Film scanned to digital resolution

Scarecrow

Scarecrow

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,662
Name
Derek
Edit My Images
Yes
For the first time in a while, I have just had two rolls of 35mm film developed at my local Boots. As well as the prints, I also asked them to put the images on to CD to allow me to do some PS work on any I thought would benefit from some simple editing.

I have to say that I thought the digital images would have been a bit bigger. I have no idea what they use to scan the negatives, but the resulting digital images are a smidge over 1800x1200 pixels and around 900 kb.

Is this typical, and how does it compare to scanning your own images if I choose to go and buy a decent scanner for use at home?
 
boots do ***** scans (fine for tp) for good ones (printing) use an online firm or a mate with a film scanner. Woodsy is my go to man on scanning and has told me what scanner I need to buy :D
 
Scarecrow said:
For the first time in a while, I have just had two rolls of 35mm film developed at my local Boots. As well as the prints, I also asked them to put the images on to CD to allow me to do some PS work on any I thought would benefit from some simple editing.

I have to say that I thought the digital images would have been a bit bigger. I have no idea what they use to scan the negatives, but the resulting digital images are a smidge over 1800x1200 pixels and around 900 kb.

Is this typical, and how does it compare to scanning your own images if I choose to go and buy a decent scanner for use at home?
Click to expand...


Tesco are similar with files about 1.3mb which is what? About 4 or 5mp image? which is good enough for posting your shots on a computer screen, and I'm pleased with my shots stored on Photobucket and they are about 3-4mp.
 
david1701 said:
boots do ***** scans (fine for tp) for good ones (printing) use an online firm or a mate with a film scanner. Woodsy is my go to man on scanning and has told me what scanner I need to buy :D
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to know what scanner people recommend as if I shoot more film, which I am sure I will, I'd like to be able to scan my own negatives. I also have quite a few old slides I'd like to go through and scan where appropriate.
 
Scanning negatives will suck the life out of you. Buy a darkroom instead.
 
Scarecrow said:
Is this typical, and how does it compare to scanning your own images if I choose to go and buy a decent scanner for use at home?
Click to expand...


It is typical of the high street, if you take them to a proper lab you can choose the res you want but its expensive, as with most things there's a lot more to it than you think.
I had some 35mm put on a cd from klick once, they were pathetic, hardly enough res to do any edits.
The best consumer dedicated scanners scan at 4000 dpi, labs go a bit higher but its not likely the higher res would be any more useful.
Buy a dedicated scanner, scan everything at 4000dpi for archiving, or sort a darkroom out, scanning lowers your sperm count and makes your eyes grow closer together...:D
 
they've scanned the images at an equivalent of 6"x4" @ 300 dpi. If they'd scanned it at any higher resolution then it'd impact on their sales of enlargements.
 
joxby said:
......., if you take them to a proper lab you can choose the res you want but its expensive, ..........
Click to expand...

hi - just started this myself using "Club35"

their
standard res CD at 1536x1024 is £2.50
super...................3072x2048 is £5.00
 
I have a v500, its perfect for medium format but I don't think its great at 35mm its just not very sharp. I think I need to experiment with film heights on the scanner to see if I can get them better.

Here is a 35mm scan, I think it was scanned at 3800dpi with no sharpening or digital ice

29cm-1.jpg


Here is 100% crop, looking at this I think my focus must be out by a lot.

29cm-2.jpg


The v700/750 are meant to be better but they increase in price a lot.
 
I use two scanners at home

Coolscan IV 35mm scanner 100% @ 2900dpi & 12bit I usually get a 54Mb file

The Microtek if I scan a 6x6 4000dpi using 48bit colour again 100% then I get a 500Mb file.

Most of the time I will scan at 1500dpi when doing black and white negs simple because I found it does not show as much grain when doing it at the higher dpi
 
****Coolscan IV 35mm scanner 100% @ 2900dpi & 12bit I usually get a 54Mb file****

erm using the Epson 750 at 4800dpi 24bit I get files about 30mb? You can select 12,800dpi but I don't believe it can do it, and is probably a software fiddle.
 
The impression I am getting is that relying on High street shops to scan your negs is a complete waste of time, and that I need to invest in my own scanner.

I still have a load of darkroom kit left over from when I used to do my own developing, so producing a roll of negatives won't be difficult. Having said that though, my preference in the past was to shoot slides and use E6 chemicals for the processing.

Think I can see a resurrection of that coming on.
 
excalibur2 said:
****Coolscan IV 35mm scanner 100% @ 2900dpi & 12bit I usually get a 54Mb file****

erm using the Epson 750 at 4800dpi 24bit I get files about 30mb? You can select 12,800dpi but I don't believe it can do it, and is probably a software fiddle.
Click to expand...


The Coolscan scans and outputs as a TIFF file plus the Coolscan is a dedicated film scanner, and everything on the computer says 54Mb :)
 
Liam said:
I have a v500, its perfect for medium format but I don't think its great at 35mm its just not very sharp. I think I need to experiment with film heights on the scanner to see if I can get them better.
Click to expand...

Are your slides mounted? Do the flatbed scanners assume they are?
 
Flat beds use different plastic templates to position the negs in the correct area for scanning, one template holds an un-cut strip of negs, another holds mounted slides, another may be APS or 120..etc
The templates are called film holders
 
Yep, I use the epson film holders but they are really bad so I might design my own out of plastic.

I have been reading on the net and some users have to shim the holders up by 3.5mm before they get sharp images! The strange thing is that my 120 scans are very very sharp :shrug:
 
Liam said:
Yep, I use the epson film holders but they are really bad so I might design my own out of plastic.

I have been reading on the net and some users have to shim the holders up by 3.5mm before they get sharp images! The strange thing is that my 120 scans are very very sharp :shrug:
Click to expand...

Get a ruler where the end of it is actually at 0 and place it on your glass with a matchbox or similar at the other end so it is at an acute angle then scan it then DONT MOVE ANYTHING. When you look at the resultant image you will see where it is sharpest... say 2.3cm (remember this is at an acute angle). Then get another ruler which starts at 0 and move this to 2.3cm without moving the original ruler and you can then read off the PREFECT FOCAL DISTANCE of the scanner. Once you have this you can then calculate the height each holder holds the neg at and work out whether you need a shim OR whether it is too close and needs modifying.
 
I've always had better results by scanning prints rather than negatives, then fiddling around in photoshop.
 
Darren, thats a brilliant idea mate cheers!! But how would I shut the lid? Or does it not matter?
 
Liam said:
Darren, thats a brilliant idea mate cheers!! But how would I shut the lid? Or does it not matter?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter at all as it will just appear black around the edges....

It should work although I haven't actually tried it I was just thinking how you would do it without trial and error :)
 
Ok, but I believe the focus is different when scanning film so I would have to close the lid :thinking:
 
99% of flat beds are fixed focus, they focus at one point only, there is no facility to change that so finding the best height for the sharpest focus of your particular machine is worth the time and effort.
 
BTW, anybody scanning with an epson flatbed, there isnt much point in scanning above 2400 spi. This is the optical resolution of the scanner for film and anything else is interpolation and just adds extra pixels rather extra detail.

V5/6/7/750 are great for medium and large format but woefully inadequate for 35mm.

I cant get sharp scans of my 35mm stuff on the v700, mostly ude the crappyfilm holders and the fact that they dont hold the film flat.

It seems that (and this is definitely true for 5x4) the film base is a lot thicker so it holds it's flatness better, even though its a larger unsupported area.
 
Gandhi said:
BTW, anybody scanning with an epson flatbed, there isnt much point in scanning above 2400 spi. This is the optical resolution of the scanner for film and anything else is interpolation and just adds extra pixels rather extra detail.

V5/6/7/750 are great for medium and large format but woefully inadequate for 35mm.

I cant get sharp scans of my 35mm stuff on the v700, mostly ude the crappyfilm holders and the fact that they dont hold the film flat.

It seems that (and this is definitely true for 5x4) the film base is a lot thicker so it holds it's flatness better, even though its a larger unsupported area.
Click to expand...

wonder if that would be an issue with 220? never actually held a roll of 220 :p
 
220 is no different to 120, it just doesn't have the backing paper.

I have noticed that Ilford 3200 is thicker, its not just the emulsions either, after developing it curls like a b****r.
Even with weights, come scan time it turns into a slinky usually curling along its length which is even more of a pain...:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top