1. Drum scanned

2. Epson Scan software

3. SilverFast software

USM applied

USM set to Medium

USM set to 45%

Epson at 3200 dpi

Epson at 2400 dpi and resampled to
3200 dpi in Photoshop

Vincent,

Could you add a Epson scan done in 2400 dpi (Photosop-enlarged to 3200) and a real 3200 dpi of the same image to see the real gain of resolution?
Many suspect that there is no real gain of details between the old 2450 and the new 3200.

Thank you again. Grobbio

3200 dpi in 24bit

3200 dpi in 48bit

Quentin wrote:

Looking at the larger fomat comparison, once again the Epson seems to be holding its own. But the drum scanner seems to have captured slightly more shadow detail - what do you think? Maybe a denser transparency might test the Epson more. What is your view on this, from your hands-on experience?

The Epson watch scans do hold their own, I thought the Silverfast scan was the best. I reviewed a Microtek scanner a couple of years ago and with SilverFast it was a totally different scan. I have included a scan of a 5x4 above, just to show you what the shadow detail is like. I think the 24bit one looks cleaner (no noise) but the 48bit scan shows more shadow detail, look at the two ropes. But both versions are more than I would have expected from this scanner. At the enlargement above you would have a 50 x 40 inch print

Just for those budding landscape photographers with their wide view cameras, you can lay film directly on the glass plate, then you can scan 6x12, 6x17 and other sizes. I would advise you to make your own mask to cut down on internal flare etc.

300 dpi 70 lppi pattern

400 dpi 95 lppi pattern

600 dpi 140 lppi pattern

1200 dpi 180 lppi pattern

300 dpi

600 dpi

please vincent, a resolution chart test!!

1200 dpi

Have fun - Vincent