Digital BW, The Print

hello,

I am making some comparison tests between a Umax PLIII and the new 
Epson 2450 flat bed scanners. The Umax has a moving filament lamp and 
the Epson  uses a cold light diffusion head. There is a considerable 
difference in the over-all look of the scans. The Umax gives a 
granular (I don't want to call is "sharpness" yet.) look v. the 
Epson's softer look. 

I understand that, strictly speaking, the film grain is not being 
recorded. Some aspect of film graininess is - TX looks coarser than 
other films, for example.  Otherwise I think there would be no 
difference between a soft or hard lamp scanner image.  Can someone 
elaborate on digital grain for me? We are seeing artifacts of true 
grain - or not?  

BTW regarding sharpness or recording ability - the Umax records very 
slight scratches in the top-side of the film, usually invisible in 
chemical printing. Is this sharp, or what? The Epson soft lamp 
functions the same as an enlarger cool-light head, reducing dust and 
scratches. 

The max optical resolution is 1200 for the Umax and 2400 for the 
Epson. This is probably a stretch and both sharpen the image. 
Software and operator skill is a factor too. I am going to make quad-
tone and color comparison prints to see if there is a difference in 
quality between the $400 Epson and the $1100 Umax. I'm rooting for 
the Epson. Early results indicate that it is very sharp at 1200 DPI 
and there is zero difference between 8 x 10 quad prints.

AZ