Epson 4990

[campy51]

Are these still worth buying for 4x5 and medium format. Is there much difference from the V700 which are still pricey compared to the 4990.

 

[juan]

I used a 4990 for years until it broke during a move. I have a friend who still uses his. I used Vuescan for software. The answer depends on the results you expect and the price.

 

[138S]

Are these still worth buying for 4x5 and medium format. Is there much difference from the V700 which are still pricey compared to the 4990.

In short:

If you get the 4990 you still will have 60MPix "effective" 4x5" scans and you can do a lot with that, but with the V700-850 you get a better result (140MPix effective) if the "shot is sharp".

Many times you won't find the difference the numbers suggest because there is dimishing yield at higher dpi, as on film recorded image quality is worse in the ultra fine detail.


Long answer:

The V700 is an evolution of the 4990.

Main difference is that the V700 has two different lenses, the Higher resolution one covers 5.9" width and it's focused at the height the film has when in the holder, you scan 4x5 with this lens. The lower resolution one covers the entire bed and it's focused on the bed glass surface, being used to scan on bed inside the "area guide margins".

4990 has a single lens covering the entire bed, having the similar resolution than the low res lens of the V700.

Would you notice a difference? It depends on how sharp is your shot and what enlargement you plan.

The V700 for 4x5 delivers 2900 dpi effective in the horizontal axis and 2300 in the vertical axis. The 4990 delivers 1524 to 1727 effective dpi, wich is 30 or 34 lp/mm resolving power.

A 4x5 lens in a lab test may deliver from 50lp/mm to 85 lp/mm shooting a flat target in perfect focus at optimal aperture, but in real photography you have 3D scenes and almost nothing is in perpect focus (with exception of a distant landscape shot) for DOF you may have to stop and provocate diffraction, there is some shake, film plane alignment, so many times the 4990 will take most of what's in the negative anyway

So in effective pixel terms the 4990 will deliver (4 x 5 x 1534 x 1727 ) 60 MPix effective witch is an insane amount of image quality in effective terms, a today's $4000 DSLR sure is way inferior in effective terms!

The V700 instead it will deliver around some 140MPix effective from the 4x5" negative, so if the negative is optimally sharp with the V700 you may enlarge a 40% larger print aprox with same quality at reading distance, in theory. (square root to convert area to linear).

Grain depiction is not an strong point of the Epsons for beyond x10 enlargements, in that concern the 4990 still delivers a softer grain... Also the V700-850 series are quite good for MF, and still decent for 35mm.


My advice, if you are to scan LF in the long term, then go to a V800 new, with warranty and the new ANR holders that keep film flat. Also LEDs illumination allows to start with no (lamp heating) delay to see the preview, it does not require color calibration because LEDs are stable, and you never need to replace the lamp.

Of course you always can spend less in the 4990 and perhaps replacing it by a V800 in the future...


For 8x10" you will see less a difference, because the V700-850 uses the lower res lens, and 8x10 shots usually have lower peak lp/mm than 4x5 shots.

If you scan deep velvia shadows then you may want the Multi-Exposure software feature, this comes free in the V850 Silverfast SE Plus version, with the non "plus" version that comes with the V800 you have to purchase a Silverfast upgrade to have it.

________

Something else: use a cheap HEPA air purifier in the room you scan and to manipulate negs, avoid all dust. I use a Honeywell HAP-16200 I found cheap, you may use something like that.

 

[campy51]

Thanks for the info. I use a V550 now and print on my Canon Pro 100 and will probably just print 8x10 or an occasional 11x14. I am looking to spend under $300 which is plenty enough for a 4990 but V700 is harder to find at that price

 

[jeffreyg]

I think you will be fine with either. I am still using a 4870 for 2 1/4 and 4x5 and getting excellent results enlarging up to 16x20 and had a few prints (printed by a printing company) up to 48 inches with excellent results. I recently had to scan a business card that had a textured surface and it recorded the texture which was actually a problem that took a lot of photoshopping to eliminate.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[138S]

Thanks for the info. I use a V550 now and print on my Canon Pro 100 and will probably just print 8x10 or an occasional 11x14. I am looking to spend under $300 which is plenty enough for a 4990 but V700 is harder to find at that price

The V500-550-600 resolve around 1600dpi effective, well inline with the 4990, so you have a good reference of what you will obtain, the same but for x4 larger negative.

Anyway you have many V700 offers at ebay form $250 to $350, for $100-200 additional you have a Prosumer machine instead a Consumer one see if holders are included, I would suggest you take an offer allowing returns.

I still have a V500 that's the same than the V550 and I can tell you that's worth spending those $100-200, you will notice it way more in the 35mm or MF than in the 4x5", for MF you'll make nearly Pro scans.

I'd sell the V550 for $100-120 (to sell it fast) and by adding some $175 you would have a powerful V700 machine.



The V700 has cheap glasses, a new bed glass is $50, so you'll have it like new...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Epson-Perf...558955?hash=item1ea43e346b:g:Q6AAAOSwbqpT82y9

 

[bernard_L]

With most any scanner, the results can be improved by proper sharpening. Even though it won't increase the maximum spatial frequency resolved by the optics, it will improve the contrast at spatial frequencies below that, and dramatically improve the subjective sharpness. Repeat: proper sharpening, i.e. (1) at no spatial frequency will the system MTF be above 1; (2) no overshoot at sharp edges. I would bet that the subjective gain (from sharpening) is more than the improvement from 4990 to V700.

 

[jim10219]

I can't tell you how it compares to a V700 or better, but I can say that I have a 4990, and it serves my needs for scanning 4x5 film just fine. I've printed some 50"x40" prints with it, and with proper sharpening, scaling, and printing techniques, they come out looking great. That's about as large as I can print, so I have no need to upgrade.

I will say that on my Epson 4990, the best way to get sharp scans of any negative is to wet scan directly on the glass. I've tried scanning from various film holders, and the focus point of the lens on my unit is directly on the glass, which means that unless you want Newton rings or a blurry scan, wet scanning is your only option. I've heard other people report different results, so that may not always be the case with every example. You can use Ronsonol and Dura-Lar sheets for wet scanning, as they're a lot cheaper than the products sold specifically for wet scanning, and work just as well, if it comes to that.

 

[138S]

With most any scanner, the results can be improved by proper sharpening. Even though it won't increase the maximum spatial frequency resolved by the optics, it will improve the contrast at spatial frequencies below that, and dramatically improve the subjective sharpness. Repeat: proper sharpening, i.e. (1) at no spatial frequency will the system MTF be above 1; (2) no overshoot at sharp edges. I would bet that the subjective gain (from sharpening) is more than the improvement from 4990 to V700.

Yes... but you also sharpen the V700 result, with both images optimized to their best there is a well noticeable difference, specially with roll film.

Another question is how sharp has to be the negative and how enlarged the print to see it.

I agree that most important factor is scanning and edition skills of the user, but the V700 hast dual lens system, and the overcost of the V700 is not that large.

Let me cite other factors for the decision:

> A 4990 is 14 or 15 years old, while an V700 may be from 6 to 14 depending on luck.

> The V700 is faster than the 4990, perhaps x2 !!!! important !!!!

> Depreciation Rate, probably the V700 overcost over the 4990 can be totally recovered is one sells it after 5 years, as the 4990 may not have any value.

> Some 4990 have been failing, while V700 has improved reliability in the electronics.

> Epson repairs the V700 officially, what about the 4990? All spares for the new V800-850 can be used for the V700 (except lamp). New bed glass replacement is $50 only.

> All new and future software and drivers for the today sold V800-850 should be compatible with the V700. With the 4990?


Beyond performance, the V700 is today manufactured with the V800 stamp (which has LEDs instead a lamp), while the 4990 was discontinued 14 years ago, so the smart decision is the V700, as being $150 the price difference.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Funny how pixelnators always take over these kind of threads. Going back in time when F64 was launched to mock pictorialistic photography in the process, things are far worse today whenever digits are in a discussion. I am not a very skilled scanman, but I know how little I needed to learn about scanning to see vast improvement from same machine. And I also know that same machine has more in it, I just cannot devote time to dig it out to its fullest.

If your budget makes it easy to get 4990 and it is in a clearly hardly used condition (meaning mechanics have not been run into the ground) and it has no optical / electronic issues, go for it. You will find people who have been able to produce better results from 4990 (or 4870) than from a V700/750. Some of it has to do with inherent production quality variences as not all examples are equal in what they are capable of.

I have V550, 4870, 4990 and V800, 3 of these 4 because the price was right. 4990 came with its power button pushed in for $60 , still working but a pain to access, had no holders. 4870 was almost free but all equipped as new, V800 in like new condition at half price. So I am done buying fletbads for a while. Scanning is a skill and scanner is only a tool. Machine will always have its limits, a human theoretically can learn past his own.

Each of these under-a-grand machines has such a sample to sample differences, each requires gentle and often long foot massage to get the most out of it. One will scan well straight on glass, another may need to see the negative higher than allowed by original holder. It is a game that can be won. Once I saw a guy working without a cute holder, instead using a piece of anti-reflective glass shimmed up to get the right plane of focus, I did not look back. I spend little time scanning so have skills to be kept secret from the public, but sole improvements I can see are in settings not in hardware.

I only use Vuescan, if this software ever becomes limiting, I will likely be done with any scanning for good.

I have the clear film grain on my scan when I give it enough time, that is where I end the fight with a scanner, and the war continues elsewhere. I let others loose sleep over dpi, hls, dd and so on.

 

[brbo]

I can get close to 2000dpi from my 4990 if I place film at optimal height.

At least half decent scans, even from 135 format, are possible.

 

[138S]

I can get close to 2000dpi from my 4990 if I place film at optimal height.

At least half decent scans, even from 135 format, are possible.

Thanks for posting it, nice first hand information. Other have measure a lower rating, but your machine certainly resolves 5.3 element slanted, IMO you are right, 2000dpi.

This would rise effective pixels of a 4x5" scan to 80MPix effective capability.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I had a 4990 Photo for years until it died. Now I have a V850 Pro. It depends on what you are going to use it for.

 

[bernard_L]

I can get close to 2000dpi from my 4990 if I place film at optimal height. At least half decent scans, even from 135 format, are possible.

Indeed. Interesting.
You scan the full width including rebates. Does that mean you use a method similar to jim10219 (post #8)??

 

[brbo]

Indeed. Interesting.
You scan the full width including rebates. Does that mean you use a method similar to jim10219 (post #8)??

Yes. Except that on my scanner the optimal film position is 1.3mm above the scanner glass so I use a thin 1mm clear glass and 0.3 paper shim to raise the film a bit.

This is resolution target directly on the scanner glass bed:

 

[138S]

Yes. Except that on my scanner the optimal film position is 1.3mm above the scanner glass so I use a thin 1mm clear glass and 0.3 paper shim to raise the film a bit.

This explains your improved results, I guess. Whith the V700 each lens of the dual system is focused optimally, the LowR focused in the bed surface and the SuperR is focused at holder height.

In the 4990 the single lens focus should be in an intermediate position, not optimal for "on bed", not optimal for the holders, but in a compromise position.

 

[brbo]

This explains your improved results, I guess. Whith the V700 each lens of the dual system is focused optimally, the LowR focused in the bed surface and the SuperR is focused at holder height.

I also had V700 and I can say with confidence that "dual lens system focused optimally" is... optimistic There was improvement in resolution after finding optimal position. I didn't have resolution target back then so I can't say how much of an improvement. Not huge, but noticeable.

And just to clarify, I didn't sell V700 because 4990 was better or equal. It is not. V700 was my first scanner and then it got out of control. I never had V700 and 4990 at the same time so never compared them side by side...

 

[138S]

I also had V700 and I can say with confidence that "dual lens system focused optimally" is... optimistic There was improvement in resolution after finding optimal position.

The V700 is usually well focused at the nominal distance, but film can be more or less curled. New V800-850 have holders with adjustable height, but if the curling goes up then the ANR glass puts the film in the right position. Height adjustment is more for curling than for optic correction, IMO.

Anyway at least the V700 can be manufactured with lenses targeting focus in then planes the mediums should be, it is not case of the 4990 that targets a compromise for two distances.

Tests made around for the V700-750 consistently show a peak yield at 3.5mm to aprox 4.2mm:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/epson-v700-v750-focus-height-finding-the-sweet-spot.151784/



If film is curled up say 2 additional mm then a degradation effect may be seen (if shot is sharp), this is what the ANR solves.

Still it's not a bad idea to check focus, with the new V800 adjustable holdes it's quite easy to check it.

 

[campy51]

There are a couple of 4990's on ebay for $109 that are in fair cosmetic condition. Would this be worth it?

 

[brbo]

I just checked, 7 years ago I paid 130 EUR for 4990 and considered that a good price. V700 was going for 350-400 EUR back then.

Be aware that Epson doesn't provide full software support for latest macOS Catalina for 4990 anymore. So Vuescan or Silverfast will be an additional cost. Maybe V700 is still supported on macOS? If you're on Windows I believe both will run under any version of Windows without any problems...

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you want a less expensive 4x5 capable scanner then you could also get a Canon 9950F. With that age of scanner i think the Canon is better than a 4990, but not by much really. If you want a really cheap scanner then the last HP they made, the 4050, is decent if you use Vuescan. I found one at a thrift store for a couple bucks. The HP software rendered some horrid images which is probably why they got such incredibly bad reviews, but with Vuescan it is a pretty capable scanner. IIRC it has two light sources so color images do have really good color.

The only downside to older scanners is you have to clean them. That means all the mirrors and the glass. It isn't too technically difficult to do, but it does take some time.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The V700 is usually well focused at the nominal distance, but film can be more or less curled. New V800-850 have holders with adjustable height, but if the curling goes up then the ANR glass puts the film in the right position. Height adjustment is more for curling than for optic correction, IMO.

Anyway at least the V700 can be manufactured with lenses targeting focus in then planes the mediums should be, it is not case of the 4990 that targets a compromise for two distances.

Tests made around for the V700-750 consistently show a peak yield at 3.5mm to aprox 4.2mm:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/epson-v700-v750-focus-height-finding-the-sweet-spot.151784/

View attachment 241641 View attachment 241642

If film is curled up say 2 additional mm then a degradation effect may be seen (if shot is sharp), this is what the ANR solves.

Still it's not a bad idea to check focus, with the new V800 adjustable holdes it's quite easy to check it.

0.1mm of height change makes a difference on these scanners. You are showing something that cannot be applied to every sample produced, except by chance. This is misinformation not help.

There is only one fact about focusing plane for these scanners ... it needs to be set on each machine separately. Factory did a mass job getting most samples in some ball park, hence most give initial results not in line with expectations or claimed capabilities.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

There are a couple of 4990's on ebay for $109 that are in fair cosmetic condition. Would this be worth it?

Any indications how they've been used? Cosmetics are not always tell tales of actual use and that is what matters. Given their age, mechanics and drive precision wears out with use, so if scanner was on heavy use for a couple of years there may not be much life keft in it in this regard. Try to get a feel for and from the seller. Price is fine if it is in proper working condition and has not been abused internally.

 

[138S]

0.1mm of height change makes a difference on these scanners. You are showing something that cannot be applied to every sample produced, except by chance. This is misinformation not help.

There is only one fact about focusing plane for these scanners ... it needs to be set on each machine separately. Factory did a mass job getting most samples in some ball park, hence most give initial results not in line with expectations or claimed capabilities.

If you check "Through Focus MTF" graphs posted in Post 18 result is optimal across 0.5 mm interval, which I belive it's right in practice.

Some manufacturers of wet mounting holders showed graphs like this one:



But this is a cloud of spots and a synthetic curve generated by some software, I don't guess this is real in practice, but it may help to sell holders.

IMO V700 scan is optimal if film is placed in a 0.5mm interval.