Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Scanned negatives higher res or DSLR images ?

  1. #1

    Default Scanned negatives higher res or DSLR images ?

    Hi there,

    I was wondering, if a scanned negative/positive by a consumer film scanner(sub$1.5K), like the Minolta Dimage ($600+) and the Canon FS4000 would have a higher detail level than say, a Canon 1Ds ?
    I have not used such film scanners before, so I'm curious. Will I get clean images without dust, and details matching at least a 10D ? Such scanners can easily scan up to 20megapixels, but megapixel is one thing, the scanner lense quality and the issue of dust problems is another thing.
    My Canon F5000 flatbed with film adapter can scan at 2400DPI on negatives, but there is no point going above 600DPI or even 300DPI because no extra details can be resolve due to the limited sharpness of the scanner. What you get at 1200DPI is a huge image that is very soft, and lots of dust traces which takes lots of time to edit away.
    Kenrockwell, an internet site suggested that quality film scanners cost in the region of $20K upwards, but of course its beyond my reach until someone decides to sponser me. He claims that such scanners resolve much much better than any DSLR can achieve. I was wondering if consumer film scanners do match the image quality of a DSLR, in terms of detail, no external artifects(dust etc) and resolution (this I have no doubt).
    THe current crop of DSLR does not seem to be capable of blowing up larger than A3, and have trouble achieving 300DPI at A3 size.

    Please comment, focusing on the main issue that I am addressing. I understand that DSLRs are capable of producing beautiful A3 images.

  2. #2

    Default

    regarding your thread title- scanned NEGATIVES? D30 higher res than that already.

    http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

  3. #3
    Member Jer76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    West
    Posts
    1,047

    Default

    guess consumer scanners wun be as good as DSLR's. But i find that scanned negatives from photolabs got fight.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jer76
    guess consumer scanners wun be as good as DSLR's. But i find that scanned negatives from photolabs got fight.
    yah, i have scanned 35mm film at about 11mega pix equivalent...

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    984

    Default

    i dont think so. can only drum scanner give you that high a resolution?
    they do it on a fuji assesory to the Frontier 350...

  6. #6
    Senior Member Cheesecake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    I live in a haunted house!!!!!
    Posts
    16,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by showtime
    i dont think so. can only drum scanner give you that high a resolution?
    they do it on a fuji assesory to the Frontier 350...
    hello,

    i thought drum scanners are the biggies of the negative/slides scanners...
    maybe i'm wrong.. not so sure anyway, jus need to know which lab u did ur scanning at?
    You'll Never Walk Alone! - i have the best job in the world!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    984

    Default

    digipro imaging... they are at marine crescent.
    quite a good lab for both print and digital jobs...
    go check it out. use the top of the line fuji equipment...

  8. #8
    Senior Member Cheesecake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    I live in a haunted house!!!!!
    Posts
    16,385

    Default

    hello,

    hmmm, will try that soon.
    thanx for sharing!
    You'll Never Walk Alone! - i have the best job in the world!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    i used to scan all my film at 2700dpi on an ACER Scanwit 2720S. A3 prints are fine, though it's very labour intensive.

    i calculated 2700dpi is roughly equivalent to an 8Mpix camera. i've also read that the best films can only give about 4000dpi detail.

    i would suggest forget about the film scanners and go for a dSLR, unless you are, like i was, someone with much more time than money.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Accidentally scanned a slide at 4000dpi before, ended up with a 60+ mb file.
    The scanning time was painfully long, and the result isn't that great either, you see a lot of micro-dust specks being shown on the slide itself. There's a difference with professional dedicated film scanners. What I understand is that instead of a single CCD, they split up the scanning jobs between different CCDs and then combine the image together.

  11. #11
    Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    4,026

    Default Some doubts....

    Hi All.....

    Well...its best to try it anf prove for yourself to see if a scanned slides/negs is equivelent,worst or better than a DSLR.

    In most web review....the quality of the originals are questionable.

    From my own experiences, if you scan a good slides/negs with a 1800dpi or more, and to have the photos printed on a A4.....its more than perfect.

    Usually you want to blow the photo up to A3......which is aimed for viewing from a further distance......

    I find it stupid when i see a person coming so close as close as 4 to 5cm....to a photo (A3 or A2 or A1 size) to just commment on the resolution of the photo and walk off.......hahaha!!!!!....maybe viewing in wide angle i guess....


    I think we need to change the mindset to look into a photograph as a photograph as a whole and not on minor details that doesn't even influence things like its composition etc.


    Like talking about being able to see and count the number of hairs or feathers on a bird for example....and not talking about how the image is composed.....

    To me a DSLR or Film SLR...as long as it serves the purpose to take a well composed and exposed photograph....then its almost 90% job done.....
    ......

    rgds,
    Sulhan

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by showtime
    yah, i have scanned 35mm film at about 11mega pix equivalent...
    getting a 11MP scanned pix is not equivalent to a 11MP image direct from a digital camera. The negatives/slides have a finite amount of information that can be extracted from them and some people rate nagatives as having ~8MP of info. So, scanning at higher resolution does not really help much.
    Check out my wildlife pics at www.instagram.com/conrad_nature

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpenza
    getting a 11MP scanned pix is not equivalent to a 11MP image direct from a digital camera. The negatives/slides have a finite amount of information that can be extracted from them and some people rate nagatives as having ~8MP of info. So, scanning at higher resolution does not really help much.
    i did the math - 4000dpi is about equivalent to a 21 mpix : 5669x3779. That's about the theoritical max you can get from a very well exposed, high res slide/neg.

    Anyway, the max while the practical max may not be 21mpix, it's defintely more than 8mpix. i scan at 8mpix, but there's more data even on my ISO400 negatives still unscanned.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sulhan
    I find it stupid when i see a person coming so close as close as 4 to 5cm....to a photo (A3 or A2 or A1 size) to just commment on the resolution of the photo and walk off.......hahaha!!!!!....maybe viewing in wide angle i guess....


    I think we need to change the mindset to look into a photograph as a photograph as a whole and not on minor details that doesn't even influence things like its composition etc.

    It really depends on the picture. For something like portraits, this applies. But some pictures carry through bcoz of the fine details - landscapes and architecture large prints especially. You go 'wow' when you realize the amount of detail in the shot.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Keep believing.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marcwang
    THe current crop of DSLR does not seem to be capable of blowing up larger than A3, and have trouble achieving 300DPI at A3 size.
    35mm film has greater difficulty even at A3 size. 6MP DSLRs already have the best 35mm film beaten in terms of grain/noise performance >ISO200.(Print comparison) Moreover, processing a digital shot takes barely a couple of minutes, compare that to scanning a negative at 4000dpi without even processing.

    If you are going to digitize your images, might as well skip the step and start in digital. A good scanner and film+processing costs will soon exceed the price of a DSLR.
    Last edited by Zerstorer; 16th September 2003 at 10:51 AM.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpenza
    getting a 11MP scanned pix is not equivalent to a 11MP image direct from a digital camera. The negatives/slides have a finite amount of information that can be extracted from them and some people rate nagatives as having ~8MP of info. So, scanning at higher resolution does not really help much.
    makes sense because slides especially 35mm ones are sooo small... cannot capture that much detail..

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by showtime
    makes sense because slides especially 35mm ones are sooo small... cannot capture that much detail..
    but digicams CMOS/CCD sensors are mostly even smaller...

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    453

    Default

    The higher resolution you scan your film, the BIGGER the grain you see. I am very impress with DSLR for the virtually grainless output even at ISO 400.

    I think I stick to my loupe for film. Scanning them make me feel real grainy

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasonpgc
    The higher resolution you scan your film, the BIGGER the grain you see. I am very impress with DSLR for the virtually grainless output even at ISO 400.

    I think I stick to my loupe for film. Scanning them make me feel real grainy
    isnt grain size dependent on the film and the processing? scanning at higher res will just make the grain, if it is visible, to be clearer, together will all other details.
    the grain will not be bigger.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •