Epson Perfection 1650

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by Bob Fallona, Aug 16, 2005.

  1. Bob Fallona

    Bob Fallona Guest

    I have this Epson scanner and need to scan a bunch of old family photos.
    Will some of the newer scanners make any difference in quality or would it
    be a waste of money? Thanks for any help or suggestions.
     
    Bob Fallona, Aug 16, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bob Fallona

    theo Guest

    No one scanner can do everything well and rapidly, he said tritely. Are
    your old family photos mostly 3x5 or 4x6 snapshots processed thru a
    drugstore dropoff and now warping diagonally? Then shouldn't the question
    focus on comparing convenience of handling rather quality of imaging? Do
    you still have most of the negative strips? Altho the 1650 has a 35mm
    adapter, it is still a question of comparing convenience of handling. Is
    your intended audience for your archives just all in the family to watch
    slideshows in 800x600 images on the computer monitor??? Then scanner
    speed should be a higher priority than the outer limits of dynamic range
    or depth of bit capture. Do you have other things to do with your life,
    like look to your wife and children? Then consider using a commercial
    service for burning the stuff to CD/DVD.
    Your scanner can do many of these things within a narrow range of
    performance, but the bundled software may not handle well the multi image
    batch scan, so is money a higher priority question for you?
    I'm working on media from 100+ yr old tintypes thru 35mm Kodachrome and
    6x6 Agfachrome mounted slides, 127(?) 126(?) SuperSlides, 4x6 and 4x4
    color and B&W prints, 8x10 enlargements of weddings..... So currently I'm
    using the Epson 2480 LE for its mini-document feeder and light table for
    prints, and both M/K Dimage Multi and Kodak's discontinued RFS 3570 for
    35mm and 120 pos and negs, and hacking on redundant masks to hold the odd
    size formats. I've burned up and thrown out several HP, Umax, and Canon
    $80 -130 price range flatbeds and PrimeFilm xx00 film scanners. The
    2480LE's settop print feeder is wonderful for batching stacks of same size
    drugstore prints; answers my rather modest expectations. Many other
    possible combinations of pricepoints by expectations by workflow by
    equipment.
    Regards,
    Theo Crow
     
    theo, Aug 16, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bob Fallona

    Bob Fallona Guest

    Thanks for the detailed reply. I should have expanded. The photos are all
    old prints in a photo album and my sister would like a copy. We have no
    negatives just the prints mainly small sizes 2x3, 3x4 and 4x6. There are
    about 4 books and I haven't counted them, but probably a few hundred. Kids
    are grown and now the wife is an ex so no duties at home. Would I see any
    difference between the 1650 and 2480 or is it a matter of the extras that
    would just be nicer and easier to use on the 2480?
     
    Bob Fallona, Aug 16, 2005
    #3
  4. Bob Fallona

    theo Guest

    Would I see any difference between the 1650 and 2480 or is it a matter
    Resolution for prints? No. 300 ppi is 300 ppi. Color? Probably
    not. Extras are why I spent the extra $90 for the min-doc feeder beyond
    the $90 for the basic flatbed.
    Ditto on carlmcmillan's comments especially for irfanview. But be a
    mensch, kick him a couple of bucks for a good product with good support.The newer scanners are generally somewhat faster at 300 or 600 ppi than
    yours, and they use faster/broader USB 2.0 vs 1.1 for talking to your
    computer, but unless you compare by flicking the stopwatch button on your
    multi-function wristwatch, not enough to make you run to Best Buy.
    However, scanner firmware and bundled software compatibility to your OS
    may be an issue. This model (still available thru Amazon and others) was
    new when Win98 was current (well into 2001). Some reported this package
    will not play nice with WinXP, some change the compatibility flag for the
    device to get most of its features to work. The auto mode will "snap" a
    reflective medium that is some degrees off-axis to a rectangular
    orientation image, and recognize several reflective objects on the glass
    for a multi image batch scan, but attempts to change settings will negate
    the auto function for that scan.
    More on handling. Removing the print from the album may leave flecks of
    the print stuck to its glassine or acetate window or envelope. But
    scanning thru the envelope is impractical and introduces the fog of the
    window into your saved image. I hope others can direct you to a
    speciality store or site to learn to dissolve the adhering bits and not
    rip a hole out of Gramma's wedding veil.
    Regarding your sister's request: not dissing, just frugal: initially save
    your scanned images into TIFF format, do your editing then sample down to
    a PNG or JPG format, overlay a slideshow or album app and burn to CD, let
    her use her printer ink and her photo paper to print the ones she likes.
    She doesn't have a computer? Some DVD players will accept some photo CDs
    for viewing on TV; your mileage may vary.
    Regards,
    Theo
     
    theo, Aug 17, 2005
    #4
  5. I have a 1650 and have scanned quite a few old
    pictures. This model does an excellent job. I
    doubt that a new model would be much of an
    improvement since you should scan at around 300.
    Anything higher than that takes a lot more time,
    makes very large files, and won't provide any
    improvement when printing at 1:1 (same size
    picture as the original). Paper handling would be
    improved with some scanners, but much improved
    would probably cost a bundle. However a new
    scanner could come with improved software if you
    have old stuff. And, the scanner with the
    software may not cost much more than the software
    alone.
     
    George E. Cawthon, Aug 17, 2005
    #5
  6. Lot of good ideas but I have a couple of comments.

    I have that model and use it for scanning prints,
    negatives, and slides, and I have XP. I have no
    problems and the only issue is the widely
    documented copy function which wants an Epson
    printer. There are work arounds, but I don't need
    that function. The OP would not want to use copy
    as he likely would like to massage the image
    before printing. I don't think that USB 1 or 2 is
    an issue since the paper handling would require so
    much more time. Computer memory and speed would
    be a much greater factor in the total process.
     
    George E. Cawthon, Aug 17, 2005
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.