Film Scanning Question (20D equivalent)

I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be the
equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?

That's a hard one a bit of apples and oranges. I would just recommend
getting a film scanner capable of at least 4000ppi (e.g. Nikon Coolscan
5 or 5000) or the Minolta 5400 II (5400ppi). Having used both 35mm
scans (4000ppi)and the 20D in my opinion, the scans will never be as
good as your 20D images generally speaking even though they are scanned
at a higher PPI, due to film response and grain.

Harry wrote:
I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be the
equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?

"Harry" wrote in message
...
I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be the
equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?


Try before you buy.

I bought a 3600 film scanner 2 weeks ago - it's rather poor. The tonal range
is much more limited than the negatives; I have compared the results with
the original prints I made 30 years ago. I can't sort it out with Photoshop
CS II - this may be my fault of course.

Luckily the British firm of Jessops has a no quibble money back choice - I
will be choosing this.

John

Harry wrote:

I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be the
equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?

Try using your 20D as a copier for the negatives. I do this with my
300D, using a home-made cardboard holder taped to a slide light-box for
the strips, and a macro lens. You'll need a copy stand, maybe use the
column and arm of an old enlarger as I do. I use manual exposure,
setting the aperture to f/11, speed 100 ISO, and set the shutter speed
to the point where the histogram is just touching the right side of the
graph (with no negative in place, so the camera is looking at peak white
from the light-box).

Then, in Photoshop, I invert the negative image from the 300D and use
auto levels to adjust the image to a reasonably good positive. A few
images need a bit of tweaking, but not many. (invert in PS-speak means
changing the negative image to a positive image).

Upside is the camera is way faster than any scanner, but you have to set
up a custom white balance using the light-box illumination. Auto white
balance destroys the masking in the negative and makes subsequent
inverting difficult.

If you are intending to buy a scanner, use the cash on a macro lens
instead, IMO a much better use of the money. This setup is also
excellent for copying old photographs as well.

Colin D.

I remember the review of the Minolta 5400 II in AP they got there
regular digital guy to do the test, he showed one 50% crop, that filled
half an A3 spread from Fuji Provia 100 pushed to 400 and he said that
he was astonished by the quality and that he could not think of a
single consumer leval DSLR that could offer the same quility, so If I
would you I would get that scanner.

Harry wrote:
I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be the
equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?


Here's the tip of the day...
Get a print made from your negative - maybe 5* wide or so then scan that
on a nice, middle of the range flat bed scanner and like magic, you'll
have a scan to marvel at!

Film scanners you can afford are best used for transparencies although
up to about 8"x ## you get very nice prints from their neg scans. When a
print is made from a negative by a mini lab, it is generally digitally
adjusted to remove grain. If you scan a film with a film scanner the
grain and the texture of the film itself are all in the resulting file.

http://www.ryadia.com/film-digi.jpg shows you what you are up against.
Film was scanned on a Nikon 5000 ED at default settings. A mid range
scanner is under $500. An average film scanner is at least twice that.

As usual, wear an aluminum skull cap if you don't like what I post. That
way you won't get an obsession to stalk me because I'm constantly on
your mind! ...Read that did you Brian Baird?

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.

In article , Harry wrote:
I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be the
equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?

You'll need a pretty decent scanner to match the 20D from 35mm, and you'll
also have to use slow slide film. If you're looking to get 20D-style quality
from 35mm colour print film at, e.g. 200 ISO, then IME you're going to be
very disappointed.

That article must have been written quite a while ago, in my opinion, a
20D cannot be matched by any 35mm color film positive or negative.
Look at the comparisons at:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...e/building.htm




wrote:
I remember the review of the Minolta 5400 II in AP they got there
regular digital guy to do the test, he showed one 50% crop, that filled
half an A3 spread from Fuji Provia 100 pushed to 400 and he said that
he was astonished by the quality and that he could not think of a
single consumer leval DSLR that could offer the same quility, so If I
would you I would get that scanner.

Any dedicated film scanner from Minolta, Nikon or (if you can still get one)
the Cannon 4000 will totally outperform the 20d and a transparency adapter.

bmoag wrote:
Any dedicated film scanner from Minolta, Nikon or (if you can still get one)
the Cannon 4000 will totally outperform the 20d and a transparency adapter.


I have no axe to grind here but it is statements like this which tell me
you don't own a digital camera - of any resolution. If you did and you
used Photoshop or any of the other popular editing programs you'd know
that even a 2 Megapixel image can, when interpolated, exceed the image
quality of a 35mm film scanned on any of the scanners you mentioned.

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.