Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Scanning 35mm Slides

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 5:17:51 PM

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

More about : scanning 35mm slides

Anonymous
June 25, 2004 5:17:52 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 7:04:57 PM

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
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 9:51:32 PM

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
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 1:39:52 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 4:13:22 PM

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
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 8:24:11 PM

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
>
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 8:49:27 PM

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
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:59:33 AM

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)
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:59:34 AM

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).
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 8:51:59 AM

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
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 12:58:00 PM

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)
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 3:02:37 AM

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
>
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 8:29:04 PM

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
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 4:59:15 AM

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)
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 6:54:17 PM

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
>
>
Anonymous
July 2, 2004 11:41:34 AM

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
>>
>>
>
!