Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?

["Robert Kehl" <bobkehl@kvernkehl.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Geraghty <harper@wordweb.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:26 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?


> Rob
>
> PS I'm glad to hear you're happy with the 2000P, Frank, since
> it seems to have received an unwarranted poor reputation on
> the Epson inkjet list.

After almost 10 years of printing with an HP colorlaser and almost all of
the desktop color inkjet technology they ever produced, I can say I am very
happy with my Epson 2000P.  I still use my HP's for quick prints because
they are fast, but the 2000P produces beautiful prints.  However, when
something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know
in a hundred years how the prints are holding up.


>
> PPS Obscanning: what is the largest print anyone has made
> from a 2700dpi scan?
>
>
I've printed 13"x19" from both 2700 dpi (LS-2000) and 4000dpi (Mtek 4000t).
The 2700 dpi at 13"x19" looked very nice.........until I laid the 4000dpi
next to it.  The 4000dpi had better definition in the details.  My judgement
(just one man's opinion) is that depending on the type of photography you're
doing the extra resolution may not matter.  For instance, a portrait may
actually benefit from the slightly softer details whereas a landscape may
beg for the greater depth of reality that the extra resolution can provide.
Does this mean that at this point the decision about resolution is about art
rather than science? Perhaps.

My early tests were somewhat slanted towards the 2700 dpi LS-2000 because I
had the ICE turned on.  I learned thru this list that some sharpening is
applied when using ICE (I should have used Vuescan) .   I'll be retesting
when I get a chance without the sharpening (using Vuescan) so that the scans
will be equal except for the resolution.

Bob Kehl