Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Epson 2450, etc.

"Bernie Kubiak" <bkubiak@attbi.com> writes:
I was fairly well set to buy this scanner to replace my flatbed but I
find that it's out of stock at the places I usually buy equipment from
and a few more.  Anyone know what's going on?  Might Epson be making
some product changes?  Or is this thing just selling faster than they
can build them?

Dunno. They're available in Tokyo. (Not much help, sorry.)

I did compare this against the Perfection 1680, which is more costly.
My intention is to use the scanner for MF slides and negs in addition to
flat art.  My newbie question is how significant a difference is the 3.3
dmax of the 2450 versus the 3.6 dmax of the 1680?

My intention is to get scans from 645 negs/chromes sufficient to allow
16x20 prints, so suggestions are welcomed.

Isn't 16x20 from 645 pushing it whatever you do???? (Hmm. Assume 4000dpi.
That's 6400 x 8800 pixels or so. That's 400 dpi. Oops. Should be no problem
whatsoever. Sorry again.)

Back to reality that I have some experience with. There seems to be some
amount of manufacturing variation in the 2450. I'm finding mine quite soft,
and I find  645 + 2450 not a whole lot better than my Sony F707, i.e. a
_major_ disappointment. I'm finding it possible, but difficult, to produce
good 8.25 x 11.75 inch prints from 645 and my 2450. It's so soft, that it
seems that it doesn't even see some images with lots of detail. With
autoexposure using VueScan, Provia 100F highlights tend to get blown, but
manually reducing the exposure helps. Kodak ProPhotoCD scans seem to have a
better actual Dmax.

I've compared Kodak ProPhotoCD to my (possibly defective: when I complained
to Epson Japan, they said that anyone scanning film with a flatbed needs
their head examined) 2450, and the 1800dpi from Kodak (actually, Horiuchi
Color, the local pro lab) is worlds better. I think the 1800 dpi Kodak scans
are better than _any_ 2450 scans I've seen on the net, but folks with good
2450s who find the optimal height above the glass may be doing almost that
well. These Kodak scans (4000 x 2900 pixels or so) look great at 8.25 x
11.76, but at 16" wide are going to be 180 dpi. Hmm. That might be enough.

In Japan, Kodak scans are 3000 Yen a pop, and the Nikon 8000 is 300,000 Yen
or so. Hmm. I'd hope the Nikon 8000 is somewhat better than Kodak<g>.

Anyway, I find it hard to believe that even a very good 2450 would be
adequate for 16x20, and I've learned the hard way that some are problematic
for full-bleed A4. Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.