> Donald MacDonald <donald.macdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I've posted a question on the filmscanners list, but out of interest,
> and
> more generally, what are those of you who shoot medium format using
> for
> scanning your negs / trannies?
>
> I may be in the market for a new flatbed (we lament the passing of
> the
> cheapo original, sob sob), and would be willing to pay a little more
> for one
> which would also do a decent job of scanning my 6 x 6 trannies /
> negs.
>
> Breathless in anticipation,
>
I bought an Epson 2450 a few months ago with the intention of using it for MF
scanning. I haven't used it extensively as yet, but here goes with a few
impressions:
1. MF scans seem a little soft (unsharp & lower contrast) in comparison to
scans
from my 35mm film scanner even though the specified resolution is a bit higher
for the 2450 and the Microtek 35T+ is now pretty old. The compensation is that
the neg/tran starts out at 4x the area of 35mm, so the softness is not as
noticable
in the end result.
2. Due to the reason above, 35mm scans are quite "acceptable" but not as good
as the dedicated film scanner.
3. Scanning is pretty slow at 2400 ppi resolution and appears to be limited by
the
scanner rather than the PC or interface (I added a USB 2.0 adapter and there
was no apparent improvement over the USB 1.1 adapter, 1.2GHz processor,
512 MBytes RAM).
4. Using the 2450 as a flatbed for scanning prints seems to emphasise dust
(both above and below the glass), but doesn't seem too bad for transparent
materials (?).
5. The Epson supplied software tells me I don't have enough disk space when
scanning multiple frames from 35mm strips (I have 50GBytes free !), obviously
some problem. I use Vuescan in preference to the Epson software.
Wayne Harridge
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~w_harridge
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|