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
|
|||
|
|||
What resolution would a high street lab scan?
My wife took a 35 mm colour print film into a high street lab and asked
for it to be developed, 3 sets of prints and scanned to CD. I did not tell her what resolution I wanted them scanned at, but assumed they would use something half reasonable. The images have come back scanned at two resolutions - the highest of which is 1500 x 1000 pixels. I'm sure most people would agree a 1.5 Mpixel camera would be poor, and even mobile phones are available with more than 1.5 Mpixel. Do you think this is acceptable? I am tempted to go back and ask them to scan them properly at a usable resolution or refund the money, as I feel its a bit of a mickey take to scan at only 1.5 million pixels. I'm interest in how common this practice is. -- Dave K MCSE. MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert. Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam. It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work for a couple of months only. Later set it manually. http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What resolution would a high street lab scan?
My wife took a 35 mm colour print film into a high street lab and asked
for it to be developed, 3 sets of prints and scanned to CD. I did not tell her what resolution I wanted them scanned at, but assumed they would use something half reasonable. The images have come back scanned at two resolutions - the highest of which is 1500 x 1000 pixels. I'm sure most people would agree a 1.5 Mpixel camera would be poor, and even mobile phones are available with more than 1.5 Mpixel. Most folks who want scans are just going to look at them on a computer, and 1500x1000 is as large of a viewable area as they'll have on their screen, and if you give it to them any larger, they say "These are too big." You have to remember that 99.5% of the population is clueless when it comes to digital imagery. If you didn't specify what you wanted, you can't complain about what you got. On the other hand, if you go back and nicely, politely explain that there was a mixup in the communication, they might offer to rescan them for you for free. steve |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What resolution would a high street lab scan?
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... "Steve Wolfe" wrote in message ... My wife took a 35 mm colour print film into a high street lab and asked for it to be developed, 3 sets of prints and scanned to CD. I did not tell her what resolution I wanted them scanned at, but assumed they would use something half reasonable. The images have come back scanned at two resolutions - the highest of which is 1500 x 1000 pixels. I'm sure most people would agree a 1.5 Mpixel camera would be poor, and even mobile phones are available with more than 1.5 Mpixel. Most folks who want scans are just going to look at them on a computer, and 1500x1000 is as large of a viewable area as they'll have on their screen, and if you give it to them any larger, they say "These are too big." You have to remember that 99.5% of the population is clueless when it comes to digital imagery. If you didn't specify what you wanted, you can't complain about what you got. On the other hand, if you go back and nicely, politely explain that there was a mixup in the communication, they might offer to rescan them for you for free. I doubt it. Quality scans at resolutions significantly higher than 1.5 MP are expensive, and the 1.5MP scans are so cheap as to be almost free (the automated commercial printers generated them as a side effect of producing a 4x6 print, as I understand it). Even worse, ISO 200 and higher consumer color print film is horrendously bad stuff and doesn't support scans much above 1.5MP (look up "grain aliasing" and notice that it's the ISO 200 consumer films that have the problem). If you want decent scans from 35mm, you need to use quality film, such as Reala, Provia 100F, the (relatively new) Fuji ISO 160 professional color negative films, or the like. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan I tried getting them scanned once, was not happy so bought a reasonable scanner to do the job myself, I can now do my old slides as well. The Canon 8400F I got does the job very nicely. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What resolution would a high street lab scan?
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... "Steve Wolfe" wrote in message ... My wife took a 35 mm colour print film into a high street lab and asked for it to be developed, 3 sets of prints and scanned to CD. I did not tell her what resolution I wanted them scanned at, but assumed they would use something half reasonable. The images have come back scanned at two resolutions - the highest of which is 1500 x 1000 pixels. I'm sure most people would agree a 1.5 Mpixel camera would be poor, and even mobile phones are available with more than 1.5 Mpixel. Most folks who want scans are just going to look at them on a computer, and 1500x1000 is as large of a viewable area as they'll have on their screen, and if you give it to them any larger, they say "These are too big." You have to remember that 99.5% of the population is clueless when it comes to digital imagery. If you didn't specify what you wanted, you can't complain about what you got. On the other hand, if you go back and nicely, politely explain that there was a mixup in the communication, they might offer to rescan them for you for free. I doubt it. Quality scans at resolutions significantly higher than 1.5 MP are expensive, and the 1.5MP scans are so cheap as to be almost free (the automated commercial printers generated them as a side effect of producing a 4x6 print, as I understand it). Even worse, ISO 200 and higher consumer color print film is horrendously bad stuff and doesn't support scans much above 1.5MP (look up "grain aliasing" and notice that it's the ISO 200 consumer films that have the problem). If you want decent scans from 35mm, you need to use quality film, such as Reala, Provia 100F, the (relatively new) Fuji ISO 160 professional color negative films, or the like. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan Yes, and you'd be well advised to take your shots from a tripod, too....My 5400 ppi scanner is way too good for most of my color film shots, and even for the ones taken from a tripod..... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What resolution would a high street lab scan?
Dave (from the UK) wrote: My wife took a 35 mm colour print film into a high street lab and asked for it to be developed, 3 sets of prints and scanned to CD. I did not tell her what resolution I wanted them scanned at, but assumed they would use something half reasonable. The images have come back scanned at two resolutions - the highest of which is 1500 x 1000 pixels. I'm sure most people would agree a 1.5 Mpixel camera would be poor, and even mobile phones are available with more than 1.5 Mpixel. Do you think this is acceptable? What resolution? What's the size of the files? It's likely they were scanned at 300 and 72 dpi so at 1500x1000 you get 5x3.5 inch prints and Web-sized images. If you don't specify the resolution or prints size you want them scanned, and they're just standard scans and prints, they'll likely just use 300 dpi jpegs. Just my experience with labs here (US). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What resolution would a high street lab scan?
Wayne wrote:
In article , says... The images have come back scanned at two resolutions - the highest of which is 1500 x 1000 pixels. I'm sure most people would agree a 1.5 Mpixel camera would be poor, and even mobile phones are available with more than 1.5 Mpixel. Kodak Picture CD images (JPG) are 1536x1024 pixels from 35 mm film (1536x864 pixels if from APS film). These will print 6x4 inches at 250 dpi. I dont know about the UK, but these Kodak Picture CD scans are commonly and inexpensively available at processing labs in the USA when (and only when) you have the negatives developed. This is their option. Some labs can offer larger scans, independent of developing, but you surely must specify what you want, or at least ask what they can do. At the last lab where I worked they used a Fuji Frontier which delivered 1200 x 1800 scans. That works out to a bit over 1100 dpi. I expect that higher resolution scans require dedicated scanning equipment, are more time consuming and, of course, greater expense. -- Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What resolution would a high street lab scan?
Dave (from the UK) wrote:
My wife took a 35 mm colour print film into a high street lab and asked for it to be developed, 3 sets of prints and scanned to CD. I did not tell her what resolution I wanted them scanned at, but assumed they would use something half reasonable. The images have come back scanned at two resolutions - the highest of which is 1500 x 1000 pixels. I'm sure most people would agree a 1.5 Mpixel camera would be poor, and even mobile phones are available with more than 1.5 Mpixel. That's more than adequate for a 4x6" print or for editing to a webpage or e-mail. It would probably print decently to 8x12" @ 125 print dpi and viewed at arms length. FWIW, I got some 6x6 scans done to 3260 x 3260 (FujiFrontier) which underwhelmed me a great deal, but the cost was only $1 each. I have a 5400 dpi scanner, but it can't do 6x6, so I'm patiently waiting for an opportunity to buy the Nikon 9000 ED. A 6x6 (56mm x 56mm) will scan to 8800 x 8800 pixels. Do you think this is acceptable? I am tempted to go back and ask them to scan them properly at a usable resolution or refund the money, as I feel its a bit of a mickey take to scan at only 1.5 million pixels. For the price they (likely) charged it's probably quite reasonable, but you should ask if they can do better. I'm interest in how common this practice is. Very. Drum scans (higher resolution, wet contact) will cost $25 or more per frame to scan. 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 & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What resolution would a high street lab scan?
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Steve Wolfe" wrote in message On the other hand, if you go back and nicely, politely explain that there was a mixup in the communication, they might offer to rescan them for you for free. I doubt it. Quality scans at resolutions significantly higher than 1.5 MP are expensive, and the 1.5MP scans are so cheap as to be almost free (the automated commercial printers generated them as a side effect of producing a 4x6 print, as I understand it). I'll put it down to experience then and will ask another time if I want decent resolution. At least I still have the negatives. Even worse, ISO 200 and higher consumer color print film is horrendously bad stuff and doesn't support scans much above 1.5MP (look up "grain aliasing" and notice that it's the ISO 200 consumer films that have the problem). If you want decent scans from 35mm, you need to use quality film, such as Reala, Provia 100F, the (relatively new) Fuji ISO 160 professional color negative films, or the like. I forget what film this was, but it is not a professional one. But the images are clearly limited in quality by the pixel size, and not any other artificts or gain size. -- Dave K MCSE. MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert. Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam. It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work for a couple of months only. Later set it manually. http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What resolution would a high street lab scan?
"Mark Roberts" wrote in message
... Wayne wrote: In article , says... The images have come back scanned at two resolutions - the highest of which is 1500 x 1000 pixels. I'm sure most people would agree a 1.5 Mpixel camera would be poor, and even mobile phones are available with more than 1.5 Mpixel. Kodak Picture CD images (JPG) are 1536x1024 pixels from 35 mm film (1536x864 pixels if from APS film). These will print 6x4 inches at 250 dpi. I dont know about the UK, but these Kodak Picture CD scans are commonly and inexpensively available at processing labs in the USA when (and only when) you have the negatives developed. This is their option. Some labs can offer larger scans, independent of developing, but you surely must specify what you want, or at least ask what they can do. At the last lab where I worked they used a Fuji Frontier which delivered 1200 x 1800 scans. That works out to a bit over 1100 dpi. I expect that higher resolution scans require dedicated scanning equipment, are more time consuming and, of course, greater expense. When Picture CD was first introduced Kodak was still promoting its professional "Photo CD" product, which offered much higher resolution albeit at a higher price. Kodak positioned their "Picture CD" more toward the casual film photographer that wanted to be able to get digitized photos for sharing over the Internet--and the Picture CD resolution is quite adequate for that purpose. There was even enough resolution to make an acceptable 4x6 print. But I do not believe that Kodak ever intended Picture CDs to be used for digital archival purposes, or to be the source for higher-quality (i.e., larger-sized) prints. Kodak always, as far as I know, marketed the product for amateur purposes. Once higher-resolution film scanners became available, the Photo CD product really became a bit dated. Who was going to spend a dollar or two PER FRAME, and travel to and from the processor (or pay postage), when they could scan in-house? So now we are left only with Picture CD, and who knows how long even that will last? It may serve as a poor man's "Photo CD," but its limitations are obvious. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High Resolution from 35mm Film | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 80 | November 19th 05 08:16 PM |
advantage of high $ 35mm optics vs. MF now lost? | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 30 | September 12th 04 04:46 AM |
High Street Digital Reprints (in the UK) | Matthew McGrattan | 35mm Photo Equipment | 8 | August 23rd 04 11:16 AM |
Super high resolution prints on transparency in L.A.? | molecool | Film & Labs | 1 | April 26th 04 09:23 PM |