Quote Originally Posted by grat View Post
Sorry, Steve, but I have to disagree with the highlighted statement.

Both use an analog light source to capture quantities of light in sensors which then perform analog-to-digital conversions, resulting in a matrix of digital numbers. They are both hybrid-- if the Epson was pure digital, it couldn't capture light.

The bit about adjustments is just software, and has nothing to do with the hardware, really.

The primary advantages of the Howtek are:

  • Wet mount
  • Adjustable focus
  • Adjustable aperture
  • separate sensors for R, G, and B
  • higher native scanning resolution (4000 vs 3200).

As long as the light source is understood by the processor, color temperature is largely irrelevant-- the CRI is important, but again, if the processor knows the weak/strong areas of the light source, math is your friend. Interestingly, the Howtek 4000 has a lower claimed optical density than the Epson-- although I'd want to see independent testing of both to confirm that.

If someone were to build a flatbed scanner with adjustable focus and/or aperture, coupled to a modern CCD or CMOS 20MP or so monochrome sensor, a quality lens, and filters for R, G and B, it would make the Howtek look like a toy.

It would also cost a couple of grand to manufacture, and no sane company is going to make a gamble like that, especially in this economy.

It could also probably be built from parts by a tech savvy individual for under a grand using a pile of parts, though. At least, I hope it can.
I say hybrid, because the light source is digital in the Epson (led), the Howtek uses old fashioned light bulbs (halogen, I believe). Also, the final image from the Howtek is not software manipulated as it is with the Epson this means data is not corrupted when brought into a program like PS. The calibration files tell the pmts how to record the light whereas the epson image is a software manipulated image if you adjust it in the scanner software. Big draw back. Also a draw back is the Bayer filter system that modern flatbeds like epson use. Another drawback.

And yes, if someone wanted to you could create a scanner to rival a drum scanner, but doubtful you will get the look and feel of the image which to me more closely resembles film. The modern scanners are just too harsh and unforgiving. Much like modern digital lenses like the Sigma Art lenses. They are technically perfect, but they are so perfect they suck. The image is harsh, esoteric, and too perfect. No personality.

There is the Flextight scanner for 25K, but I have not seen comparisons of those images to drums or V850.

Someday we will get an affordable scanner to truly rival a drum scanner.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Epson V850.