Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 35mm processed to digital

Reply
Thread Tools

35mm processed to digital

 
 
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2005
rafe bustin wrote:
>
>
> Depends on how much time and effort (and skill, etc)
> you're willing to invest to get the very best image
> from a given piece of film.
>
> $150 isn't going to get you much of a scanner,
> unless you shop carefully for a vintage model on
> eBay or get very lucky. If that's your budget,
> you may be better off handing the job to Ritz.
>
> The Minolta 5400 is one of the best scanners
> available for 35 mm, and can be had now for
> around $700. A good scan of a sharp slide
> will easily beat a 6 Mpixel DSLR capture --
> but it will take some effort.
>
> I won't argue that digicams and DSLRs are
> quite a bit more convenient than shooting
> and scanning film. For "most practical
> purposes" 35 mm film has run its course,
> I agree.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com



Be careful of commercial digitizing also, if you want "best" images from
film. Not all scanning services are equal. In fact, Kodak used to
offer two different photo to CD-ROM services, differing in quality-
don't know whether they still do or not. So one has to choose the right
people if one doesn't do it himself.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2005
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>Be careful of commercial digitizing also, if you want "best" images from
>film. Not all scanning services are equal. In fact, Kodak used to
>offer two different photo to CD-ROM services, differing in quality-
>don't know whether they still do or not. So one has to choose the right
>people if one doesn't do it himself.


There seem to be *three* levels of quality available at least. Kodak
PhotoCD is 3072x2048 from a 35 mm source. Then there's Pro PhotoCD,
which is 6144x4096. These are both in PhotoCD format which is mildly
compressed (supposedly visually lossless) and has wide colour gamut (due
to the ability to store negative values).

And then there's the "photos on CD" service offered by lots of places,
which are relatively low-resolution JPEGs. These will not capture
what the film is capable of.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2005

"Dave Martindale" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:d0l13j$t2r$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> >Be careful of commercial digitizing also, if you want "best" images from
> >film. Not all scanning services are equal. In fact, Kodak used to
> >offer two different photo to CD-ROM services, differing in quality-
> >don't know whether they still do or not. So one has to choose the right
> >people if one doesn't do it himself.

>
> There seem to be *three* levels of quality available at least. Kodak
> PhotoCD is 3072x2048 from a 35 mm source. Then there's Pro PhotoCD,
> which is 6144x4096. These are both in PhotoCD format which is mildly
> compressed (supposedly visually lossless) and has wide colour gamut (due
> to the ability to store negative values).
>
> And then there's the "photos on CD" service offered by lots of places,
> which are relatively low-resolution JPEGs. These will not capture
> what the film is capable of.
>
> Dave


Is Kodak still offering PhotoCD? Dale Labs discontinued it, and I can't
order them through my warehouse club (they use Qualex). I thought that,
with all the scanners now available, Kodak might have dumped this service.

Anyone know if is still offered?


 
Reply With Quote
 
google_pstr@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-30-2005
Donald,

I had been a frequent user of "download all" for years. Today, I
realized why they abruptly replaced this with the labor intensive
method of having to download a single picture at a time. It's because
they now have a "New" box on the envelopes where you can get a CD for
about $1 more than what it cost to get the pictures online. So for
Wal-Mart it was a business decision to make the online downloading
harder in order to sell their CD service...how nice.

-Dave

 
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
Most 35mm format lenses can't cover 35mm full frame DSLR? einst_stein@yahoo.com Digital Photography 8 06-03-2005 11:25 PM
digital back on MF vs digital 35mm? ColdCanuck Digital Photography 6 01-14-2005 11:00 PM
How can I reset my directory to view digital images in the order taken, not processed? M. Souris Digital Photography 3 08-11-2003 07:14 PM
35mm negs to digital you suck Computer Support 9 08-08-2003 04:28 AM
Help - digital transfer of 35mm film o r b s c u r e DDJ Digital Photography 2 07-11-2003 05:14 PM



Advertisments