Epson 1600 Scanner Evaluation

[Alan & Shari Kafton <shmooze@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Last January I began my search for a flatbed to scan my Roundshot (9.5 inches
on 35mm film) and Noblex (12 cm on 120 film) negatives.  I was only planning
on 4x or 5x enlargements, but I wanted the images to be tack sharp.  I came to
the conclusion that the available 1200 dpi scanners had "marginally
inadequate" resolution for my needs.  When the Epson 1600 came out, I thought
the 33% increase in expected resolution would be just enough -- so I ordered
one.

What I discovered was:

1) The images looked soft.

2) At the pixel level, there were 4-pixel wide artifacts (@ 1600 dpi) that
weren't visible on prints of unsharpened scans, but after sharpening, were
quite visible as banding in areas of light-to-dark gradations.

Back went the scanner (have you heard this before?) and my replacement
arrived.  This too appeared soft to me, although the replacement showed none
of the artifacts I saw on the previous unit, or that others have reported.  So
I had one friend scan a couple of my negatives with lots of detail, including
signs with high-contrast text, on his PowerLook III (thanks Alan Zinn), and
last weekend went down to William Garcia's (thanks Will, nice to meet you) to
scan on his Saphir Ultra 2.  (Both are actually the same 1200 dpi scanner
hardware but with different software.)

After printing on the Espon 1270 and latest HP inkjet scanners, and after
verifying that the prints & scans were not negative-resolution limited -- I've
come to the following conclusions:

1) The Epson 1600, based on my sample, does NOT have 1600 dpi worth of image
resolution.

2) Depending on contrast, in some areas the Epson appeared slightly better,
and in some areas the PowerLook & Saphir looked better.  Overall, IMO, the
Epson and 1200-dpi-comparison scanners have about the same real resolution.  

3) The Epson has some advantages over the PowerLook & Saphir:  It's faster and
much quieter.  I also used Silverfast on the Epson & think it's a fine piece
of software.

4) If a PowerLook-equivalent resolution scanner were able to meet my needs,
I'd probably go with the Epson.  (I'm saying PowerLook-equivalent resolution
rather than 1200 dpi because I don't know what the PowerLook "real" optical
resolution actually is.  I just know relative resolution from my
experiments.)

So what scanner will I go with?  None of the above.  If the Epson truly
provided 33% higher resolution than the PowerLook or Saphir, I still think it
would have met my needs.  But the Epson does not live up to it's promise.

My search continues, and ouch, it's gonna get expensive!

--Alan

PS:  The Linotype Saphir Ultra 2 is being obsoleted and will be replaced by
the Heidelberg Linoscan 1400.  I've been told this is a name change only --
same scanner, same software.  But you may be able to get a closeout price on
the old name......