Slide scanning problem

My brother sent me some scans of his Nepal slides. He used a Minolta SLR
with a Tamron 28-200 lens and a Nikon LS 50 scanner. The slide were
scanned at 4000 dpi.

Here is a full-resolution example (5400x3600, 2.4 MByte):
http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

This image sucks, since it's totally blurred. If you unsharp mask it
heavily (200%, radius 2), resize it to 2700x1800 and unsharp mask it
again, it starts looking a bit sharp, but noise or grain start getting
visible. It seems that we are at the level of 2 to 3 MPixel of real
resolution.

The other images he scanned are all the same (all blurred).

A professional photographer told him that that's what you get from a
4000 dpi scanner and to get a really sharp image you'd need a drum
scanner.

I thought that perhaps it's the 28-200 Tamron zoom which is not sharp,
but my brother insists that the slides look way sharper than the scanned
images. So is the scanner the culprit ? It cost 700 Euro, scans at 4000
dpi, has a 14 bit A/D converter and shouldn't be that bad.

Anyway, is this quality you get when you scan a slide with a scanner
like this one ? What can be done to get a sharp scan ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

Start by scanning some slides that were taken with a known sharp lens,
and are known to be in focus without any camera movement etc. This will tell
you if it is the scanner or something else.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
. ..
My brother sent me some scans of his Nepal slides. He used a Minolta SLR
with a Tamron 28-200 lens and a Nikon LS 50 scanner. The slide were
scanned at 4000 dpi.

Here is a full-resolution example (5400x3600, 2.4 MByte):
http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

This image sucks, since it's totally blurred. If you unsharp mask it
heavily (200%, radius 2), resize it to 2700x1800 and unsharp mask it
again, it starts looking a bit sharp, but noise or grain start getting
visible. It seems that we are at the level of 2 to 3 MPixel of real
resolution.

The other images he scanned are all the same (all blurred).

A professional photographer told him that that's what you get from a
4000 dpi scanner and to get a really sharp image you'd need a drum
scanner.

I thought that perhaps it's the 28-200 Tamron zoom which is not sharp,
but my brother insists that the slides look way sharper than the scanned
images. So is the scanner the culprit ? It cost 700 Euro, scans at 4000
dpi, has a 14 bit A/D converter and shouldn't be that bad.

Anyway, is this quality you get when you scan a slide with a scanner
like this one ? What can be done to get a sharp scan ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

Start by scanning some slides that were taken with a known sharp lens,
and are known to be in focus without any camera movement etc. This will tell
you if it is the scanner or something else.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
. ..
My brother sent me some scans of his Nepal slides. He used a Minolta SLR
with a Tamron 28-200 lens and a Nikon LS 50 scanner. The slide were
scanned at 4000 dpi.

Here is a full-resolution example (5400x3600, 2.4 MByte):
http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

This image sucks, since it's totally blurred. If you unsharp mask it
heavily (200%, radius 2), resize it to 2700x1800 and unsharp mask it
again, it starts looking a bit sharp, but noise or grain start getting
visible. It seems that we are at the level of 2 to 3 MPixel of real
resolution.

The other images he scanned are all the same (all blurred).

A professional photographer told him that that's what you get from a
4000 dpi scanner and to get a really sharp image you'd need a drum
scanner.

I thought that perhaps it's the 28-200 Tamron zoom which is not sharp,
but my brother insists that the slides look way sharper than the scanned
images. So is the scanner the culprit ? It cost 700 Euro, scans at 4000
dpi, has a 14 bit A/D converter and shouldn't be that bad.

Anyway, is this quality you get when you scan a slide with a scanner
like this one ? What can be done to get a sharp scan ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

Alfred Molon wrote:
My brother sent me some scans of his Nepal slides. He used a Minolta
SLR with a Tamron 28-200 lens and a Nikon LS 50 scanner. The slide
were scanned at 4000 dpi.

Here is a full-resolution example (5400x3600, 2.4 MByte):
http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

This image sucks, since it's totally blurred. If you unsharp mask it
heavily (200%, radius 2), resize it to 2700x1800 and unsharp mask it
again, it starts looking a bit sharp, but noise or grain start getting
visible. It seems that we are at the level of 2 to 3 MPixel of real
resolution.

The other images he scanned are all the same (all blurred).

A professional photographer told him that that's what you get from a
4000 dpi scanner and to get a really sharp image you'd need a drum
scanner.

I thought that perhaps it's the 28-200 Tamron zoom which is not sharp,
but my brother insists that the slides look way sharper than the
scanned images. So is the scanner the culprit ? It cost 700 Euro,
scans at 4000 dpi, has a 14 bit A/D converter and shouldn't be that
bad.

Anyway, is this quality you get when you scan a slide with a scanner
like this one ? What can be done to get a sharp scan ?

I think you have unrealistic expectations of sharpness. For any ordinary
viewer, it doesn't look that bad. You get much more resolution, you
start seeing how many grains are dancing on the head of a pin. Some kind
of irrational, obsessive thing going on.

If you use Opera and view it as submitted at 20% size, it looks like a
nice slide photo. You want more sharpness at full size, you gotta use
bigger film, I think.

--
Frank ess

Alfred Molon wrote:
My brother sent me some scans of his Nepal slides. He used a Minolta
SLR with a Tamron 28-200 lens and a Nikon LS 50 scanner. The slide
were scanned at 4000 dpi.

Here is a full-resolution example (5400x3600, 2.4 MByte):
http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

This image sucks, since it's totally blurred. If you unsharp mask it
heavily (200%, radius 2), resize it to 2700x1800 and unsharp mask it
again, it starts looking a bit sharp, but noise or grain start getting
visible. It seems that we are at the level of 2 to 3 MPixel of real
resolution.

The other images he scanned are all the same (all blurred).

A professional photographer told him that that's what you get from a
4000 dpi scanner and to get a really sharp image you'd need a drum
scanner.

I thought that perhaps it's the 28-200 Tamron zoom which is not sharp,
but my brother insists that the slides look way sharper than the
scanned images. So is the scanner the culprit ? It cost 700 Euro,
scans at 4000 dpi, has a 14 bit A/D converter and shouldn't be that
bad.

Anyway, is this quality you get when you scan a slide with a scanner
like this one ? What can be done to get a sharp scan ?

I think you have unrealistic expectations of sharpness. For any ordinary
viewer, it doesn't look that bad. You get much more resolution, you
start seeing how many grains are dancing on the head of a pin. Some kind
of irrational, obsessive thing going on.

If you use Opera and view it as submitted at 20% size, it looks like a
nice slide photo. You want more sharpness at full size, you gotta use
bigger film, I think.

--
Frank ess

Alfred Molon wrote:
My brother sent me some scans of his Nepal slides. He used a Minolta SLR
with a Tamron 28-200 lens and a Nikon LS 50 scanner. The slide were
scanned at 4000 dpi.

Here is a full-resolution example (5400x3600, 2.4 MByte):
http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

This image sucks, since it's totally blurred. If you unsharp mask it
heavily (200%, radius 2), resize it to 2700x1800 and unsharp mask it
again, it starts looking a bit sharp, but noise or grain start getting
visible. It seems that we are at the level of 2 to 3 MPixel of real
resolution.

The other images he scanned are all the same (all blurred).


Let's see, a Tamron 7:1 ratio zoom (and I bet) no tripod?


A professional photographer told him that that's what you get from a
4000 dpi scanner and to get a really sharp image you'd need a drum
scanner.

Harumph. Yes a drum scanner is better. But a good slide scanner
(incl. the LS-50) is certainly far better than what you have
linked here.


I thought that perhaps it's the 28-200 Tamron zoom which is not sharp,
but my brother insists that the slides look way sharper than the scanned
images. So is the scanner the culprit ? It cost 700 Euro, scans at 4000
dpi, has a 14 bit A/D converter and shouldn't be that bad.

Ask him if he used a tripod.
What focal length / speed was he at?

7:1 zoom ratio lenses are generaally not noted for sharpness.

How does the slide look projected (slide projector)?

Cheers,
Alan




--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alfred Molon wrote:
My brother sent me some scans of his Nepal slides. He used a Minolta SLR
with a Tamron 28-200 lens and a Nikon LS 50 scanner. The slide were
scanned at 4000 dpi.

Here is a full-resolution example (5400x3600, 2.4 MByte):
http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

This image sucks, since it's totally blurred. If you unsharp mask it
heavily (200%, radius 2), resize it to 2700x1800 and unsharp mask it
again, it starts looking a bit sharp, but noise or grain start getting
visible. It seems that we are at the level of 2 to 3 MPixel of real
resolution.

The other images he scanned are all the same (all blurred).


Let's see, a Tamron 7:1 ratio zoom (and I bet) no tripod?


A professional photographer told him that that's what you get from a
4000 dpi scanner and to get a really sharp image you'd need a drum
scanner.

Harumph. Yes a drum scanner is better. But a good slide scanner
(incl. the LS-50) is certainly far better than what you have
linked here.


I thought that perhaps it's the 28-200 Tamron zoom which is not sharp,
but my brother insists that the slides look way sharper than the scanned
images. So is the scanner the culprit ? It cost 700 Euro, scans at 4000
dpi, has a 14 bit A/D converter and shouldn't be that bad.

Ask him if he used a tripod.
What focal length / speed was he at?

7:1 zoom ratio lenses are generaally not noted for sharpness.

How does the slide look projected (slide projector)?

Cheers,
Alan




--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Frank ess wrote:

I think you have unrealistic expectations of sharpness. For any ordinary
viewer, it doesn't look that bad. You get much more resolution, you
start seeing how many grains are dancing on the head of a pin. Some kind
of irrational, obsessive thing going on.

OK, so does this mean that this is what you get when scanning a slide
taken with an SLR with a not too sharp lens ? That's basically what I
wanted to know. So it's not that the scanner for some unknown reason is
perhaps malfunctioning or perhaps is not properly setup ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

Frank ess wrote:

I think you have unrealistic expectations of sharpness. For any ordinary
viewer, it doesn't look that bad. You get much more resolution, you
start seeing how many grains are dancing on the head of a pin. Some kind
of irrational, obsessive thing going on.

OK, so does this mean that this is what you get when scanning a slide
taken with an SLR with a not too sharp lens ? That's basically what I
wanted to know. So it's not that the scanner for some unknown reason is
perhaps malfunctioning or perhaps is not properly setup ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

Alan Browne wrote:
Let's see, a Tamron 7:1 ratio zoom (and I bet) no tripod?

I don't know, but I'm quite sure he didn't use a tripod (it was a bright
sunny day). I'd also guess that he didn't take the shot at full zoom -
it rather looks more at the wide end or somewhere in the middle.

Harumph. Yes a drum scanner is better. But a good slide scanner
(incl. the LS-50) is certainly far better than what you have
linked here.

Ok - so it's the scan which is not so sharp after all ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html