Epson 2450 Scanner - Is It What You Thought It Was?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
I'm considering buying the Epson 2450 and I'd like to hear from those of you who have bought or regularly use one for scanning 5x4 sheet film, both colour and B&W. Do you have any regrets after buying it? Does it do what you thought it would do? Is the dMax of 3.3 a limiting factor in the work you've done from the files produced? Are you glad you bought it?
If you don't use this type of scanner regularly, please don't answer this question. I've read the archives, reviews and specs, so I'm not interested in more second hand information. I am also unconcerned about scanning smaller formats. I'm only after honest, personal impressions of 5x4 scans.
-- Graeme Hird (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 26, 2002
-- MILES FEIGENBAUM (MFA1@IX.NETCOM.COM), May 26, 2002.
Thanks for that Miles. I've seen that page before. Can you please respond again when you've taken your scanner out of its box and made some scans from 5x4 sheets? I'd be very interested in YOUR impressions of the scans it makes from large format films. The responses on that page are from people with small to medium format films, and I'm specifically after 5x4 scans.
-- Graeme (email@example.com), May 26, 2002.
From talking to colleagues who have one, they are VERY satified with it for 4x5, in the price range. If you want something better you are probably going to ahve to spend an awful lot more
It also depends what you are scanning. If you are scanning negatives as opposed to transparencies, the need for a higher density max isn't an issue. (remember we are talking density range here with scanners, not dynamic range)
-- Tim Atherton (tim@KairosPhoto.com), May 26, 2002.
I have one and I do scan 4x5 with it regularly for both color and black and white. It is everything I had hoped for in a LF scanner. I'm sure that there are scanners that are better, but I'm also sure that they are so expensive as to be untouchable by the likes of me, and perhaps not so much better that one would always notice a difference. With it I can make sharp detailed scans, with good shadow detail, that print beautifully on my Epson 1270 Photo Perfection printer at the largest sizes of which it is capable. I think it actually does a better job on 4x5 film than on medium format, perhaps because the stiff sheet film lies flatter in the negative/transparency carrier. One review I read talked about 4x5 being its "sweet spot" and I agree, although it does a fine job on 6x6 negatives too. (Not so great for 35mm.) It comes with two software packages (1) the Epson Twain package and a cut-down version of Silverfast. Although the latter is more sophisticated in some ways (it has settings for specific film types, for instance) the Epson Twain package allows 48 bit color and 16 bit black and white scans to be transmitted to image editing software. I use Picture Window Pro which handles that kind of file. The richer files allow much more manipulating room than 24 color or 8 black and white files do. (Silverfast works with the larger files internally, but won't transmit them to the image editor, where I prefer to work.) A limiting factor for me is RAM--I have 256 meg and this is adequate, but with 48 bit color files scanned at high resolution things bog down. I'd say that one would want 512 meg to start with and I'm going to upgrade.
So I recommend it to you with no hesitation.
-- Tony Galt (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 26, 2002.
Vuescan is a great option for software to go with this scanner.
It's not entirely intuitive to use at first, but it will draw out the very best from your scanner (much better than the Epson TWAIN) and a lot cheaper than Silverfast.
we use it on our Epson 1640, as well as Nikon 4000 and 8000 - it beats the Nikon software hands down.
-- tim atherton (tim@KairosPhoto.com), May 27, 2002.
The Epson 2450 is a fine scanner but so are many of the 1200 dpi full 8x10 professional build scanners that go begging right now because higher dpi scanners have been made or they still have a SCSI interface-the Linocolor, the Powerlook III and Microtek's. I think an interesting comparison might be the Epson 2450 at 1800 dpi versus one of the professional build 1200 dpi scanners at 1800 dpi with its interpolation alogorithm in action. A 1200 dpi, 16-channel scan of a 4x5 negative yields a 170 MB file-enough for 13 x 17 print @ 360 dpi once you bring it back down to 8-channel for printing. The truth is you have to buy the scanner and see how it works for you. Just like using our cameras, our acquired skills at scanning are a factor in the final results. I do own the 2450 but would now, if looking anew, buy the Expression 1680-it is a full 8x10 transparency scanner; may even come with calibration targets; I think you will get even more for your money. TWO POINTERS: I have written a tutorial on using VueScan with flatbeds (e-mail me if interested). Also, it is rarely noted in all the 2450 discussion but the scanner does have a calibration mode, useful if you are using the Epson or Silverfast sof
-- David Stein (DFStein@aol.com), May 27, 2002.
Thanks Tony for your response. I've placed an order this morning for one, based on your response and information from a couple of other sources. No one using it for 5x4 scanning has anything bad to say about it.
Thank you also David for your response, though some personal thoughts on how the 2450 performs would have capped your post off nicely. I don't have 10x8 images, so I've no need of a bigger scanning area offered by the older pro scanners. I don't think a larger scanning area would offer better value for money, since I'd only ever employ 25% of it at any time. I am sure though that the higher resolution of the 2450 would be beneficial.
As an aside, (and I'm not trying to be snide here) why would I want to compare images scanned at 1800 dpi from both types of scanner? Am I missing something? If I'm after an image resolution of 1800 dpi, I'd probably scan at full resolution and resize in PS where I've got more control. (When scanning, I'd stick to integer multiples of the optical resolution where possible - 1200 and 600 dpi - when scanning at smaller scales.)
-- Graeme Hird (email@example.com), May 27, 2002.
Graeme, now that you've made the decision, don't be shy to pass on what you've found. My question has always been: once you've got it scanned and setup, can you make an exhibit-quality print with that file?
Please, let us know.
-- John Flavell (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 28, 2002.