Nothing wrong with that.

Some are so-so, others are good, others yet are
very good.  Depends on how much you want to
spend on the hardware and invest in learning
how to use one.

With a good scanner and reasonable negatives,
film can definitely look better.  Cutoff point seems to
be about 10-12Mpixels: after that, digital has a
definite advantage compared to 35mm film.
At high ISO settings, 6Mpixel can look a
lot better than an old high ISO film.  That is
not so true with modern high speed film.

They can be, if you scan at high resolution.
You can always apply compression techniques
to bring them down in size.  Typical tiff file
at 2000dpi, 32-bit colour and lzw compression
is around 10Mbyte.  When moved to jpg it
comes down to around 1Mbyte.

Go here:
wizofoz2k.deviantgart.com
and here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/John/
to see many examples of old and new film scanned with a
modern, high quality scanner.  Most are reduced in size
to either 1600 or 1280 max width, from
original scans at 2000dpi - which translates to
around 2800 pixels on the wide in the original.

Of course you can always scan at higher
resolution or reduce a scanned size.
Up to you and how much disk you got.

They can be very good - depending on the hardware. They can be quite huge
- depending on what resolution you set. Good as a good 6mp camera? -
that's in the eye of the beholder. I have an Epson Perfection 4490 Photo
scanner. It produces what I consider to be acceptable scans - it also
handles up to about 2 1/2" negatives - most only do 35mm. I'd suggest you
look for 4800 dpi resolution - you can do the math. I recommend the Epson
online store - I've had excellent results there, and good prices.

Some are better than others.  Even some inexpensive scanners
do a good job.

How does the scanned negative JPG file look compared to say a

The answer to both depends on the quality of the scanner and
the scan settings, such as resolution (ppi).  A decent
scanner can capture all of the detail on a negative.

The topic has been discussed frequently on this and other
photography newsgroups.  Use Google to find those postings,
and reviews in computer and photo mags, etc.

Scanned film can be very, very good indeed.  The files can be huge as
well - if you scan a 35mm negative at 2,000dpi there are (approx)
3,000 x 2,000 pixels in the image.  However, dust and scratches can be
the pits unless you use a scanner with Digital ICE technology, and
even if you have one of those it usually can't be used on Kodachrome
slides.

Warning - scanned film can be very, very bad as well!

I have some images taken from scanned film at Flickr (there's a mix of
film & digital originals there) and whilst they have all had some work
done on them after scanning, hopefully they show the quality which is
possible - the camera is a Pentax ME Super, the film is Fujichrome and
the lens is a Pentax 50mm in some cases or a Sigma 28-70 zoom:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sal-woo/

There is also a group for Nikon scanner users:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/74221125@N00/pool/

Obviously I've choosen my best images to upload, but you can see the
quality which can be obtained.  I used a Nikon Coolscan 5000 scanner
plus a batch feeder to scan a whole slide at a go.

Once in the topic and once in the post you mention "digital
scanners".  I'm not sure they make an analog one. If they do, it's not
really in the consumer markets.

Scanners are not necessarily easy to use, but the results can be very,
very good depending on these three factors:

1) Scanner hardware, i.e. how much resolution, accuracy of light
source, mechanical quality, DMAX (dyanmic range), A/D conversion
quality, inclusion of dust-suppression technology, etc.
2) Scanner software. I've mainly used Silverfast by Vuescan. Lots of
control, fairly decent interface, but certainly a learning curve.
Their pro version includes calibrated targets which helps to improve
color accuracy quite a bit.
3) Skill and patience of the user. There are tips and tricks for
cleaning your originals, keeping them flat, the knowledge of your
color profile workflow, etc. These things all make a difference.

I'm still convinced that dedicated film scanners are far superior to
flatbed scanners that double as transparency scanners. Not sure
exactly why... but the results, to me, are very clear. Then of course
the best of all are the drum scanners, but they are very expensive. I
made the decision to get a medium-format film scanner, and I couldn't
be happier with it. I figure that if I ever take a photo that is
worthy of a drum scan, I can just have it done professionally.

Here's a link to some examples of images scanned with a wide variety
of machines. I've got two examples on there done with my Microtek
120tf. There are Nikons, Tangos, Epsons, Microteks, etc. Some very
good info there.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Regards,

Karl Winkler
http://www.karlwinkler.com

If you want to scan 35mm film, use a film scanner, not a flat bed.  Use
Vuescan.  If you are scanning negatives, use the generic film settings
and do all your post processing in an editor like Photoshop or LightZone.

In LightZonw you can save "templates" to apply to all images scanned
from a particular film.  I imagine you can do the same in Photoshop.
This is a great first step, and in my opinion, much better than trying
to adjust the scanner software and then the editor software.

This whole process is incredibly sloooooow.

I preview at low resolution for speed and use high resolution for
keepers.  I usually end up keeping only one or two images per 36
exposure roll, primarily because it takes so long to do the scan.