Digital BW, The Print

Group,

A dedicated film scanner would be great to have, but is beyond my 
needs and means.

While shopping for a new flatbed scanner, I came across two that 
feature built in film adaptors capable of scanning any film or 
transparency - up to 4x5" for the Canon D2400UF CanoScan and up
to 6x9" for the Epson Perfection 2450 Photo Scanner.  Both feature
2400x4800 dpi 48 bit scans, street price around $400.

Does anyone have experience with these or similar scanners?  How do 
they compare with dedicated film or drum scanners?  Are they close 
quality wise, or is this too good to be true?

As for my personal requirements, I'm an amateur photographer with 
35mm, 6x6, and 4x5 negatives and transparencies.  No pro or fine art 
print sales here, but, I do appreciate fine prints, both color and 
b&w and seldom print larger than 11x14.  All my new photos are with 
a 4 mega pixel Canon G2, RAW file format post processed – I'm 
pleased with the results.

Thanks for any input.

stephentucker@...

At 07:30 AM 7/8/2002, you wrote:
>Group,
>
>A dedicated film scanner would be great to have, but is beyond my
>needs and means.
>
>While shopping for a new flatbed scanner, I came across two that
>feature built in film adaptors capable of scanning any film or
>transparency - up to 4x5" for the Canon D2400UF CanoScan and up
>to 6x9" for the Epson Perfection 2450 Photo Scanner.  Both feature
>2400x4800 dpi 48 bit scans, street price around $400.
>
>Does anyone have experience with these or similar scanners?  How do
>they compare with dedicated film or drum scanners?  Are they close
>quality wise, or is this too good to be true?
>
>As for my personal requirements, I'm an amateur photographer with
>35mm, 6x6, and 4x5 negatives and transparencies.  No pro or fine art
>print sales here, but, I do appreciate fine prints, both color and
>b&w and seldom print larger than 11x14.  All my new photos are with
>a 4 mega pixel Canon G2, RAW file format post processed ­ I'm
>pleased with the results.
>
>Thanks for any input.
>
>stephentucker@hotmail.com

I have the Epson 2450 as well as a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 film scanner. I 
use the SS4000 for 35mm and the 2450 for 6x7 and 4x5 scanning. I have 
scanned black and white negatives (and color transparencies) with the 2450 
and have been very pleased with the results. You will need a bit of unsharp 
masking as with any scan, but I have made prints up to 11x14 from the 2450 
scans and they look great.

Forget the 4800 part of the specification, though. That is just (as I 
understand it) half-stepping the scanner and does not really represent true 
resolution.

Stan

================================
Photography by Stan McQueen
http://www.smcqueen.com

> While shopping for a new flatbed scanner, I came across two that 
> feature built in film adaptors capable of scanning any film or 
> transparency - up to 4x5" for the Canon D2400UF CanoScan and up
> to 6x9" for the Epson Perfection 2450 Photo Scanner.  Both feature
> 2400x4800 dpi 48 bit scans, street price around $400.
> 
> Does anyone have experience with these or similar scanners?  How do 
> they compare with dedicated film or drum scanners?  Are they close 
> quality wise, or is this too good to be true?

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.

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.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Godfrey DiGiorgi 
<ramarren@b...> wrote:
> 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.z
ip>,
> 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.

Godfrey - 

> 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. 

You may be right. Perhaps you could make a scan with the Minolta that 
closely matches the Epson's 2400 dpi. That's what I did: I just kept 
lowering the number until I got the closest match. 

This won't tell us the actual resolution, but it might give us a 
clue. I see the difference in your scans, particularly in your #2 
scans, which show the text on the bottles. In the Epson scan, they 
are almost illegible. I would politely ask, how low do you have to 
set the Minolta to match the Epson ?

Best wishes,

Ken Lee

That's kind of difficult to do ... scanners, far as I'm aware, typically
only really scan at integral multiples of the max optical resolution. The
Epson is a 2400ppi max resolution, the Minolta is a 2820ppi unit, so
integral multiples do not align. Any intermediary resolutions and you're
depending upon the driver to do interpolation so the results there are not
indicative of the actual scan value so much as they are of how good a job
the driver does interpolating. One small test I could do is to tell
photoshop to resample the Minolta detail bits at 2400 ppi and see what the
results look like ... I suspect they would look darn similar at that
point. 

I'll muck about with it a little more tonight.

Godfrey

On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, heliar333 wrote:

> You may be right. Perhaps you could make a scan with the Minolta that 
> closely matches the Epson's 2400 dpi. That's what I did: I just kept 
> lowering the number until I got the closest match. 
> 
> This won't tell us the actual resolution, but it might give us a 
> clue. I see the difference in your scans, particularly in your #2 
> scans, which show the text on the bottles. In the Epson scan, they 
> are almost illegible. I would politely ask, how low do you have to 
> set the Minolta to match the Epson ?

Godfrey - 

> That's kind of difficult to do ... scanners, far as I'm aware, 
typically
> only really scan at integral multiples of the max optical 
resolution. The
> Epson is a 2400ppi max resolution, the Minolta is a 2820ppi unit, so
> integral multiples do not align. Any intermediary resolutions and 
you're
> depending upon the driver to do interpolation so the results there 
are not
> indicative of the actual scan value so much as they are of how good 
a job
> the driver does interpolating. One small test I could do is to tell
> photoshop to resample the Minolta detail bits at 2400 ppi and see 
what the
> results look like ... I suspect they would look darn similar at that
> point. 

You're probably right: You won't be able to get an *exact* match. 

In my case, the Minolta driver allows you to scan at different dpi 
settings: 800, 1200, 1600, etc. I just chose the different options 
from the menu, and let the scanner do the rest. 

After comparing scans made at 800, 1200, 1600, and 2400, I simply 
discovered that the Minolta's 800 dpi came closest to the Epson's 
1600. I can post the images on the web if someone likes.

Perhaps the Minolta delivers twice the resolution that they claim, 
but I doubt it, since it costs so much more than the Epson. My guess, 
however, is that Epson overstates the resolution. 

I still think the Epson is an excellent value.

Best wishes,

Ken

> In my case, the Minolta driver allows you to scan at different dpi 
> settings: 800, 1200, 1600, etc. I just chose the different options 
> from the menu, and let the scanner do the rest. 

You're just relying upon the driver's ability to subsample the scanner
output. I've seen differences in quality even between driver versions in
that case. 

Best test would be to use a calibration test target with LP/MM markings,
scan at max optical resolution on the Epson (and the Minolta), and then
just examine the scan to see what the actual best case resolution is. I
have been intending to get one for focus calibration work just haven't had
the time. 

> I still think the Epson is an excellent value.

Same here. :-)

Godfrey

Godfrey - 

I have heard that in the sub-$1000 range, the CCD devices in scanners 
are pretty much the same. According to this notion, a key factor is 
the quality of the optics. 

Might that explain why my Epson 1640 output, at 1600 dpi, resembles 
my Minolta at 800 dpi ? 

In other words, my Epson delivers the promised 1600 dots, but the 
dots represent a smoewhat blurry image. By this reckoning, Epson 
isn't really guilty of overstating anything. The dots are there. 

Looking over the promotional material for the Microtek 2500 scanner, 
I see that it uses two lenses: one for 2500 dpi scanning over a small 
area, the other for 1250 dpi scanning over the entire bed.

... does this seem reasonable ?

> You're just relying upon the driver's ability to subsample the 
scanner
> output. I've seen differences in quality even between driver 
versions in
> that case. 
> 
> Best test would be to use a calibration test target with LP/MM 
markings,
> scan at max optical resolution on the Epson (and the Minolta), and 
then
> just examine the scan to see what the actual best case resolution 
is. I
> have been intending to get one for focus calibration work just 
haven't had
> the time. 
>

There are all kinds of possible explanations for why your test of 1640
output might look like it matches the output of your Minolta at a
different resolution. It's hard to make a judgement here which is not
purely conjectural in nature. Certainly the focusing capabilities of a
dedicated film scanner make a big difference in the quality of a scan
compared to a fixed-focus scanner like the Epson 1640. There's also the
issue of having the glass layer between the film and the sensor, unlike
the film scanner. 

Between the 1640 and 2450 scanners, Epson has obtained significantly
higher resolution performance at only a small difference in price. I'm not
enough of a hardware designer to be able to tell you what they changed to
obtain that... 

Godfrey

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, heliar333 wrote:

> I have heard that in the sub-$1000 range, the CCD devices in scanners 
> are pretty much the same. According to this notion, a key factor is 
> the quality of the optics. 
> 
> Might that explain why my Epson 1640 output, at 1600 dpi, resembles 
> my Minolta at 800 dpi ? 
> 
> In other words, my Epson delivers the promised 1600 dots, but the 
> dots represent a smoewhat blurry image. By this reckoning, Epson 
> isn't really guilty of overstating anything. The dots are there. 
> 
> Looking over the promotional material for the Microtek 2500 scanner, 
> I see that it uses two lenses: one for 2500 dpi scanning over a small 
> area, the other for 1250 dpi scanning over the entire bed.
> 
> ... does this seem reasonable ?
> 
> > You're just relying upon the driver's ability to subsample the 
> scanner
> > output. I've seen differences in quality even between driver 
> versions in
> > that case. 
> > 
> > Best test would be to use a calibration test target with LP/MM 
> markings,
> > scan at max optical resolution on the Epson (and the Minolta), and 
> then
> > just examine the scan to see what the actual best case resolution 
> is. I
> > have been intending to get one for focus calibration work just 
> haven't had
> > the time. 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>