Don't forget that the Epson 2450 is about four generations behind the
best Epson flatbed. Even my old 3200 can outperform it by quite a bit.
Paul
On Dec 3, 2005, at 6:06 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I opened the large images in PS and viewed them there. The difference
between the two scans was quite obvious, with the Epson scan looking a
lot
softer. When reduced to web-sized JPEG's the differences don't appear
to be
as great, and I had to look carefully to see them.
While this may not have been the best test to compare a consumer
flatbed
with a consumer film scanner, it does support my contention and
experience
that flatbed scanners provide inferior results compared to dedicated
film
scanners.
I'm not sure if you'd find the print from the Epson scanned negative
acceptable (I guess that depends on the size) but it certainly
wouldn't cut
it for me based on what you've shown here.
Thanks for posting the comparison. Very useful ....
Shel
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
For those interested to see what the difference between scanning with
the Epson Perfection 2450 and the Minolta Scan Dual II might be, I've
created a web page with a sample image:
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/scannercmp/
The 600 pixel wide, post-processed images on the page are linked to
their respective scan originals (click on the pix to see the original
scans in separate windows). The scan originals are exactly as they
came out of the scanner, transformed only into high-quality JPEGs to
reduce size. Post-processing included downsampling to 600 pixels
wide, performing sharpening operations and a very minor tweak with
Curves to make the two different scans look as close as possible.
