I just bought a used Epson 4990 and have just started playing around with it on an older computer. Processing power is somewhat slow and ram is limited, but I can scan images at 4800 dpi (indicated) without difficulty.
I also own an Epson 3170, and the Epson Scan software it came with has a dust removal feature that I've learned the hard way not to use. The dust removal feature imparts artifacts to images that look like slivers of glass . . . or ice.
After my first attempt at trying the ICE technology that my 4990 supports, I realized when looking at the scans that I was looking at the same sort of artifacts. Slivers of . . . ice -- or glass, whatever. Except these artifacts were located just a bit below the dust particles they were supposed to affect -- or remove, or whatever. Odd, I thought. Why have the ICE artifacts located just below the dust objects, rather than superimposed upon them, which is what I assume is supposed to happen.
Then I got to thinking -- ah, this is a used scanner, and perhaps something got bumped out of alignment. Like, say, in shipping it from Chicago, which is where this scanner came from, to Houston, which is where I reside. But first, I'm wondering, is this even possible? It seems to me that, based on evidence I can supply, some sort of mechanical adjustment to the ICE feature must be possible.
But more to the point, I'm wondering, do I even really need it? I mean, if it imparts even the most slightly detectable artifact that resembles a sliver of ice or glass on an image, I will not use it. But since my scanner appears to have adjustment issues, I can't tell if I might want it or not. So, I guess what I'm asking is -- can you detect the artifacts from ICE when you examine your scans at 100%, and if you can, is it worth the time and trouble saved by not manually removing the dust from your images?
I've also read that ICE softens images, which is another reason why I don't think I may be interested in using it. I've learned from the use of my 3170, which as it turns out does a quite decent job of scanning images, all things considered, that sharpness must be conserved whenever possible. Any "feature" that might reduce sharpness, I am predisposed to rejecting.
Thanks,
Michael
I also own an Epson 3170, and the Epson Scan software it came with has a dust removal feature that I've learned the hard way not to use. The dust removal feature imparts artifacts to images that look like slivers of glass . . . or ice.
After my first attempt at trying the ICE technology that my 4990 supports, I realized when looking at the scans that I was looking at the same sort of artifacts. Slivers of . . . ice -- or glass, whatever. Except these artifacts were located just a bit below the dust particles they were supposed to affect -- or remove, or whatever. Odd, I thought. Why have the ICE artifacts located just below the dust objects, rather than superimposed upon them, which is what I assume is supposed to happen.
Then I got to thinking -- ah, this is a used scanner, and perhaps something got bumped out of alignment. Like, say, in shipping it from Chicago, which is where this scanner came from, to Houston, which is where I reside. But first, I'm wondering, is this even possible? It seems to me that, based on evidence I can supply, some sort of mechanical adjustment to the ICE feature must be possible.
But more to the point, I'm wondering, do I even really need it? I mean, if it imparts even the most slightly detectable artifact that resembles a sliver of ice or glass on an image, I will not use it. But since my scanner appears to have adjustment issues, I can't tell if I might want it or not. So, I guess what I'm asking is -- can you detect the artifacts from ICE when you examine your scans at 100%, and if you can, is it worth the time and trouble saved by not manually removing the dust from your images?
I've also read that ICE softens images, which is another reason why I don't think I may be interested in using it. I've learned from the use of my 3170, which as it turns out does a quite decent job of scanning images, all things considered, that sharpness must be conserved whenever possible. Any "feature" that might reduce sharpness, I am predisposed to rejecting.
Thanks,
Michael
Last edited by a moderator:
