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

film scanner resolution needed for ISO 200



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 29th 04, 06:14 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default film scanner resolution needed for ISO 200

Monte Castleman wrote:

I currently scan Fuji Super HG or Agfa (whatever the Walgreens stuff is)
ISO 200 negatives on a 2400 dpi scanner. Would there be any benefit to
using a higher dpi scanner? What about if I were to use something
like Fuji Reala 100? I normally use a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens, so the
image isn't degraded by a cheap kit zoom.

Put another way, what's the approximate dpi for reasonably priced ISO
100 and 200 negative films.


4000 dpi would cover it very well. A nikon 4000/5000, Minolta
DSE 5400, Scan Dual IV (3200 dp), etc.

Consider whether ICE would be a benefit to you as well before you
buy.

OTOH, as the other poster says, what is the end use of the scans,
if it is for printing, then the print resoultion drives the scan
resolution.

eg: a 300 dpi print for a 8.5 x 11 requires 3300 dots from 36mm
of frame ... about 2300 dpi. If that is sufficient, then you're
there.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #2  
Old August 30th 04, 06:15 PM
James Cassatt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The major issue here is not resolution, but grain aliasing. You can
do a google search on the subject and find a lot of hits. If I
remember correctly, when the scanning resolution is about the same as
the grain size, the grain is emphasized. I had that problem while
scanning at 2400 dpi. For that reason my digital pictures at 6
megapixels from my drebel are much better than scanned nagatives, even
though the result is a 8 megapixel image.

Monte Castleman wrote in message ink.net...
I currently scan Fuji Super HG or Agfa (whatever the Walgreens stuff is)
ISO 200 negatives on a 2400 dpi scanner. Would there be any benefit to
using a higher dpi scanner? What about if I were to use something
like Fuji Reala 100? I normally use a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens, so the
image isn't degraded by a cheap kit zoom.

Put another way, what's the approximate dpi for reasonably priced ISO
100 and 200 negative films.

 




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
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? Toralf 35mm Photo Equipment 274 July 30th 04 12:26 AM
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 94 June 23rd 04 05:17 AM
difficulty drum scanning negatives Jytzel Film & Labs 51 April 10th 04 08:56 PM
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner bleanne APS Photographic Equipment 1 November 27th 03 07:34 AM
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner bleanne Other Photographic Equipment 1 November 27th 03 07:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.