Epson 2450 vs. 2700ppi film scanners

I currently use an Epson 2450, and find it does a great job with 6x7

and 4x5 films. For various reason, I've started shooting more 35mm

recently, and find the 2450 (not surprisingly) a bit weak at that

size.

 

The results are not so bad that I could justify a $700+ outlay on a

4000 dpi film scanner, but they might justify a $250-350 outlay on a

2400 or 2700 dpi scanner such as the benq scanwit.

 

Would a film scanner of identical or comparable resolution to the

2450 perform appreciably better with 35mm negatives/slides? Has

anyone used both, and can anyone quantify/describe the differences?

'Would a film scanner of identical or comparable resolution to the 2450 perform appreciably better with 35mm negatives/slides?'

 

Yes it would.

I think the most reliable information on this matter has been provided by Godfrey DiGeorgi, who has done some fairly extensive testing. You can find his comments and references to web sites showing examples by doing a google search of newsgroups such as rec.photo.equipment.medium-format and comp.periphs.scanners. Briefly, he has concluded that the Epson 2450 produces surprisingly good results even for Minox format, but that for 35 mm work you would do better with a Minolta Dual Scan III, which is what he uses. That scanner should be available at the price you specify. I do mainly medium format and 4 x 5 scanning, but if I did some more 35 mm scanning, I would probably get that Minolta. Of course, if 35 mm is going to be your primary focus, you should get a more expensive dedicated 35 mm film scanner.

My understanding is that the 2450 has an effective resolution of about 1800 ppi, although this varies marginally from unit to unit. It also has a fairly limited Dmax. So a 2700 ppi 35mm film scanner should give you better results in both areas.

Dale,

 

I keep seeing statements like yours although the equivalent number varies from 1200 ppi on up. Do you know precisely what that is supposed to mean? Some background first. Scanner manufacturers only tell you the optical scanning resolution. The actual photographic resolution as used in rating lenses and film is at best theoretically half that. But the optics and other hardware features of the scanner will deliver only some fraction of that, depending on the scanner. So when people say the 2450 at 2400 ppi is equivalent to an 1800 ppi scanner, do they mean it delivers what a perfect such scanner would deliver---which would be 900 lp/inch or 35 lp/mm? Or do they mean it delivers what the average film scanner with optical scanning resolution would deliver? Or what? My tests and those of others suggest the 2450 delivers perhaps 25-30 lp/mm which is a bit over half of the theoretical maximum. I know that some very high quality film scanners do better. I doubt if any scanner rated at 1800 ppi delivers a high percentage of its maximum.

My Canon 2700 dpi scanner gives me 9 million pixels.

 

I would assert that this is enough to produce acceptable 16x20's with 150 dpi full frame.

 

At $500 or so, it compares very nicely with a digital camera that produces a similar number of pixels.

I don't think the Epson even comes close to an effective dpi of 1800. I think it's more like 1200 (which is actually ok for what I use it for... 4x5). Dedicated film scanner should blow it away. I'd stick to a big name brand like Minolta, Canon, Nikon, or (maybe) HP.

I use a Epson 1200U (1200dpi) and an Epson 2450 photo (2400dpi) and the Canon 2710FS and the newer Canon 4000 film scanners; plus 3 other ones. The flatbeds yield a lower effective resolution than a film scanner of the same dpi. My Epson 2450 Photo yields an effective resolution of around 1600 to 1800 dpi; when scanning a test negative. I have had none of the focus problems mentioned by other users on this board. The dedicated films scanners have a much better shadow detail; and are alot faster in scan times.

There's much more to scanner performance than resolution. Real performance doesn't come strictly from specifications, just as knowing lpi tells you nothing about film. If you want really good scans from film you will need a film scanner.

Good point Jeff; .....Film scanners are alot easier to use. Flatbeds require ALOT more work; if the image is not average to perfect.

I suggest a Minolta Dual Scan III or a refurbished II if you could find one.

I've seen some Polaroid 4000 on that famous auction site for $500. It is not the newest model with firewire (4000plus) but I have used this scanner for over one year with great results. Upgrade to Silverfast 6.0 and you will have a very good scanner for chromes and negatives. It might not be the fastest scanner but I find that the most time is spent preparing a scan and then afterwords in the image editing software.

<I>At $500 or so, it compares very nicely with a digital camera that produces a similar number of pixels.</i><P>The scanner does, but photographic film doesn't. Second generation vs first generation, and a moot comparison.<P>My personal experience is that the 2450 does about 1800-2000 dpi in my tests. That to me doesn't seem to warrant the price of a dedicated 35mm scanner unless it's either really cheap, or does enough better job to warrant the price. 300 bones for a 2400-2700 dedicated film scanner when the new Epson is just around the corner? Hmm, seems like a waste of money of you ask me.<P>My advice is to do some shopping for a 4000dpi dedicated film scanner in the $500 range that you know won't be rendered obsolete by the new Epson. You may not need the 4000dpi, but it insures the optics are good enough to yield better scans at lower resolutions than a 2400-2700 scanner.

My Epson 2450 photo was NOT purchased to scan 35mm film; it was purchased to scan 120 and 4x5 negatives. On rare occasions I have scanned 35mm; for testing purposes; and a pseudo proof sheet of several 35mm strips.

Jeff,

 

I too use a 2400 dpi flatbed scanner (Canon D2400UF) for MF

films and a 2700 dpi film scanner for 35mm (Canon FS2710).

 

After several tests, I definitely use the FS2710 for 35mm, as it's

very much better than the flatbed, in terms of both definition and

overall quality. Anyway in general terms for MF films, considering the

size advantage, the flatbed 2400 is acceptable.

 

I made also several tests, comparing scans by my FS 2710 and the Nikon 4000, as I was attracted by its 4000 dpi and Dmax, but to be honest I did not find any visible difference.

The tests were made scanning the same 35mm shoots, made on Delta 100

from Contax Zeiss lenses, and printing enlarged details on Epson 1290

in A3+ size, with MIS Ink Hextone inkset on hi quality paper.

 

In my opinion there is no real advantage in spending 3 or 4 times

more to get the 4000 dpi.

 

Good scanning

 

Elio