Digital SLR image VS 35mm Film SLR scanning image!!


Status
Not open for further replies.

LENS

New Member
Apr 8, 2005
755
0
0
Hi guys,

I have done some scanning from my 35mm negative from shop, in so-called 16base(3xxx X 5xxx), 5 or 6M in size. However, it seems like the resolution never matched with the raw photo i saw on monitor that taken by a D70!

My friends told me that the largest size of physical print of 35mm is usually 12x8 inch, and DSLR can go more than that.

I wonder issit because i got a funny scanning of film or it is just true that a resolution of D70 can beat a 35mm SLR image?

I have no idea why my 16base scanning is 3xxx X 5xxx, i thought it should be 22xx X 33xx something.. i read about sometimes a higher resolution scanning will only produce a larger file but not more details.

So issit that a 16base scanning resolution won't match with a DSLR resolution? or i just simply didn't get a TRUE scanning resolution?

Thank you.
 

LENS

New Member
Apr 8, 2005
755
0
0
any help to enlighten me?
 

raptor84

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2005
4,799
1
38
Singapore
www.furry-photos.com
Film grain will always have a limit on resloution and the practical limit for scanning is about 17M with current technology (5xxx X 3xxx) . The quality of the scan is also dependant on the equipment used as well. Also slides tend to scan better than negatives.
 

LENS

New Member
Apr 8, 2005
755
0
0
ok..so let's say we all other condition, like lense, equipment etc are the same..

what is the biggest printout for a 35mm SLR camera?
what is the biggest printout for a DSLR camera?

the question may seem stupid ha.. but i always thought that a Film SLR has the advantages over the DSLR in terms of resolution.. but it reallys makes me wonder when i saw the pic taken by D70..I wonder issit because my 16base scanning is bad scan?
 

raptor84

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2005
4,799
1
38
Singapore
www.furry-photos.com
A base 16 scan shloud in thoery give you a file big enough for a 16R or 16x24. Currently DLSR's are areally catching up to film cameras in terms of quality and resolution and pretty soon there wont be much difference. for a 8MP DSLR i think a 15x10 would be the max. not too sure though.

Well after using film i must admit that there is a certain feel and chracter to film images that are absent on a DSLR :)
 

LENS

New Member
Apr 8, 2005
755
0
0
ortega said:
the problem lies with the scanner

go look for drum scanners and see the difference
Actually, i send the film to shop for 16base scanning, i thought those machine is professional enough?

i looked at the D70 half body potraits, when you zoom into the head of model is still quite nice without visitble grain, but the scanned image from negative will show grainy image when zoom into it.

I have seen the computer software of those machine in shop, it is usually just a click on '4base' and '16base' and i wonder what could have gone wrong with it, guess the shop isn't really understand that machine too well!

it is really disappointed to get 16base scanning, but the pic is grainy..
 

raptor84

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2005
4,799
1
38
Singapore
www.furry-photos.com
Fuji labs SP-3000? Its a LED based scanner i think and yes drum scanners are much better in terms or noise control and DR :) I had a roll of 200 ISO scanned with that machine and yes there was some grain but its easily edited out in PP.
 

LittleWolf

New Member
Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
LENS said:
the question may seem stupid ha.. but i always thought that a Film SLR has the advantages over the DSLR in terms of resolution.. but it reallys makes me wonder when i saw the pic taken by D70..I wonder issit because my 16base scanning is bad scan?
Without going into details (pun not intended), film's "higher resolution" does not necessarily mean it records more detail or imange information.

Looking at film pictures after being exposed to digital images for a while helps to reveal how grainy/noisy film really is.

I'm pretty sure this is not purely a scanner issue. I have this experience when I look at my slides with a magnifying glass or an all-analogue projector, too.
 

LENS

New Member
Apr 8, 2005
755
0
0
actually i send my pic for 16base scanning, i guess it is done on No???tsu machine. I really no idea issit because the owner doesn't do a real 16base scanning or what..

anyway, i am surprised to see a pic taken by D70, and when it enlarge, it is really quite smooth, but when i enlarge my scanning pic..it is always easy to see grain..

What the guy told me that..for 35mm film, the max is up to a 12in print out..but for digital, it can go larger than 12in printout, that's why..

I am kind of shocked because i always thought the film beat digital in terms of resolution..

Well, for this case, it could be my poorly scanned pic, or whatever. But is it true that a DSLR can have a bigger printout than a film SLR?

Actually 16base means it can print up to 16in right? what is the size of file I will get for 16base?
I have tried few shop for so called '16base' or high reso scanning..but yet to find a good one..
 

LKSC

Member
Apr 16, 2004
391
0
16
Ortega has it right. You need a drum scanner, or at least an Imacon Flextight to get everything out of film. You did not mention what emulsion you are using, but the choice of film is critical too.

The minilab scans that you get whether it be a Noritsu or a Frontier, is only optimised for printing on the minilab's printer. 12X8 is a something of a "threshold" size for minilabs - you can get great prints from a minilab at that size for a relatively low price, but if you want to go much bigger and want optimum quality, you have to be prepared to spend $$$ but stunning results are possible.
 

Stefen

New Member
Apr 26, 2003
446
0
0
40
Beijing
www.stefenchow.com
My trans were scanned using a Imacon Flextight, and the resolution were quite good, around 250 true dpi at 30 x 20", though I will say that is reaching its maximum potential with the available equipment already.
 

LENS

New Member
Apr 8, 2005
755
0
0
A quick answer is D70 like DSLR is easier to produce a higher resolution digital picture that mean a larger printout? and 35mm film will need good skill and good machine that produce a equally good printout or potentially better?

By the way, those drum scanner, like Imagon Flextight, will be found in some professional lab only? and much better than 16BASE?
 

LENS

New Member
Apr 8, 2005
755
0
0
ok, it seems like that for digital image from 35mm film, the limitation is on the scanning machine.

What is the file size we will get for a 16base scanning?

Will a scanner like Konica Minolta DS III, IV scan a better image than 16base scanning on those shop?
 

whoelse

Senior Member
Oct 17, 2003
1,227
0
36
Why do you need to scan high resolution when u have them on film? For viewing on scrren 640x480 or 800x600 (estimated size) is good enough. It will take forever to load if u share them online with 6M file. If you need to produce high quality print, send the film then.

For film, u probably can save $ scanning them so u don't have to print them all when develop. You can view them, pick what you want and print from film. The film itself is the archive so you don't have to backup or spend time PS and later. Most of the time, while PS might look good, it might look different when printed on paper depending on the printer. It is easier to get what you want looking at print when you share your album rather then on the screen. While they are more convienence, most of us set our monitor differently so your exposure might be overexpose for some while underexpose for another person etc.
 

LENS

New Member
Apr 8, 2005
755
0
0
Ha, ya it makes sense..i read something like film is 'future proof', that if there is a better scanner, its quality can go higher.



whoelse said:
Why do you need to scan high resolution when u have them on film? For viewing on scrren 640x480 or 800x600 (estimated size) is good enough. It will take forever to load if u share them online with 6M file. If you need to produce high quality print, send the film then.

For film, u probably can save $ scanning them so u don't have to print them all when develop. You can view them, pick what you want and print from film. The film itself is the archive so you don't have to backup or spend time PS and later. Most of the time, while PS might look good, it might look different when printed on paper depending on the printer. It is easier to get what you want looking at print when you share your album rather then on the screen. While they are more convienence, most of us set our monitor differently so your exposure might be overexpose for some while underexpose for another person etc.
 

whoelse

Senior Member
Oct 17, 2003
1,227
0
36
You need the high-res image to make large print. You can produce high quality large print by printing directly from film so scanning to hi-res is pointless. For viewing, 640x480 is good enough, 1MB can make wallpaper liao so no need hi-res.
 

raptor84

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2005
4,799
1
38
Singapore
www.furry-photos.com
whoelse said:
You need the high-res image to make large print. You can produce high quality large print by printing directly from film so scanning to hi-res is pointless. For viewing, 640x480 is good enough, 1MB can make wallpaper liao so no need hi-res.
I acutally plan on editing the scanned negatives in PS before sending it off to the lab t print so in that case i need a high res to start with :)
 

yanyewkay

Senior Member
Sep 22, 2004
3,924
0
0
Cons digger.
LENS said:
Ha, ya it makes sense..i read something like film is 'future proof', that if there is a better scanner, its quality can go higher.
:think: anyway to convert digital images to negatives to future proof my pics as well?

imagine family portraits taken digitally now. and you want to show your grandchildren.. but wait jpegs and PCs don't exists anymore by then. all taken over by some new formats and language and OS.. now what....:dunno
 

Status
Not open for further replies.