|
|
Film Scanners
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... TIA... Gel. -- "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by". Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001) |
"Gel" wrote in message ... 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? Whether it is good enough depends on the size of any prints you expect to make.. An 1800 dpi scanner should yield a file that can make a decent 8x10. I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does this require the better quality scanner... No Jim |
On 6 Feb 2005 23:56:08 GMT, 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... How much is your time worth? Are you interested in the best possible quality or just "good enough?" If the latter, I suggest you find a photo lab or service to scan your slides. If the former, get the Minolta and be prepared for a lot of time at the computer. Seriously, for 35mm, the Minolta 5400 is about the best there is nowadays. Film scanning is tedious and time- consuming. For me, if it's worth doing at all, it's worth doing right. If you just need "good enough," farm it out. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
I totally agree with Rafe - after you've done 100 of them, see how much
enthusiasm you still have! A 'cheapie' film scanner may suffer from the following: - poor focus and overall image quality - inconsistent/inaccurate colour (* a bit less of a problem with trannies, admittedly) - poor dynamic range (ie blown highlihgts, lost shadow detail) - slow scanning - poor quality of moving parts may result in premature `aging` /breakdown 1800 dpi should be OK for screen display, eg DVD display on a TV, but if you are planning to print any of these images to much bigger than 7 x 5, forget it. Either farm it out to a bureau (check your local photo-processor, most offer fairly low-cost, medium quality (2400 dpi) scan services, and they may have better quality services at a price), or prepare yourself for a long learning curve, preferably with a decent film scanner. |
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. The Minolta Scan Dual 4 will yield a 4000 x 3000 image (approx) at 400dpi - far better for big enlargements. However scanning is very time consuming and tedious. The 1800 will scan 1 neg or slide in about 2 minutes, the Minolta takes 5 minutes. Slides tend to be more detailed than negatives and both scanners will work very well on bothe negs and slides. The Minolta has the advantage of handling APS reels too. If you'd like samples of each contact me at anyone4tennis1SPAM@ yahoo.co.uk (remove spam) with another address that will accept larger files. |
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 , neux_55-
says... I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and= =20 have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at =A3100- N= ow,=20 would I be better off with a Minolta at =A32-300 more? Or would the quali= ty=20 of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?=20 I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does= =20 this require the better quality scanner...=20 =20 TIA...=20 Gel. =20 =20 =20 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. So, 1800/300 =3D 6x or about a 6x9 inch print. If you print at=20 240 or 200 you can go a little bigger with some loss of sharpness.=20 1800dpi is more than needed for online viewing where most images are in the range of 600-800 pixels. The real question is why do you want to scan so many images? What are=20 you planning to do with them? If you are just archiving them why do you think that the digital format will be a better choice than just storing the originals in good environmental conditions. If you want some more advice on scanning go to the scantips.com web site. You can also read the scanning discussions in the tips section of my web site as well. --=20 Robert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: |
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. I'd go with 200 unless you plan gigantic prints. And, the old photographer's rule for viewing distance comes into play. Call me a fool, but I've got plenty of 8.5 x 11, 11 x 17, and 13 x 19 pictures printed on glossy paper with PPIs as low as 125 (for 8.5 x 11) or even 60 for the big guys. I don't let people put their nose up against my pictures. They can view the 8.5's at a foot or two, but I display my "gallery" of large prints (I have an HP DEskjet 1220C wide-carriage printer) in a way that people can't get much close than 4-5 feet. Natually, if you look at any of my prints up close, they look ghastly! Fuzziness and severe pixelations are a fact of life at those low PPIs. And, you can only expect improvement up to the visual information in the original. In a very good 35mm KodaChrome, I've gotten good results with a dedicated scanner at 2600 DPI, then resized down. Less-than-perfect slides and/or slides taken with a less-than-optimum camera may not be able to withstand DPIs about about 1200. Unfortunately, in my case, the scanner turned out to be crap. It's sharp enough but brightness/contrast, color balance, and color saturation are just dismal. Lots of post-process time in PSP to fix them... You can also read the scanning discussions in the tips section of my web site as well I may not be the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to scanning, but 12 years experience makes be at least fair. But, I am always on the lookout for new tips to augment my skills. I'm sure I missed it - what's your web site URL? Thanks. -- ATM, aka Jerry |
wrote in message oups.com... I totally agree with Rafe - after you've done 100 of them, see how much enthusiasm you still have! Another "agree". I only did about 50 before I gave up. It is a slow, tedious, unpleasant task. I recommend sending them to a specialty house and let them do it. 1000 slides should take you about 2 years. Don Dunlap A 'cheapie' film scanner may suffer from the following: - poor focus and overall image quality - inconsistent/inaccurate colour (* a bit less of a problem with trannies, admittedly) - poor dynamic range (ie blown highlihgts, lost shadow detail) - slow scanning - poor quality of moving parts may result in premature `aging` /breakdown 1800 dpi should be OK for screen display, eg DVD display on a TV, but if you are planning to print any of these images to much bigger than 7 x 5, forget it. Either farm it out to a bureau (check your local photo-processor, most offer fairly low-cost, medium quality (2400 dpi) scan services, and they may have better quality services at a price), or prepare yourself for a long learning curve, preferably with a decent film scanner. |
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.... I have seen this http://tinyurl.com/yqee which looks like it might fit my bill. thanks again.... Gel. -- "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by". Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001) |
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 |
Your calculations are off 1" = 1800 x 1.5" =2700 = approx 4.9 MegaPixels
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message ... 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 11:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com