Prev: Nikon Coolscan V Refurbished
Next: Epson v750 for print scanning
From: Barry Watzman on 9 Jan 2008 18:29
Re: "You will want to scan at 4000DPI"

I suspect that most people will scan at the highest resolution supported
by their hardware, but 2,700 DPI gives about a 10 megapixel image, and
4,000 dpi gives approximately a 22 megapixel image. 22 megapixels from
a 35mm image may truly be overkill, and may far exceed the actual detail
that exists on the average negative or slide shot with the average
camera and lens by the average photographer. But when you use 4,000 DPI
on hundreds or thousands of slides or negatives, the impact on both the
time required and the storage space required will be both real and
tremendous.

Z1Z wrote:
> [comments bottom-posted]
>
> "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
> news:13o4v17cdilfv35(a)corp.supernews.com...
>> I have a collection of about 3000 slides. Most (Kodak Ektachrome) are
>> still looking great even though they are 20-30 years old. Some (cheap,
>> no-name slide film) are gone forever. I want to make digital copies to
>> 'freeze' the ones that are fine now rather than risk their loss. The
>> slides are in a variety of mounts -- thin glass, cardboard, and plastic.
>> I also have thousands of negative I want to scan. I want to create
>> archival quality copies of everything and then deal with editing and
>> creating lower res versions to share with family or for printing
>> later. I want to automate the process as much as possible. Storage
>> space is not an issue. I'm very familiar with data backup and storage.
>> So no help is required in that area.
>>
>> Do slides in glass mounts have to be scanned differently than the ones
>> in plastic/cardboard mounts (nothing in front of the film)?
>>
>> Currently I have an HP Scanjet 4070 - 48 bit, 2400x2400 dpi Optical
>> res, and a slide/negative TMA that can do 4 at a time. I want to
>> replace it with a better flatbed+TMA or Slide Scanner. here's my options:
>>
>> 1) HP G4010. 96 bit, 6-colour. Optiical res 4800 x 4800. "Hardware
>> Scanning Resolution" 4800 x 9600 -- it's different than
>> "interpolated", but I don't know if the 9600 is a true resolution. I
>> also don't know if beyond 4800 matters anyway. Scan five slides or 6
>> negatives at once. On sale for $120 (non-sale price $190). Can anyone
>> comment on this scanner, it's specs, and suitability to task. I
>> realize it's not automated, but other than that, any thoughts?
>>
>> 2) HP G4050. Same specs as above, but HP also mentions "faded colour
>> restoration, dust and scratch removal". It can scan 16 slides or 30
>> negatives at once. $180 at most places. This is my first choice if I
>> can't find a 4010 on sale before 11th (when sale ends).
>>
>> As for Slide Scanners, tigerdirect.ca has a few.
>> - OpticFilm 7200 $232 - 48-bit, 7200 x 7200, and does 4 slides or 6
>> negatives at a time. Comes with Silverfast software. Reviews are great
>> - 5/5 for all categories.
>> - Plustek 7200i is $366 and seems to be the same as the 7200, but they
>> mention "SilverFast 6 SE iSRD" for the software (they just say
>> "SilverFast" for above model)
>> - Alestron Prime Film 3650u. $330. It says 3600 dpi and "incorporates
>> DIGITAL ICE technology" and doesn't seem to have any kind of tray so
>> it's one slide or a film strip (possible manual feed) at a time.
>>
>> At the moment I'm really leaning towards the G4050 for value and
>> features, but if I'm understanding correctly the slide scanners use
>> red/white LEDs and the SilverFast or Digital ICe technology to
>> automatically restore colour and remove dust and scratches. The HP
>> doesn't. Does it matter?
>
> I am facing the same situation, as are lots of other folks. If you buy
> the equipment to do it yourself, the Nikon 5000 will cost you about
> $1200 and the autoloader will cost about $500 additional. You could do
> it without the autoloader, but you might end up spending the rest of
> your life scanning slides and still not get done. You will want to scan
> at 4000DPI, and scanning at that resolution with Digital Ice will take a
> long time for each scan.
>
> I am considering another solution - send the job out. I looked rather
> extensively and kind of like digmypics.com. They charge $0.49 for
> 2000DPI scans and $0.89 for 4000DPI. If you do it yourself, the
> equipment will cost you around $1,700 and the hundreds of hours of your
> own time must be worth something. All in, it is much cheaper to send out
> the job. If you're not sure, you could send me 50 slides and see how
> they do. That's what I plan on doing, when I get a chance (I have
> photos, slides and negs.)
>
> What do you think?
From: Peter D on 11 Jan 2008 10:33
I decided to go with the HP G4050. Mostly because of price ($180),
convenience, and the ability to do 16 slides or 30 negatives at a time
without any additional equipment. That's enough to make it worth loading and
walking away (semi-automatic). I'll play with it once I get it, and pass on
what I learn. As I go through, I'm going to single out "spectacular"
slides/negs and send them away for professional scanning (89c each).

I wonder if anyone can advice me on the following:

1) Scanning slides in glass mounts - do I need to scan differently or do I
treat just like the other slides?

2) Best scanning resolution and colour depth - I can go to 96 bit 4800 x4800
optical ( HP says "4800 x 9600 Hardware Scanning Resolution" - whatever that
means).


From: Barry Watzman on 12 Jan 2008 23:21
4800 x 9600 implies that the resolution in one direction (vertical or
horizontal) is 4800 dpi and the resolution in the other direction is
9600 dpi. Optical means that this is the "true", "actual" resolution
.... you get a "real" pixel (a point actually imaged by the sensor) at
those resolutions in those directions. On the contrary, "interpolated"
resolution is resoulution where there are pixels between "real" pixels
that are "fabricated" by interpolating between the nearest "real" pixels.

The resolution in one direction is determined by the actual sensor
element (CCD, CIS element, etc.). The resolution in the other direction
is determined by the stepper motor that moves the scan head across the
material being scanned ... how fine it's steps are (how many points the
head stops at to image).

4800 x 4800 is almost too high ... that is going to give you a scanned
image (for 35mm images) of almost 32 megapixels. I'm going to go out on
a limb and say that there isn't that much detail present in ANY 35mm
images. 2700 dpi give 10 megapixels, which is a good value. In SOME
images, a SLIGHTLY higher value might be better, but for most images, 10
megapixels (2700 dpi) is going to pretty much capture everything. The
problem you have is that with a hardware resolution of 4800 x 4800, the
next lower choice that you have that uses only optical resolution is
going to be 2400 x 2400 (e.g. use every other pixel), and that is
getting to be too low (it will give about an 8 megapixel image ...
nothing to sneeze at, but more would probably be better)).



Peter D wrote:
> I decided to go with the HP G4050. Mostly because of price ($180),
> convenience, and the ability to do 16 slides or 30 negatives at a time
> without any additional equipment. That's enough to make it worth loading and
> walking away (semi-automatic). I'll play with it once I get it, and pass on
> what I learn. As I go through, I'm going to single out "spectacular"
> slides/negs and send them away for professional scanning (89c each).
>
> I wonder if anyone can advice me on the following:
>
> 1) Scanning slides in glass mounts - do I need to scan differently or do I
> treat just like the other slides?
>
> 2) Best scanning resolution and colour depth - I can go to 96 bit 4800 x4800
> optical ( HP says "4800 x 9600 Hardware Scanning Resolution" - whatever that
> means).
>
>
From: Peter D on 13 Jan 2008 13:04
Thank you for your helpful information. I decided I wouldn't use any
interpolated resultions, staying with optical resolution only. From what
I've read 2700 x 2700 seems to be the 'sweet spot' for 35mm. I didn't
realise that I have to select an optical resolution that has to be divide
into the highest optical resolution. I would have liked to go with 2700 or
3000. Are you certain I have to go with 2400 if I don't want to go as high
as 4800? 2400 is fine for these slides, but I would prefer to go to 2700 or
3000, but if that would actually be worse or no better than 2400 then I
don't see the point (longer scan time, larger file size).

How about the option of using 96 bit? Would that really be better than 48
bit or is overkill?

Also, any tips on scanning slides in glass mounts?

Thanks for all your help.

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM(a)neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:478991db$0$5194$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com...
> 4800 x 9600 implies that the resolution in one direction (vertical or
> horizontal) is 4800 dpi and the resolution in the other direction is 9600
> dpi. Optical means that this is the "true", "actual" resolution ... you
> get a "real" pixel (a point actually imaged by the sensor) at those
> resolutions in those directions. On the contrary, "interpolated"
> resolution is resoulution where there are pixels between "real" pixels
> that are "fabricated" by interpolating between the nearest "real" pixels.
>
> The resolution in one direction is determined by the actual sensor element
> (CCD, CIS element, etc.). The resolution in the other direction is
> determined by the stepper motor that moves the scan head across the
> material being scanned ... how fine it's steps are (how many points the
> head stops at to image).
>
> 4800 x 4800 is almost too high ... that is going to give you a scanned
> image (for 35mm images) of almost 32 megapixels. I'm going to go out on a
> limb and say that there isn't that much detail present in ANY 35mm images.
> 2700 dpi give 10 megapixels, which is a good value. In SOME images, a
> SLIGHTLY higher value might be better, but for most images, 10 megapixels
> (2700 dpi) is going to pretty much capture everything. The problem you
> have is that with a hardware resolution of 4800 x 4800, the next lower
> choice that you have that uses only optical resolution is going to be 2400
> x 2400 (e.g. use every other pixel), and that is getting to be too low (it
> will give about an 8 megapixel image ... nothing to sneeze at, but more
> would probably be better)).
>
>
>
> Peter D wrote:
>> I decided to go with the HP G4050. Mostly because of price ($180),
>> convenience, and the ability to do 16 slides or 30 negatives at a time
>> without any additional equipment. That's enough to make it worth loading
>> and walking away (semi-automatic). I'll play with it once I get it, and
>> pass on what I learn. As I go through, I'm going to single out
>> "spectacular" slides/negs and send them away for professional scanning
>> (89c each).
>>
>> I wonder if anyone can advice me on the following:
>>
>> 1) Scanning slides in glass mounts - do I need to scan differently or do
>> I treat just like the other slides?
>>
>> 2) Best scanning resolution and colour depth - I can go to 96 bit 4800
>> x4800 optical ( HP says "4800 x 9600 Hardware Scanning Resolution" -
>> whatever that means).


From: degrub on 13 Jan 2008 23:28
Photoshop does a pretty good job of downsampling to whatever resolution
you want to keep. Even if you do sample some meaningless "noise" at 4800
ppi, i won't hurt you ( other than time and file space). PS bicubic
will help "average" it out.

BTW, i would be surprised if the HP ( or most any flatbed) could
actually resolve more than about 2000 ppi anyway. Any actual details
above that would be smeared if the optics were not up to resolving 2000+
ppi. The latest Epsons are around 2000-2300 ppi resolving no matter the
number of CCD elements (4800 ?). One test report has it at 2300 dpi for
the V750/V700.

http://www.filmscanner.info/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html
(sorry in German only - but google can translate)

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0083ZV

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scantek.htm



for some background discussion. You could get a test chart (USAF 1951)
and find out what the scanner is actually capable of resolving.

Depending on the camera optics, film, and developing the film image may
not even have 2000 ppi of image information anyway.

THe main reason, as i understand it, to scan at higher resolution is to
1) be able to downsample to whatever number of pixels you want, and 2)
to be able to feed enough pixels to the printer to enlarge 8X or more
from a 35mm frame.

Regards,

Peter D wrote:
> Thank you for your helpful information. I decided I wouldn't use any
> interpolated resultions, staying with optical resolution only. From what
> I've read 2700 x 2700 seems to be the 'sweet spot' for 35mm. I didn't
> realise that I have to select an optical resolution that has to be divide
> into the highest optical resolution. I would have liked to go with 2700 or
> 3000. Are you certain I have to go with 2400 if I don't want to go as high
> as 4800? 2400 is fine for these slides, but I would prefer to go to 2700 or
> 3000, but if that would actually be worse or no better than 2400 then I
> don't see the point (longer scan time, larger file size).
>
> How about the option of using 96 bit? Would that really be better than 48
> bit or is overkill?
>
> Also, any tips on scanning slides in glass mounts?
>
> Thanks for all your help.
>
> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM(a)neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:478991db$0$5194$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com...
>
>>4800 x 9600 implies that the resolution in one direction (vertical or
>>horizontal) is 4800 dpi and the resolution in the other direction is 9600
>>dpi. Optical means that this is the "true", "actual" resolution ... you
>>get a "real" pixel (a point actually imaged by the sensor) at those
>>resolutions in those directions. On the contrary, "interpolated"
>>resolution is resoulution where there are pixels between "real" pixels
>>that are "fabricated" by interpolating between the nearest "real" pixels.
>>
>>The resolution in one direction is determined by the actual sensor element
>>(CCD, CIS element, etc.). The resolution in the other direction is
>>determined by the stepper motor that moves the scan head across the
>>material being scanned ... how fine it's steps are (how many points the
>>head stops at to image).
>>
>>4800 x 4800 is almost too high ... that is going to give you a scanned
>>image (for 35mm images) of almost 32 megapixels. I'm going to go out on a
>>limb and say that there isn't that much detail present in ANY 35mm images.
>>2700 dpi give 10 megapixels, which is a good value. In SOME images, a
>>SLIGHTLY higher value might be better, but for most images, 10 megapixels
>>(2700 dpi) is going to pretty much capture everything. The problem you
>>have is that with a hardware resolution of 4800 x 4800, the next lower
>>choice that you have that uses only optical resolution is going to be 2400
>>x 2400 (e.g. use every other pixel), and that is getting to be too low (it
>>will give about an 8 megapixel image ... nothing to sneeze at, but more
>>would probably be better)).
>>
>>
>>
>>Peter D wrote:
>>
>>>I decided to go with the HP G4050. Mostly because of price ($180),
>>>convenience, and the ability to do 16 slides or 30 negatives at a time
>>>without any additional equipment. That's enough to make it worth loading
>>>and walking away (semi-automatic). I'll play with it once I get it, and
>>>pass on what I learn. As I go through, I'm going to single out
>>>"spectacular" slides/negs and send them away for professional scanning
>>>(89c each).
>>>
>>>I wonder if anyone can advice me on the following:
>>>
>>>1) Scanning slides in glass mounts - do I need to scan differently or do
>>>I treat just like the other slides?
>>>
>>>2) Best scanning resolution and colour depth - I can go to 96 bit 4800
>>>x4800 optical ( HP says "4800 x 9600 Hardware Scanning Resolution" -
>>>whatever that means).
>
>
>
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Nikon Coolscan V Refurbished
Next: Epson v750 for print scanning