rafe bustin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:51:33 +0900, Stewy wrote: In article , Gel wrote: I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now, would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient? I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does this require the better quality scanner... I bought the 1800i a couple of years back and have been very pleased with the results. Scans result in a 8 megapixel image which is quite adequate for printing. Something's wrong with your math here. 1800 dpi can't get 8 megapixels from a 35 mm frame. A 35 mm frame is approx 1.5 square inches, which would be 4.86 Mpixels at 1800 dpi. FWIW, I started out in film scanning with a Microtek 35t+, which was 1950 dpi -- and from that I got images a little over 5 Mpixels. My 'primitive' HP S20 scanned a mid-50s Kodachrome® 35mm slide at 2400dpi and saved it at 2221 x 3275 and as *TIFF at 20.8*MB; Photo Shop saved it as a biggest-possible *JPEG at 8.39*MB That included enough in the frame you could see all the fuzz from the cardboard mount trailing into the image, and the round corners. -- Frank ess "Because of the Swiss Cheese nature of everyone's life experience and education, the Whoosh Bird can drop a load on anyone's head, without warning." -Albrecht Einstein |
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:56:08 +0000, Gel wrote:
I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now, would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient? I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does this require the better quality scanner... I am using Jessops (branded PF3650Pro3) slide + film scanner for the last two months. It costs GBP260. It comes with build-in ICE dust & spot removing software. It also has ROC & GEM software which can help in restoring old negatives. I have not tried those two but ICE is really helpful for old slides. It is quite easy to use and can do upto 3600 dpi. Slides are single feed but negatives can be scanned up to 36 (if you have a long strip like that) in one go. However, for cut up negatives in 4 frames, you have to feed it twice as the scanner ignores the first two frames. It takes 3-4 minutes for each scan using ICE and about 1 min without at resolution of 900 (that I use most of the time allowing from some cropping). At 3600 dpi with ICE it takes over 5 min for each slide. More or less the same time for negatives. I assume that you don't intend to print from the scanned images as you would still have the original slides & negatives for that purpose. If you are going to see the images only on your PC screen, even 1800 dpi is probably an overkill. I tried out from 300 to 3600 dpi and found that anything from 720 dpi upwards looked virtually the same on the PC screen. If you are going to use a projector (most has a resolution of 1024 long axis) scans at a higher than 720 dpi is probably not going to make much difference as at that dpi you would get 1024 pixels. Again, I tried out at various scanning resolution for projection and found very little difference on higher resolution with standard projectors. Some professional projectors are supposed to have higher resolution but I have not had a chance to test my images on any of them yet. Scanning slides/negatives is a time consuming business. You would need to do some post-processing with an image editing software. The Jessops one comes with a copy of Adobe Photoshop Elements 2 which I found quite adequate for minimum necessary processing. Of course, you would need a better one if you wish to manipulate the images extensively. This scanner can do both 16 or 8 bit colour scanning. I found that 16 bit scanning gives better results though the PSE-2 (and several others I have used) reduces it to 8 bit colour. I would suggest you check the product you are planning to buy for ICE. It is really helpful and would save a lot of time during image processing as you would need very little "clone" processing to remove the spots. -- Gautam Majumdar Please send e-mails to |
Gel writes:
All Things Mopar wrote in : Robert Feinman commented courteously ... The rule-of-thumb is to take the dpi of the scanner and divide by 300 to get the degree of enlargement you can expect with best quality for prints. Thanks to all for your comments, very helpful. If it was just for the old folks Transparencies, I would probably farm the job out, but I also would like to keep my film cameras and process the negs then scan them in and print what I want and archive the rest ( if they are worth archiving :-) ) Maybe I'm weird, but I actually enjoy spending a few hours scanning and editing.... Me too! It's the few hours after *that*, and the few hours after *THAT*, and then the hours the next three days, that start to get tiresome. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
35mm scanned at 1800ppi is 4mp not 8, you get a 12mb uncompressed tif file. Had
a Microtek 1850 for about 5 years in the early 90's, know that file size well. Tom In article , says... On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:51:33 +0900, Stewy wrote: In article , Gel wrote: I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now, would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient? I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does this require the better quality scanner... I bought the 1800i a couple of years back and have been very pleased with the results. Scans result in a 8 megapixel image which is quite adequate for printing. Something's wrong with your math here. 1800 dpi can't get 8 megapixels from a 35 mm frame. A 35 mm frame is approx 1.5 square inches, which would be 4.86 Mpixels at 1800 dpi. FWIW, I started out in film scanning with a Microtek 35t+, which was 1950 dpi -- and from that I got images a little over 5 Mpixels. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
In article ,
rafe bustin wrote: On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:51:33 +0900, Stewy wrote: In article , Gel wrote: I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now, would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient? I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does this require the better quality scanner... I bought the 1800i a couple of years back and have been very pleased with the results. Scans result in a 8 megapixel image which is quite adequate for printing. Something's wrong with your math here. 1800 dpi can't get 8 megapixels from a 35 mm frame. A 35 mm frame is approx 1.5 square inches, which would be 4.86 Mpixels at 1800 dpi. Whoops! You're right of course was thinking of 24mm x 36mm FWIW, I started out in film scanning with a Microtek 35t+, which was 1950 dpi -- and from that I got images a little over 5 Mpixels. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:28:51 +0900, Stewy
wrote: In article , rafe bustin wrote: On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:51:33 +0900, Stewy wrote: In article , Gel wrote: I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now, would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient? I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does this require the better quality scanner... I bought the 1800i a couple of years back and have been very pleased with the results. Scans result in a 8 megapixel image which is quite adequate for printing. Something's wrong with your math here. 1800 dpi can't get 8 megapixels from a 35 mm frame. A 35 mm frame is approx 1.5 square inches, which would be 4.86 Mpixels at 1800 dpi. Whoops! You're right of course was thinking of 24mm x 36mm Yes, that's 35 mm film. 1.5 square inches is a very close approximation.. and makes it easy to get total pixels from dpi. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
(O;
|
rafe bustin wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:28:51 +0900, Stewy wrote: In article , rafe bustin wrote: On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:51:33 +0900, Stewy wrote: In article , Gel wrote: I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at ?100- Now, would I be better off with a Minolta at ?2-300 more? Or would the quality of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient? I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does this require the better quality scanner... I bought the 1800i a couple of years back and have been very pleased with the results. Scans result in a 8 megapixel image which is quite adequate for printing. Something's wrong with your math here. 1800 dpi can't get 8 megapixels from a 35 mm frame. A 35 mm frame is approx 1.5 square inches, which would be 4.86 Mpixels at 1800 dpi. Whoops! You're right of course was thinking of 24mm x 36mm Yes, that's 35 mm film. 1.5 square inches is a very close approximation.. and makes it easy to get total pixels from dpi. Yup. I've just checked the arithmetic -- except that 1.5 inches square is a tad generous. I make it about 1.33 inches square. But never mind, the point is well made. ----- Paul J. Gans |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com