Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (
More info?)
Sam, thanks for your input. I am not at all sure the 4870 has twice
real resolution as the 10000XL. I would expect a tie at best, if only
because of the focus issue. Yes, the focus is a big deal for film
scanning at high res. One can expect better optics as well in the
10000XL. All is all, one could expect the 10000XL to be better than
the 4870 for film.
In any case, 2400 good dpi is plenty for medium format, which I use a
lot. If the 10000XL should prove short for 35mm, I can had a Minolta
5400, quite affordable and more than enough resolution
Another key difference I would expect with the 4870 is productivity.
The film holders for the 4870 do not help. The 35mm holder can not
take a whole 35mm film (duh!) and the medium format holder is designed
by someone who never took a medium format picture. It is designed to
show a part of 3 film strips. Who on Earth does need that ??? The
10000XL would boost productivity a lot, if only for the "contact
sheet" stage.
I'd like to read from someone who uses it as a film scanner. Maybe
nobody does because it is truly bad at it, who knows ?
"Sam Inela" <nobody@home.org> wrote in message news:<O%mpd.104335$Tq1.86809@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
> I had the 4870 for a while, and it's the first scanner I've owned that I'm
> perfectly happy with except for the fact that it's not also a large format
> scanner. When I first noticed that the 10000XL existed, I also purchased
> that (without the transparency adapter).
>
> Results scanning prints are identical. The differences in the scanners are
> the size of the scanning bed (obviously larger items are scanned without
> cropping on the 10000XL, or more items can be scanned in a batch). The lamp
> used in the XL requires no warmup, unlike the 4870 (a minor detail). The XL
> also accepts a rather expensive network adapter, which might be useful in an
> office environment (I use a USB extender which allows me to place the much
> larger XL on a shelf in the closet, while the smaller 4870 stays next to the
> computer). I believe the transparency adapter also would cost about the same
> as a 4870 (you can compare yourself).
>
> For transparencies, the 4870 has the advantadges of twice the resolution
> (4800 vs. 2400) and digital ICE correction. I can't see getting the
> transparency adapter for the XL when that scanner doesn't do ICE and scans
> at half the resolution. 2400 DPI is overkill for all but the tiniest print,
> but I prefer 4800 for a 35mm slide. I guess it depends on what you're
> scanning.
>
> But the XL would have some advantadges in scanning transparencies. The XL
> has an adjustable focus, manual or automatic. The 4870 is fixed. The
> adjustable focus has no apparent effect on print scanning (that I can see),
> but I imagine it would have a discernable effect on material held slightly
> above the glass, and scanned at its highest resolution. And obviously a lot
> more items could be scanned in one batch on the XL.
>
> Although the 4870 has the advantadge of twice the resolution and digital ICE
> correction, be advised that ICE doesn't work for ALL film. See page five of
> the following for those limitations:
>
http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/pr48pr/pr48prps.pdf
>
> Summary:
>
> XL:
> adjustable focus
> larger scanning bed (more scans per batch)
> no lamp warmup
> network adapter option (extra cost)
>
> 4870:
> twice the resolution
> digital ICE correction
>
> I have the XL because for large format prints it can do what the 4870 can't,
> and for that type of media, half the resolution is more than enough. But for
> transparencies, the 4870 is best.
>
> If 2400 DPI is enough resolution for your needs and ICE isn't required,
> and/or scanning large batches is your priority, then the XL might be your
> choice. Or if the network capability is a requirement.
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram