Best Epson for slides?
Mike O'Sullivan
good one for scanning 35mm slides, or is there another one which
might be preferable?
Thanks in advance for any recommendations.
Mike O'Sullivan
Guildford,
Surrey
UK.
Stewart Duncan
acceptable for scanning slides to view on the screen, I think it would also
be good enough for half plate prints but doubt if it could give good enough
results for full plate. It can do 4 slides at a time but is a bit slow. I
do find a problem in trying to copy glass mounted slides and have to take
the film out of the slide mount, scan it and then return it to the mount or
re-mount it.
"Mike O'Sullivan" <mi...@REMOVEbarnaby0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1026759143.18633....@news.demon.co.uk...
Ira Solomon
The EPSON 2450 Photo is better, but is much more expensive. $339 US
is about best you can do.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Maris V. Lidaka Sr.
perhaps the Epson 2450.
Maris
"Mike O'Sullivan" <mi...@REMOVEbarnaby0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1026759143.18633....@news.demon.co.uk...
Mike O'Sullivan
2450. One on-line review said it gave good results on 35mm
slides, but made the point that it wasn't up to the standard of a
dedicated slide scanner such as the Nikon Coolscan IV. However,
this costs more than double the 2450 and I wonder how significant
the differences are?
Mike
"Ira Solomon" <isol...@solomonltd.com> wrote in message
news:rha6juc5b2vcajcf0...@4ax.com...
Stewart Duncan
consider the end product; why are you copying slides and how do you wish to
view them? That should dictate the decision.
"Mike O'Sullivan" <mi...@REMOVEbarnaby0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1026840749.22299....@news.demon.co.uk...
Jefro
> this costs more than double the 2450 and I wonder how significant
http://www.virtualtraveller.org/epson2450.htm
Kennedy McEwen
O'Sullivan <mi...@REMOVEbarnaby0.demon.co.uk> writes
>Thanks Stewart and Ira. I have been looking at reviews of the
>2450. One on-line review said it gave good results on 35mm
>slides, but made the point that it wasn't up to the standard of a
>dedicated slide scanner such as the Nikon Coolscan IV. However,
>this costs more than double the 2450 and I wonder how significant
>the differences are?
>
following:
Sampling Density : Epson - 2400ppi : Nikon CS-IV - 2820
MTF @ 0.75 Nyquist : Epson - ~20% : Nikon CS-IV - ~50%
Dynamic Range : Epson - 14bit : Nikon CS-IV - 12bit
Optical surfaces near focal plane (which reduce achievable density due
to scattering) : Epson - 2 : Nikon CS-IV - 0
Focus : Epson - fixed : Nikon CS-IV - Auto & Manual
Scan aids :
Epson - TWAIN 5 gives surprisingly good scans straight out of the box.
Scans up to two 35mm strips of 6 frames at once.
Nikon CS-IV - fair scans out of the box, and requires work &
practice to optimise, but good profiles can be saved.
Scans a single strip of 6 frames with exposure (analogue
gain) and focus determined optimally for each frame.
ICE, near IR detection and concealment of dust and damage
on colour emulsions. Can do manually, but a chore(CDMBAC)
GEM, grain equalisation and management : CDMBAC (an
automated filter which reduces grain visibility with
minimum effect on image content - 5 settings).
ROC, restores colour in faded slides and negs : CDMBAC (an
automated colour balance and chroma boost to bring colours
back to life - 11 settings).
In summary, if you have used a CS-IV then you will find the Epson very
easy to use, but resulting in softer images with limited dynamic range
on slides. If you have used the Epson then you will find the Nikon much
sharper, cleaner and capable of pulling out shadow detail that the Epson
could never detect (despite its claimed similar Dmax). That glass on
the flatbed makes a big difference to scan density - and cleanliness!
Don't underestimate ICE - dust is a major issue on flatbed scanners and
the more resolution they have the worse the problem becomes. I have
been trying to get a campaign going for some time that all such
scanners be sold with close fitting dust covers - and every scanner I
have bought in the past 5 years has had a dust cover made for it BEFORE
it's been used in anger.
If you want a good all round scanner that does 35mm slides, negatives
and larger formats as well as reflective media then the Epson is a clear
winner. If you want the best performance from 35mm slides and negatives
then the Nikon wins hands down - although there are better devices than
even that, and at similar prices - so I am surprised that Nikon still
sell any CS-IV at all.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Ira Solomon
But I had the Nikon 2000 and I didn't much like the results. I was
never sure why, but it seemed it didn't justify the price.
In any event, if you are serious about the Epson, it comes with a
"lite" version of the Silverfast driver. It is superior to the Twain
driver. The full version for the Epson is: $119.
I would not have purchased the 2450 without it.
And the latest version has settings for almost every negative film on
the market.
To see what you can do with SIlverfast see:
http://www.computer-darkroom.co.uk/
Mike O'Sullivan
information.
Mike
"Ira Solomon" <isol...@solomonltd.com> wrote in message
news:7ki9ju0ukc6l8sfl1...@4ax.com...
Johnny Johnson
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The differences are significant and include (but are not limited to) the
>following:
>
>Sampling Density : Epson - 2400ppi : Nikon CS-IV - 2820
>
>MTF @ 0.75 Nyquist : Epson - ~20% : Nikon CS-IV - ~50%
Hi Kennedy,
Are the 20% and 50% numbers for MTF calculated or from actual tests?
And, in layman's terms, what's the significance of expressing them at
75% of Niquist instead of another frequency?
Thanks,
Johnny
_____________________
Johnny Johnson
Lilburn, GA
mailto:jjoh...@mediaone.net
Kennedy McEwen
<?.net@?.?.invalid> writes
>On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 02:04:21 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The differences are significant and include (but are not limited to) the
>>following:
>>
>>Sampling Density : Epson - 2400ppi : Nikon CS-IV - 2820
>>
>>MTF @ 0.75 Nyquist : Epson - ~20% : Nikon CS-IV - ~50%
>
>
>Hi Kennedy,
>
>Are the 20% and 50% numbers for MTF calculated or from actual tests?
>And, in layman's terms, what's the significance of expressing them at
>75% of Niquist instead of another frequency?
>
both suppliers - an Epson 1640 (at 1600ppi) and the Nikon CS-2000 (at
2700ppi). That is why I gave them as ' ~ ' or 'approximately' rather
than actual figures.
The reason that I use 75% of Nyquist rather than Nyquist itself is the
an ideal sampling system should have zero response at Nyquist and above,
so 75% is a meaningfully high frequency to test the actual capability of
the scanner to resolve fine detail.
Johnny Johnson
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>They are both measured on earlier generations of similar scanners from
>both suppliers - an Epson 1640 (at 1600ppi) and the Nikon CS-2000 (at
>2700ppi). That is why I gave them as ' ~ ' or 'approximately' rather
>than actual figures.
>
>The reason that I use 75% of Nyquist rather than Nyquist itself is the
>an ideal sampling system should have zero response at Nyquist and above,
>so 75% is a meaningfully high frequency to test the actual capability of
>the scanner to resolve fine detail.
Hi Kennedy,
Thanks for the reply. A quick followup:
It's my understanding that the Epson 2450 has a pair of staggered
1200dpi CCDs instead of one 2400dpi unit. Does that configuration
change the way that the Nyquist frequency would be calculated for the
scanner?
Thanks again,
Kennedy McEwen
<?.net@?.?.invalid> writes
>On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:45:28 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>They are both measured on earlier generations of similar scanners from
>>both suppliers - an Epson 1640 (at 1600ppi) and the Nikon CS-2000 (at
>>2700ppi). That is why I gave them as ' ~ ' or 'approximately' rather
>>than actual figures.
>>
>>The reason that I use 75% of Nyquist rather than Nyquist itself is the
>>an ideal sampling system should have zero response at Nyquist and above,
>>so 75% is a meaningfully high frequency to test the actual capability of
>>the scanner to resolve fine detail.
>
>Hi Kennedy,
>
>Thanks for the reply. A quick followup:
>
>It's my understanding that the Epson 2450 has a pair of staggered
>1200dpi CCDs instead of one 2400dpi unit. Does that configuration
>change the way that the Nyquist frequency would be calculated for the
>scanner?
>
half the sampling density, in the case of the 2450 at 1200cy/in), but it
does affect the relation between MTF and Nyquist, ensuring that MTF is
minimally low at and above this spatial frequency, while a linear CCD
relies primarily on the optical system to provide the necessary MTF
attenuation.
Bart van der Wolf
"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:udNKKqFI...@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
SNIP
> The reason that I use 75% of Nyquist rather than Nyquist itself is the
> an ideal sampling system should have zero response at Nyquist and above,
> so 75% is a meaningfully high frequency to test the actual capability of
> the scanner to resolve fine detail.
Another criterion (similarly arbitrary) could be the number of cycles/mm
where the Modulation has dropped to e.g. 10% or the Nyquist frequency if
that occurs sooner.
There just isn't a single number that says it all, unfortunately.
Bart
Kennedy McEwen
<bvd...@nospam.nl> writes
>
>"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:udNKKqFI...@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>SNIP
>> The reason that I use 75% of Nyquist rather than Nyquist itself is the
>> an ideal sampling system should have zero response at Nyquist and above,
>> so 75% is a meaningfully high frequency to test the actual capability of
>> the scanner to resolve fine detail.
>
>Another criterion (similarly arbitrary) could be the number of cycles/mm
>where the Modulation has dropped to e.g. 10% or the Nyquist frequency if
>that occurs sooner.
Yes - provided that the modulation at Nyquist is also provided if the
modulation is above the criteria at Nyquist.
>
>There just isn't a single number that says it all, unfortunately.
>
Exactly.