Doug, I'm not sure if you can answer this but I have read in several places that there is very little difference between the 3200 and 2450 in terms of resolution (the 3200 is much faster though!). Any idea if this is true...or a way we could test it? Perhaps we could scan a common object like a coin and post the results? I think there are a lot of people who are wondering if it's worth upgrading their 2450.

I'm not sure what good it will do, since it's metallic, but here's the lower right steps from the back of a US penny. Scanned at 3200ppi, zero correction, zero sharpening. I saved for web using 'maximum' quality setting.

The real trick was finding something meaningful that would fit in under 100k :)

Scanning the entire penny took about a minute (I didn't actually time it, that's just what it seemed like).

Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help.

Nice review Doug. I didn't know about there being a pro version, that's a great option. I own the 2450 and had to purchase the Silverfast AI upgrade, but I am glad I did. I am amazed by the "dust & scratches" filter, it's almost a good noise filter as well. The color balance feature also works very well except on badly faded negatives, it seems to get confused as to which direction to make the correction.

I guess Greg is going to post a complimentary scan of the penney?

Working on it right now....:D Although, if we all had a common slide it would be a better test.

Yeah, I tried to think of something that's legal to scan and post that everyone would have access to. Obviously I didn't succeed.

By the way, that penny scan made a 19meg tif file (uncropped).

Scanned at 3200ppi with an Epson 2450 (I let Silverfast interpolate up from the 2400 optical resolution). No sharpening or correction and saved using "Maximum" quality. Looks like the 3200 is indeed slightly sharper...not by much. At least we know that Epson did not just rename their stock of 2450s! :D There was very little speed difference (took about a minute for me as well), but I would be willing to guess that the 3200 does scan transparencies faster.

Probably not the best test of sharpness...but an interesting one. Thanks Doug! ...and thanks for the good review!

hey...I had to search through a lot of pockets to find that penny! ...who carries those things around anymore? :D

If anyone is wondering what "review" it is we're talking about, all threads that start with "Review:<brandname>:<product>" are discussion threads for reviews posted in our Reviews section (link over on the navbar).

I wish it provided a direct link back to the review being discussed, but it can't be done automatically for technical reasons.

I hope you two sent the pennies back to TG he's bills to pay !

Just thought I would add something I recently noticed about Silverfast AI 6.0. IT REALLY SUCKS ON NEGATIVES! Just thought I would get that out of my system. Works good on positives and flatbed scanning.

The twain driver works perfectly on negatives.

Hold that thought :) I moved your post over here (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6382) because I wanted to know more about it without derailing this thread. Sorry, I should have told you, but I thought you'd catch it. My bad.

Hi,
This is my first post so I'll try to explain my situation.
I have a laser printer that will print 13" X 19" in color.
Does any one on this forum know how well the Epson 3200 will work with this large format? Another question, How small a scan can be used to print a nice 13" X 19" print?
I am thinking of getting the 3200 photo or the 3200 Pro.
Would I need the Pro to get the large format pictures to look best?
Thanks,
Bullseye (in Missouri)
:rolleyes:

13 x 19 is bigger than the scan bed, so you'd have to do it in two passes and splice.

The only difference for the Pro is the Silverfast and Monaco software, so I doubt if the Pro would be necessary for your purpose.

As for size of scan, a good rule of thumb is 300ppi at the size outputted, so (13" X 300ppi) x (19" X 300ppi) would be 3900 X 5700 pixels.

Hi,
Thanks for the reply. I need to add that I plan to use PhotoShop to enlarge the scan to the printer. I plan to use some 35 mm slides and a lot of 4" X 6" pictures.
The main thing I need to know is how much can I enlarge a slide or picture using PhotoShop and the 3200 scanner to get a sharp picture? Memory will be no problem because I have a Gig of ram.
Thanks,
Bullseye

When scanning with a relatively high-resolution scanner like the 3200, upsampling via Photoshop would only degrade quality. However, scanning any print at over 300ppi is really a waste of filespace. So, scanning a print and printing larger than the original will degrade the image, no matter what resolution you scan at. And, using the figures I already supplied, a 35mm slide should be printable up to the dimensions you asked about (but not much further) before obvious degradation sets in.

So Doug - are the larger resolutions available on the 3200 (above 300 dpi) primarily for scanning negatives rather than prints? I have beenb scanning my negatives at hardware maximum without interpolation but prints at a much lower resolution.

Doug,

Just to make sure I have this right, to scan a 35mm slide (or negative) with enough resolution to print a 13 by 19 inch photo, I would need to scan at about 4000 ppi to get about a 16 Mpixel image (I have rounded off the conversions a bit). At full color and TIF that will be one big file. :)

Of course all of the above assumes the original image was of high enough quality to support such a scan. Oh, and all bets are off if you want to crop that baby. :)

Catia

After reading your review again, I see you have scanned 35mm at 3200ppi. So for the .945 inch by 1.427 inch image area on the 35 mm slide that is 3024 by 4534 pixels or 13.71 Mega pixels. At 300 dpi that is enough pixels for a 10 by 13.4 print. Hmmm, just rambling and doing the math.

Toad:

Yes. Negatives, slides, 3d objects, etc.
The one exception would be lineart (ie: logos, etc.) on smooth, glossy stock. Scanning up to 1200ppi can often be worthwhile there, especially if it's going to be converted to vectors.

Catia:

Yep, and add 16bit to the mix and they get even bigger. But for best quality, hundred-meg files aren't unusual. Send them out for a drumscan and they'll be even larger. And imagine slides larger than 35mm! Slides will support about 8000ppi scanning, but few of us can afford to scan at that level.

I'm going to try to understand all the various mathematics above...

But I'd like to pop in here and say that with the encouragement of people on this site I bought a 3200.

After a few rushed scans, just barely getting to know how to power up the scanner, how to find and minimally use Photoshop Elements, and Silverfast SE, I committed to an entire wedding.

The wedding had been shot on 200 ASA Fuji. Processed, fouled, crossed over and scratched by a one hour lab.

I was able with bonehead trial and error to produce a very credible set of prints, including some highly productive use of sharpening and some substantial color/contrast correction.

In subsequent several months I've learned more.

Most impressively, I've scanned badly fogged 35mm color negatives and printed them B&W, correcting for the fogging with the lasso.

I'm a highly experienced (old timer) color / b&w photolab guy...I'm convinced that these B&W prints from virtually destroyed color negatives are as exciting and sharp as could have been accomplished at 11X14 magnification with a good enlarger and, in most cases, original B&W film..and I'd used a little unsharpen because I'd exaggerated a few details too far with increased contrast.

3200 plus Silverfast SE plus Photoshop Elements plus 2200printer is capable of a LOT more than any traditional lab runs into, with the exception of the slooow workflow, the virtual impossibility of producing a nice fat stack of 4X6 proofs quickly.

I've just been printing 13X19 using an Epson 3200 and 2200. Museum Digital paper (www.inkjetart.com)

I scanned 35mm slides at 800dpi, printed at 720 and (1200?). The output is beautiful, the difference between the two outputs is almost insignificant but can be discerned if you look closely. I have no doubt that 35mm can be printed far larger with higher-dpi original scans, not to mention Genuine Fractals. At 13X19 the only drawback Vs large C prints via 4X5 internegs (with which I'm very experienced) is that the scan is sharper but less "smooth" looking...a different look that might be minimized if someone wanted to get sophisticated with a little diffusion.