Your Epson 2450 may look to have similar softness but remember this is
4800dpi that means the resolution is double. Ok it didn't really reach
4800dpi as I mentioned before, it is around 2800dpi when compared with film
scanner. Here is a 4000dpi scan with N*kon 4000, you can download both to
compare them on PS. You can try to apply an Aamount of 200-300 and Radius of
1.5 to the Epson scan.
http://www.accura.com.hk/film2.jpg
I have seen excellent 20x24 print (a head and shoulder portrait) with E-1.
It depends on the subject (landscape is the most demanding) and how close
you look at the final print.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Tyler" <dtyler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:57 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: Some new PEN FT photos
>
> This may be a silly question, but I have an Espson 2450 and it is soft.
> The
> 4870 seems soft also. The review of the new Can*n flatbed said it is soft
> compared to the 4000. The question is, if all the scanners require heavy
> sharpening, what does the increased dpi really get you? I understand the
> increase in Dmax is most likely important with the new scanners. It seems
> to me that you can get a high quality flatbed and you have to sharpen a
> lot
> or a high quality film scanner that really brings out the grain. When we
> discuss these scanners are we really just discussing being able to print
> larger? With 4000 dpi you can get a good 11x14 equal to an 8x10 on a 2800
> dpi. It this too simplistic?
>
> Dean
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moose [mailto:olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:36 PM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Re: Some new PEN FT photos
>
>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>
>>With my experience the Epson 4870 do reach around 2800dpi resolution.
>>
> Thanks for the info.
>
>>I have no idea why you will think Vuescan will make it better,
>>
> Reports on forums and personal experience with a Can*n 5000F.
> Ed Hamrick just finished film support for the 5000F, so I had to try it
> out. I scanned an old outtake slide from a graduation
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Combo.jpg>. Be sure to view at 100%,
> some browsers/settings will reduce it to fit on the screen. The bottom
> row of samples are:
>
> 1. 5000F using CanoScan software at 2400 dpi, full pixel sample, no
> processing.
> 2. 5000F using VueScan software at 2400 dpi, full pixel sample, no
> processing.
> 3. FS2710 using VueScan at 2700 dpi, downsampled to same size as 2400
> dpi scans. I think I sharpened this, not sure.
> 4. Scan #3 with grain reduction applied with NeatImage.
>
> The 2 samples at the top are full pixel versions of #3 & 4 before size
> reduction, so you can see downsizing hasn't changed anything significant.
>
> As you can see, the Canoscan software gives a significantly less
> detailed image with less contrast than VueScan with this scanner. Color
> balance is off too and it crops the image on all sides. Oh, and takes
> 2-3 times as long to scan.
>
>>I have just tried both Vuescan and Epson original software both give the
> same resolution, see
>>the cropped scans below:
>>
>>http://www.accura.com.hk/Vuescan-1.jpg
>>
>>http://www.accura.com.hk/Epson-1.jpg
>>
>>They look very soft, but remember they are scanned at 4800dpi and no
> sharpen
>>applied.
>>
> Thanks for the samples. I can't pick either one out as better than the
> other. More grist for my decision mill.
>
> Moose
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
