Need printer advice

[jon_shumpert2]

<p>I am thinking of buying an Epson Perfection 2450 Photo scanner that is for sale locally. I know it is an older model. I was wondering if it is compatible with newer computers? It comes with all the original software and accessories. I plan on using it to scan negatives and slides. Any help would be appreciated.</p>

[DrBen]

I would not buy one unless I operated a museum and needed another exhibit.

 

You can download the manual:

 

https://data2.manualslib.com/pdf/5/483/48229-epson/prefection_2450.pdf?ae80e37a2a9c2ebd5816ebad4ed6d030&take=binary

 

The scanner interface is USB.

Required Windows system was Windows 98. It might run on XP but probably not.

Required Mactintosh system is pre-Intel (G3/G4/G5). It will not run on modern Macs (MacOS 10.0 to 10.12.2)

Color correction function requires a now-obsolete CRT monitor.

 

The following Epson Perfection scanners can be puchased NEW with warranty:

V370 $109 (this one is almost in the obsolete bin; I would not want one.)

V550 $165

V600 $209

 

I'm sure there are used ones in good condition for yard sale prices. I have a V500 and it performs well for scanning 120 negatives. For

35, you may find good prints limited to a maximum of 8x10 with the V550 and V600.

[jon_shumpert2]

<p>Thanks for the advice. I just developed a few rolls of black and white shot with a few of my manual cameras, and I am wanting to scan them. I think a new scanner makes much more sense, even if the old one could be made to work with my computer.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>https://epson.com/Support/Scanners/Perfection-Series/Epson-Perfection-2450-Photo/s/SPT_B11B149011?review-filter=Windows+7+64-bit<br>

Shows a driver for Windows 7 64 bit and 32 bit. Very doubtful it will run on anything newer. 2400dpi max resolution and 3.3 Dmax.</p>

<p>A V500 is good if you find one for $100 or less used otherwise V550 or V600, 6400 dpi and 3.4 Dmax. For 35mm a Plustek 8100 or 8200 will be a much better choice.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>There's not been a lot of development in consumer flatbed scanners since the 2450 was current. I had one -used with XP- and it was fine provided your expectations were reasonable. In fact the current crop of scanners isn't that much better because although Epson claim higher numbers ( as Mr Monday indicates), they don't actually achieve them or anywhere close and you'll be best off accepting that you're not actually going to see much over a useful 2000ppi from them, and anything above that is bloat- numbers but no extra detail. </p>

<p>That said the 2450 is old and apparently won't work with the last few operating systems or the next few either. It might not work perfectly; might not last, and whatever OS you have now any change in that in the future will see you needing to change the scanner or adopt workarounds of varying complexity. So like the others I'd suggest that unless the extra cost is really a huge issue, getting a new scanner- or even a used version of a current scanner- might well be the best longer term decision.</p>

<p>Please go into this with your eyes open though, especially if you're scanning 35mm on a consumer flatbed scanner, new or old. There's no wall-sized prints from those scans for you; though they're fine for viewing/assessing b&w negs and getting images online, or for proof-sized prints. I Basically you'll get about a 3000 x 2000 pixel file. I did use them for scanning prints too and they were quite good , though whilst these scanners aren't great they are good enough to pick up the texture of a fibre paper . </p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<blockquote>

<p>In fact the current crop of scanners isn't that much better because although Epson claim higher numbers ( as Mr Monday indicates), they don't actually achieve them or anywhere close and you'll be best off accepting that you're not actually going to see much over a useful 2000ppi from them, and anything above that is bloat- numbers but no extra detail.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same old wives tale. 3rd party testers use a 1951 USAF resolution chart scanned on the scanner and read the resolution from that. The 1951 USAF lens resolution chart was developed in 1951 to determine the line pair limit of various lens of the time on film. While its still a useful tool its not totally accurate.<br /> Take any current flatbed scanner, put any paper currency on it and start a scan, the software will give an error warning that currency cannot be scanned. The reason is that the resolution is so good that it will revel micro printing in the currency used as anti counterfeit measures. Take the 2450 or older flatbed scanner and you can scan currency on them as they lack the resolution to capture the micro printing. The micro printing is finer than slow film grain.<br /> While 2400dpi may be adequate for obtaining the detail from most negatives or slides scanning at higher resolution then reducing in post processing will give better results than a scan at the lower resolution.<br>

<br /> Never scan at a resolution higher than the hardware/optical limit of the scanner as higher than the optical limit is software interpolation.</p>

<p>Good scanning requires practice and is an art into itself, similar to making good photographs. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I have two decent flatbed film scanners (Canoscan 9000F and Canoscan 9950F). However claimed resolutions of 4000ppi and above are simply <strong>not</strong> what you can get out of them. I estimate the real resolution of the best of these is closer to 1600 ppi - good enough for internet, but not much more.<br>

The older, but actually real film scanners I have or have had (Canoscan 4000 and Nikon Coolscan 9000) really do scan at a true 4000 ppi resolution, and what's more actually resolve grain and dye clouds at that resolution (e.g., Kodachrome 25). That latter datum means that greater than 4000 ppi would not incorporate any real increase in resolution/data for any <em>ordinary</em> film. Some specialized data recording films, maybe something more, but not over-the-counter film.<br>

The day of slide and negative scanning from film is mostly over. I have seen nothing new in the last few years that convinces me it is better than my original Nikon Coolscan 9000, which is why I paid a fair, but astonishingly high price for it.<br>

The long, even mind-numbing story can be started as http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00d6UB and other links.</p><div></div>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>I do not subscribe to the "my eye is more accurate than instruments" crowd.<br>

Kodachrome 200 scanned on a V500 at 6400dpi 48 bit color, no color adjustments with Epsonscan in Professional mode. Original file size 6050 x 9068 313.9 mb, reduced to fit site requirements. <br>

Should give Jon an idea of what to expect.</p><div></div>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>deleted</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Same as above except color controls enabled and low level unsharp mask enabled.</p><div></div>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Same as previous except color controls enabled, unsharp mask deselected, and scanned full frame at 2400dpi then cropped and adjusted to fit site size requirements. No image adjustments made other than size adjustments.</p><div></div>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I think the 2450 will run if you use Vuescan. I have one and run Windows 10. I don't think there is a lot of difference between the 2450 scanner and the current Epsons in terms of scan quality, as I am a subscriber to the view that there is not much new in scanner technology that was not around 10 years ago.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Take any current flatbed scanner, put any paper currency on it and start a scan, the software will give an error warning that currency cannot be scanned.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure where this comes from. I doubt this has anything to do with resolution, probably just an anti-counterfeiting software that did not exist for the 2450. Does it do it with all currency from different nations? That would be very smart software.</p>

[john_wiegerink1]

<p>I have this same scanner and also a Nikon LS8000. For 35mm and medium format the Nikon is the cats meow. I also shoot 4x5 and some 8x10 and the Nikon seems to have a little trouble fitting those two sizes into its film carrier. Ha! Ha! That's where the Epson 2450 comes in. It does a really fine job with 4x5. It will do medium format fine also, but not as good as the Nikon. I also own an Epson 1600 Professional scanner and a ArtixScan Microtek M1. The Epson 2450 will pretty much keep up with those two for 4x5 and 8x10. Vuescan should handle all your needs in the scanning department. If you are using 35mm disregard all I have said and by yourself a dedicated 35mm film scanner instead of a flatbed. Sorry, that's just my advice and you can certainly do as you wish.</p>