 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / June 2004megapixel equivalent of 35mm scanned at 4800 dpi ?
I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be. Also, is the epson 4870 flatbed a good choice or would it be better to get a minolta 3200 dedicated film scanner (the little boxy kind)? thanks No flat bed scanner will match a good dedicated film scanner. But the newer flat beds are very good, so it depends on what you're looking for regarding image quality. Comparing a scanned ned or chrome with a digital original is difficult, to say the least. The control of variables in the chain is harder to control on the scanner, and results depend on software settings, film type, scanner type, etc. A properly scanned chrome, if it's sharp to begin with, can produce a superior image to almost any digi-cam. Yes, I'll get flamed... > I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the > meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > thanks >From: mnhenley@msn.com (Mike Henley) >I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the >meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be. My 4,000 dpi film scanner gives me about 3,600 x 5,400 pixels after I crop off the edges a bit and that's close to 20 Mpixels. 4,800 dpi sample rate would be even more. But pixels are not all created equal and film scans, even from fine grained films like Velvia and Provia 100F, have more noise and less information than smaller digital files. I get about 11 Mpixels from my Canon 1Ds for example (equivalent pixel count to roughly a 2,800 dpi scan from 35 mm) but prints from it, especially large ones, look much better than prints from scanned film. >Also, is the epson 4870 flatbed a good choice or would it be better to >get a minolta 3200 dedicated film scanner (the little boxy kind)? Film scanner should do a better job than a flatbed. >I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the >meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be. It depends on what you mean. If you're refering to the number of pixels in the image, then that's easy. 4800 * (24mm in inches) * 4800 * (36mm in inches) gives just under 31 million. However, that's not to say that the image will look like what you'd get if you had a 31 megapixel digital camera - it won't. Read on... >Also, is the epson 4870 flatbed a good choice or would it be better to >get a minolta 3200 dedicated film scanner (the little boxy kind)? I have a 4870. The images it produces from 35mm slides look about the same as what I get from my EOS 10D in terms of resolution, but are noisier. This being the case, the answers to your question would appear to be either "31" or "about 6", depending on whether you are just interested in the number of pixels in your scan, or actual image quality. HTH > >I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the > >meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > However, that's not to say that the image will look like what you'd get if > you had a 31 megapixel digital camera - it won't. Read on... Considering there are no such beasts as 31MP digital cameras how do you know or can claim such? Not just that but do you have any idea precicely what kinds of problems and image defects it would cause? The red channel "performance" would be a rather interesting thing to behold. Or did you mean a digital camera that uses a larger than 35mm sensor? > HTH  SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ >> >I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the >> >meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Considering there are no such beasts as 31MP digital cameras how do you know >or can claim such? ...because, as I've already stated in the material you neglected to quote, 35mm stuff scanned with the scanner in question looks about the same (if noisier) as what I'm already getting with a 6 megapixel digital camera. Certainly that scanner with any 35mm film won't give images that are even closely comparable to what can be done with the curent 11 and 14 megapixel DSLRs. This is not to disparage the 4870 - it's probably about the best A4 flatbed out there. >Not just that but do you have any idea precicely what kinds >of problems and image defects it would cause? The red channel "performance" >would be a rather interesting thing to behold. >Or did you mean a digital camera that uses a larger than 35mm sensor? If you're suggesting that 31 megapixels from a 35mm-sized recording area isn't a practical proposition, then I think you've just answered your own question. I didn't say anything about digital sensor sizes, by the way. >Certainly that scanner with any 35mm film won't give images that are even >closely comparable to what can be done with the curent 11 and 14 megapixel >DSLRs. This is not to disparage the 4870 - it's probably about the best A4 >flatbed out there. What, say, if it's an exceptional image and i'm willing to pay for it to be professionally scanned (drum scanner? is that the best there is?), how would it compare to a 6 megapixel digital camera? would it be any better? The other question... does this mean that i can't get better prints from 35mm (professionally even) than i get from a 6 megapixel dSLR? If it does then maybe i'm wasting my time and money with film and should get a dSLR. Is it so? These are important questions. >>Certainly that scanner with any 35mm film won't give images that are even >>closely comparable to what can be done with the curent 11 and 14 megapixel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >professionally scanned (drum scanner? is that the best there is?), how would it >compare to a 6 megapixel digital camera? would it be any better? It'd be better than the flatbed scan. certainly. 35mm film vs 6 megapixel digital in terms of absolute potential is a hotly debated topic which arouses many passions. I'll just say that if you want significantly better quality than either, you'd be better off looking at medium format. >The other question... does this mean that i can't get better prints from 35mm >(professionally even) than i get from a 6 megapixel dSLR? If it does then maybe >i'm wasting my time and money with film and should get a dSLR. Is it so? You'll have to judge for yourself, depending on your own criteria. All I can say is that I shoot both 35mm film and with a 6 megapixel DSLR, and have recently started shooting medium format (6*6) film as well. I find all 3 formats useful, but YMMV. >These are important questions. To be sure, but the answers vary depending on the individual's requirements, and have a certain amount of subjectivity. What works for me won't necessarilly work for you, and vice versa. If you're happy with the results you're getting with your current setup, then why change it? >What, say, if it's an exceptional image and i'm willing to pay for it to be >professionally scanned (drum scanner? is that the best there is?), how would it >compare to a 6 megapixel digital camera? would it be any better? Yes, it would be vastly better than the results from any 35mm-based digital SLR. >>Certainly that scanner with any 35mm film won't give images that are even >>closely comparable to what can be done with the curent 11 and 14 megapixel >>DSLRs. This is not to disparage the 4870 - it's probably about the best A4 >>flatbed out there. > What, say, if it's an exceptional image and i'm willing to pay for it to be > professionally scanned (drum scanner? is that the best there is?), how would it > compare to a 6 megapixel digital camera? would it be any better? The scanned film would look quite a bit better. (A drum scanner would be best, but today's 4000 dpi home scanners do a pretty good job.) Having said that, the only comparison I've personaly done was between a 4MP P/S and Provia scanned on my FS4000. With the scene and field of view set to be as equal as possible, the scanned film image shows vastly more detail. Since 6MP is not that big a jump from 4, I doubt the digicam will catch film. By 8, things may be getting rather close. > The other question... does this mean that i can't get better prints from 35mm > (professionally even) than i get from a 6 megapixel dSLR? If it does then maybe > i'm wasting my time and money with film and should get a dSLR. Is it so? Have a look at: http://www.mindspring.com/~dreamflier/Films-vs-Coolpix.html comparing a 5MP camera to a number of scanned films. Film has it's problems, but is hardly a 'waste of time.' -Greg >The scanned film would look quite a bit better. (A drum scanner would >be best, but today's 4000 dpi home scanners do a pretty good job.) >Having said that, the only comparison I've personaly done was between a >4MP P/S and Provia scanned on my FS4000. With the scene and field of >view set to be as equal as possible, the scanned film image shows vastly >more detail. Since 6MP is not that big a jump from 4, Comparing small-sensor digicams to DSLRs based on the pixel count will lead you to unsound conclusions. A venerable 3 megapixel EOS D30 will produce a better image than pretty much any 5 megapixel compact digital, for example. >>The scanned film would look quite a bit better... > Comparing small-sensor digicams to DSLRs based on the pixel count will lead > you to unsound conclusions... Yea, I know. Not all MP's are created equal, despite the makers' attempt to make MP count the main/only issue. Still (unless the P/S glass and sensor are _total_ junk) adding 20% more dots and calling it a DSLR shouldn't allow it to suddenly leapfrog fine grained film (at least that's my theory.) -Greg >>>The scanned film would look quite a bit better... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >DSLR shouldn't allow it to suddenly leapfrog fine grained film (at least >that's my theory.) But as you just said yourself, "not all pixels are created equal". A DSLR isn't just "a P&S with 20% more dots", it's an entirely different animal with a vastly better signal to noise ratio per recorded pixel, and this becomes hugely apparent when you look at them at 100%. Nobody's said anything about a few extra pixels allowing anything to "leapfrog" anything else, but a DSLR image doesn't just look like a compact digital image with more pixels - it's playing in an entirely different level of image quality, and reasoning about its output by extrapolating from the (comparably) noisy, artifact-ridden images produced by compact digitals will lead you to unsound conclusions. There are plenty of full-size DSLR images on the web. Dowload a few and see for yourself. Here's one of mine: http://www.narcissus.uklinux.net/Niagara.jpg Zoom in so you can see the pixels. Look at the sky for example, and the complete absence of visible noise (excuse the JPEG artifacts - these have to be compressed down a fair bit for the web). You simply won't see that with a compact digital, regardless of the pixel count. > >>The scanned film would look quite a bit better... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > DSLR shouldn't allow it to suddenly leapfrog fine grained film (at least > that's my theory.) youhave to scale the sensor up as well in addition to adding extra "dots". > -Greg SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ > >Not just that but do you have any idea precicely what kinds > >of problems and image defects it would cause? The red channel "performance" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I didn't say anything about digital sensor sizes, by the way. But neither is film equal to 'retail b&W/c41/e6 process films'. Specialty engineered films which have resolution far excess of that exist and will most probably continue to exist, unless something unexpected happens to custom wafer run prices. And some of these would beat any "bayer" sensor. But it seems we are nearing a compettition of who can higher the better engineering research company gioven unlimited money, no? SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ >> >Not just that but do you have any idea precicely what kinds >> >of problems and image defects it would cause? The red channel "performance" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >But neither is film equal to 'retail b&W/c41/e6 process films'. Specialty >engineered films which have resolution far excess of that exist Splendid! Shoot away on those to your heart's content, then scan them at 4800 dpi with a 4870. After going to all this trouble, notice that the 31 million pixel image you get still doesn't "beat" the 6 megapixel output of an EOS 10D, let alone our hypothetical 31 megapixel digital camera. Right tool for the job, and all that... >Splendid! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Right tool for the job, and all that... I think the real question is all about potential. Forget the 4870, can you make a print from the 35mm film, whatever you use, home or professional, scanned or wet, that beats the print from the 6 megapixel camera? if yes, then film wins. And the other real question... can you in a few years time in the future as scanning technology becomes better and more affordable get more out a current film photo than you can get out of a current 6 megapixel camera image? if yes, then film wins. > >Splendid! > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > film photo than you can get out of a current 6 megapixel camera image? if yes, > then film wins. That only supposes that digital cameras, particularly DSLRs, stay in the vicinity of 6 mp. The Canon 1D mkII, Canon 1Ds and Kodak twins DCS Pro/n and /c are already beyond that threshold, and there's no real indication that sensor development for prosumer cameras won't advance to that level too. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com shadowcatcher@cox.net (Skip M) wrote in <kwOBc.27854$0z6.26499@fed1read07>: [snip] >That only supposes that digital cameras, particularly DSLRs, stay in the >vicinity of 6 mp. The Canon 1D mkII, Canon 1Ds and Kodak twins DCS >Pro/n and /c are already beyond that threshold, and there's no real >indication that sensor development for prosumer cameras won't advance to >that level too. As if Megapixel is everything. The whole system has to be looked at. The limiting factor will be very soon the optic. Megapix as digits doesn't say much. You need to know, how big the sensor is, then you will know how many lpi it has. And that is what counts (resolution wise). -Leonhard SignatureLeonhard Pang http://www.steimann.li/ > shadowcatcher@cox.net (Skip M) wrote in > <kwOBc.27854$0z6.26499@fed1read07>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -Leonhard True, and if the optics are the limiting factor, I'd rather have the choice of lenses from Canon, Tamron, Tokina and Sigma rather than be limited to buying my lenses from one manufacturer, and one that doesn't make a full line, at that... And, all things being equal, the megapixel is what counts, since that is what produces output. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com (Chris Brown) wrote in <4e8kq1-ogg.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>: >>But neither is film equal to 'retail b&W/c41/e6 process films'. >>Specialty engineered films which have resolution far excess of that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Shoot away on those to your heart's content, then scan them at 4800 >dpi with a 4870. The Epson 4870 has only a effectiv resolution of 1700x1600 dpi! Forget the 4800 dpi. If you really want to scan a slides with 4800 dpi you need to get the Minolta Elite 5400, which has 5000x4000 dpi. -Leonhard >Subject: Re: megapixel equivalent of 35mm scanned at 4800 dpi ? >From: lp_drf_0311@bluewin.ch (Leonhard Pang) [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >-Leonhard To the OP/many others on this thread: .."now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall"... Is there no resolution to resolution? Does (pixels/numbers) counting have no end? ;-) How many angels can dance on the head of a pin or a pixel? ... a sensor (CMOS/CCD Bayer or Foveon)? Does anybody realise what a serious waste of time counting dots (pixels) is? Use whatever works for your look (quality characteristics/rendition), level of acceptable (or excelent) quality and for whatever print size you might expect to use it at. Arguing is not going to change preferences or expectation, experience will. Get some large blow ups made from film and DSLR to whatever print size you prefer and compare/decide for yourself. I now return you to your regularly scheduled standard level of chatter/boredom :-). One megapixel... Two Megapixels... Three... Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** Correction: Oh, yeah, meant to write: "now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall" from the song "A Day In The Life", album "Seargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" © 1967 Lennon & McCartney All Rights Reserved Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com (Chris Brown) wrote in <0nkiq1-9ve.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>: >I have a 4870. The images it produces from 35mm slides look about >the same as what I get from my EOS 10D in terms of resolution, but >are noisier. This being the case, the answers to your question would >appear to be either "31" or "about 6", depending on whether you are >just interested in the number of pixels in your scan, or actual >image quality. No wonder. The Epson 4870 has a effectiv resolution of 1700x1600 dpi. Mesured by the german computer magazin ct. -Leonhard > I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the > meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be. > > Also, is the epson 4870 flatbed a good choice or would it be better to > get a minolta 3200 dedicated film scanner (the little boxy kind)? a 35mm frame is 36mm x 24mm. 25.4 mm/inch. 4800 x 36/25.4 = 6800 (rounded) 4800 x 24/25.4 = 4500 (rounded) 6800 x 4500 = 30,600,000 pixels. That's the information collected. Being film, the noise is very apparent at these scan levels. Signature--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- > > I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the > > meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That's the information collected. Being film, the noise is very > apparent at these scan levels. you can treat it as 2x spacial oversampling of 2400 and not have "any" noise. tools suport for this really sucks though. alternatively, higher resulution will let you do multi-image averaging and noise reduction much more easily. Also, as you are using irregular sampling (in the film, that is) you'll get rid of some other defects as an extra bonus. but the dedicated 3200dpi film scanner would still give better results SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ >but the dedicated 3200dpi film scanner would still give better results How good would dedicated film scanners be? You see the good thing about film right now is that scanner technology is certain to improve at time goes on. Would you say a film SLR is better than a dSLR for the time being? (ignore other factors please) >>>I'm considering purchasing a 4800 dpi film scanner. I wonder what the >>>meqapixel equivalent for a 35mm 4800 dpie scan would be. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you can treat it as 2x spacial oversampling of 2400 and not have "any" noise. > tools suport for this really sucks though. Information beats noise every time. Better 4800 with the film noise than interpolated info (2400 ->4800 means 75% of the result is from interpolation alone). A dedicated film scanner is much better than a flatbed, of course. > alternatively, higher resulution will let you do multi-image averaging and > noise reduction much more easily. Also, as you are using irregular sampling > (in the film, that is) you'll get rid of some other defects as an extra bonus. In the high end film scanners, 2 to 4 passes to reduce noise has a hardly noticeable benefit; more passes than that has no noticeable benefit. > but the dedicated 3200dpi film scanner would still give better results Yep. I missed that in the prev post. The 4000 - 5400 dpi / 16 bit/channel film scanners appear to just beyond what can be done with a "home" scanner. Signature--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- I wrote: > > you can treat it as 2x spacial oversampling of 2400 and not have "any" noise. > > tools suport for this really sucks though. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is from interpolation alone). A dedicated film scanner is much > better than a flatbed, of course. Uhh.. I was assuming that 4800 was the true scanner resolution. If not, then sure, any value computed using interpolated results is meningless. However, 4800dpi (and this needs to be real HW resolution) treated as 2x oversampling by software is not teh same thing. And don't even think of asking "how do i specify that in photoshop". > > alternatively, higher resulution will let you do multi-image averaging and > > noise reduction much more easily. Also, as you are using irregular sampling [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a hardly noticeable benefit; more passes than that has no > noticeable benefit. This is not multi-image abveraging. For that you take say three shots of the same thing, scan the results and then merge them. This reduces noise from grain - multipass scanning only reduces noise from scanning process. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ > This is not multi-image abveraging. For that you take say three shots of > the same thing, scan the results and then merge them. This reduces noise > from grain - multipass scanning only reduces noise from scanning process. Noise is noise. In both cases however, if there is registration error in the scanner, then there is also a bit of averaging/smearing between pixels ... which gives the appearance of noise reduction. As the scanner and Photoshop (or equiv.) do these differently, the result will likely appear different. Signature--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- >you can treat it as 2x spacial oversampling of 2400 and not have "any" noise. >tools suport for this really sucks though. Speaking as someone who owns a 4870, and is happy with their purchase, if you're expecting to "not have any noise" at 2400 dpi aferr downsampling, you're going to be *very* disappointed. >Speaking as someone who owns a 4870, and is happy with their purchase, if >you're expecting to "not have any noise" at 2400 dpi aferr downsampling, >you're going to be *very* disappointed. please tell me what makes you happy with your purchase, i'm considering this scanner but i'm leaning more towards film scanners instead. sabineellen@aol.com (Sabineellen) wrote in message > > please tell me what makes you happy with your purchase, i'm considering this > scanner but i'm leaning more towards film scanners instead. I've had a 4870 for 3 months now. As an amateur photographer I'm digitizing my archives. I've done 5000+ scans until now. This is what makes me happy : 1. it scans *everything* : 120 rollfilm, 135 film, 4x4 slides, photo's, ... In other words : _all_ formats I have in my archives. The only alternative to that is a much more expensive (and I agree also better) Nikon Coolscan 9000 + some good flatbed scanner (an Epson 4870 ? - why not) to scan the very old family photos of which the negs have gone lost. 2. it has ICE. Don't buy a scanner without ICE. Even if you're very careful there will be tiny dust particles all over. ICE gets rid of all of them. 3. ICE also works for scans of reflective material (e.g. damaged photos). I got very good results with it. 4. it can handle up to 8 slides or 24 negatives in one run. Put them in before you go to sleep, and then you don't care if it takes 2, 3 or 4 hours to complete. 5. colours are excellent 6. the price is very reasonable (you can get one for 400 to 500 $ now). If you're looking for the highest available resolution, don't buy it. Buy a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon LS V or 5000, or a Minolta 5400. Buy a Nikon 9000 if you also want to scan 4x4 or 120 rollfilm (you're well above $1000 now). Add many $$$ to that if you want to batch scan slides or 135 film rolls. Add a good flatbed scanner (I'd suggest an Epson 4870 :-) to that to scan reflective material, with ICE if you want (total price getting way above $1000 now). I've decided to start with an Epson 4870. If some day I need a better resolution for some scans I'll get myself a Nikon LS V too (only for 135 film then). Jan PS 1. I'm not payed by Epson in any way 2. what I've written is only my opinion. I am not saying that the Epson 4870 is "the best". I am not saying that my choice is "the best". I'm just saying that as an amateur photographer having done 5000+ scans with a 4870 over the last three months, I'm _very_ pleased with it. wow! 5000 scans! I thought the 4870 does not have a feeder. Am I wrong? Mark > I've had a 4870 for 3 months now. As an amateur photographer I'm > digitizing my archives. I've done 5000+ scans until now. This is what Mark Panszky <markinkorea03REMOVECAPITALS@bigfoot.com> wrote in message > wow! 5000 scans! I thought the 4870 does not have a feeder. Am I wrong? > > Mark No feeder. Slides go in in groups of eight. Negatives in groups of 16 to 18. The holder can take up to 24 at once (4 rows of 6), but since my negs are cut in rows of 4... My PC is a P4 3GHz, 1 Gig RAM, harddisks 80 GB + 160 GB + 200 GB backup. It takes about 8 to 9 minutes per scan @ 4800 dpi with ICE (2 minutes for the RGB scan, 2 minutes for the infrared ICE scan, and 4 minutes for the ICE software part. Doesn't take significantly less time at 2400 dpi. I scan my 6x6 (120 Rollfilm) at 2400 or 3200 dpi. Takes about 20 minutes per scan with ICE. My Epson 4870 takes on average 500 scans per week. That's about 70 hours of scanning per week. The only effort required is to change the slides or negs, then it continues al by itself for the next 1 to 3 hours (depending on the number of slides/negs). It requires my attention for somewhere between 5 and 10 hours per week. I can do other work on my PC when it is scanning, it doesn't slow down too much. Anyway, another 5000 scans to go and then I'll have scanned about all I have :-) The perfectionist in me preferred (and still prefers) a Nikon Coolscan V or 5000, but the V only takes 1 (one...) slide at a time or 6 negs (but then again, my films are cut in rows of 4), the 5000 can batch scan 50 slides at a time but the slide feeder alone costs an extra $500, it can also do rolls of film for another $500 extra (that is if the film is uncut...). Neither V nor 5000 takes 120 Rollfilm. And then I still would have needed a solution to scan my old prints. I had been waiting for a real solution for my needs since more than a year (I was helped a little by my wife to exclude the option of spending $2000+ :-). I absolutely wanted ICE, that is what prevented me from buying an Epson 3200. When Epson announced their 4870 I found right what I needed. The test on www.photo-i.co.uk convinced me, and another test on the same site made me exclude the Canon 9900F. Jan Digital camera images are highly processed coming off the sensor and tend to have a less grainy look , if the image was shot at ISO equivalent of less than 200, than scanned film although there is actually more picture information in a scanned 35mm image. Unless you have a specific need for a large image file there is little practical reason to scan a 35mm image at greater than 2400 dpi. You would be better off scanning in 48bit color at 2400 dpi and processing in Photoshop CS. Doing it that way will still generate a massive, computer choking image file full of bits that will be arbitrarily discarded when the image is processed for printing anyway. >Digital camera images are highly processed coming off the sensor and tend to >have a less grainy look , if the image was shot at ISO equivalent of less >than 200, than scanned film although there is actually more picture >information in a scanned 35mm image. Can i have the scanned image digitally processed through software so that it'd look as good as the digital image? >Unless you have a specific need for a >large image file there is little practical reason to scan a 35mm image at >greater than 2400 dpi. You would be better off scanning in 48bit color at >2400 dpi and processing in Photoshop CS. Doing it that way will still >generate a massive, computer choking image file full of bits that will be >arbitrarily discarded when the image is processed for printing anyway. What scanner would you say is adequate based on this? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.