast provides calibration capability so I am unclear on the value of the Monaco EZcolor Software unless it is also a monitor calibration which I doubt, but the IT8 Targets (assuming it includes the more expensive film target) are indispensable to calibrating.

Vuescan is clunky and difficult to use. The full version will allow calibration but I much preferred the results from Silverfast. Silverfast has a great deal of automation if you trust it to make decisions while you're learning to scan.

Epson is not the only option for scanning 4x5 but it so much cheaper that it takes a perverse compulsiveness to buy any other at two to four or more times the cost. I bought one but I am always on the look out for a better one if the price it right.

For me the bottom line, like so many LF issues, is how big are you going to print and will any mortal be able to see any difference at that size. Given the printers you're considering, the Epson will be fine. But you need control of the scanning and of the color results. VueScan didn't give me that easily or at all sometimes.