Which Epson 3200 scanner model

[allen_birnbach]

I'm looking at the Epson 3200 scanner and am not clear about

which version to buy. The difference seems to be that the Pro

has Lasersoft Silverfast Ai6 vs an SE version for the cheaper

scanner, and Monaco EZcolor and Arcsoft PhotoStudio,

PhotoBase and Panorama maker as well. As I have a full

version of Photoshop and it serves me well, I'm not sure of the

value of the Arcsoft software. But is the difference in the Silverfast

software important? I also own Optical calibration, although I do

not know if they will have profiles for this scanner, and if I would

need targets anyway. The question is whether all these add-ons

are worth the extra $200. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[steven_clark]

Do you have vuescan? If so then silverfast may be pointless. The big thing would be EZcolor and the targets. Even if you have your monitor calibrated this would give you a single solution for getting your scanner and printer to match it. Still, if your existing tool already supports printer and scanner matching then you might just want to buy their targets and leave it at that.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Epson 1200, 1600, 2400, 3200, . . . <b>Epson 4000</b> in 2004? :)

[allen_birnbach]

STeve-I did try vuescan and silverfast demos a while back, and actually did like the silverscan better for TMX b&W negs. Now I mostly am shooting Portra 160 for both the color and B&W, so I don't know if that comparison is fair anymore. As for profiling the scanner/printer, I'll have to check with the makers of Optical. Thanks for the good input. Anyone know who is taking orders in the US?

[carl smith]

Actually Kelly, thanks to a new super cooling technique and advances in desktop quantum physics, the next epson flatbed after the 3200 will be the Epson PlasmaScan 56000. Boasting a useful scan resolution of around 2400dpi. The first flatbed, (although marketed at 56000ppi) that can make an image that has more than 1200ppi useful data that costs less than $3000.

[scott_eaton]

<I>although marketed at 56000ppi</i><P>Doesn't matter. Film will always have 10-15% more resolution than a scanner can capture :-)

[barry_haines]

HI ALLEN. I HAVE BEEN USING THE EPSON 3200 PHOTO VERSION FOR THE LAST MONTH AND I AM A LITTLE BIT DISAPOINTED. IT COMES WITH SILVERFAST SE6 (24BIT COLOUR) WHICH IS USELESS TO ME BECAUSE I WANT 48BIT COLOUR.

THE EPSON 3200 SOFTWARE WILL DO 48BIT COLOUR BUT ONLY REACHES A MAXIMUM PLATEAU OF 10,922 PIXELS NOT 12,800. ( I WANTED THE SCANNER AS A REPLACEMENT FOR MY OLD 2450 TO SCAN MAINLY 5X4 COLOUR NEG OR B/W NEGS).

10,922 PIXELS ON THE 5X4 FORMAT IS NO IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT I COULD ALREADY ACHIEVE WITH THE EPSON 2450 SCANNER.

I PHONED EPSON UK AND THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE ME UNTIL THEY CHECKED IT FOR THEMSELVES.

THEY CONFIRMED LATER IN THE DAY THAT IT WAS A SOFTWARE PROBLEM NOT A SCANNER PROBLEM.

I THEN DOWNLOADED THE DEMO OF VUESCAN ONLY TO FIND IT SHAVED OFF A VERY VERY SMALL PART DOWN ONE SIDE OF THE 5X4 FRAME (I AM A NOVICE TO VUESCAN...SO PERHAPS I WAS DOING SOMETHING WRONG!..PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I WAS DOING ANYTHING WRONG, YOU EXPERTS OUT THERE?..I WOULD GENUINELY LIKE TO KNOW).

I THEN DOWNLOADED SILVERFAST Ai6 + HDR DEMOS....MAGIC.

FORGET THE 12,800 PIXELS THAT EPSON QUOTE...YOU CAN NOW ACHIEVE 15,000 PIXELS FOR 5X4...1GB 48BIT FILES CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT INTERPOLATION (OR A DRUM SCANNER).

THE LIGHT DENSITY IS STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR PENETRATING VELVIA.

ALSO ANOTHER ANOYING THING IS THE VERY SLIGHT UNEVENESS OF ILLUMINATION CAUSED BY A BLUE PATCHY COLOUR CAST OVER THE 9X4 FILM HOOD, ONE OF MY FRIENDS HAS REPORTED TO ME THE SAME PROBLEM ON HIS 3200 SCANNER...THE UNEVENESS IS NOT AS BAD AS A CONDESER ENLARGER, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN..BUT NONE THE LESS IT IS STILL ANOYING!

SCAN TIMES ARE A LOT FASTER THAN THE 2450 USING USB2 (BUT PROCESSING ALL THAT DATA STILL TAKES ALONG TIME...BUT THAT ISN'T THE SCANNERS FAULT - MUST GET SOME MORE MEMORY).

SO ALLEN - I WOULD PERSONALLY HAVE BROUGHT THE PRO VERSION, BECAUSE I SHOOT 5X4 AND I AM HUNGRY FOR PIXELS. BUT IF YOU WANT IT FOR 6X9 FORMATS OR SMALLER...YOU WILL FIND THE PHOTO VERSION A GREAT BARGAIN.

I HOPE THIS HELPS..SINCE NO ONE SEEMS TO HAVE POSTED THEIR EXPERENCES WITH THIS SCANNER YET.....BARRY HAINES UK.

[allen_birnbach]

Barry, thanks for all the information. In fact, I bought a 2450 about a month ago, but because of a lot of travel haven't even taken it out of the box yet. Then I heard about the 3200, and figured I'd just sell the 2450 because of the reported increased speed for scanning and the increased resolution.

So since you have both units, do you feel like the scans are better on the 3200? Have you done a test to see what the actual difference in time is if you were to scan the same image on both machines?

For what it's worth, I primarily shoot TMX and Portra in 4x5 and 645 formats, so it seems your situation would be particularly relevant for me.

[barry_haines]

HI ALLEN

FIRST OF ALL SORRY ABOUT USING UPPERCASE I CAN'T GET OUT OF THE HABIT.

MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU WON'T PRINT ABOVE A3+.

YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY A VISIBLE DIFFERENCE ON 35MM.

YOU CAN SEE AN IMPROVEMENT ON TWO AND A QUARTER.

BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS HARDER TO DETECT BY THE TIME YOU REACH 5X4.

PRESCANS ARE A JOY AFTER THE 2450...MUCH, MUCH QUICKER.

THE MAIN SCAN IS ALSO QUICKER.....BUT PROCESSING ALL THAT DATA IS TEDIOUS TO

THE EXTREME...BEST TO GO AND HAVE A CUP OF TEA....TO SOOTHE YOUR NERVES.

I DID DO SOME TESTING ON TIMES BETWEEN THE 2 (BEFORE I SOLD MY 2450 ON

EBAY - INCIDENTALLY I GOT MORE MONEY FOR IT THAN WHAT I PAID FOR IT NEW IN

THE UK.......WEIRD!!!!!!!!).

BUT AS IT IS A COMBINATION OF THE SCAN TIME+ PROCESSING THE DATA TIME ON MY

COMPUTER - IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT USING YOUR COMPUTER.

A SCAN IMPROVEMENT TIME ON 35MM IS NOT REALLY PROPORTIONAL TO A LARGER

FORMAT..IN THE SENSE THAT IT SEEMS MUCH MUCH QUICKER ON SMALLER FORMATS, THE

LARGER FORMATS ARE FASTER BUT STILL THEY TAKE ALONG TIME PROCESSING ALL THAT

DATA.

YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM ME THAT THE SOFTWARE EVEN WITH THE 3200 PHOTO IS A LOT,

LOT BETTER THAN TWAIN 5.5 ON THE 2450....SO I WOULD RECOMMEND SELLING IT

BEFORE PRICES DROP TO MUCH. DESPITE MY ANNOYANCES WITH THE 3200 PHOTO I

WOULD NOT GO BACK TO THE 2450.

I HOPE THIS HELPS ALLEN ALL THE BEST BARRY

[barry_haines]

HI ALLEN.

 

I HAVE JUST FOUND MY TEST TIMES I DID A MONTH AGO...THEY MIGHT HELP YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN TIME. THE EPSON 2450 WITH TWAIN 5.5 VS EPSON 3200 USING EPSON'S OWN SOFTWARE (NOT SILVERFAST SE6). PRESCAN TIME (INCLUDE WARM UP TIME) 2450...1MIN 8SECS 3200...18SECS (STRANGELY A THUMBNAIL FOR 5X4 WAS 28SECS ON THE EPSON 3200). ACTUAL SCAN TIME + PROCESSING DATA FOR A 24X36MM AREA INTO PHOTOSHOP 7 AT 48BIT 2450...4MINS 16 SECS...@2400DPI=44.14MB 3200...3MINS 20SECS...@3200DPI=83.03MB ACTUAL SCAN TIME + PROCESSING DATA FOR 5X4 AREA INTO PHOTOSHOP 7 AT 48BIT 2450...29MINS 5SECS...@2400DPI=659.17MB 3200...24MINS 23SECS...@2400DPI*=659.17MB (*NOTE EPSON 3200 SCANNER CANNOT DO 3200DPI FOR 5X4 IN 48BIT).

 

 

COMPUTER ATHLON XP2400 + 512MB RAM PC3200...USING USB 2.0 CONNECTION.

ALL THE BEST BARRY

[mr_callow]

I know many think epson makes good scanners and they often offer scanners with a slightly higher res than their price point peers, but they are mediocre products at best. You will be happier in the long run with a mikrotek, nikon, or Umax. They are cheaply made, hard to repair/service and are very inconsistent from one sample to the next (indicating either poor QA or a very wide acceptance tolerance). They also appear to have the most optimistic Dmax claims i've ever seen and tested.<p>Of all the software listed Silverfast is the best (is it the full blown version?).

[bruce_darcus]

On this:

 

SORRY ABOUT USING UPPERCASE I CAN'T GET OUT OF THE HABIT.

 

Well, it's time to get out of the habit. It's rather rude to do this, for two reasons:

 

1) It's incredibly difficult to read long text passages in all caps. There's a reason you never see a book done so!

 

2) General internet protocol says that DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS is the equivalent to screaming. It has a certain meaning, that is, that is rather different than your intentions.

[barry_haines]

I APOLOGISE BRUCE, I DO NOT MEAN TO SCREAM AT ANYONE I ASSURE YOU. I HAVE ACQUIRED THIS BAD HABIT (EVEN THOUGH I KNOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE BAD INTERNET PROTOCOL) PURELY BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE VERY GOOD EYESIGHT (AS MY FRIENDS WILL TESTIFY). I AM NEW TO PHOTO.NET AND CAN SEE THAT MY PREVIOUS MESSAGES - DO NOT APPEAR AS CLEAR AS THEY LOOKED LIKE WHEN I FIRST TYPED THEM INTO THE...YOUR RESPONSE ANSWER BOX.

SO I SHALL REMOVE MYSELF FROM ANSWERING IN THE FUTURE ON PHOTO.NET. AS THIS WILL ALWAYS BE A PROBLEM FOR ME. ALL THE BEST BARRY

[richard_hasty]

I thought it might be useful to point out that there are accessibility options in recent versions of windows that would help out with the type being too small to read. I have perfect vision, but sometimes due to poor design I have to use them to read some web sites. One of the easiest things to do is change the text size for your browser. There is also a program called magnify that comes with Windows XP. It will apparently magnify a section of the screen, making it easier to read.

 

I am sure Macs have something similar.

 

I hope this suggestion is helpful.

[barry_haines]

Hi Richard

Many thanks for you posting and advice (and all the others that have emailed me directly � encouraging me to continue on Photo.net).

Richard I have Windows 98SE on my computer�so the magnify is not an option that I have�at least I don�t think it is! �but thanks for trying.

 

I am trying a method now�suggested by my friend (THIS IS IT�so apologizes in advance if it does not come out correctly).

Basically you type the posting in a large font correctly (in MS Word or similar)�highlight and reduce this in size and then copy and paste into the response box�this might help other�s with the same problem.

 

Now to continue with Allen�s Thread.

I am probably going to upset someone else now�(but I am a bit past caring).

 

By Answering Mr. Callow.

�Mediocre Products at Best�

 

Whilst I have criticized the Epson 3200 a bit I do feel overall - it represents �superb value for money�, I am unaware of any scanner that could outperform it for the same price by ANY manufacturer (but if you have a LOT more money�I am sure it could be beaten by a rival company).

Yet then in truth my experience of other scanners is probably not as great as yourself.

I own 2 Epson printers (1290 and 2100) and I used to own an Epson 2450 scanner, which I recently sold so I could upgrade to the Epson 3200.

I would have to defend the QA of their products as I have had no problems at all with any of their products (but perhaps I have just been lucky!).

For the price I have paid I could not also describe them as being cheaply made�in fact I think they are very good.

Regarding the Dmax of 3.4 which �Epson quotes for the 3200� I did not find it that optimistic either � �just not enough�, I would of liked this figure to been higher for my transparencies. I did do some tests on the 2 scanners with 2 stouffer step wedges placed on top of one another to reach the 3.0 to 4.0 log density range (which had been previously calibrated by my Barbieri densitometer).

I found their figures to be about right for MY scanners (but perhaps I have just been lucky!).

I would have to agree that I liked Silverfast Ai6 software the best (this comes with the Epson 3200 PRO version and Silverfast SE6 comes with the Epson 3200 PHOTO version).

Vuescan I think is great value for money also at $40.

All the best Barry Haines

[mr_callow]

<b>I have never used the Epson 3200</b><p>I may have had amazing luck with epsons. Printers failed at a rate of 60% (3 of 5), "pro" scanners which are not truly focusable (an epson feature) or user serviceable (the transparency tube need to be replaced in shop and all bulbs go). And as mentioned many here and elsewhere love these things.<p>I would simply recommend taking a dense trans and test the any scanner prior to buying. I would also not recommend any scanner that can't be focused, calibrated and or user serviced for minor maintenance.

[orville_rupell]

The 3200 PHOTO is now available in the US, and the "PRO" version probably will be soon. I do not have a scanner, nor have I had any experience with one; I also am keenly interested in buying a high quality multi-purpose scanner (just one!). I have not heard of any quality issues with the Epsons, and have never owned an Epson product.... so

 

mr callow: Can you recommend an alternative flatbed scanner with similar resolution and capabilities?

 

BARRY HAINES: IF YOU ARE USING INTERNET EXPLORER, SIMPLY SELECT "VIEW" ON THE TOP TOOLBAR, ON THE DROP-DOWN MENU SELECT "TEXT SIZE," AND FROM THAT SELECT ANOTHER SIZE, E.G., "LARGEST." THIS "LARGEST" SIZE IS QUITE READABLE.

 

There seem to be a lot of people interested in this new Epson 3200, and any further information, opinions, alternative scanners, etc., would be very welcome! Thanks any and all!

 

Orville

[barry_haines]

Many Thanks for the tip Orville.

 

But unfortunately this still has no affect on the text size, when contributing an answer in the - YOUR RESPONSE - ANSWER DIALOGUE BOX (Typing in this DIALOGUE BOX is my main problem !!!)...But it does change all of the other text to a larger size like you said...which then makes it easier for me to read other peoples comments.

I am still currently using the old Windows 98SE & Internet Explorer, but I do plan to upgrade to XP soon.

So many thanks again...and good luck in choosing your multipurpose scanner - I would be interested to know what you finally decide on.

 

All the best Barry.

[mr_callow]

<i>"mr callow: Can you recommend an alternative flatbed scanner with similar resolution and capabilities?"</i><p>I know nothing about the 3200. Is it 1600x3200 (which is really 1600dpi) or an honest to goodness 3200dpi optical res?<p>In any event I would look at this <a href="http://www.microtekusa.com/as2500f.html" target="newWindow">scanner</a>. It is a microtek with a film drawer. It is a superior way to scan film, comes from a company known for quality flat beds and they even make scanners used by pros (not simply scanners called pro) in the digital graphics world. They also make cheaper models. If you plan on scaning mostly film I would look at a dedicated film scanner.<p>If a scanner can't be focused and if the dmax is like most flat beds all those 3200 pixels per inch will give you is a large soft image with lots of noise in the shadows and dense areas. My last dig at epson.

[robert_bleidt]

Both the Photo and Pro models are now available at Fry's Electronics in California. I bought the Pro model today ($599). I based my purchase decision on the review at http://www.photo-i.co.uk. It has some side-by-side comparisions of the 3200 and a drum scan.

 

A lot of the discussion about this scanner is focused on either how much better it is than the 2450, or on whether it is good enough for "real" work. I plan on using it to scan 6x6 chromes.

 

If I ever make an image worthy of a 30 x 30 in. print, I'll pay for a 10K drum scan by a skilled operator. Meanwhile, I don't have the budget for a medium format CCD film scanner, but I rationalized I can pay for this scanner in proofs, small enlargements, and those images that turn out to be unworthy.

[robert_bleidt]

Opening my new 3200 Pro's box - there is no manual or software in the box. Instead of a weekend of experimentation, it looks like at best a trip back to Fry's.

 

Has this happened to anyone else?

[hil_niloy1]

>>Opening my new 3200 Pro's box - there is no manual or software in the box. Has this happened to anyone else?

 

No, mine has all the manual and the software, -- but no scanner!

 

No, just kidding. But at Fry Electronics, it might be that the previous buyer found no software so he returned it but forgot to put in the manual.

[hil_niloy1]

The practical scan quality of Epson 1680, 2450, and 3200 are all very close. It seems to me that the flatbed scanner is reaching the point of diminishing return.

 

With the glass between the sensor and the film, the light scattering and flare due to the glass is setting an upper bound at around 1800dpi and Dmax-Dmin at what it is now.

 

Increasing the light brightness helps little as it alse increases the noise level. Thinning the glass should help, but then it must be strong, and totally remove the glass can cause big concern on the larger film's flatness.

 

So, you need to live with what you have now for quite a while.

[r_hubbard]

Great commentary above. I'm into mor intermediate-level scanning unlike most of you professinals. Baxically, I would like to help my father scan 1,000 of my father's old slides from the 60's, 70's, and 80's, and also have print/paper/document scanning functionality as well. He took pictures with a 1960 Pentax 35mm, I would say semi-professinal level. I'm seeking speed, batching/good templates to lay on the glass, and good quality. The slide scanning would be 75/80% of all photography related scanning we would do. The other 20% of would be for some old B&W and color prints (varied sizes). I have done a fair amount of research on the Canon 8000F and comparable Epsons. All reviews have mainly positive comments, but all have a few complaints on the color accuracy of 35mm film scanning (I read a surprising amount of negative commnents on the Epson 1600/2400 for reproducting slides/35mm strips). We ended up buying my father the new Canon 8000F (best batch scanning of slides and 2400dpi). The first 8 scans we did with the 8000F looked great to me, but my Dad complained of a slght orangeness/redness tint. We haven't tried "correcting" anything (nor do I want to spend the time to correct anything). Scan timing did seem awfully slow with the 8000F as well - although I'm not sure if it was related to standard USB connection. In the process, I also realized that if a slide was not a "home run" family slide that would unlikely be blown up, I didn't need to scan a slide at 2400dpi, 1200dpi would seem to be fine for viewing the digital files on an HDTV or high quality LCD picture frame or for 5x7/8x10 or smaller blow ups (5mb file versus 20mb too !). NOTE: I honestly believe the viewing of historic family pictures will most likely be shared on CD/DVD's and viewed on video monitors and less on prints in the years ahead. THEREFORE,I'm considering (A) returning the 8000F for an Epson 3200 based on the speed commnent above and supposed better colorization, yet at the same time I don't need that much resolution as indicated earlier (I don't plan on scanning any 4"x5" negs or bigger). or (B) maybe just buying a Minolta ScanDual III (anyone know speed and memory size on this thing ?) and leaving the prints scanning to a multi-function 1200 optical dpi printer (HP 6110 or HP d135 supposedly do very good print scans per Microcenter and Fry's). The HP 6110 or d135 would also allow me to scan a stack of documents much easier than a flatbed w/o a feeder, not to mention the double-sided printing and faxing ablities. PLEASE HELP, ANY FEEDBACK WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

[tim_parker1]

Mr Callow,

Very odd you would knock a scanner you have never tested. I am also surprised you would recommend a $2400 scanner to someone who's shopping in the $400 price range. It was a waste of my time to follow your link. I'm sure the Microtek is a good scanner. It OUGHT to be better considering the price difference. Hardly a mass market item though, and it has no comparison value for mainstream shoppers looking for a mainstream product. I do appreciate the comments from people who have actually used the 3200, and thanks to their input I am planning purchasing one. I'll post my comments once I've tried it out.