In article ,
Sandman writes:

The size of the file is only one parameter, the dimensions of the image
is also a factor. I.e. a small file and a huge image means there's a lot
of compression. A small file and a small image means there's less
compression, and the image would look better, but smaller.

Right. What I would like is a scan which, when printed, is comparable
to printing from film the old-fashioned way.

If you own or have access to a good scanner - The Epson V750 Pro is a good
choice if you ask me, you could scan the negatives in high resolution and at
least match the granularity of the film, i.e. scan all the detail that you
could possibly find in it.

I think I would rather let a professional do this.

For the developers that scan to CD/file that I've seen, usually have a
pretty low scanning quality for small files (understandable when
delivery is via the web, less so when delivery is on CD).

Mine were on CD.

The resolution of the scanner is only one part, the resolution (grain)
of the film is another. Most "common" films are at best rated at 75
lpmm, which means that the very highest granularity you can get from
that negative is about 20 megapixels.

Right. That's a figure I had in mind, though for ISO 200 and presumably
less than perfect exposure, 10 megapixels is probably closer to the
truth. This would be enough.

So, what resolution does your scanner need to be for it to create a 20MP
image from your negative? It needs precisely 4153 DPI. And the Epson I
mentioned above is 4800DPI, so you would have no problem scanning the
negatives into the best possible digital format you can create using
this scanner.

OK.

When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the
K10D definitely look better. They are completely sharp on a 17-inch
screen (scaled to about 1/3); in full size, one notices that they
are not infinitely sharp, but they still look OK. The ones from
film on screen (scaled to about 2/3) look OK, but one sees that
they are not infinitely sharp even when scaled down to fit the
screen.

Which of course can be due to the scan or the camera or the lens. But
it's more likely the scan.

I think so too.

You should choose resolution depending on what you're going to do with
the files. If you want to print them at 24" x 36" then you need to max
out the resolution (see above). But if you're posting to the web or
such, you needn't exaggerate the resolution. In short, do a few test
scans at various resolutions and you'll quickly notice what fits you
best.

10x15 cm is normal for prints. Occasionally I might want an
enlargement, but not poster-size. For the web, it is easy to downsample
a JPEG file and produce a smaller one, so I would rather have "master
scans" of the highest quality which is reasonable, then produce smaller
files if necessary for some purposes.

For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price?

For scanning? The aforementioned scanner isn't all that expensive, and
most of the "cost" is your time.

No, I meant if some photo shop does the scanning. I'm thinking they
might have a really good scanner. I have none and no experience either.

When one gets film developed these days, are the prints made from scans?