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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article , says...
What equipment should I consider for scanning 35mm color negatives at high resolution? How is the resolution specified? Thanks for your help. Mike. If you want to print the results the rule of thumb is to divide the scan resolution by 300 to get the degree of enlargement. So a 2700 dpi scanner will give you a max of 9x. 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 have lots of discussions about this in the tips section of my web site. Another good spot to check is scantips.com -- Robert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |