Digital BW, The Print

If you compare the scans made with the Minolta Scan Dual II and Epson 2450
that are included in the package from 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SeePhoto/files/Godfrey/scaneg/reztest.zip>,
I think you will see that the 2450 returns at least close to its rated
2400 ppi in comparison with the Minolta's rated 2820ppi. I have not done
tests of a calibration negative (have to obtain one, haven't had the
time) but my eyeball estimation is that it's delivering on its
specification properly. 

I've been able to make some remarkably good 13x19" prints from 645 and 6x6
scans with the Epson 2450 at a nominal 300dpi output resolution.. 

Godfrey

On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, heliar333 wrote:

> Having read at www.kenrockwell.com that flatbeds often deliver only 
> 60% of their promised resolution, I decided to test with my own 
> equipment.
> 
> I have both an Epson 1640 and a Minolta Dimage Multi Pro. The Epson 
> claims to deliver a 1600 dpi scan, but in fact, it most closely 
> matches the Minolta at 800 dpi. SO I'd say that 60% is probably a 
> good number.
> 
> On the other hand, I find that the Epson does a better job getting 
> true colors off the film, and has a smoother, broader range of grey 
> values. 
> 
> Applying the same logic to other Epsons, I imagine that the 2450, 
> which claims to get 2400 dpi, delivers somewhere around 1500 dpi. At 
> 300 dpi output, this means a maximum enlargement of 5x. For 4x5, this 
> equates to a little under 16x20. For smaller film, 5x gets small. But 
> you get what you pay for - unless Epson has plans to deliver a real 
> 2400 dpi scanner soon. I'd gladly pay teixe the current price.
> 
> In the meanwhile, I have my sights on the Microtek Artix 2500. Others 
> have attested that it delivers a genuine 2500 dpi. At $3500, it ought 
> to. I have seen some gorgeous quadtone prints by Richard Wolfson, who 
> uses an Agfa 2500 (made by Microtek) for his 4x5 negatives - and they 
> are stunning and sharp at 20x24 inches and beyond.