Scanning 35mm Slides

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

In the past Costco has been able to scan my slides and make prints and
enlargements for a very reasonable cost about three dollars for a 12X18.
They have a new processing machine which has done a great job on my Digital
Enlargements and my own medium format scans that I do on my old Epson 2450.
The Epson 2450 is just not cutting it on the 35mm slides However, my slides
come out with bad color balance and fuzzy with the new machine from Costco.
They say that they have tried to get it fixed, but because there are so few
people with slides now that it is not a priority. I know that there are
other photo places that I can use, but they are much more expensive. I was
wondering if the Minolta IV scanner at 3200dpi would give good enough
results to have a slide enlarged to 12x18. I am shooting Kodak VS100 slide
film. Thanks for the info. Matt
16 answers Last reply
More about scanning 35mm slides
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    Any of the current Minolta or Nikon slide scanners (2400 dpi or better)
    should be MUCH better than an Epson flatbed scanner. They will pick up all
    the detail in the slide; whether the slide is sharp enough for a large print
    is up to you!

    I have both a Nikon Coolscan (of a few years back) and a new Epson flatbed
    with illuminated slide scanner. The Nikon does a much better job on
    slides -- as it should -- that's what it's designed for.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    "MATT WILLIAMS" <kauai82@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:3CVCc.17451$mG4.9422@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
    > In the past Costco has been able to scan my slides and make prints and
    > enlargements for a very reasonable cost about three dollars for a 12X18.
    > They have a new processing machine which has done a great job on my
    Digital
    > Enlargements and my own medium format scans that I do on my old Epson
    2450.
    > The Epson 2450 is just not cutting it on the 35mm slides However, my
    slides
    > come out with bad color balance and fuzzy with the new machine from
    Costco.
    > They say that they have tried to get it fixed, but because there are so
    few
    > people with slides now that it is not a priority. I know that there are
    > other photo places that I can use, but they are much more expensive. I was
    > wondering if the Minolta IV scanner at 3200dpi would give good enough
    > results to have a slide enlarged to 12x18. I am shooting Kodak VS100 slide
    > film. Thanks for the info. Matt
    >

    Minolta IV at full resolution gives a file of 79-80 Mb. I havent tried
    printing yet, but the slide scans from it are very good. If you want samples
    email me siu01kb@rdg.ac.uk
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:17:51 GMT, "MATT WILLIAMS"
    <kauai82@verizon.net> wrote:

    >In the past Costco has been able to scan my slides and make prints and
    >enlargements for a very reasonable cost about three dollars for a 12X18.
    >They have a new processing machine which has done a great job on my Digital
    >Enlargements and my own medium format scans that I do on my old Epson 2450.
    >The Epson 2450 is just not cutting it on the 35mm slides However, my slides
    >come out with bad color balance and fuzzy with the new machine from Costco.
    >They say that they have tried to get it fixed, but because there are so few
    >people with slides now that it is not a priority. I know that there are
    >other photo places that I can use, but they are much more expensive. I was
    >wondering if the Minolta IV scanner at 3200dpi would give good enough
    >results to have a slide enlarged to 12x18. I am shooting Kodak VS100 slide
    >film. Thanks for the info. Matt
    >

    The normal figure used for printing is 300 dpi and you can get by with
    a bit less. An 18 inch print at 300 dpi is 5400. Divide by 1.5 (the
    length of a 35 mm slide or negative) and you get 3600 dpi. That means
    the Coolscan IV should be close at full frame.
    Going the other way 3200 * 1.5 = 4800/18=~267 dpi or about 9% shy of
    the desired dpi.

    At those figures I can't see the difference, but there are those who
    claim they can make a big difference.

    "To me" the figure would be sufficient unless I were making prints for
    exhibition, competition, or sale. In that case I'd be looking at the
    Minolta 5400 or Nikon LS5000, or one of the other high resolution
    scanners.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    "Roger Halstead" <Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
    news:ktood0h84g0r84u7h7b95n0v7f767dpne9@4ax.com...

    > The normal figure used for printing is 300 dpi and you can get by with
    > a bit less. An 18 inch print at 300 dpi is 5400. Divide by 1.5 (the
    > length of a 35 mm slide or negative) and you get 3600 dpi. That means
    > the Coolscan IV should be close at full frame.
    > Going the other way 3200 * 1.5 = 4800/18=~267 dpi or about 9% shy of
    > the desired dpi.
    >
    > At those figures I can't see the difference, but there are those who
    > claim they can make a big difference.
    >
    > "To me" the figure would be sufficient unless I were making prints for
    > exhibition, competition, or sale. In that case I'd be looking at the
    > Minolta 5400 or Nikon LS5000, or one of the other high resolution
    > scanners.

    My Coolscan III captures everything that's on the slide. In fact I usually
    use it at half resolution (1350 dpi) to hide grain. Remember that digital
    sharpening will bring out more picture detail than the dpi numbers suggest.
    I have no qualms about using this scanner for exhibition prints.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    In article <ktood0h84g0r84u7h7b95n0v7f767dpne9@4ax.com>,
    Roger Halstead <Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> wrote:
    >The normal figure used for printing is 300 dpi and you can get by with
    >a bit less. An 18 inch print at 300 dpi is 5400. Divide by 1.5 (the
    >length of a 35 mm slide or negative) and you get 3600 dpi. That means
    >the Coolscan IV should be close at full frame.
    >Going the other way 3200 * 1.5 = 4800/18=~267 dpi or about 9% shy of
    >the desired dpi.

    You have to take scanner optics into account as well. If the scanner
    optics are perfect, you get aliasing errors. If the optics are poor,
    you don't get anywhere near the computed resolution.

    Scanning at a much higher resolution than you actually need, followed by
    downsampling is a good idea.


    --
    The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
    recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
    you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
    you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:39:52 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
    <look@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:

    >
    >"Roger Halstead" <Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
    >news:ktood0h84g0r84u7h7b95n0v7f767dpne9@4ax.com...
    >
    >> The normal figure used for printing is 300 dpi and you can get by with
    >> a bit less. An 18 inch print at 300 dpi is 5400. Divide by 1.5 (the
    >> length of a 35 mm slide or negative) and you get 3600 dpi. That means
    >> the Coolscan IV should be close at full frame.
    >> Going the other way 3200 * 1.5 = 4800/18=~267 dpi or about 9% shy of
    >> the desired dpi.
    >>
    >> At those figures I can't see the difference, but there are those who
    >> claim they can make a big difference.
    >>
    >> "To me" the figure would be sufficient unless I were making prints for
    >> exhibition, competition, or sale. In that case I'd be looking at the
    >> Minolta 5400 or Nikon LS5000, or one of the other high resolution
    >> scanners.

    So, we get two posts from the opposite ends of the spectrum<:-))
    I will add that what the user sees depends on the actual scanner.
    So what ever works in each case... Go for it.
    >
    >My Coolscan III captures everything that's on the slide. In fact I usually
    >use it at half resolution (1350 dpi) to hide grain. Remember that digital

    2700 dpi should not be capable of capturing any where near all the
    information on the slide unless it's very high speed film.

    >sharpening will bring out more picture detail than the dpi numbers suggest.
    >I have no qualms about using this scanner for exhibition prints.

    Phillip said it better than I could about the optics.

    Sharpening can not bring out more detail than is there in the first
    place although it can make things look better.

    How things look at 2700 or 1350 depends more on the physical
    characteristics of the scanner, but you should not have to scan at
    half resolution to hide grain unless it's coming from the scanner and
    not the slide.

    I have no problem with film grain at 4000 dpi, except on ASA 400 and
    higher slides I can see the clumping and patterns when enlarging
    greatly.

    Again, I agree with Phillip that scanning at a higher resolution than
    needed and down sampling gives better results than scanning at a
    lesser resolution.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    "Roger Halstead" <Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
    news:268rd0lanrbocm577d3ai83fc46iltnd50@4ax.com...

    > >My Coolscan III captures everything that's on the slide. In fact I
    usually
    > >use it at half resolution (1350 dpi) to hide grain. Remember that
    digital
    >
    > 2700 dpi should not be capable of capturing any where near all the
    > information on the slide unless it's very high speed film.

    2700 dpi is more than 100 lines per mm, more than 50 line pairs per mm.
    Photographs taken under normal conditions seldom resolve this much. Under
    ideal conditions, an excellent lens will resolve 80 line pairs per mm, but
    that's exceptional.

    > Sharpening can not bring out more detail than is there in the first
    > place although it can make things look better.

    But it can bring out detail that you absolutely could not see. I do this
    kind of thing regularly with astronomical photographs.

    > How things look at 2700 or 1350 depends more on the physical
    > characteristics of the scanner, but you should not have to scan at
    > half resolution to hide grain unless it's coming from the scanner and
    > not the slide.

    It's real film grain (Ektachrome 200, typically).

    > Again, I agree with Phillip that scanning at a higher resolution than
    > needed and down sampling gives better results than scanning at a
    > lesser resolution.

    In theory, yes. But it depends on the MTF of the entire system. I get
    satisfactory results for most purposes -- not super-large exhibition
    prints -- by scanning at half resolution on my Coolscan III.


    Clear skies,

    Michael A. Covington
    Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    In article <_NqdnR-1ypHHfEDdRVn-gw@speedfactory.net>, Michael A.
    Covington <look@ai.uga.edu.for.address> writes
    >
    >"Roger Halstead" <Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
    >news:268rd0lanrbocm577d3ai83fc46iltnd50@4ax.com...
    >
    >> >My Coolscan III captures everything that's on the slide. In fact I
    >usually
    >> >use it at half resolution (1350 dpi) to hide grain. Remember that
    >digital
    >>
    >> 2700 dpi should not be capable of capturing any where near all the
    >> information on the slide unless it's very high speed film.
    >
    >2700 dpi is more than 100 lines per mm, more than 50 line pairs per mm.
    >Photographs taken under normal conditions seldom resolve this much.
    >
    MTF charts for Velvia show an MTF of 50% at 50cy/mm, for Provia & Sensia
    it is more typically 30% (as it is for the E-200 you refer to below),
    which is certainly not negligible and a long way short of their limiting
    resolution.

    >Under
    >ideal conditions, an excellent lens will resolve 80 line pairs per mm, but
    >that's exceptional.

    A decent lens will easily have an MTF of around 80% on axis for 50cy/mm
    at f/8 or faster. At the frame edges and corners it would typically be
    down on this, but not to the point of being negligible.

    So, a tripod mounted camera shooting Fuji Velvia should easily reproduce
    detail on the film at a transfer function of around 40% of the scene at
    the limiting resolution of your LS-30 scanner. With a 2700ppi scanner,
    the MTF at 50cy/mm is unlikely to exceed 50%, so 50% of the information
    recorded on the film at the scanner's limiting resolution is lost - even
    more if you halve the intrinsic resolution of the scan to 1350ppi! In
    either case, that still leaves a significant amount of detail recorded
    on the film that the scanner cannot reproduce without aliasing.
    >
    >> How things look at 2700 or 1350 depends more on the physical
    >> characteristics of the scanner, but you should not have to scan at
    >> half resolution to hide grain unless it's coming from the scanner and
    >> not the slide.
    >
    >It's real film grain (Ektachrome 200, typically).
    >
    If its E-200 and an LS-30 then it definitely is *not* real grain! Just
    have a true chemical 16x20" print made from any of your slides and
    compare that to a similar size inkjet, or digital/chemical print created
    from a scan off your LS-30 and the difference in grain size, structure
    and perception between the two images is striking.

    I certainly am not talking theoretically here Michael, I have actually
    done this comparison both with slides and negatives, having made the
    prints in my own darkroom with traditional methods.

    The vast majority of the grain you see on the 2700ppi scan is aliased by
    the scanner itself - and the light system and MTF curves of the Nikon
    scanner range make them particularly prone to this. Its visibility
    will, of course, be reduced by correctly downsampling to 1350ppi as your
    workflow implements, but not without significant loss of real image
    content as well.

    Moving to the 4000ppi of the LS-4000 from my immediate predecessor
    scanner the LS-2000 (same resolution as the LS-30, just more bits and
    better features) the single biggest change in scan quality was the
    perception of grain due, in the most part, to a massive reduction in
    grain aliasing. Increased resolution was less significant but very
    noticeable nonetheless. You can print the 4000ppi image directly
    without need to downsample and get a perceived granularity very similar
    to the chemical print. By applying a little filtering, such as GEM or
    NeatImage (not too much!) you can get a print from the scan which is
    actually cleaner than any chemical print yet with almost as much
    resolution. Furthermore, 4000ppi is not even the limit of what can be
    on the film with a good lens setup, as users of the Minolta 5400 scanner
    will testify and can be verified with a professional drum scan. Such
    results are simply impossible from 2700ppi scanners, good though some of
    them indisputably were.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    Interesting. I will keep in mind your point about grain aliasing. It may
    be analogous to a phenomenon I observed with conventional enlarging:
    out-of-focus grain still looks like grain, but bigger (coarser).
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:49:27 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
    <look@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:

    >
    >"Roger Halstead" <Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
    >news:268rd0lanrbocm577d3ai83fc46iltnd50@4ax.com...
    >
    >> >My Coolscan III captures everything that's on the slide. In fact I
    >usually
    >> >use it at half resolution (1350 dpi) to hide grain. Remember that
    >digital
    >>
    >> 2700 dpi should not be capable of capturing any where near all the
    >> information on the slide unless it's very high speed film.
    >
    >2700 dpi is more than 100 lines per mm, more than 50 line pairs per mm.

    100 lines is only about 33 line pair. There has to be a space between
    the lines detectable space between the lines.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    In article <2hksd01ulgdc1pb7a172n3i07062cgpe0s@4ax.com>, Roger Halstead
    <Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> writes
    >On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:49:27 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
    ><look@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Roger Halstead" <Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
    >>news:268rd0lanrbocm577d3ai83fc46iltnd50@4ax.com...
    >>
    >>> >My Coolscan III captures everything that's on the slide. In fact I
    >>usually
    >>> >use it at half resolution (1350 dpi) to hide grain. Remember that
    >>digital
    >>>
    >>> 2700 dpi should not be capable of capturing any where near all the
    >>> information on the slide unless it's very high speed film.
    >>
    >>2700 dpi is more than 100 lines per mm, more than 50 line pairs per mm.
    >
    >100 lines is only about 33 line pair. There has to be a space between
    >the lines detectable space between the lines.
    >
    No, 100lpmm is 50lp/mm *not* 33lp/mm. That is an old chestnut which is
    completely misleading and usually only raised by people who actually do
    know better as a means of testing whether the person has learned the
    meaning of the two parameters correctly. It is a bit like the old joke
    of giving away $10 out of $20 by counting down and then adding the
    remainder to "prove" that there were $21 to begin with.

    The lines and line pairs refer to measurements over extended distance.
    Your estimate assumes only 3 lines and is still inaccurate since the 3rd
    line is actually half of the next line pair. For example, if there were
    5 lines in the test target, then your method would conclude 2 line pairs
    and hence a line pair would be 40% of the number of lines, not 33.33%, 7
    would be 3 line pairs, concluding a line pair as 42.86%, 9 would result
    in 44.44% and so on. Thus the conversion figure produced by your method
    is inconsistent, it is a function of the size of the test target and
    hence number of lines present, but converges on 50% as the number of
    lines increases. However, for measuring resolution, such a conversion
    is useless because the same limiting resolution results in a different
    measured line pair per mm depending on how many lines were present in
    the first place.

    Counting the 3rd, 5th, 7th and subsequent line in any sequence as part
    of the *next* line pair means that 3 lines corresponds to 1.5 line
    pairs, 4 to 2pairs, 5 to 2.5pairs, 6 to 3pairs and so on - a fixed
    conversion ratio of 50% which is independent of the distance over which
    the test pattern extends. Thus any resolution measured is also
    independent of the number of lines or the size of the test target being
    used, which is essential for a meaningful measurement.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:49:27 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
    <look@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:

    >
    >"Roger Halstead" <Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
    >news:268rd0lanrbocm577d3ai83fc46iltnd50@4ax.com...
    >
    <snip>
    >> How things look at 2700 or 1350 depends more on the physical
    >> characteristics of the scanner, but you should not have to scan at
    >> half resolution to hide grain unless it's coming from the scanner and
    >> not the slide.
    >
    >It's real film grain (Ektachrome 200, typically).
    >

    Real film grain is not uniform and will have patterns. I have a good
    many examples from ASA 400 I've scanned and the irregularities are
    quite prominent at high magnigication. What I see from the 4000 dpi
    scans of ASA 100 and Even Kodachrome 25 is a very uniform grain.
    There are no patterns discernable. (Kodachrome 25 with grain?)

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com

    >> Again, I agree with Phillip that scanning at a higher resolution than
    >> needed and down sampling gives better results than scanning at a
    >> lesser resolution.
    >
    >In theory, yes. But it depends on the MTF of the entire system. I get
    >satisfactory results for most purposes -- not super-large exhibition
    >prints -- by scanning at half resolution on my Coolscan III.
    >
    >
    >Clear skies,
    >
    >Michael A. Covington
    >Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    >www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html
    >
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:58:00 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
    <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    >In article <2hksd01ulgdc1pb7a172n3i07062cgpe0s@4ax.com>, Roger Halstead
    ><Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> writes
    >>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:49:27 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
    >><look@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Roger Halstead" <Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:268rd0lanrbocm577d3ai83fc46iltnd50@4ax.com...
    >>>
    >>>> >My Coolscan III captures everything that's on the slide. In fact I
    >>>usually
    >>>> >use it at half resolution (1350 dpi) to hide grain. Remember that
    >>>digital
    >>>>
    >>>> 2700 dpi should not be capable of capturing any where near all the
    >>>> information on the slide unless it's very high speed film.
    >>>
    >>>2700 dpi is more than 100 lines per mm, more than 50 line pairs per mm.
    >>
    >>100 lines is only about 33 line pair. There has to be a space between
    >>the lines detectable space between the lines.
    >>

    First I want to thank you for the information. Back in college
    photography classes they just glossed over the line pair definition
    and gave it to us pretty much the way I quoted. Most likely as that
    wasn't part of the course goals it hadn't been ... researched, or part
    of the prepared materials.

    >No, 100lpmm is 50lp/mm *not* 33lp/mm. That is an old chestnut which is
    >completely misleading and usually only raised by people who actually do
    >know better as a means of testing whether the person has learned the
    >meaning of the two parameters correctly. It is a bit like the old joke
    >of giving away $10 out of $20 by counting down and then adding the
    >remainder to "prove" that there were $21 to begin with.

    <snip good information>

    The other is the grain issue.
    I use a Nikon LS5000 ED.
    It produces a very fine grain like texture with extreme enlargements.
    But, this time I decided to go farther.

    Using Fuji 5-100 ( ASA 100 negatives) I picked an image with a lot of
    sky as I find grain clumping is easier to find in a lightly tinted
    area of a constant color. Then with the grid turned on I started
    stepping up the view.

    With 47 grids corresponding to the roughly one inch dimension of the
    negative that makes each grid approximately 0.54 mm across.

    At the point where each grid is 1/2 inch wide on the screen the image
    takes on a grainy appearance, but it is very uniform with no patterns.

    This time I took it one step farther which put the grid at 13/16
    (0.81) inch wide. At this magnification the grain patterns and
    clumping do become evident "if you are looking for them". As there
    are 25.4 mm in an inch and I have one mm spread across 0.8 inches
    (rounding off as I can't measure that close any way) It takes
    roughly 20X enlargement before the grain becomes evident. Near as I
    can tell the grain is one tenth to one twentieth the distance across
    the grid. The Fuji and Kodak ASA 400 grain is much larger and shows
    plainly with much less magnification.

    When the grain, or the appearance of a very uniform grain turned up I
    had quit looking farther, but it only took about 50% more
    magnification to bring out the real grain.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    In article <lif0e09vdmh1jrndnenh6n1k7h7omvm49h@4ax.com>, Roger Halstead
    <Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> writes
    >
    >First I want to thank you for the information. Back in college
    >photography classes they just glossed over the line pair definition
    >and gave it to us pretty much the way I quoted.

    I am shocked to hear that - but on perusal, perhaps I shouldn't be. I
    well recall many lecturers using terms like "obviously" or "it is
    trivial to show that" when they didn't really understand the issues
    involved themselves. Often, you will find that explaining something to
    someone else helps to make you understand it better yourself, so I hate
    using such glossy terms.
    >
    >The other is the grain issue.
    >I use a Nikon LS5000 ED.
    >It produces a very fine grain like texture with extreme enlargements.
    >But, this time I decided to go farther.
    >
    >Using Fuji 5-100 ( ASA 100 negatives) I picked an image with a lot of
    >sky as I find grain clumping is easier to find in a lightly tinted
    >area of a constant color. Then with the grid turned on I started
    >stepping up the view.
    >
    >With 47 grids corresponding to the roughly one inch dimension of the
    >negative that makes each grid approximately 0.54 mm across.
    >
    >At the point where each grid is 1/2 inch wide on the screen the image
    >takes on a grainy appearance, but it is very uniform with no patterns.
    >
    >This time I took it one step farther which put the grid at 13/16
    >(0.81) inch wide. At this magnification the grain patterns and
    >clumping do become evident "if you are looking for them". As there
    >are 25.4 mm in an inch and I have one mm spread across 0.8 inches
    >(rounding off as I can't measure that close any way) It takes
    >roughly 20X enlargement before the grain becomes evident. Near as I
    >can tell the grain is one tenth to one twentieth the distance across
    >the grid. The Fuji and Kodak ASA 400 grain is much larger and shows
    >plainly with much less magnification.
    >
    >When the grain, or the appearance of a very uniform grain turned up I
    >had quit looking farther, but it only took about 50% more
    >magnification to bring out the real grain.
    >
    With Photoshop? I am pretty sure that this creates the zoomed views
    from precomputed cached scaled copies, which have been filtered
    reasonably correctly for the appropriate scale. So you may well find
    that the single step in magnification changes the cached image the
    display is produced from.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    I dont often reply to posts here but I happen to be dealing with slides
    right now so maybe something I have to say will help you.

    Getting slides developed can be tricky with a mass market store. Pro labs
    are much better and if you shoot or plan to shoot a lot you can cut costs by
    only having them develop. Then you can mount them yourself which will insure
    quality. I would recomend Dale Labs in Hollywood Florida or other similar
    full feature pro labs.

    I use the Minolta Scan Dual III and it is great. I scan my slides myself
    although I do get them printed at a pro lab anyway. I do my own scanning so
    I can be precise with settings and import directly into photoshop.

    If I can offer any more help drop me an email.

    Rick
    "MATT WILLIAMS" <kauai82@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:3CVCc.17451$mG4.9422@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
    > In the past Costco has been able to scan my slides and make prints and
    > enlargements for a very reasonable cost about three dollars for a 12X18.
    > They have a new processing machine which has done a great job on my
    Digital
    > Enlargements and my own medium format scans that I do on my old Epson
    2450.
    > The Epson 2450 is just not cutting it on the 35mm slides However, my
    slides
    > come out with bad color balance and fuzzy with the new machine from
    Costco.
    > They say that they have tried to get it fixed, but because there are so
    few
    > people with slides now that it is not a priority. I know that there are
    > other photo places that I can use, but they are much more expensive. I was
    > wondering if the Minolta IV scanner at 3200dpi would give good enough
    > results to have a slide enlarged to 12x18. I am shooting Kodak VS100 slide
    > film. Thanks for the info. Matt
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

    On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:54:17 -0400, "Rick Davis"
    <wizard00@bellsouth.net> wrote:

    >I dont often reply to posts here but I happen to be dealing with slides
    >right now so maybe something I have to say will help you.
    >
    >Getting slides developed can be tricky with a mass market store. Pro labs
    >are much better and if you shoot or plan to shoot a lot you can cut costs by
    >only having them develop. Then you can mount them yourself which will insure
    >quality. I would recomend Dale Labs in Hollywood Florida or other similar
    >full feature pro labs.
    >
    I went to purchasing film in 100 foot rolls and processing them
    myself.
    I scan them as film strips (rolls are a pain to store) and mount only
    the ones I want to mount which are few.

    Using the three step process it takes about 10 minutes from start to
    hanging out to dry.

    I use both NikonScan and ViewScan with a Nikon LS5000 ED scanner.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com

    >I use the Minolta Scan Dual III and it is great. I scan my slides myself
    >although I do get them printed at a pro lab anyway. I do my own scanning so
    >I can be precise with settings and import directly into photoshop.
    >
    >If I can offer any more help drop me an email.
    >
    >Rick
    >"MATT WILLIAMS" <kauai82@verizon.net> wrote in message
    >news:3CVCc.17451$mG4.9422@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
    >> In the past Costco has been able to scan my slides and make prints and
    >> enlargements for a very reasonable cost about three dollars for a 12X18.
    >> They have a new processing machine which has done a great job on my
    >Digital
    >> Enlargements and my own medium format scans that I do on my old Epson
    >2450.
    >> The Epson 2450 is just not cutting it on the 35mm slides However, my
    >slides
    >> come out with bad color balance and fuzzy with the new machine from
    >Costco.
    >> They say that they have tried to get it fixed, but because there are so
    >few
    >> people with slides now that it is not a priority. I know that there are
    >> other photo places that I can use, but they are much more expensive. I was
    >> wondering if the Minolta IV scanner at 3200dpi would give good enough
    >> results to have a slide enlarged to 12x18. I am shooting Kodak VS100 slide
    >> film. Thanks for the info. Matt
    >>
    >>
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Scanners Photo Peripherals