Caedes

Photography

Discussion Board -> Photography -> Negative Scanning

Negative Scanning

d_spin_9
01/18/05 8:55 PM GMT
i'm starting to use my dads old nikon FM2 as well as my d70. i'm really surprised how much faster the shutter release is, but thats besides the point. my dad wants a new scanner, and i'd like it to be able to do negatives. when they say 4000dpi does that mean you get a 4000x3000 pixel approx scan from a one inch wide negative or am i wrong? also is there a big difference in the quality of scans gotten from top quality scanners or cheaper ones? i know my dad wont spend more than CDN 150 on one, so for those of you who have scanners, any advice?
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
tbhockey
01/19/05 2:08 AM GMT
I cant answer you questions fully, but i do know that DPI (dots per inch) would not equal the Resolution. But for your comfort, 4000dpi is insanly high, so i think youll be able to get any size you want.
0∈ [?]
-tbhockey
prismmagic
01/19/05 10:57 AM GMT
Buy an HP or Rico scanner!
0∈ [?]
Art is the perception of the creator. Meaning is the perception of the viewer. acceptance is the perception of society.
=xentrik
01/19/05 12:48 AM GMT
If you want good scans of negatives, I'd think you need a dedicated negative/slide scanner. Unfortunately, they're quite expensive... Nikon makes excellent film scanners. I used to use one of these at the library I used to do work-study in, and it made quite nice scans, though was a little slow (scanning trays of slides profs brought in was terribly tedious). As I said, expensive, and for what's only dubbed a "prosumer" model.

I use a fairly cheap Epson that came with a "negative attachment", and the negative scans are abysmal. This scanner does an excellent job with anything reflective (photos, books, etc) but anything transmissive (slide, neg...) is terrible, with color that's way off and obvious dust. In other words, get something from a store with a good return policy if you don't like the results. :)
0∈ [?]
trisbert
01/19/05 1:22 PM GMT
Carl, The way I understand it is you get 4000 dots across and 4000 dots down for each square inch for a total of 16,000,000 per square inch. It sounds a lot but don’t forget your 35mm film is only about 1 ½ square inches and you will enlarge it much bigger so all those dots get spread around a lot.
0∈ [?]
There are three colours, Ten digits and seven notes, its what we do with them that’s important. Ruth Ross
=xentrik
01/19/05 5:36 PM GMT
The size of negatives is one of the reasons a dedicated neg scanner is good... They usually have electronics/software (ROC, ICE, GEM) that remove the effect of dust/scratches/hair. At high res with a small neg, all these things look ENORMOUS (the main reason I said my results were abysmal).
Also, it's a huge pain to set up the film in the guide and backlight I have, but hopefully there's some newer/better tech out there by now.
0∈ [?]
d_spin_9
01/19/05 5:42 PM GMT
how about just scanning prints? it hardly costs more than to just get the film developed, and i know colour/resolution/detail wont be what you could get off a good scan with a drum scanner or something ;) but is it gonna be better than what a negative scan gives you? i dont plan on doing hundreds of images this way, i'd only digitize the good prints, or are these horrible negative scans your talking about better than what a scan of a print would be anyways?
0∈ [?]
The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
brphoto
01/19/05 7:50 PM GMT
With most modern labs, the processed film is scanned into a computer attached to the minilab, and then the paper is exposed using a laser or LED's and then developed. So if you scan a print, your digital file is fourth generation already (Original film frame, lab scanned, printed, scanned again.) and I would guess there will be a significant degradation of quality (specifically color rendition). Not that it's impossible; I just don’t think it would produce stellar results. A better bet is to have the lab scan them to CD, while it's not ultra-high resolution (unless you pay through the nose for "professional resolution" scans); it's fine for web use.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
noobguy
01/19/05 8:49 PM GMT
A negative scanner will generally provide better quality images than a scan from a print, to answer your question before.
0∈ [?]
"Then as it was, Then again it will be. An' though the course may change sometimes, Rivers always reach the sea."
=xentrik
01/20/05 6:13 AM GMT
Basically what I was saying in answer to your question "also is there a big difference in the quality of scans gotten from top quality scanners or cheaper ones?" is yes, definitely, at least between those made specifically for the job and those not. :)
I'd say if you're looking for caedes-resolution (or a little more) scanning prints with a decent flatbed or a lab cd is probably best/cheapest. If you're looking for the best possible 8x10 or larger, you'll need to cough up a fair amount of money. At least this is my experience with high-end and low-end stuff, unfortunately I know little about what's in-between. If you're getting a new scanner anyway, try one with built-in neg capability and give it a shot.
0∈ [?]
::philcUK
02/04/05 11:56 PM GMT
as a rule of thumb - when your scanning transparencies of any kind - trannies/slides/negs etc - a high DMAX on the scanner will prove far more valuable than ludicrously high interpolated resolutions. If your looking to test the waters at a cheap/reasonable price, try the Epson Perfection 4990 Photo which comes with a pretty good 4.0 DMAX and lots of film holders for scanning in different size originals. after that you start getting into serious money dedicated film scanners from the folks at Nikon....
0∈ [?]
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps"
+ppigeon
02/05/05 3:21 PM GMT
I am a new user of a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III. Look here.
My last portrait (Peruvian boys) was scanned with it.
0∈ [?]
-Pierre-
::Accipiter
02/20/05 7:12 PM GMT
Phil's reight about DMAX being more imoprtant than resolution. I bought a Nikon Coolscan V for Christmas. About $500US, but worth it since I'll be scanning well over 1,000 slides many of which are decent quality. This machine will do anything 35mm, including negatives, but nothing larger. Resolution is up to 4,000 dpi (real...ignore interpolated res numbers), but I rarely scan at more than 3,000. That res brings out all the detail in ISO 200 Kodachrome / Ektachroms slides; any more and all you're doing is magnifying grain in the film. If your originals are very fine grained, you might be able to use a higher res. At 3,000 dpi, a 35 mm slide produces about a 30 mb file. By the way, when imported into PS, the image dimensions are the same as the original slide...about 1.34 x 0.89 inches with 3000 dpi. res. It is quite easy to change this proportionally in PS using the "image size" command to 13.4 x 8.9 inches at 300 dpi.
0∈ [?]

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: