«

Yesterday I tried scanning some of my old 35 mm slides just
to see what I could get from my Epson Perfection 1250
scanner.

From the few that I tried I thought the results were not
bad. The resolution limit seems to be at about a 6 mb file,
scanned at 300 dpi. One picture (not so great content) can
be seen here: http://www.bimo.com/scanner/HKphoto.htm

My question is, what kind of better results could I expect
from better equipment? Can anyone post some examples?

Thanks,

GW

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 04:47:47 GMT, "Cambium" <>
wrote:


>My question is, what kind of better results could I expect
>from better equipment? Can anyone post some examples?


Any dedicated film scanner will easily beat
your 1250 for this purpose. Lots and lots
of scan samples at

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


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 04:47:47 GMT, "Cambium" <>
wrote:

>Yesterday I tried scanning some of my old 35 mm slides just
>to see what I could get from my Epson Perfection 1250
>scanner.
>
>From the few that I tried I thought the results were not
>bad. The resolution limit seems to be at about a 6 mb file,
>scanned at 300 dpi. One picture (not so great content) can
>be seen here: http://www.bimo.com/scanner/HKphoto.htm
>
>My question is, what kind of better results could I expect
>from better equipment? Can anyone post some examples?
>
>Thanks,
>
>GW
>
somethings wrong here....

300dpi for a 24 x36 mm slide is---very roughly---300 X 450 samples =
135Kpixels. With RGB coding, this would be 405Kbyte file---not 6Mbyte.

For slides, flatbeds have two issues: resolution and dynamic range
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".

Thanks for your reply. I compared the best of my shots by
the standards on that site - .25 x .25 film area, and I see
what you mean.

Any idea how this compares to actual printing from the film
negatives? i.e., how much resolution is lost in the scan,
comparing a print from film to a print from the scan from
the same film?

You're right. Actual pixels are 1000 x 1700, so I guess I
didn't understand the settings on the scanner software.
Anyhow, to test the result against the website shown above,
http://www.terrapinphoto.com./jmdavis
I took 1/24th of the pixels, and the comparison of my scan
to what can be done was pretty dismal.

But even with this performance, I'm not too disappointed if
I make a comparison to my Olympus 2100.


> somethings wrong here....
>
> 300dpi for a 24 x36 mm slide is---very roughly---300 X 450
samples =
> 135Kpixels. With RGB coding, this would be 405Kbyte
file---not 6Mbyte.
>
> For slides, flatbeds have two issues: resolution and
dynamic range
> **************************
> Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
> Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
>

Hi,

the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II is an outstanding scanner and sells now for
under $500.
Rosita

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:12:20 GMT, "Cambium" <>
wrote:

>Thanks for your reply. I compared the best of my shots by
>the standards on that site - .25 x .25 film area, and I see
>what you mean.
>
>Any idea how this compares to actual printing from the film
>negatives? i.e., how much resolution is lost in the scan,
>comparing a print from film to a print from the scan from
>the same film?


Go back and have another look at the site.

There are several samples of scanned prints.

IMO, very little is lost in the scan. It takes very good
darkroom technique to match the quality of a film
scan at 4000 dpi. (Although there is some skill and
care involved in the film scan as well.) The film
lab's generic 4x6" print doesn't come close.

I do wish I still had more of the prints that I made
in my wet darkroom, but the most recent of those
are now around 25 years old, and most of these
were made from grainy BW negatives. (I was a
big Tri-X fan back in those days.)

My two Ciba prints came close -- closer than
I expected them to, in any case.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
scan snippets
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

>the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II is an outstanding scanner and sells now for
>under $500.

And on Ebay, you can usually pick up a refurbished Scan Elite II w/ digital ICE
(6 mos. warranty) for $360 - $400. I did (and I love it).

John

I have used the Nikon 995 with the slide attachment.

The results are as good as the original slide. - Need to crop in PShop...

Have printed 35mm slides up to 11x17 and they look great. YMMV

If you have a camera that accepts an attachment.... may save $$$

IMHO---If you have only an occasional use -
less then 200 slides - you may want to take them to a 'lab' and have scanned
in -
more then 200 or so - try the attachment thing -
or if you are doing it as an on-going thing - then the scanner is the
way.. - - -

my $0.02..

Take care and Happy Holidays to all - shoop and shoot a lot... (pics please)
:>))

John B - Wisconsin Cheesehead - Go Pack


"Cambium" <> wrote in message
news:THuFb.782672$9l5.611440@pd7tw2no...
> Yesterday I tried scanning some of my old 35 mm slides just
> to see what I could get from my Epson Perfection 1250
> scanner.
>
> From the few that I tried I thought the results were not
> bad. The resolution limit seems to be at about a 6 mb file,
> scanned at 300 dpi. One picture (not so great content) can
> be seen here: http://www.bimo.com/scanner/HKphoto.htm
>
> My question is, what kind of better results could I expect
> from better equipment? Can anyone post some examples?
>
> Thanks,
>
> GW
>
>

That attachment looks pretty good. Limited mainly by the
sensor capacity of the camera. I guess it would work for me
to the extent my 2.1 mp C-2100 would give me small pics.
Certainly good enough for some uses.

Thanks,
GW



"jb" <> wrote in message
news:sQ2Gb.14434$ y.com...
> I have used the Nikon 995 with the slide attachment.
>
> The results are as good as the original slide. - Need to
crop in PShop...
>
> Have printed 35mm slides up to 11x17 and they look great.
YMMV
>
> If you have a camera that accepts an attachment.... may
save $$$
>
> IMHO---If you have only an occasional use -
> less then 200 slides - you may want to take them to a
'lab' and have scanned
> in -
> more then 200 or so - try the attachment thing -
> or if you are doing it as an on-going thing - then the
scanner is the
> way.. - - -
>
> my $0.02..
>
> Take care and Happy Holidays to all - shoop and shoot a
lot... (pics please)
> :>))
>
> John B - Wisconsin Cheesehead - Go Pack
>
>
> "Cambium" <> wrote in message
> news:THuFb.782672$9l5.611440@pd7tw2no...
> > Yesterday I tried scanning some of my old 35 mm slides
just
> > to see what I could get from my Epson Perfection 1250
> > scanner.
> >
> > From the few that I tried I thought the results were not
> > bad. The resolution limit seems to be at about a 6 mb
file,
> > scanned at 300 dpi. One picture (not so great content)
can
> > be seen here: http://www.bimo.com/scanner/HKphoto.htm
> >
> > My question is, what kind of better results could I
expect
> > from better equipment? Can anyone post some examples?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > GW
> >
> >
>
>