Epson 2450 for medium format scans?

[fotografpeterlundberg.se]

I am thinking about a geting a scanner to scan negs from my Mamiya 6.

I wonder about what to expect from the Epson 2450. Will it be good

enought to pull out detalis from my negs? I do not want to by it, and

then realize that I would be better of shooting 35 mm film and

scanning it with a 4000 dpi high quality scanner. Is there anyone who

has experience from both these options and could give me some advise.

[Nicholas Barry]

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/search/search?search_type=rest&sections=static_pages&sections=bboard&sections=comments&query_string=Epson+2450&x=0&y=0">Try a search like this</a>.

 

<p>

Subjects like "Epson perfection 2450 plus Epson inkjet - awsome combination" will probably give you a lot of info.

 

<p>

Or just search on the phrase "Epson 2450" in the search box in the upper right hand corner of this page.

[derek_simpson]

I'm no tech guru but I'm working in the two ways you describe. The 35mm scans at 4000 dpi from a Microtek Artixscan 4000t are probably better than the medium format from the 2450 but then the set up costs are rather different. The 2450 is not to be discounted just because there's something better costing more on the market - there always is. From 6x6 I scan very good 160-170 Mb files which get slimmed down to 70ish in the course of processing - they convey the quality of the original behind them no matter what the numbers may say. Previously I had to submit smaller MF files to the stock libray than the 35mm scans - and of course the original is on MF and in my files ready for when the technology takes another leap and prices a dive. I shoot both formats for their advantages in different forms of photography - if I HAD to go with one scanner it would be the 35mm but as the 2450 is affordable and useful for flat copy work and 35mm contact sheets it wasn't hard to persuade myself I needed both.

[fotografpeterlundberg.se]

So Derek,

 

Do you mean that if you shoot the same pic with 35 mm and medium format, scan the negs and print them in equally size prints, you get more detail from the 35 mm film?

[steve_hovland]

I have talked to one person who positively loved his 2450, and the threads typically say good things about it. It would be my choice for a reasonably priced scanner. For now I just have a Canon 2750 for 35mm- it's roughly equivalent to a 9 mp digital.

 

One recent thread indicates that the 2450 is about to be replaced by a new model, so you might want to hold out for it or try to get a 2450 on closeout.

[steve_hovland]

Some people say that 200 dpi is plenty good for most prints.

 

A 2450 will give you about 5000 pixels on 2.25" wide film. That's enought for nice 24x30 prints from 6x7.

[simon_coyle]

Scanners you can buy today shouldn't dictate the format you'll shoot in the future.

[scott_eaton]

<I>The 35mm scans at 4000 dpi from a Microtek Artixscan 4000t are probably better than the medium format from the 2450 </i><P>HAHAHA!. 6x7 MF scans from my old 1640 show equal if not slightly better tonal graduation than drum scans from my 35mm slides.<P>In 645 you have a closer fight, but I'll still take the 2450 for MF over the best desktop scanner for 35mm.<P>It's simply a question of linear enlargement. 2,000dpi scans from a piece of film are going to give superior results than 4,000dpi scans. The 2450 (in my tests) yields about 1800 true DPI, which is plenty in my book from MF film. Above 2,000dpi you're just yanking more film grain, so once again, film size beats out greater scan resolution.

[masatoshi_yamamoto]

My Epson GT-9700F (the number the 2450 has in Japan) produces scans which

are better in most ways (sharpness, detail, and especially tonal gradation)

than the best 35mm scans I've gotten from a dedicated film scanner. Given

printing at the same size, I'll take medium format on the Epson over 35mm on

a dedicated scanner. It's not a Nikon 8000, but it is a remarkable value. I also

think that there is little useful information in any film, 35mm or medium

format, much beyond 2000 dpi or so. I know many will disagree, but I think

that all you get with higher resolutions is more grain. As others have said,

film size stomps all over everything else.

[berniek]

In a word, yes. I use the Epson 2450 to scan 645 and 6x6 negs and it works well. I also have a Polaroid 4000, bought during the model closeout, for 35mm. The combination cost me less than buying one of the multi-format film scanners, plus it gives me a flatbed scanner which gets used for non-photo purposes as well.

 

Images from both scanners look good on the wall, which is the ultimate test!

[norman_miller]

I'd like to chime in on a related matter. Some months ago I threw away the Epson 120 film holder and made a simple cardboard affair that not only enabled me to pre-scan a strip of 3 6x6 negs and get thumbnails but (more important) use a sheet of ordinary window glass to keep the negs really flat. Makes a huge difference. I did it with the emulsion side up. I now realize that it's even better with the emulsion side down, though I now have to reverse matters in Photoshop.

 

I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of laying the negs flat on the scanner glass (a small space between the two might be best) but I think it's pretty clear that the Epson film holder doesn't keep the negs as flat as glass does.

 

Norman Miller

[scott_eaton]

<I>I also think that there is little useful information in any film, 35mm or medium format, much beyond 2000 dpi or so</i><P>There isn't.

[jerry_hyman2]

I use a 2450 to scan both negatives and slides that are 6X6 and the results are amazing. I have used a dedicated Minolta for 35mm scans at 2750 dpi and there is simply no comparison in my book. The sharpness and tonality is MUCH better with the 2450. The 35mm scans were from a Nikon with top of the line Nikon primes, and the 6X6 scans were from a $225 Minolta Autocord TLR.

 

If as mentioned above that Epson is coming out with a replacement for the 2450 I would wait for that, but if not you will be more than pleased with the 80meg files you get from the Mamiya 6 and the 2450.

 

Hope this helps!

 

-Jerry

[andrei_kvasyuk]

I second Norman's declaration:

Epson's film holder does not keep the film flat. I've also created my own

holder to make a batch scan of strip (the same design as Epson's but longer and vertical). But I used the material(vinil folder from Staples), which twice as thiner than Epson's plastic.

The result was crisper.

Then I decided to put the film on the glass and didn't even press it with the cover window glass. And this scan was the best.

 

Andrei.

[andrei_kvasyuk]

I put the photo of my own holders there:

 

http://www.russianamherst.org/Pictures/Holders_120

 

Also there you can find Three full-size crops made with different holders:

Epson (holder)

Custom (holder)

Glass (simply on the glass)

 

Andrei.

[pphaneuf]

If there isn't much more information on film beyond 2000 dpi, why did scanners ever go beyond the 2700 dpi generation and into the 4000 dpi one?

 

I generally agree with 2000 dpi being enough, I'm just wondering what the heck is going on...

[godfrey]

I use a 2450 for medium format and occasional smaller format scans. I use a

Minolta Scan Dual II for 35mm and smaller most of the time. The scans from

the 2450 have made superb 13x19" prints that are noticeably better than what

I can print from the SDII scans, the quality of medium format work is

immediately apparent.

<br><br>

Certainly, dedicated medium format film scanners should be able to do a

superior job ... and their price would demand that they do. But with the 2450,

you have remarkably good quality at a very reasonable price.

<br><br>

Here's a resolution example page from the 2450 so you can see what you will

be getting from it:

<br><br>

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SeePhoto/files/Godfrey/scaneg/

epson2450resolution.htm"><b>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SeePhoto/files/

Godfrey/scaneg/epson2450resolution.htm</b></a>

<br><br>

and some more if you want to compare the two:

<br><br>

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SeePhoto/files/Godfrey/scaneg/

reztest.htm"><b> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SeePhoto/files/Godfrey/

scaneg/reztest.htm</b></a>

<br><br>

Godfrey

[fotografpeterlundberg.se]

Thank you all for your help! You have been of great help and I will today find out how much to pay for the scanner here in Sweden, I will post some pics when I have some results to show.

 

Regards

Peter

[struan_gray]

Peter, the cheapest place I could find for the 2450 in Sweden is

www.cyberphoto.se (4781 SEK incl MOMS). NY Camera

(www.ny-camera.com), who are based in Germany, have it for

about 500 SEK less, depending on exchange rate. I have

happily bought from both places. Cyberphoto do throw in a free

chocolate bar :-)

[steven_dusk1]

Bernie, since the Polaroid 4000 and Epson 2450 is exactly the combination I am considering, can you please confirm which end result is superior, as it wasn't obvious from your answer.

[robert_berkovitz]

Regarding getting the best scans from the Epson 2450...

 

I have tested (with Norman Miller) the Epson 2450 by scanning an optical glass reticule with extremely fine, deposited-metal markings. I scanned the reticule first with the markings against the scanner glass, then flipped the reticule so that the markings had 1 mm of glass between them and the scanner glass. The results were not startling, but the scan made with the markings against the glass were clearly sharper.

 

The main constraint I see in Epson's engineers' approach to the design is that to hold the film there needs to be some structure that would also raise the film above the glass. However, the Amherst correspondent's idea of using a very thin sheet of plastic should reduce any focus problem caused by this separation of film and glass. I am also not convinced that it is a good idea to follow Epson's advice and put the emulsion facing up because of the danger of Newton rings when the shiny side of the film touches the glass. I have already seen this happen on some scans made this way.

 

Unless the photosensitive scan element shifts position when the user changes from paper to film, we should assume that the optical system is optimized for a target in the same plane as the scanner glass top surface. This means that the most accurate (sharp) scans of film would be achieved if the film could be positioned accurately and pressed flat against the glass without unnecessary handling or danger of scratching it.

 

The obvious solution is a cutout of the kind I tried yesterday, a rectangle slightly ( 2 mm) wider than the film. Attached to the plastic or cardboard should be a strip of glass cut to fit the cutout precisely and hinged, with tape, so that it can be raised or lowered easily. This works well and is easy to make. The film should then be scanned emulsion side down.

 

Bob Berkovitz

[derek_simpson]

I did say 6x6 on the 2450 was superior in tone (ie gradation) BUT the 35mm scanner can handle dense deep colours better. Pixel detail is not the whole story. "Better" is a subjective term unless defined - sharper ? More saturated ? there are various criteria you might consider important. As for you guys who see this forum as some kind of competitive quiz - get a life and/or take photographs.

[andrei_kvasyuk]

Hi, all.

 

I have some questions pertained to performance of 2450:

 

1. What is your average scan time for 120 film at 2400dpi ?

 

2. I saw at luminous-landscape that the cable supplied with 2450 is USB 1.1. I've been thinking so far that the cable for USB 2.0 and USB 1.1 is the same, the difference is in controllers only. Can someone clarify this, please ?

 

3. The optical resolution is 2400 dpi. Hardware 4800dpi. I'm confused:

what's the difference between these two ?

 

 

The questions are caused by the following:

I had had USB 1.1 prior to today. And the scan time was around 13-15 minutes for 6x4.5 slide at 2400 dpi. It's slow, nothing to say.

Yesturday I bought a USB 2.0 card and reconnect the scanner. This time scanner was identified as USB 2.0 device and I expected to see significant improvement in performance. But It was only 10-11 minutes. It's still slow if to take into consideration that USB 2.0 is 40 times faster than 1.1 Should I buy the cable marked as 2.0 ? Or should I do what ??

 

My system parameters:

 

600 MHz

650 Mbytes

WinXp + PhotoShop 6.0(uses 50% of memory) + SilverFast 6i (Full. I'm doing batch FILE scan)

 

Thank you.

Andrei.