Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > epson 2400 photo vs 3170 regarding 35 mm film scans

Reply
Thread Tools

epson 2400 photo vs 3170 regarding 35 mm film scans

 
 
lotas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-27-2004
Hi

Is it worth to spend some extra money in the 3170 instead of the 2400
regarding the quality of 35 mm scans? I've tried to gather information
pertaining to this topic, but i still have a lot of doubts. The only
thing I have clear right now is that i can't afford a dedicated film
scanner .

- Is the 3170 color quality much better compared to the 2400?

- Are film scans made with the 3170 much more sharper compared to the
2400?

I'd hate to buy the 3200 just to find the 2400 was enough almost as
much as to buy the 2400 and find I should have taken the 3200. X-).

thanks and regards
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gene Palmiter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-27-2004
You have to answer that for yourself. If you are 80 years old, and the
doctors give you just 3 months to live...this might effect your decision. If
your eyes are shot...this might effect your decision. You can find test data
on these scanners...but that doesn't mean that you will be able to see any
differences that exists.

"lotas" <(E-Mail Removed)3m.es> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Hi
>
> Is it worth to spend some extra money in the 3170 instead of the 2400
> regarding the quality of 35 mm scans? I've tried to gather information
> pertaining to this topic, but i still have a lot of doubts. The only
> thing I have clear right now is that i can't afford a dedicated film
> scanner .
>
> - Is the 3170 color quality much better compared to the 2400?
>
> - Are film scans made with the 3170 much more sharper compared to the
> 2400?
>
> I'd hate to buy the 3200 just to find the 2400 was enough almost as
> much as to buy the 2400 and find I should have taken the 3200. X-).
>
> thanks and regards



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-27-2004
lotas wrote:
> Hi
>
> Is it worth to spend some extra money in the 3170 instead of the 2400
> regarding the quality of 35 mm scans? I've tried to gather information
> pertaining to this topic, but i still have a lot of doubts. The only
> thing I have clear right now is that i can't afford a dedicated film
> scanner .
>
> - Is the 3170 color quality much better compared to the 2400?
>
> - Are film scans made with the 3170 much more sharper compared to the
> 2400?
>
> I'd hate to buy the 3200 just to find the 2400 was enough almost as
> much as to buy the 2400 and find I should have taken the 3200. X-).


Once again: what will be the use of the resulting digital files? Some
uses (giant art prints) may require the greatest investment you can
muster; others (small prints, on-screen views) may let you get by with
considerably less.

Wayne Fulton's Scantips
http://www.scantips.com/
answers a lot of questions.

My example of the information you can extract from a low-line 2400dpi
film scanner gives you an idea of how far you can go with that kind of
equipment:
http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/rirpictsb.htm#sixsouth


Frank ess


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Weitzel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-27-2004


>I'd hate to buy the 3200 just to find the 2400 was enough almost as
>much as to buy the 2400 and find I should have taken the 3200. X-).


Perhaps you could find friends that own them that might
let you do a scan or two on theirs to see the differences?

If not, is there a store around that might let you?

Or even rent one of each for a day or two?

Ken

 
Reply With Quote
 
lotas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-27-2004
"Frank ess" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<vintc.20434$(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
> lotas wrote:
>>

> Once again: what will be the use of the resulting digital files? Some
> uses (giant art prints) may require the greatest investment you can
> muster; others (small prints, on-screen views) may let you get by with
> considerably less


My intention is to scan lots of photographs ( the whole 'collection'
of my family) and all the 35mm negatives scattered around my house.
I'm not even an novice photographer, actually.

What I want is more or less what i've seen in your web. That is, to
zoom in and take a look at those details you can't see in a 10x15 cm
print.

Taking that scan on your web, 'View south from Turn Six Bleachers', my
question would be something like, what else could a 3200 dpi scanner
reveal that a 2400 dpi doesn't?

regards
 
Reply With Quote
 
sunlei6662003@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-28-2004
Download AlbumFamiy software at http://www.albumsfamily.com to help
you
With its Image Browser, you can manage your images as easily as you
can imagine; its Image Viewer shows your images in the most advanced
Virtual Album; the PhotoEdit and Photofun functions give you wide room
to adjust your images and make all kinds of prints such as postcards,
cards, stationery and so on; what's more, the Bundled Functions allow
you to scan images and send images to your specified destination just
by a single click. With AlbumFamily, You can establish the most
beautiful albums for yourself, your family and your friends, you can
produce your own style stationery on your desk. You will never find
another application software which fits you so well and satisfy you so
much!
 
Reply With Quote
 
filmscan@look.ca
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2004
You can look at my web site for some more examples, via a Nikon Coolscan III
at 2700 ppi. The simple answer is that there is no one answer. Consider
the following...

35mm films

Each 35mm film you used over the years was different. What was each
one's resolution in lines capability?

If a 35mm 100 ASA film had the ability to resolve to 1500 lines per
inch, then scanning at 3000 ppi will show you those 1500 lines and scanning
at 2400 ppi will NOT. Most more recent 35mm films are capable of doing that
but older ones varied.

35mm ASA 200 and ASA 400 films typically have LESS resolution so it
depends on what films you used in the past, to determine what your film
resolution is. That, more than anything else, will determine what you should
be using.


Cameras

Over the years you likely used different cameras and different lenses. Each
lens has its own quirks and personalities, AND different resolving powers.
With most lenses, the edges are not as sharp as the center, and the
resolving power adjusts as you move across the surface of the film. Again,
it depends but the film likely had x resolving power while the lens had y
resolving power. If the film was better than the lens you captured all that
was in the image, but if the lens was better than the film you did not.
There is nothing you can do now to solve that problem, but the scanning you
do will need to be AT or slightly better than that resolving power or you
will lose detail that IS in the negative.



Processing

What a film is developed, the quality and age of the chemicals used and
the precise temperature, etc., will often make a big difference in the
results. Even if the colours are correct for a colour film, or the density
of the silver correct for a black and white film, the fact remains that the
processing is in good measure responsible for what you end up with. Over
development results in thicker grains. Fresh chemicals develop faster than
used chemicals, and so on. I have no idea how old your negatives are, but
processing from 40 years ago and processing now are apples and oranges. If
you pushed a film and then processed to get the image you will have a very
different negative than a normal negative with the same film. I have no
idea if you did any of your own processing or if all was commercially done.
If commercially done, you likely used different places over the years. All
that results in differences in the negatives.



Grain

Once you get past the film's resolution abilities, you simply will get more
and more grain. Grain simply does NOT help your scanning nor make it look
better. So even if you CAN scan at 4000 ppi you may choose not to. That
choice is based on the film itself, and the quality of the negative.



Personal preferences

In the end, that is what will make a big difference. How precise do you want
to be in your end results. Personally, I suggest scanning at the best
resolution you can, be it 4000 ppi or 3200 ppi or 2700 ppi, and looking
carefully at the result using something like IrfanView to zoom in and look
at the grain, etc. for that specific 35mm film you are working on. THEN do
it again at half that resolution, be it 2000, 1600 or 1350 ppi and look
again. One or the other will be better for that specific film as it is now,
based on how it was processed then, and based on what you want.

Once you have determined which to use for that film, scan and save as a TIFF
with as much information in it as you can, so you do not lose anything. Use
THAT save to process further, make a JPG, adjust colour, etc.

Go from there... It will literally be different film by film if they were
different types, brands, years, and cameras.


http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)3m.es (lotas) wrote:

>My intention is to scan lots of photographs ( the whole 'collection'
>of my family) and all the 35mm negatives scattered around my house.
>I'm not even an novice photographer, actually.
>
>What I want is more or less what i've seen in your web. That is, to
>zoom in and take a look at those details you can't see in a 10x15 cm
>print.
>
>Taking that scan on your web, 'View south from Turn Six Bleachers', my
>question would be something like, what else could a 3200 dpi scanner
>reveal that a 2400 dpi doesn't?
>
>regards


================================================== ==========
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) Toronto, ON, Canada

See http://members.rogers.com/rheuman/index3.html

Copyright retained for what it is worth. If this is illegal
where you are, do not read it. Trademark also retained.....
 
Reply With Quote
 
lotas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2004
Hi

I thought i knew nothing about photography, but no i realize i know
absolutely nothing at all . Thanks for your answer. It's the most
comprehensive i've ever got on a newsgroup.

regards


> >regards

>
> ================================================== ==========
> (E-Mail Removed) Toronto, ON, Canada
>
> See http://members.rogers.com/rheuman/index3.html
>
> Copyright retained for what it is worth. If this is illegal
> where you are, do not read it. Trademark also retained.....

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Epson Perfection 2400 - scanning medium format film? spassig Digital Photography 1 10-13-2004 10:44 AM
Epson 3170 - scan slides at 24 or 48 bits? Sb083459 Digital Photography 2 10-12-2003 02:35 AM
Scanner-Epson 3170 Charlie Self Digital Photography 1 10-07-2003 11:53 AM
Epson 3170 Robert E. Williams Digital Photography 5 09-28-2003 08:28 PM
Having problems with new Epson 3170 Perfection Photo Scanner Idris Alooma Computer Support 0 09-01-2003 01:45 AM



Advertisments