Driver Epson Et 2820

[Mariela Laflam]

HiI just purchased a ET 2820 and on my second attempt to print something using my iMac the Mac is unable to locate the printer. There is good connectivity and the Wi-Fi signal is very strong. Can you advise if this is a known driver issue with Epson printers?

Just now figured out that there are no drivers from epsons side for linux available. So wanted to try ipp or raw to be able to use it over wifi. However, i have not figured out how to go. Any ideas? Each time i try generic drivers i just get wrong looking print results

Ok, after playing a while i figured out that its possible to set it up via the cups tools which are available at: localhost:631 in the browser.Via the native ubuntu point and click tool i was not able to set it up. For those of us who are not so familiar with cups this video about cups is helpfull.

Just choose "Generic / Generic IPP Everywhere Printer" as printer model in the CUPS web interface and it should work without installing any driver. If it does not work, try to allow insecure http in the web interface of your printer.

I am currently trying to debug why a camera is not working with my twain solution. It uses the twain driver in the USB2800 folder (emTwain.ds). As far as I can tell from some googling that several different cameras are USB2800 and 2820? What are these?

The problem I am running into is when I enable the source and choose to display the source dialog, I see the camera stream but nothing else. No dialog. When I use a licensed twain solution (dynamsoft) I see a dialog (generic lookg 2800 USB device capture dialog).

The USB2800/emTwain.ds is definitely what the manufacturer wants to use for this camera. The reason I was wondering if it is a generic USB cam twain driver is because I have seen it used with a few cameras now. I will try the manufacturer as you say and email them a few questions.

Drivers and all aside, you cannot separate the resolution question from the image quality question.

Flatbeds claim high dpi, but these are interpolated up from something much lower which is the scanner's true resolution. The true dpi of a scanner is the lower number they quote which tends to be 1200 dpi. Dedicated film scanners like the Minolta only claim 2820 dpi, but that is an optical or true dpi rating. So on that score I'd rather have the Minolta.

Secondly, if you have ever scanned a neg on an epson you'll notice, when you look closely, that the image is not perfectly sharp. This is because the scanner does not focus on the neg, which is not actually touching the glass. But in the case of a film scanner like the Minolta, the scanner pre-focuses on the surface of the film before it scans.

So, long story short, I'd rather have a true 2820 optical dpi of in-focus neg scan than an interpolated 4800 dpi of not-quite-in-focus neg scan.

Having said all that, most people are happy with the scans from considerably cheaper flatbeds. With applied filtering to hide their limitations the results are ok most people's eyes.

As I cannot afford a Nikon film scanner, I find I prefer making an optically enlarged bromide print and then I scan that at a resolution the flatbed scanner can actually deliver.

For scanning what I'd really like is a facilities house where I could access a Nikon Coolscan 9000.

Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)

Crossbar Aloha edited this topic ages ago.

No question, the Minolta is far superior in terms of scan quality. The only issue with the minolta is a flimsy 35mm neg holder which is easily resolved by getting the Scan Dual IV neg holder which is much more robust in design.

I've owned the SDIII, SDIV, Epson 4490 (V500 predecessor) and 4870. The Minolta's are much better in terms of detail extracted, dynamic range and colour. Note the real optical resolution of all the Epsons is around 2000dpi, ie they can deliver that much actual resolution regardless of the resolution setting when scanning. The Minolta's deliver pretty much right on the spec. Also the Minolta holders actually hold the film flat, there's no extraneous glass in the optical path and they autofocus.

ages ago(permalink)

If the general consensus is that the Minolta dual scan is the better choice, how come the photos I can find online with big resolution from the Epson are much sharper, with richer colors and less grainy than the ones produced by the Minolta??!??

I know that the Epson has a smaller Dmax number, but still.....

ages ago(permalink)

how come the photos I can find online with big resolution from the Epson are much sharper, with richer colors and less grainy than the ones produced by the Minolta??!??

I own both the scanners in question, and I can only conclude that you must be joking.

The Minoltas will pull as much detail from a 35mm neg as the Epson can from a 6X7. The Epsons are barely OK with C41 negs and really struggle with transparencies, shadow detail is non existent.

ages ago(permalink)

A couple things will sow up in scans.

I have the older Minolta Scan Speed and an Epson V500. The Minolta shots almost always look grainer because the scanner is actually resolving the grain in film. The Epson looks like it has done grain reduction, looking smoother but softer.

I can echo what others have said. The Epson isn't very good for 35mm, especially slides without a lot of help in processing. I have found some ways to get the Epson scans looking pretty good, but at the expense of noise.

ages ago(permalink)

Overdear, thanks for your kindness, but could you point to me which of the threads you queried contains anything about the Minolta Dimage Dual Scan III?

Everything there is about better Minoltas, pricier Minoltas...

ages ago(permalink)

I think I saw a Reflecta at an online store in my country, but didn't inspire me much. The thing is I am spoiled by the wonderfulness of the scans the prolab provides with their Nikon 9000ed, but they are soo expensive not to mention it takes a lot of time.

ages ago(permalink)

Very nice technical information. I might add that on top of the design limitations, the flatness (or rather the lack thereof) of the the film holders on the V500 is the biggest disappointment. Results are quite dependent on film flatness.

I kinda dodged the MF issue here as the OP notes 35mm is the intended target. I do think there is some merit to the V500's ability to scan MF negatives: Price. Basically there isn't anything else out there in sufficient quantity that can scan MF negatives easily without spending more.

I'm not so sure that Epson is really targeting people looking for the ability to get awesome scans and make prints from them, but rather are targeting people that want to scan and post online cheap.

ages ago(permalink)

The holder issue is easily solved, betterscanning.com sells significantly better aftermarket holders.

You are throwing away some of your advantages with MF when using a flatbed, but it remains quite usable for web and small/medium prints. I print up to 12x16 regularly from 4870 scans of my 645 negs with no issues. 35mm? Don't bother, usable for web or small prints only. Even 8x10's outpace the abilities of the scanner.

Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)

Mawz edited this topic ages ago.

I would buy a Coolscan 9000ED in a heartbeat if I could find one at list price, but they just don't appear.... Anyone got a used one they want to unload???

So we are realistically left with the Plustek 7600 as the best 35mm scanner (although it is not very good, a real step back from the Nikon's and Minolta's of 2004/2005 vintage)

I saw in a review that the Plustek will resolve about 3200 dpi if you scan at 7200 and downsize. If you scan at 3600 it only resolves about 2600 dpi. Still better than the V700/750 at about 2200.

So, IMO the best we can do in 2011 is to get the Plustek for 35mm and a V700 for MF/LF. The more cost effective option would be the Plustek for 35mm and a V600 for MF. You would lose the ablity to scan LF (not too important for me because 645 and 6x6 are the largest I go). Problem is the V600 only resolves about 1800 dpi not the 2200 you would get in the V700.

Kodak and Fuji need to get together and make a decent scanner, it would help them keep selling film and by looking at the numbers of people in these "I shoot film" type groups it would probably be a good money maker.

ages ago(permalink)

Hi all,

I couldn't resist to reply to this thread as it continues to reappear. I had a Minolta Dual III I bought 8 years ago and got a new Canon 9000F a few months ago. Canon 9000F has newer technology than Epson V500 and may be comparable to V600. From my target tests I calculated the real resolution of Canon 9000F is about 1626 dpi (nominal 9600 dpi) and Minolta Dual III is 2134 dpi (nominal 2820 dpi). These corresponds to 32 lp/mm for Canon and 42 lp/mm for Dual III. The test negative (Fuji Acros) exceeds the resolution of the scanners, contains up to 54 lp/mm (or more) information when magnified with a cheap microscope.

I scan Canon at 4800 dpi, resize and apply USM later. I use Canon only for medium format and Minolta for 35mm. However for color 35mm using Canon 9000F is very tempting since FARE technology can satisfactorily clean the image. I remember cleaning an old, dirty negative after Dual scan could take up to 10 minutes manually which can be entirely eliminated. Thanks.

ages ago(permalink)

Al, please say something about the quality of the DS III, not only resolution. What about sharpness, colors, that's what I'm trying to find out. How bout that grain that I see in all DSIII scans and not in the Nikon scans?

you know there is:

www.hasselbladusa.com/products/scanners.aspx

ages ago(permalink)

3a8082e126