megapixel equivalent of 35mm scanned at 4800 dpi ?

I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the
meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be.

Also, is the epson 4870 flatbed a good choice or would it be better to
get a minolta 3200 dedicated film scanner (the little boxy kind)?

thanks

No flat bed scanner will match a good dedicated film scanner. But the newer
flat beds are very good, so it depends on what you're looking for regarding
image quality.

Comparing a scanned ned or chrome with a digital original is difficult, to
say the least. The control of variables in the chain is harder to control on
the scanner, and results depend on software settings, film type, scanner
type, etc. A properly scanned chrome, if it's sharp to begin with, can
produce a superior image to almost any digi-cam. Yes, I'll get flamed...

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the
meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be.

Also, is the epson 4870 flatbed a good choice or would it be better to
get a minolta 3200 dedicated film scanner (the little boxy kind)?

thanks

From: (Mike Henley)

I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the
meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be.

My 4,000 dpi film scanner gives me about 3,600 x 5,400 pixels after I crop off
the edges a bit and that's close to 20 Mpixels. 4,800 dpi sample rate would be
even more.

But pixels are not all created equal and film scans, even from fine grained
films like Velvia and Provia 100F, have more noise and less information than
smaller digital files. I get about 11 Mpixels from my Canon 1Ds for example
(equivalent pixel count to roughly a 2,800 dpi scan from 35 mm) but prints from
it, especially large ones, look much better than prints from scanned film.

Also, is the epson 4870 flatbed a good choice or would it be better to
get a minolta 3200 dedicated film scanner (the little boxy kind)?

Film scanner should do a better job than a flatbed.

In article ,
Mike Henley wrote:
I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the
meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be.

It depends on what you mean. If you're refering to the number of pixels in
the image, then that's easy. 4800 * (24mm in inches) * 4800 * (36mm in
inches) gives just under 31 million.

However, that's not to say that the image will look like what you'd get if
you had a 31 megapixel digital camera - it won't. Read on...

Also, is the epson 4870 flatbed a good choice or would it be better to
get a minolta 3200 dedicated film scanner (the little boxy kind)?

I have a 4870. The images it produces from 35mm slides look about the same
as what I get from my EOS 10D in terms of resolution, but are noisier. This
being the case, the answers to your question would appear to be either "31"
or "about 6", depending on whether you are just interested in the number of
pixels in your scan, or actual image quality.

HTH

Chris Brown wrote:
In article ,
Mike Henley wrote:
I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the
meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be.

It depends on what you mean. If you're refering to the number of pixels in
the image, then that's easy. 4800 * (24mm in inches) * 4800 * (36mm in
inches) gives just under 31 million.

However, that's not to say that the image will look like what you'd get if
you had a 31 megapixel digital camera - it won't. Read on...

Considering there are no such beasts as 31MP digital cameras how do you know
or can claim such? Not just that but do you have any idea precicely what kinds
of problems and image defects it would cause? The red channel "performance"
would be a rather interesting thing to behold.

Or did you mean a digital camera that uses a larger than 35mm sensor?


HTH

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:
In article ,
Mike Henley wrote:
I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the
meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be.

It depends on what you mean. If you're refering to the number of pixels in
the image, then that's easy. 4800 * (24mm in inches) * 4800 * (36mm in
inches) gives just under 31 million.

However, that's not to say that the image will look like what you'd get if
you had a 31 megapixel digital camera - it won't. Read on...

Considering there are no such beasts as 31MP digital cameras how do you know
or can claim such?

....because, as I've already stated in the material you neglected to quote,
35mm stuff scanned with the scanner in question looks about the same (if
noisier) as what I'm already getting with a 6 megapixel digital camera.

Certainly that scanner with any 35mm film won't give images that are even
closely comparable to what can be done with the curent 11 and 14 megapixel
DSLRs. This is not to disparage the 4870 - it's probably about the best A4
flatbed out there.

Not just that but do you have any idea precicely what kinds
of problems and image defects it would cause? The red channel "performance"
would be a rather interesting thing to behold.
Or did you mean a digital camera that uses a larger than 35mm sensor?

If you're suggesting that 31 megapixels from a 35mm-sized recording area
isn't a practical proposition, then I think you've just answered your own
question.

I didn't say anything about digital sensor sizes, by the way.

Mike Henley wrote:

I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the
meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be.

Also, is the epson 4870 flatbed a good choice or would it be better to
get a minolta 3200 dedicated film scanner (the little boxy kind)?



a 35mm frame is 36mm x 24mm. 25.4 mm/inch.

4800 x 36/25.4 = 6800 (rounded)
4800 x 24/25.4 = 4500 (rounded)

6800 x 4500 = 30,600,000 pixels.

That's the information collected. Being film, the noise is very
apparent at these scan levels.




--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Certainly that scanner with any 35mm film won't give images that are even
closely comparable to what can be done with the curent 11 and 14 megapixel
DSLRs. This is not to disparage the 4870 - it's probably about the best A4
flatbed out there.

What, say, if it's an exceptional image and i'm willing to pay for it to be
professionally scanned (drum scanner? is that the best there is?), how would it
compare to a 6 megapixel digital camera? would it be any better?

The other question... does this mean that i can't get better prints from 35mm
(professionally even) than i get from a 6 megapixel dSLR? If it does then maybe
i'm wasting my time and money with film and should get a dSLR. Is it so?

These are important questions.

Digital camera images are highly processed coming off the sensor and tend to
have a less grainy look , if the image was shot at ISO equivalent of less
than 200, than scanned film although there is actually more picture
information in a scanned 35mm image. Unless you have a specific need for a
large image file there is little practical reason to scan a 35mm image at
greater than 2400 dpi. You would be better off scanning in 48bit color at
2400 dpi and processing in Photoshop CS. Doing it that way will still
generate a massive, computer choking image file full of bits that will be
arbitrarily discarded when the image is processed for printing anyway.

In article ,
Sabineellen wrote:
Certainly that scanner with any 35mm film won't give images that are even
closely comparable to what can be done with the curent 11 and 14 megapixel
DSLRs. This is not to disparage the 4870 - it's probably about the best A4
flatbed out there.

What, say, if it's an exceptional image and i'm willing to pay for it to be
professionally scanned (drum scanner? is that the best there is?), how would it
compare to a 6 megapixel digital camera? would it be any better?

It'd be better than the flatbed scan. certainly. 35mm film vs 6 megapixel
digital in terms of absolute potential is a hotly debated topic which
arouses many passions. I'll just say that if you want significantly better
quality than either, you'd be better off looking at medium format.

The other question... does this mean that i can't get better prints from 35mm
(professionally even) than i get from a 6 megapixel dSLR? If it does then maybe
i'm wasting my time and money with film and should get a dSLR. Is it so?

You'll have to judge for yourself, depending on your own criteria. All I can
say is that I shoot both 35mm film and with a 6 megapixel DSLR, and have
recently started shooting medium format (6*6) film as well. I find all 3
formats useful, but YMMV.

These are important questions.

To be sure, but the answers vary depending on the individual's requirements,
and have a certain amount of subjectivity. What works for me won't
necessarilly work for you, and vice versa.

If you're happy with the results you're getting with your current setup,
then why change it?