Experience with the Epson Perfection 1640SU Photo scanner

[craig brown]

Does anyone use this scanner as their primary medium format scanner? I

have patiently waited for a medium format film scanner to break the

$1,000 mark. I know there have been flat bed scanners such as the

Microtek 4 that can handle negatives but I thought that the resolution

was too low to produce good 8x10 prints.

 

I am using primarily 645 format cameras. By using the new Epson

scanner, could I get a high enough resolution to print 8 x 10 or 11 x

14 prints on an Epson 2000 (or which ever one can handle 11 x 14)

printer?

 

Thanks!

 

Craig

[warren_kato]

There is an excellent thread on the regular photo.net list

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Ba4&topic_id=23&topic=photo%2enet

 

ALso toward the bottom Craig Yull has a comparison page that is interesting.

[craig_andrew_yuill]

Go ahead and read my <a href="http://mypage.direct.ca/c/cyuill/photography_area/pages/epson1640sup_vs_photocd.htm">comparison report</a>. (Thanks for bringing it up Warren.) It's really oriented around scanning 35mm slides for Web publication, but you might find it useful for your MF-directed question. I have done some experimental MF and LF scanning with it, and I think that the scanner is probably capable of creating MF scans good enough for fine 8x10 printing. I think, however, that 11x14 printing might be "iffy", unless you are willing to try scans with interpolated resolutions.

[mark_uehling]

I've been using the 1640su photo for about 2 months now and have been pleased with the results. 8x10s from x 645 will have more than enough resolution from a 1600 dpi scan. The 645 negative at 2.2 inches in length times 1600 dpi gives 3520 pixels, which would equate to a 352 dpi print at 10" width. 11x14s should work well too, resulting in a 250 dpi print. FYI, 42 bit scans from a 645 at 1600 dpi will result in 57Mbyte files, so make sure you have at least 256Mbytes of memory and a fast processor for editing.

 

The scanner does an excellent job setting the color from both negatives and slides, although the automatic mode is lacking. I scan with manual settings at 42bit color into photoshop and then adjust the levels using the histogram and grey scale by the numbers.

 

The scanner has just enough dynamic range for a properly exposed slide. The scanner does not have enough dynamic range to handle underexposured slides well. The shadows loose detail and show excessive noise.

 

Negatives scan o.k. but show some noise in the highlights, but the color is excellent.

 

Overall the 1640su photo is an excellent scanner for the money. If you want noticeably better quality for medium format scans, I think you would need to make a serious jump in cost to something like the Imacon Photo at $10K US or the Polariod Sprintscan 45 Ultra at $6K US.

[danny burk www.dannyburk.]

I purchased an Epson 1640SU Photo scanner about three weeks ago. With the holidays I haven't had time to do more than a few experiments, but my primary use for the scanner is to scan 645 and 4x5 transparencies for the website I'm creating. For the price, it seems to give excellent results; I have uploaded an example at the photo.net gallery site here:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=81852

 

for anyone who would like to take a look. I'm new to scanning, so I'm sure that someone with more experience can do a better job than I can, but the sample photo was creating using the Epson Twain driver's own exposure and contrast manual controls, then resized in Photoshop 5.5 (no other alterations made).