> I'm considering the (highly regarded) Epson Photo 2450 to scan 6x7
> negatives. I already got positive feedback about this scanner, but have a
> few more questions:
>
> 1) Are there any grain aliasing problems? This was definitely an
> issue with
> my Nikon LS-30 (2700dpi), and no longer is with my current Canon FS 4000
> (4000dpi): given that the specs of the Epson are 2400x4800 dpi, I wonder
> which number is more relevant... For the record, I'll probably be scanning
> mostly Portra 400BW.
With the unsharp mask turned off in the Epson Twain software, I have seen
none. With it turned on, it will interact with the grain structure of
certain films. With VueScan you have different levels of sharpening, so you
can tweak this if required. In general, this is not an issue, imo. I
haven't tried Portra, but it does a very nice job on Supra.
> 2) I'm probably dense, but this 2400x4800 dpi resolution makes me a bit
> uneasy. I understand that the micro-step technology allows for
> *very* small
> movements in one direction thus resulting in the higher figure,
> but I'm led
> to think that if I scan a 6x6 negative with 2400dpi on the x axis and 4800
> on the y axis I should get an image with a 1:2 ratio, rather than
> 1:1. Does
> this mean that the scanner *always* interpolates either up to 4800 dpi or
> down to 2400?
The optical resolution is only 2400x2400, and that is the highest you would
scan film at. Anything above that is half-stepped/interpolated. The only
reason for the half-step to 4800 feature is to reduce jaggies on line art.
To say nothing of the fact that file sizes get very unwieldy above 2400. A
24-bit 35mm scan at 4800 is 90 MB. Even 2400 is pretty darn high for MF
work.
That said, the raw resolution spec of a scanner is analogous to the film
size of a camera: yes, bigger is generally better (but more expensive and
unwieldy), but size is FAR from the only factor affecting image quality, and
one cannot categorically say that a 2800 dpi scanner will produce better
images than a 2400 dpi scanner, any more than one can say that a 120 camera
will always produce better images than a 35mm camera. Optics and the data
capture devices enter the picture, and also the rendering characteristics of
the "software" (film, in the case of cameras).
Is the 2450 an incredible bargain compared to traditional MF filmscanners?
Yes. Can it produce excellent results, within certain limitations? Yes.
Is it as good as a Nikon 8000? Heck no. Is it better or worse than the
Canon 2400 flatbed? Not clear, few results with the Canon are in yet. I
would prefer the Epson in any case for its larger transparency area.
I'm very satisfied with my Epson -for the money-. My impression is that the
optics are slightly "soft" and that the "actual" resolution is somewhere
around 2000-2200 dpi. This should be fully acceptable for MF prints to
reasonable sizes. I find it acceptable for 8x10 from 35mm, but only from
sharp originals. The Dmax could be better, but is OK. Velvia is
troublesome. Astia and Negs scan nicely. Provia - it depends on the slide.
Dust is not much of an issue at all (perhaps due to optical softness). The
Epson software is quite good, and it also runs well with VueScan.
To sum up, I'm glad I got the Epson, I'm having a lot of fun with it, and I
love the ability to do 3 6-frame strips of 35mm at once for digital "contact
prints". But I'm also going to be buying a dedicated filmscanner for 35mm
work, in the hopes of improving sharpness and Dmax. If I wasn't doing so
much 35mm, I think I would be plenty satisfied with it as-is.
Here are some 2450 links that may be of interest:
This first is a link to a Usenet post on Google that contains a link to a
very nice MF scan.
m&lr=lang_en&num=100&hl=en
Here is the most complete user review I have found:
Here's an additional user review:
Good luck with your efforts.
Gannet
St. Petersburg, Florida USA
gannet@jtel.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
