Re: Epson 1600 Scanner

["Gary L. Hunt" <glh@srv.net>]

At 10:46 AM 2/6/2000 -0600, Jerry Olson wrote:
>Gary, the review states that it is a TRUE 1600x3200 optical resolution.
>The test in PC mag gives it 5 stars and says it is the highest quality
>flatbed available as far as quality images are concerned. That's all I
>have to go by.  If the optical quality is NOT a true 1600x3200, Epson is
>going to be sued by a lot of people for false advertising.

I should clarify a few things about this discussion: 

1.  I personally do not know if the scanning design of the 1600 is 
     similar to the 1200U, although I have read this in several places.
    (That clearly does not make it so.  If it isn't so, all bets are off.)

2. I have absolutely nothing to do with the Web set whose URL I
    posted, and I probably would not have done the testing the way
    he did it either.  However, anyone checking this out may want to
    note that there are two different sets of 1200U scans posted.  
    I consider the magazine scans more telling, because they are
    directly from an "original" subject, namely a glossy magazine
    image.  He states that the dots in the image (examined at high
    magnification) are "very sharp with solid edges and no blurring
    whatsoever".  Hence this subject should be adequate to show
    significant differences between 600 and 1200 dpi scans if they
    exist--and they aren't there.  (Doesn't mean he didn't screw up,
    but it's very suggestive.)

3. Epson also advertises the 1200U as having true 1200x2400
    dpi optical resolution, and no reviewer to my knowledge has
    taken then to task for this.  After all, it will produce a "1200 dpi
    scan" without interpolation--it just doesn't have twice the 
    resolution of a 600 dpi scan.  I tend to put a fair amount of faith
    in reputable review agencies myself, but for scanners the ones
    I have seen seldom try to confirm actual resolutions--so they
    may very well have taken Epson's specs at face value.

4. None of that means these are not high quality scanners.
    My only interest in bringing this issue out in the first place is 
    to suggest that anyone who needs a "true" 1200 or 1600 dpi 
    resolution may want to investigate this issue more carefully.  
    For many users the difference may not be fatal, but I was about 
    to buy one of these scanners mostly for 4x5 negative scanning.
    For this specific use, the difference between 600 and 1200 dpi
    is roughly that between an 8x10 print and a 16x20 print.  In my
    case, that's the difference between useless and useful.

Gary Hunt <glh@srv.net>



-
Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use
accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.