Film Scanners

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and
have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now,
would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality
of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does
this require the better quality scanner...

TIA...
Gel.

--
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by".
Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 6 Feb 2005 23:56:08 GMT, Gel <neux_55-**NOSPAM**@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and
>have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now,
>would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality
>of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
> I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does
>this require the better quality scanner...


How much is your time worth? Are you
interested in the best possible quality
or just "good enough?"

If the latter, I suggest you find a
photo lab or service to scan your slides.

If the former, get the Minolta and
be prepared for a lot of time at the
computer.

Seriously, for 35mm, the Minolta 5400
is about the best there is nowadays.

Film scanning is tedious and time-
consuming. For me, if it's worth
doing at all, it's worth doing right.
If you just need "good enough," farm
it out.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns95F5F3B007195gelstagelsta@130.133.1.4>,
Gel <neux_55-**NOSPAM**@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and
> have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now,
> would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality
> of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
> I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does
> this require the better quality scanner...
>
I bought the 1800i a couple of years back and have been very pleased
with the results. Scans result in a 8 megapixel image which is quite
adequate for printing. The Minolta Scan Dual 4 will yield a 4000 x 3000
image (approx) at 400dpi - far better for big enlargements.
However scanning is very time consuming and tedious. The 1800 will scan
1 neg or slide in about 2 minutes, the Minolta takes 5 minutes.
Slides tend to be more detailed than negatives and both scanners will
work very well on bothe negs and slides.
The Minolta has the advantage of handling APS reels too.
If you'd like samples of each contact me at anyone4tennis1SPAM@
yahoo.co.uk (remove spam) with another address that will accept larger
files.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns95F5F3B007195gelstagelsta@130.133.1.4>, neux_55-
**NOSPAM**@hotmail.com says...
> I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and
> have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now,
> would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality
> of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
> I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does
> this require the better quality scanner...
>
> TIA...
> Gel.
>
>
The rule-of-thumb is to take the dpi of the scanner and divide by 300 to
get the degree of enlargement you can expect with best quality for
prints. So, 1800/300 = 6x or about a 6x9 inch print. If you print at
240 or 200 you can go a little bigger with some loss of sharpness.
1800dpi is more than needed for online viewing where most images are in
the range of 600-800 pixels.
The real question is why do you want to scan so many images? What are
you planning to do with them? If you are just archiving them why do you
think that the digital format will be a better choice than just storing
the originals in good environmental conditions. If you want some more
advice on scanning go to the scantips.com web site.
You can also read the scanning discussions in the tips section of my
web site as well.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robertdfeinman@netscape.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in
news:Xns95F66841B4237ReplyToken@216.196.97.131:

> Robert Feinman commented courteously ...
>
>> The rule-of-thumb is to take the dpi of the scanner and
>> divide by 300 to get the degree of enlargement you can
>> expect with best quality for prints.
>
>



Thanks to all for your comments, very helpful. If it was just for the
old folks Transparencies, I would probably farm the job out, but I also
would like to keep my film cameras and process the negs then scan them in
and print what I want and archive the rest ( if they are worth archiving
:-) )

Maybe I'm weird, but I actually enjoy spending a few hours scanning and
editing....

I have seen this http://tinyurl.com/yqee which looks like it
might fit my bill.

thanks again....

Gel.


--
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by".
Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:56:08 +0000, Gel wrote:

> I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and
> have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100-
> Now, would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the
> quality of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
> I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does
> this require the better quality scanner...
>
I am using Jessops (branded PF3650Pro3) slide + film scanner for the last
two months. It costs GBP260. It comes with build-in ICE dust & spot
removing software. It also has ROC & GEM software which can help in
restoring old negatives. I have not tried those two but ICE is really
helpful for old slides.

It is quite easy to use and can do upto 3600 dpi. Slides are single feed
but negatives can be scanned up to 36 (if you have a long strip like that)
in one go. However, for cut up negatives in 4 frames, you have to feed it
twice as the scanner ignores the first two frames. It takes 3-4 minutes
for each scan using ICE and about 1 min without at resolution of 900 (that
I use most of the time allowing from some cropping). At 3600 dpi with ICE
it takes over 5 min for each slide. More or less the same time for
negatives.

I assume that you don't intend to print from the scanned images as you
would still have the original slides & negatives for that purpose. If you
are going to see the images only on your PC screen, even 1800 dpi is
probably an overkill. I tried out from 300 to 3600 dpi and found that
anything from 720 dpi upwards looked virtually the same on the PC screen.
If you are going to use a projector (most has a resolution of 1024 long
axis) scans at a higher than 720 dpi is probably not going to make much
difference as at that dpi you would get 1024 pixels. Again, I tried out at
various scanning resolution for projection and found very little
difference on higher resolution with standard projectors. Some
professional projectors are supposed to have higher resolution but I have
not had a chance to test my images on any of them yet.

Scanning slides/negatives is a time consuming business. You would need to
do some post-processing with an image editing software. The Jessops one
comes with a copy of Adobe Photoshop Elements 2 which I found quite
adequate for minimum necessary processing. Of course, you would need a
better one if you wish to manipulate the images extensively.

This scanner can do both 16 or 8 bit colour scanning. I found that 16 bit
scanning gives better results though the PSE-2 (and several others I have
used) reduces it to 8 bit colour.

I would suggest you check the product you are planning to buy for ICE. It
is really helpful and would save a lot of time during image processing as
you would need very little "clone" processing to remove the spots.

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to gmajumdar@freeuk.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

35mm scanned at 1800ppi is 4mp not 8, you get a 12mb uncompressed tif file. Had
a Microtek 1850 for about 5 years in the early 90's, know that file size well.

Tom

In article <lese0110om4u60pe2hoags4ejucqlu2gbd@4ax.com>, rafeb@speakeasy.net
says...
>
>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:51:33 +0900, Stewy <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <Xns95F5F3B007195gelstagelsta@130.133.1.4>,
>> Gel <neux_55-**NOSPAM**@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and
>>> have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now,
>>> would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality
>>> of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
>>> I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does
>>> this require the better quality scanner...
>>>
>>I bought the 1800i a couple of years back and have been very pleased
>>with the results. Scans result in a 8 megapixel image which is quite
>>adequate for printing.
>
>
>Something's wrong with your math here.
>
>1800 dpi can't get 8 megapixels from a
>35 mm frame. A 35 mm frame is approx
>1.5 square inches, which would be 4.86
>Mpixels at 1800 dpi.
>
>
>FWIW, I started out in film scanning
>with a Microtek 35t+, which was 1950
>dpi -- and from that I got images a
>little over 5 Mpixels.
>
>
>rafe b.
>http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:28:51 +0900, Stewy <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <lese0110om4u60pe2hoags4ejucqlu2gbd@4ax.com>,
> rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:51:33 +0900, Stewy <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <Xns95F5F3B007195gelstagelsta@130.133.1.4>,
>> > Gel <neux_55-**NOSPAM**@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD and
>> >> have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at £100- Now,
>> >> would I be better off with a Minolta at £2-300 more? Or would the quality
>> >> of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
>> >> I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning, does
>> >> this require the better quality scanner...
>> >>
>> >I bought the 1800i a couple of years back and have been very pleased
>> >with the results. Scans result in a 8 megapixel image which is quite
>> >adequate for printing.
>>
>>
>> Something's wrong with your math here.
>>
>> 1800 dpi can't get 8 megapixels from a
>> 35 mm frame. A 35 mm frame is approx
>> 1.5 square inches, which would be 4.86
>> Mpixels at 1800 dpi.
>
>Whoops! You're right of course was thinking of 24mm x 36mm

Yes, that's 35 mm film. 1.5 square
inches is a very close approximation..
and makes it easy to get total pixels
from dpi.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

(O;

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Your calculations are off 1" = 1800 x 1.5" =2700 = approx 4.9 MegaPixels
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cub6iu$hri$5@reader2.panix.com...
> rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:28:51 +0900, Stewy <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>In article <lese0110om4u60pe2hoags4ejucqlu2gbd@4ax.com>,
>>> rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:51:33 +0900, Stewy <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article <Xns95F5F3B007195gelstagelsta@130.133.1.4>,
>>>> > Gel <neux_55-**NOSPAM**@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I have a large (1000+) amount of 35mm transparencies to scan to DVD
>>>> >> and
>>>> >> have been looking in Jessops ( UK ) at their brand (1800dpi) at
>>>> >> ?100- Now,
>>>> >> would I be better off with a Minolta at ?2-300 more? Or would the
>>>> >> quality
>>>> >> of the Jessops cheapie be sufficient?
>>>> >> I will also be using the scanner for 35mm film negative scanning,
>>>> >> does
>>>> >> this require the better quality scanner...
>>>> >>
>>>> >I bought the 1800i a couple of years back and have been very pleased
>>>> >with the results. Scans result in a 8 megapixel image which is quite
>>>> >adequate for printing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Something's wrong with your math here.
>>>>
>>>> 1800 dpi can't get 8 megapixels from a
>>>> 35 mm frame. A 35 mm frame is approx
>>>> 1.5 square inches, which would be 4.86
>>>> Mpixels at 1800 dpi.
>>>
>>>Whoops! You're right of course was thinking of 24mm x 36mm
>
>>Yes, that's 35 mm film. 1.5 square
>>inches is a very close approximation..
>>and makes it easy to get total pixels
>>from dpi.
>
> Yup. I've just checked the arithmetic -- except that 1.5
> inches square is a tad generous. I make it about 1.33 inches
> square. But never mind, the point is well made.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans