jim poteet Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I�m looking to purchase a flatbed scanner that does a better than average job scanning 35mm negatives and slides. I�m sold on buying an Epson based on the many reviews I have read. Currently, the �2400 series� impresses me the most � based on a combination of performance and price. The issue I�m having is trying to decide between the 2400 and the 2450. Besides the addition of Firewire, LaserSoft SilverFast, and a 7 msec/line 256 gray level scanning speed increase on the 2450 I can�t seem to find any other differences between the two units. Unfortunately, I can�t find any reviews on the 2400 to seal my decision (buying the 2400). The one review I did find (www.zdnet.com) stated �Although most users will find the Perfection 2400 Photo more than adequate, those with a real photographic eye may want to step up to the Perfection 2450 Photo.� I don�t understand why this would be based on the comparison I have made. I�m sure I�m missing something and was hoping that someone could lift the fog for me . . . is the 2450 worth the extra $200? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gannet___ Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 If you can, I'd wait a bit. The 2450 is getting long in the tooth, and rumors are its replacement is just about ready to hit the market. The 2400 is part of the new series, and I think we will see a new model above that. 2500, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross_mcleish2 Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 "I think we will see a new model above that. 2500, perhaps?" 3200dpi/48bit - model GT-9800F - for release in Japan in Nov 2002, and whenever for the rest of the world : http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/scanner/gt9800f/9800f2.htm Same body shell as 2450, but obviously an upgrade. Don't hold your breath, just buy what you need now. I recently purchased the 2450 (mostly for 120 and above)and so far very happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray House Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 James...same problem for me! I think the 2400 will only scan 35mm, From the pictures I have seen, It looks as though the lid light panel is much smaller. Also, the 2400 weighs 1/2 as much as the 2450. I am going to take the advice to wait a month or so, I think it will be worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emaxxman Posted October 10, 2002 Share Posted October 10, 2002 Here is the contents of a previous thread that asked the same question. ------------------------------------ Epson 2400, 2450: difference? Does anyone know if there is a difference in scan quality between Epson 2400 and Epson 2450, or are they essentially the same? -- Jakob Norstedt-Moberg , October 03, 2002; 09:19 A.M. Eastern Answers Since the 2400 is so new, I am not familiar with its scan quality. It's specs say that it has the same optical resolution as the 2450. I think the main differences in the 2 models is that the 2450 has a Firewire/ IEEE 1394 connection, as well as USB, and has a larger transparency unit that is large enough to scan MF and LF. The 2400 is only big enough to scan 35mm film strips. -- Erin Schrad , October 03, 2002; 01:45 P.M. Eastern -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I recently compared the 2 models at my local Sam's club. The only difference that I can see in the two (based on printed specs and examining the two physically) is: 1) The 2450 has Firewire support. Not a big deal since USB 2.0 is supposedly faster than Firewire. 2) The 2450 transparency illuminator on the underside of the lid is larger. The 2400 looks like it's only large enough to illuminate a 35mm strip. 3) The 2450 is slightly larger in overall size. I'm not sure why since the flatbed scan area is the same on both units. 4) The 2450 is listed on websites as having Scanview(?) included but there is no mention of a particular scanning software on the box. There are no mentions of Scanview for the 2400. I bought the 2450 but haven't tried/opened it out yet. I'm considering taking the money and getting a Minolta Scan Duel 2 and buying just a cheap sub $100 flatbed scanner. It'll be a little more than buying the 2450 but will deliver more versatility and much better results. -- Thang Hoang (Hackettstown, NJ) , October 03, 2002; 02:42 P.M. Eastern -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "USB 2.0 is supposedly faster than Firewire." A Cnet reviewer says that although stated speed for USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/sec, versus stated speed of 400 Mb/sec for Firewire, he gets faster speeds thru Firewire. -- Bill Tuthill , October 03, 2002; 02:51 P.M. Eastern -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK. Scratch that point. :-( -- Thang Hoang (Hackettstown, NJ) , October 03, 2002; 05:20 P.M. Eastern -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 2450 comes with masks for MF and 4x5, whereas you have to pay extra to get them for the 2400. The two scanners are the same size. Main difference is interfaces - the 2450 has Firewire; the 2400 uses the newer (and faster) USB2 interface. -- Gavin Walker , October 03, 2002; 07:20 P.M. Eastern -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2450 can scan up to 6x9 neg -- W Gibson , October 03, 2002; 09:55 P.M. Eastern -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The epson 2450 can scan up to a 4 inch by 9 inch negative -- Kelly Flanigan , October 04, 2002; 02:43 A.M. Eastern -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One correction. The 2450 is listed as coming with SilverFast scan software...not Viewscan as I had mentioned. The 2450 comes with masks for MF and 4x5, whereas you have to pay extra to get them for the 2400. The two scanners are the same size. Main difference is interfaces - the 2450 has Firewire; the 2400 uses the newer (and faster) USB2 interface. It doesn't matter if you get the masks for medium format or not for the 2400. It's transparency illuminator in the lid is significantly smaller than the one on the 2450. It appears only large enough for 35mm. Go look at the 2 side by side and you'll see what I mean. Also, I'm quite sure (I'll have to look on mine to make sure) that the 2450 does support USB 2.0 just like the 2400. Check out these 2 links for more info. Epson 2450 specs:note the mention of USB 2.0 Look at the size of the 2400's transparency illuminator;it's much narrower and smaller than on the 2450 -- Thang Hoang (Hackettstown, NJ) , October 04, 2002; 12:04 P.M. Eastern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philippe Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 Does somebody know how wide the transparency unit of the 2400 model is? Is it sufficient for 6x6 MF slides/negs? Thanks, Philippe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim poteet Posted October 14, 2002 Author Share Posted October 14, 2002 It appears that the 2400 can scan slides but it is not wide enough for 6x6 MF slides/negs. I found this photo of the transparency unit for the 2400 on another message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philippe Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 <p>In the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003t9k">other thread</a> it was reported, that the light source of the Perfection 2400 model is 58mm wide. As the 6x6 MF format is 54 by 54mm (if I am right), this would be sufficient. The question now is, if illumination is even enough to get reasonable scans. <p> Does somebody have real hands-on experience on this? <p> Thanks, Philippe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_schneider Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 I bought a epson 2400 and I couldn't be happier. The light lid is almost wide enough for a for a 2.25 original. The actual width it lets you scan for transparencies and negs is 4.83cm - good enough for 6x4.5 or a format crop on a 6x6. I understand it is not as sharp as a dedicated film scanner, but I've scanned some absolute crap and been astounded with the quality I've been able to pull out of it. The 48 bit depth is a lot of fun to work with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron_russell Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 I recently purchased the 2450 and use it for larger negatives, and I'm really happy with it, except it scans slow, so I went out an got a USB2 card with 4 ports. I timed a scan on two different sized negatives, using my new USB2 port and the old computer USB1 port and darned if the times for scanning weren't the same. Does anyone else know if the scanner is supposed to scan faster with USB2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shaw2 Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 The 2400 can scan larger negatives than 35mm. One, you can buy the larger illuminator, but it costs ~$100. Two, you can use the built in illuminator for 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 negatives (or transparencies of course) if you can live with a slight crop along the width. Here is an example from a 6x6 negative scanned this way: http://www.lsmsa.edu/jshaw/bw4.html I'm tempted to try to fool the software by making a slightly wider cut out in a homemade carrier. I think the scan width is set by the "notch" at the top of the holder. The longer dimension of the scan can be manually selected in the twain so a rectangular negative is just as easy to scan as a square one. You must turn off the automatic thumbnails though in the software before trying this. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron_russell Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 I found that you don't need the carrier or mask when you scan, the carrier only holds the negative sort of flat, so it can't curl. The distance from the glass seems to have several opinions as to sharpness. One test said if the negative was flat on the glass, it is sharper, another person ran a series of critical tests and found that about 1/16th of an inch from the glass is the sharpest, which is what the carrier is; however, since all negatives are going to sag at the center, I don't know how you maintain flatness unless you use thin glass under it. The notch at the top of the carrier is only a distance guide, if you put your negative at the top of the scanner table, you will get a lot of streaking. I also found that various photo programs, such as Photoshop sometimes end up with black screens whereas Paint Shop Pro 7 doesn't. I also came to the conclusion the USB2 feature is hype, the scanner is not fast enough for either USB2 or 1. A final note, if you scan with the glossy side of the negative down, the right way, you can sometimes get 'rings' on the image, most evident in the sky. I have the 2450 model. Great but slow except in the flatbed mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron_russell Posted December 18, 2002 Share Posted December 18, 2002 Does anyone know for sure that the cable that came with the 2450 is in fact a USB2 cable? That could be the problem. I tried to check it out but even the company that made it does not use the part number on the cable that came with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shaw2 Posted December 19, 2002 Share Posted December 19, 2002 Ron, I placed the 6x6 negative on the glass, emulsion side down to avoid Newton rings, and used the negative carrier set on top of the negative strip to hold it flat. I assumed the scanner used the slot to detect the size of the negative since it is the same width as the filmstrip's short side or the slide's slidemount--depending which way you set the carrier the scanner sets a default width in the TWAIN. I may try taping the negatives to the glass as a test of this and see if I can bypass the software's settings. The defults may also be set by the ligtsource's cable. How does the scanner detect that it should use the larger accessory light source width s? Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron_russell Posted December 20, 2002 Share Posted December 20, 2002 As soon as you select negative or positive in the Twain mode, which I like better than the Silverfast program, the top light turns on and the bottom light shuts off. I think the only default setting is the width and length of the top light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kathy_spear Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Regarding the USB cable that comes with the 2450 -- it is NOT USB 2.0 compliant. I got one on ebay for about five bucks to go with the 2450 that I got at Sam's Club (online) for $299. Kathy Spear (catperson!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_antreasian Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Just an observation re: speed of USB vs USB2.0 The USB 2.0 should be MUCH faster once correctly installed. Although I've not yet tried a scanner with USB, if you are having speed issues, I suggest upgrading to the newest USB drivers you can find. Also make sure your USB cable says 2.0 on it, and make sure the cabling INSIDE your computer enclosure also has correct wiring to support USB 2.0 vs standard USB. That 8" wire from the motherboard to the back panel made all the difference in the world for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_pitone Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 I noticed throughout the thread that some of you were concerned about scanning some MF slides/negs with the 2400. A friend of mine recently helped scan in a few MF and 35mm BW & Color negs with his 2400 - I was doing it as a favor to a friend/photographer for his online portfolio and interactive CD. We ended up baggin the whole film tray option --- the flatbed scan offered a very crisp scan and allowed us to scan more images in a single pass. We just grabbed a piece of glass from one of the framed photos on the wall and used it to hold the negs flat on the flatbed. This option also allowed us to capture the sprockets and film coding of the negs - later used for a nice, "raw" touch in display. So...although it may not answer the main question here, I thought my insight may be found useful to some of you out there. I think I'm gonna purchase the 2400 for now...I've seen it in action and the the results were very pleasing. -Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_entenman Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 I would just like to point out that USB 2.0 is only supported if your operating system supports. For USB 2.0 to be active you need to be running at least Windows 2k or Windows XP, or MacOS X/10.2. The protocol is backwards-compatible meaning that 2.0 devices use the same cords and ports as USB 1.1/1.0 devices. If you do not have one of these operating systems installed, you will see no speed difference. Therefore the 2450 with the FireWire gives you the speed boost if you don't have those operating systems. Of course, you need a Firewire port too..:) Just my two cents.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now