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
|
|||
|
|||
scanning old negatives
Now that I photograph exclusively digitally (Pentax K10D and Ricoh GR),
of course I have all the pictures as JPEG files (and RAW as well from the K10D). I got the K10D in 2008. From 2002 until then, when developing film (usually Kodak, usually ISO 200), I asked for scans on a CD. (I was using a Ricoh KR10 Super.) Depending on various things, including where I got the film developed and scanned, these are about 500--1500 kB. JPEG files produced by the K10D (set to produce the best and highest-resolution JPEG files) are between 2 and 4 MB. Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher resolution would produce better results? (Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily high resolution and produce arbitrarily large JPEG files. The point is, what resolution is meaningful and what file size should that produce.) When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the K10D definitely look better. They are completely sharp on a 17-inch screen (scaled to about 1/3); in full size, one notices that they are not infinitely sharp, but they still look OK. The ones from film on screen (scaled to about 2/3) look OK, but one sees that they are not infinitely sharp even when scaled down to fit the screen. When comparing 4x6-inch (10x15-cm) glossy prints, those from the K10D look better, but only slightly so. This is why I suspect that rescanning the film would improve the quality. What resolution do people recommend for ISO200 film? What would be the resulting JPEG size? Of course, I could ask whether it is worth it to rescan the film from 2002 to 2008. However, I definitely want to scan my film from the 20 years before 2002. (I was using a similar Ricoh model, KR5 IIRC, for most of this time. It was stolen and I replaced it with the used Ricoh mentioned above. They were very similar except that the second one had an automatic setting where one could set the stop and it would set the time; also, the light meter looked a bit different.) If I do so, I want to get it right the first time. Also, this is much more than 2002--2008, so it wouldn't be that much more effort to scan rescan the stuff I already have. For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price? How is film developed today? At some point, did developers start scanning the negatives and printing the JPEG files on film, as opposed to doing it the old way? If so, the prints I have from 2002 to 2008 might be prints of the JPEG files I already have. IIRC I printed a few of these files and they looked very similar to the prints. (Presumably in 1983 no-one was scanning negatives; I don't see any difference in the quality of the prints from 1983 to those from 2007, which is not to say that there would be no difference visible in enlargements.) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
scanning old negatives
In article , Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
wrote: Now that I photograph exclusively digitally (Pentax K10D and Ricoh GR), of course I have all the pictures as JPEG files (and RAW as well from the K10D). I got the K10D in 2008. From 2002 until then, when developing film (usually Kodak, usually ISO 200), I asked for scans on a CD. (I was using a Ricoh KR10 Super.) Depending on various things, including where I got the film developed and scanned, these are about 500--1500 kB. JPEG files produced by the K10D (set to produce the best and highest-resolution JPEG files) are between 2 and 4 MB. Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher resolution would produce better results? The size of the file is only one parameter, the dimensions of the image is also a factor. I.e. a small file and a huge image means there's a lot of compression. A small file and a small image means there's less compression, and the image would look better, but smaller. If you own or have access to a good scanner - The Epson V750 Pro is a good choice if you ask me, you could scan the negatives in high resolution and at least match the granularity of the film, i.e. scan all the detail that you could possibly find in it. For the developers that scan to CD/file that I've seen, usually have a pretty low scanning quality for small files (understandable when delivery is via the web, less so when delivery is on CD). (Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily high resolution and produce arbitrarily large JPEG files. The point is, what resolution is meaningful and what file size should that produce.) The resolution of the scanner is only one part, the resolution (grain) of the film is another. Most "common" films are at best rated at 75 lpmm, which means that the very highest granularity you can get from that negative is about 20 megapixels. So, what resolution does your scanner need to be for it to create a 20MP image from your negative? It needs precisely 4153 DPI. And the Epson I mentioned above is 4800DPI, so you would have no problem scanning the negatives into the best possible digital format you can create using this scanner. If you have professional analog film, that is highly rated (upwards to 200 lpmm) then the Epson has microstep technology and can scan up to 6400 DPI and above. When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the K10D definitely look better. They are completely sharp on a 17-inch screen (scaled to about 1/3); in full size, one notices that they are not infinitely sharp, but they still look OK. The ones from film on screen (scaled to about 2/3) look OK, but one sees that they are not infinitely sharp even when scaled down to fit the screen. Which of course can be due to the scan or the camera or the lens. But it's more likely the scan. When comparing 4x6-inch (10x15-cm) glossy prints, those from the K10D look better, but only slightly so. This is why I suspect that rescanning the film would improve the quality. It most probably would. What resolution do people recommend for ISO200 film? What would be the resulting JPEG size? You should choose resolution depending on what you're going to do with the files. If you want to print them at 24" x 36" then you need to max out the resolution (see above). But if you're posting to the web or such, you needn't exaggerate the resolution. In short, do a few test scans at various resolutions and you'll quickly notice what fits you best. Of course, I could ask whether it is worth it to rescan the film from 2002 to 2008. However, I definitely want to scan my film from the 20 years before 2002. The Epson V750 Pro comes with several film inserts where you can easily scan negatives from 135-film (35 mm film) and 120-film. It also comes with inserts for reversal film in frames. For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price? For scanning? The aforementioned scanner isn't all that expensive, and most of the "cost" is your time. -- Sandman |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
scanning old negatives
In article ,
Sandman writes: The size of the file is only one parameter, the dimensions of the image is also a factor. I.e. a small file and a huge image means there's a lot of compression. A small file and a small image means there's less compression, and the image would look better, but smaller. Right. What I would like is a scan which, when printed, is comparable to printing from film the old-fashioned way. If you own or have access to a good scanner - The Epson V750 Pro is a good choice if you ask me, you could scan the negatives in high resolution and at least match the granularity of the film, i.e. scan all the detail that you could possibly find in it. I think I would rather let a professional do this. For the developers that scan to CD/file that I've seen, usually have a pretty low scanning quality for small files (understandable when delivery is via the web, less so when delivery is on CD). Mine were on CD. The resolution of the scanner is only one part, the resolution (grain) of the film is another. Most "common" films are at best rated at 75 lpmm, which means that the very highest granularity you can get from that negative is about 20 megapixels. Right. That's a figure I had in mind, though for ISO 200 and presumably less than perfect exposure, 10 megapixels is probably closer to the truth. This would be enough. So, what resolution does your scanner need to be for it to create a 20MP image from your negative? It needs precisely 4153 DPI. And the Epson I mentioned above is 4800DPI, so you would have no problem scanning the negatives into the best possible digital format you can create using this scanner. OK. When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the K10D definitely look better. They are completely sharp on a 17-inch screen (scaled to about 1/3); in full size, one notices that they are not infinitely sharp, but they still look OK. The ones from film on screen (scaled to about 2/3) look OK, but one sees that they are not infinitely sharp even when scaled down to fit the screen. Which of course can be due to the scan or the camera or the lens. But it's more likely the scan. I think so too. You should choose resolution depending on what you're going to do with the files. If you want to print them at 24" x 36" then you need to max out the resolution (see above). But if you're posting to the web or such, you needn't exaggerate the resolution. In short, do a few test scans at various resolutions and you'll quickly notice what fits you best. 10x15 cm is normal for prints. Occasionally I might want an enlargement, but not poster-size. For the web, it is easy to downsample a JPEG file and produce a smaller one, so I would rather have "master scans" of the highest quality which is reasonable, then produce smaller files if necessary for some purposes. For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price? For scanning? The aforementioned scanner isn't all that expensive, and most of the "cost" is your time. No, I meant if some photo shop does the scanning. I'm thinking they might have a really good scanner. I have none and no experience either. When one gets film developed these days, are the prints made from scans? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
scanning old negatives
Phillip Helbig:
Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher resolution would produce better results? (Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily high resolution and produce arbitrarily large JPEG files.... When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the K10D definitely look better.... What resolution do people recommend for ISO200 film? What would be the resulting JPEG size? First off, if you are concerned about quality, scan to TIFF, not to JPEG. JPEGs are the last step in the process--you use high-quality software such as Photoshop to convert to JPEG before you post to the web. I would scan 4x6 prints at 1200 ppi. The resulting digital image will be 4800x7200 pixels. That allows for easy retouching and gives you the resolution you need to crop and resize if you decide to print the photo. You *could* print such a scan at up to 20x30 in. and get decent quality. Chances are you will print smaller than that and get excellent quality. Please see http://www.scanyourentirelife.com/dp...your-paper-pho tographs/ and http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/image-resolution/ and also do your own search for all of these terms: "scan," "resolution," and "pixel dimensions." -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
scanning old negatives
In article , Phillip Helbig (undress to
reply) wrote: Now that I photograph exclusively digitally (Pentax K10D and Ricoh GR), of course I have all the pictures as JPEG files (and RAW as well from the K10D). I got the K10D in 2008. From 2002 until then, when developing film (usually Kodak, usually ISO 200), I asked for scans on a CD. (I was using a Ricoh KR10 Super.) Depending on various things, including where I got the film developed and scanned, these are about 500--1500 kB. JPEG files produced by the K10D (set to produce the best and highest-resolution JPEG files) are between 2 and 4 MB. don't scan to jpeg. Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher resolution would produce better results? (Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily high resolution and produce arbitrarily large JPEG files. The point is, what resolution is meaningful and what file size should that produce.) you don't say at what resolution they were scanned, but based on the size and that they were scanned at a store, it's probably a low resolution scan. buy a used 4000 ppi dedicated negative scanner such as the nikon coolscan 4000 and scan to tiff and then sell it when you're done for roughly what you paid for it. if you don't want to do the scanning yourself (it's easy but very time consuming) find a professional scanning service to do it, *not* the local camera store. .... For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price? there are many companies that can do it for you and prices are around $1/ea for quality scans. keep in mind that there are no backups with film so if they lose or damage what you send them, it's gone. How is film developed today? At some point, did developers start scanning the negatives and printing the JPEG files on film, as opposed to doing it the old way? no. film is developed the same way it always has but prints are now done with digital printers not optical ones, which produce as good or better results. although the negative is scanned at a very high resolution, there is no interim jpeg (or any format). If so, the prints I have from 2002 to 2008 might be prints of the JPEG files I already have. they're not. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
scanning old negatives
On 2015-05-24 05:36, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Now that I photograph exclusively digitally (Pentax K10D and Ricoh GR), of course I have all the pictures as JPEG files (and RAW as well from the K10D). I got the K10D in 2008. From 2002 until then, when developing film (usually Kodak, usually ISO 200), I asked for scans on a CD. (I was using a Ricoh KR10 Super.) Depending on various things, including where I got the film developed and scanned, these are about 500--1500 kB. JPEG files produced by the K10D (set to produce the best and highest-resolution JPEG files) are between 2 and 4 MB. Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher resolution would produce better results? (Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily high resolution and produce arbitrarily large JPEG files. The point is, what resolution is meaningful and what file size should that produce.) 4000 dpi is a good practical limit for basic scanning (dry air). So a Minolta 5400, Nikon 4000, etc. are fine scanners for the job. A 4000 dpi scan results in: 4000 x 36/25.4 X 4000 x 24/25.4 = 21.4 Mpix. Bit depths are 12 or 14 bits/colour, but typically encoded as full words, so the file size (uncompressed TIF) will run up to: 21,400,000 x 6 = 128 MB - though my TIF's usually run about 85 MB. In JPG that will come down quite a bit. (less than 20 MB). "Wet" scanning up to about 8000 dpi or so will give cleaner, better contrast ... but it's expensive if you don't have the equipment. You can get a wet scanning kit for the Nikon 8000/9000 scanners that provides converted trays that use an oil (?) as the wet media. That improved contrast but doesn't increase the resolution of course. Digital cameras have little dyncamic noise and 0 dimensional noise, so images are always much cleaner on digital cameras for a given lens, ISO, shutter speed and lighting conditions. When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the K10D definitely look better. They are completely sharp on a 17-inch screen (scaled to about 1/3); in full size, one notices that they are not infinitely sharp, but they still look OK. The ones from film on screen (scaled to about 2/3) look OK, but one sees that they are not infinitely sharp even when scaled down to fit the screen. When comparing 4x6-inch (10x15-cm) glossy prints, those from the K10D look better, but only slightly so. This is why I suspect that rescanning the film would improve the quality. What resolution do people recommend for ISO200 film? What would be the resulting JPEG size? I likes various Kodak chromes (elite chrome, kodachromes...) and Velvia from Fuji. For negatives, the cleanest scans were from Fuji Portra 160 (exposed as 100). Colour was just a tad above neutral. Of course, I could ask whether it is worth it to rescan the film from 2002 to 2008. However, I definitely want to scan my film from the 20 years before 2002. (I was using a similar Ricoh model, KR5 IIRC, for most of this time. It was stolen and I replaced it with the used Ricoh mentioned above. They were very similar except that the second one had an automatic setting where one could set the stop and it would set the time; also, the light meter looked a bit different.) If I do so, I want to get it right the first time. Also, this is much more than 2002--2008, so it wouldn't be that much more effort to scan rescan the stuff I already have. For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price? You could buy a used scanner (Nikon 4000/5000, Minolta 5400...) and then scan the ones worth scanning. Scanning services will not give you the max resolution available (generally). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
scanning old negatives
In article , Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
wrote: Sandman: The size of the file is only one parameter, the dimensions of the image is also a factor. I.e. a small file and a huge image means there's a lot of compression. A small file and a small image means there's less compression, and the image would look better, but smaller. Right. What I would like is a scan which, when printed, is comparable to printing from film the old-fashioned way. Then you need to scan in high resolution and scan to TIFF, not JPEG. Sandman: If you own or have access to a good scanner - The Epson V750 Pro is a good choice if you ask me, you could scan the negatives in high resolution and at least match the granularity of the film, i.e. scan all the detail that you could possibly find in it. I think I would rather let a professional do this. It'll cost you, though. It's really easy to do yourself. It only takes time. Sandman: The resolution of the scanner is only one part, the resolution (grain) of the film is another. Most "common" films are at best rated at 75 lpmm, which means that the very highest granularity you can get from that negative is about 20 megapixels. Right. That's a figure I had in mind, though for ISO 200 and presumably less than perfect exposure, 10 megapixels is probably closer to the truth. This would be enough. Presumably. Sandman: You should choose resolution depending on what you're going to do with the files. If you want to print them at 24" x 36" then you need to max out the resolution (see above). But if you're posting to the web or such, you needn't exaggerate the resolution. In short, do a few test scans at various resolutions and you'll quickly notice what fits you best. 10x15 cm is normal for prints. Occasionally I might want an enlargement, but not poster-size. For the web, it is easy to downsample a JPEG file and produce a smaller one, so I would rather have "master scans" of the highest quality which is reasonable, then produce smaller files if necessary for some purposes. That's the route I would use myself, and suggest as well. Phillip Helbig (undress to reply): For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price? Sandman: For scanning? The aforementioned scanner isn't all that expensive, and most of the "cost" is your time. No, I meant if some photo shop does the scanning. Do not let a photo shop do the scanning. Most photo shops aren't professional scanners and have automated processes for developing and enlarging photos, not creating high quality scans. I'm thinking they might have a really good scanner. I have none and no experience either. When one gets film developed these days, are the prints made from scans? Depends on the equipment. There are film developers that scan to an intermediate format and then print with a digital printer, and then churn out low-quality JPEG's for the CD/download. -- Sandman |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
scanning old negatives
On 5/24/2015 11:19 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-05-24 05:36, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote: Now that I photograph exclusively digitally (Pentax K10D and Ricoh GR), of course I have all the pictures as JPEG files (and RAW as well from the K10D). I got the K10D in 2008. From 2002 until then, when developing film (usually Kodak, usually ISO 200), I asked for scans on a CD. (I was using a Ricoh KR10 Super.) Depending on various things, including where I got the film developed and scanned, these are about 500--1500 kB. JPEG files produced by the K10D (set to produce the best and highest-resolution JPEG files) are between 2 and 4 MB. Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher resolution would produce better results? (Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily high resolution and produce arbitrarily large JPEG files. The point is, what resolution is meaningful and what file size should that produce.) 4000 dpi is a good practical limit for basic scanning (dry air). So a Minolta 5400, Nikon 4000, etc. are fine scanners for the job. A 4000 dpi scan results in: 4000 x 36/25.4 X 4000 x 24/25.4 = 21.4 Mpix. Bit depths are 12 or 14 bits/colour, but typically encoded as full words, so the file size (uncompressed TIF) will run up to: 21,400,000 x 6 = 128 MB - though my TIF's usually run about 85 MB. In JPG that will come down quite a bit. (less than 20 MB). "Wet" scanning up to about 8000 dpi or so will give cleaner, better contrast ... but it's expensive if you don't have the equipment. You can get a wet scanning kit for the Nikon 8000/9000 scanners that provides converted trays that use an oil (?) as the wet media. That improved contrast but doesn't increase the resolution of course. Digital cameras have little dyncamic noise and 0 dimensional noise, so images are always much cleaner on digital cameras for a given lens, ISO, shutter speed and lighting conditions. When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the K10D definitely look better. They are completely sharp on a 17-inch screen (scaled to about 1/3); in full size, one notices that they are not infinitely sharp, but they still look OK. The ones from film on screen (scaled to about 2/3) look OK, but one sees that they are not infinitely sharp even when scaled down to fit the screen. When comparing 4x6-inch (10x15-cm) glossy prints, those from the K10D look better, but only slightly so. This is why I suspect that rescanning the film would improve the quality. What resolution do people recommend for ISO200 film? What would be the resulting JPEG size? I likes various Kodak chromes (elite chrome, kodachromes...) and Velvia from Fuji. For negatives, the cleanest scans were from Fuji Portra 160 (exposed as 100). Colour was just a tad above neutral. Of course, I could ask whether it is worth it to rescan the film from 2002 to 2008. However, I definitely want to scan my film from the 20 years before 2002. (I was using a similar Ricoh model, KR5 IIRC, for most of this time. It was stolen and I replaced it with the used Ricoh mentioned above. They were very similar except that the second one had an automatic setting where one could set the stop and it would set the time; also, the light meter looked a bit different.) If I do so, I want to get it right the first time. Also, this is much more than 2002--2008, so it wouldn't be that much more effort to scan rescan the stuff I already have. For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price? You could buy a used scanner (Nikon 4000/5000, Minolta 5400...) and then scan the ones worth scanning. Scanning services will not give you the max resolution available (generally). Very true. My solution was to make friends with the kid hat did the scanning, at a local drug store. I got High resolution tiff files fjor a reasonable cost. -- PeterN |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
scanning old negatives
On 2015-05-24, RichA wrote:
[...] Even with the best modern-day colour negative 35mm film, you won't get more than about 6 megapixels (compared to a digital image) of detail out of it. All high resolution scanners do is image the dye clouds or grain clusters more than they need to be. I think that statement needs a little expansion. According to Wikipedia today, early estimates of the relative "resolution" of 35mm 'full frame' (36x24mm) film cameras with digital cameras suggested that the film cameras were equivalent to about 20Mp in digital terms; more recently this equivalent has been put at anything between 6 and 16Mp. Note that 35mm film cameras range from disposable cardboard boxes with simple moulded plastic lenses all the way to exquisite pieces of optical-mechanical engineering costing very large amounts of money - and the range of film qualities is almost as great, although 'professional quality' 35mm film was (is) just about within the reach of really keen amateurs. A technically skilled and artistically gifted 35mm film photographer can and usually will get much 'better' pictures than a person with no aptitude or willingness to learn, particularly if the 'real' photographer does all the processing and printing as well - which the snap-shooter almost certainly won't. A complete beginner using a modest point-and-shoot digicam will probably get better results than they would using a typical cheap 35mm 'automatic' as sold circa 1980 or any size of 'box camera' of any vintage. Such a person might be lucky to get anything usable at all out of a Rollie 35SE or a Leica M4 - but someone with the skill and knowledge to exploit such machines can produce prints of which anyone would be proud. It's also a lot easier to destroy the evidence of one's mistakes with a digital camera; just delete them! Arguments about 'resolution' 'grain' 'sharpness' 'noise' etc are somewhat pointless. If you need 'more detail' then use a bigger camera with a larger film or sensor. Analogue colour printing is inevitably somewhat objective, which is why colour prints from automated 'booths' were always more or less disappointing. Files from digicams specify colour values fairly precisely so an automated printing system can produce consistent and remarkably often quite satisfactory prints, and cheaper than the D&P on a roll of film too, so of course most people find they get much better pictures with digital than they do (or did) with film. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
scanning old negatives
On 2015-05-24 18:14, RichA wrote:
Even with the best modern-day colour negative 35mm film, you won't get more than about 6 megapixels (compared to a digital image) of detail out of it. All high resolution scanners do is image the dye clouds or grain clusters more than they need to be. BZZZT. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scanning Negatives | mueller | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 30 | May 26th 07 03:18 PM |
Scanning old negatives | Stuart | Digital Photography | 17 | April 20th 07 05:53 AM |
Help scanning negatives, please! | iamcanadian | 35mm Photo Equipment | 12 | December 3rd 06 03:32 AM |
Scanning 126 and 110 negatives | Terry Tomato | Film & Labs | 7 | March 14th 05 12:06 PM |
scanning negatives | Mike - EMAIL IGNORED | 35mm Photo Equipment | 12 | November 27th 04 08:31 AM |