A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

scanning negatives



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 25th 04, 04:40 AM
Mike - EMAIL IGNORED
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default scanning negatives

What equipment should I consider for scanning 35mm color
negatives at high resolution? How is the resolution
specified?

Thanks for your help.
Mike.
  #4  
Old November 25th 04, 07:04 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

What equipment should I consider for scanning 35mm color
negatives at high resolution? How is the resolution
specified?



For enlargements, cropping & archive, then maximum quality scans would mean a
4000 dpi to 5400 dpi scanner (as Robert F. posts) such as the Nikon 4000/5000
(both ar 4000 dpi) or Minolta 5400 (I'm not sure what the Canon offering is at
this level, and there are others, but Minolta and Nikon seem to be the mainstays).

Another issue is ICE, which is hardware/software in the scanner and s/w on your
computer that allows very easy removal of dust and scratches. ICE is usually
available on the 'better' (read: more expensive) models. If your
negatives/slides have suffered some abuse, ICE is the best way to recover them.

As Robert says, divide the res (dpi) by a high quality print dpi (300) to get
the enlargement factor. Or, what I do, is calculate the largest blowup I can
get from a slide/negative as follows:

Slide/negative size: 36 x 24 mm;
there are 25.4 mm in an inch.

For the Minolta 5400:
5400 x 36/25.4 = 7654 (pixels) / 300 = 25.5 inches
5400 x 24/25.4 = 5102 / 300 = 17 inches

You can replace the terms for 4000 dpi and/or 300 dpi (print) as you need.

To get a 25.5 x 17 print would imply high quality lenses, fine grain film and an
image taken from a tripod.

Beyond these, there are true professional systems using the drumscan technique.
These systems are very expensive.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- [SI] rulz: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
  #5  
Old November 25th 04, 07:04 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

What equipment should I consider for scanning 35mm color
negatives at high resolution? How is the resolution
specified?



For enlargements, cropping & archive, then maximum quality scans would mean a
4000 dpi to 5400 dpi scanner (as Robert F. posts) such as the Nikon 4000/5000
(both ar 4000 dpi) or Minolta 5400 (I'm not sure what the Canon offering is at
this level, and there are others, but Minolta and Nikon seem to be the mainstays).

Another issue is ICE, which is hardware/software in the scanner and s/w on your
computer that allows very easy removal of dust and scratches. ICE is usually
available on the 'better' (read: more expensive) models. If your
negatives/slides have suffered some abuse, ICE is the best way to recover them.

As Robert says, divide the res (dpi) by a high quality print dpi (300) to get
the enlargement factor. Or, what I do, is calculate the largest blowup I can
get from a slide/negative as follows:

Slide/negative size: 36 x 24 mm;
there are 25.4 mm in an inch.

For the Minolta 5400:
5400 x 36/25.4 = 7654 (pixels) / 300 = 25.5 inches
5400 x 24/25.4 = 5102 / 300 = 17 inches

You can replace the terms for 4000 dpi and/or 300 dpi (print) as you need.

To get a 25.5 x 17 print would imply high quality lenses, fine grain film and an
image taken from a tripod.

Beyond these, there are true professional systems using the drumscan technique.
These systems are very expensive.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- [SI] rulz: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
  #6  
Old November 26th 04, 03:12 AM
John Honan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Feinman wrote:
The best scanners are currently the Minolta and the Nikon
which have 5400 dpi and 4000 dpi respectively. Thus the
Minolta will give 18x, assuming your negs are sharp enough.
Most people will be happy with 2700-3200 dpi scanners at
about 1/2 the cost of the top of the line models.


I noticed you have a section on the Epson Perfection 4870 on your site.
(4800 x 9600 dpi 48-Bit Colour USB)

http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/epson_4870_tip1.html
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/scan...n4870Photo.htm

This is one that I'm considering. Any other observations since you wrote
the original review?
  #7  
Old November 26th 04, 03:12 AM
John Honan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Feinman wrote:
The best scanners are currently the Minolta and the Nikon
which have 5400 dpi and 4000 dpi respectively. Thus the
Minolta will give 18x, assuming your negs are sharp enough.
Most people will be happy with 2700-3200 dpi scanners at
about 1/2 the cost of the top of the line models.


I noticed you have a section on the Epson Perfection 4870 on your site.
(4800 x 9600 dpi 48-Bit Colour USB)

http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/epson_4870_tip1.html
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/scan...n4870Photo.htm

This is one that I'm considering. Any other observations since you wrote
the original review?
  #8  
Old November 26th 04, 03:06 PM
Robert Feinman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...
Robert Feinman wrote:
The best scanners are currently the Minolta and the Nikon
which have 5400 dpi and 4000 dpi respectively. Thus the
Minolta will give 18x, assuming your negs are sharp enough.
Most people will be happy with 2700-3200 dpi scanners at
about 1/2 the cost of the top of the line models.


I noticed you have a section on the Epson Perfection 4870 on your site.
(4800 x 9600 dpi 48-Bit Colour USB)

http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/epson_4870_tip1.html
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/scan...n4870Photo.htm

This is one that I'm considering. Any other observations since you wrote
the original review?

I think the consensus is that the 4870 is really about a 1600 dpi scanner.
So I think it is marginal for 35mm film. Just adequate for 6x4.5 and fine
for 6x6 and greater.
So I wouldn't recommend it, if you are going to use it for 35mm film.
If you need a flatbed for old photos, get one of the cheap ones and then
get a dedicated film scanner in the 2700 dpi range for the film. The total
cost will be nearly the same.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:
  #9  
Old November 26th 04, 03:06 PM
Robert Feinman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...
Robert Feinman wrote:
The best scanners are currently the Minolta and the Nikon
which have 5400 dpi and 4000 dpi respectively. Thus the
Minolta will give 18x, assuming your negs are sharp enough.
Most people will be happy with 2700-3200 dpi scanners at
about 1/2 the cost of the top of the line models.


I noticed you have a section on the Epson Perfection 4870 on your site.
(4800 x 9600 dpi 48-Bit Colour USB)

http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/epson_4870_tip1.html
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/scan...n4870Photo.htm

This is one that I'm considering. Any other observations since you wrote
the original review?

I think the consensus is that the 4870 is really about a 1600 dpi scanner.
So I think it is marginal for 35mm film. Just adequate for 6x4.5 and fine
for 6x6 and greater.
So I wouldn't recommend it, if you are going to use it for 35mm film.
If you need a flatbed for old photos, get one of the cheap ones and then
get a dedicated film scanner in the 2700 dpi range for the film. The total
cost will be nearly the same.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:
  #10  
Old November 26th 04, 07:38 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

One caveat that i need to add is that all said and done the original
looks so much better than the Scanned version. I have a Scanwit 2740
with ICE. it is 2700dpi. But the dynamic range is low I think. it is
about 3.6. Due the low Dynamic range, if i see slides(for e.g) under
the loupe it looks so much better than the scanned result. I think
along with the dpi, i would stress the importance of dynamic range of
the scanner.

javaman

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lab for Scanning Negatives..... ron 35mm Photo Equipment 3 October 14th 04 05:30 PM
what dpi for scanning film negatives ? Beowulf Digital Photography 14 September 2nd 04 09:16 PM
Kodak on Variable Film Development: NO! Michael Scarpitti In The Darkroom 276 August 12th 04 10:42 PM
Scanning negatives with xsane Gavin Cameron Digital Photography 0 July 5th 04 01:47 PM
difficulty drum scanning negatives Jytzel Film & Labs 51 April 10th 04 08:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.