Standard and High-Res Scans for negatives to CD

[finkster]

Recently had a roll of TCN400 developed and scanned to CD at KT. I don't normally shoot film, so I've never done this before. Requested for high-res, and what I got was 3637x2432x24b, 72 dpi, BMP files of approximately 26Mb each.

Is this the normal high-res scanning resolution spec that you get from most photo labs? I'm wondering why BMP format instead of JPG or TIFF.

The cost for high-res scans was $15 excl developing. The cost and specs for standard res scans were $5 at 1840x1232, JPG files of about 700Kb size.

[sonix]

I think TIFF and BMP has no compression for it.

It's better to have TIFF or BMP compare to JPG (which use compression).

Can you convert your BMP to JPG? I'm want to see how good it can scan.

sonix

[finkster]

I've converted the BMP's to JPG already. The quality looks alrite, but since I used B&W film, the resulting scanned image looks grainy and lacks contrast. Not sure whether their scanning was up to standard or not, since I've never had my negs scanned before.

Just wanted to know what resolution other labs use to do their high-res scans...

[coke21]

Most of the time, labs scan in jpg formats. Never had it scanned in bmp before. You might want to check with them again.

[e_liau]

Originally Posted by finkster The cost and specs for standard res scans were $5 at 1840x1232, JPG files of about 700Kb size.

$5 for 4-base scan? Wow.. that's cheap, compared to Colorlab which charge about $12.50 per roll!

[finkster]

Originally Posted by e_liau $5 for 4-base scan? Wow.. that's cheap, compared to Colorlab which charge about $12.50 per roll!

That's the charge stated on their price list. Didn't actually pay this amount, since I asked for high-res.

Regarding the BMP scanned format, I also felt it was a bit strange. Which is why I wanted to clarify with other folks who got their negs scanned at other labs.

[vince123123]

two POSSIBLE reasons:

bmp = no compression, but if this is the reason, why dont use TIF?

second reason and more likely reason is that bmp = bigger file size and some lay people judge the quality by the file size...and some shops tell pple "our high res scan is somuchsomuch MB big"

Originally Posted by finkster That's the charge stated on their price list. Didn't actually pay this amount, since I asked for high-res. Regarding the BMP scanned format, I also felt it was a bit strange. Which is why I wanted to clarify with other folks who got their negs scanned at other labs.

[Zerstorer]

Probably for compatibility. Bitmap can be read on all platforms without special software.

[AReality]

Originally Posted by vince123123 but if this is the reason, why dont use TIF?

Izzit because there is no EXIF information?
Imagine put 3000dpi, then U go print out on your home computer, wah.... The picture only 36mm by 24mm...Die loh...