Scanned negatives higher res or DSLR images ?


Status
Not open for further replies.

marcwang

New Member
Jan 9, 2003
1,112
0
0
East Singapore
www.pbase.com
#1
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.
 

Jer76

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2002
1,049
0
36
West
#3
guess consumer scanners wun be as good as DSLR's. But i find that scanned negatives from photolabs got fight. :D
 

showtime

New Member
May 2, 2003
984
0
0
39
Singapore
Visit site
#4
Jer76 said:
guess consumer scanners wun be as good as DSLR's. But i find that scanned negatives from photolabs got fight. :D
yah, i have scanned 35mm film at about 11mega pix equivalent...
 

showtime

New Member
May 2, 2003
984
0
0
39
Singapore
Visit site
#5
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
showtime said:
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?
 

showtime

New Member
May 2, 2003
984
0
0
39
Singapore
Visit site
#7
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...
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#9
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.
 

Prismatic

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2003
1,323
0
36
38
In the void.
Visit site
#10
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.
 

sulhan

Moderator
Staff member
May 11, 2002
4,028
0
36
45
Melbourne, Australia
www.md-sulhan.com
#11
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
 

mpenza

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
12,938
0
0
Singapore
www.instagram.com
#12
showtime said:
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.
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#13
mpenza said:
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.
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#14
sulhan said:
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.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#16
marcwang said:
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.
 

showtime

New Member
May 2, 2003
984
0
0
39
Singapore
Visit site
#17
mpenza said:
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..
 

wacko

New Member
Mar 27, 2002
424
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#18
showtime said:
makes sense because slides especially 35mm ones are sooo small... cannot capture that much detail..
but digicams CMOS/CCD sensors are mostly even smaller...
 

jasonpgc

New Member
Jan 20, 2002
453
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#19
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 :bsmilie:
 

showtime

New Member
May 2, 2003
984
0
0
39
Singapore
Visit site
#20
jasonpgc said:
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 :bsmilie:
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.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom