I've recently bought an HP Scanjet G4050 and I would like to run it on an old PC with Vista installed. Can anybody point me to the right software to download?
Thanks for looking.
Pete.
Printable View
I've recently bought an HP Scanjet G4050 and I would like to run it on an old PC with Vista installed. Can anybody point me to the right software to download?
Thanks for looking.
Pete.
Hi Pete
I have a G4050 and I run it with vuescan. The HP software is terrible and clips shadows really badly, with vuescan you get much better files.
agreed.
However I'll also say that my experience of the G4050 is that the scans it produces from negatives are sufficient for web-sharing - but I've yet to get a sharp enough scan from it good enough for a true hybrid process.
I would agree with this also, I only use mine for web based stuff and pay for lab scanning if I want to do anything serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by pdh
I bought my 4050 with a little trepidation because of reports like those above, but have been perfectly happy with mine. It doesn't take much of a scanner to pull out enough to make nice 13x19 prints from 5x7 or 8x10 film @300dpi, and this scanner certainly delivers quite a bit more than that (I can't think of any useful reason to go above 1000ppi for normal-size prints, and theoretical limits and pixel-peeping scanner comparisons don't matter much in that context--a shoebox with a CCD in it should be able to deliver 1000ppi), so comments like those above mystify me. I don't use it for 35mm, but I haven't found ANY flatbed that will do 35mm well, and was surprised nevertheless, that it gave me better 35mm result than the smaller format-only Canons and Epsons that I'd used in the past.
Anyway, Vuescan, as everyone says. It's worth buying for this.
No need to be mystified, it's not as though I'm saying it for the sake of being contrary, but simply that this is my genuine personal experience.
If I scan my 5x4 or 10x8 negatives on the G4050, at whatever pixel density, I simply don't get the level of sharpness I do if I stick them on a lightbox and photograph them with a 12mp camera on a copy stand.
The 5x4s go in the original negative holder that came with the scanner, the 8x10s have to go flat on the glass, but I can't see a difference between the results.
There's no means of focusing the G4050, so I can only assume there sample variation or wear or similar to account for the difference.
As I contact print all my LF stuff, it's pretty moot anyway. Once the scans are on flickr or ipernity at 1024x768 or whatever, I can't tell the difference. For 35mm I have a Plustek scanner that does produce excellent quality.
Thanks for the help and advice. Vuescan 'ere we go!
Pete.