Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > neg scanning

Reply
Thread Tools

neg scanning

 
 
michaelG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2006
Hoping that someone here can give me an idea of which course of action to
take regards scanning all my old negs. I have a lot of negs that each came
with a Jessops cd containing scans of each image at about 800kb. I can also
borrow a friends scanner and scan those same negs so that I have images at
about 2000kb. I don't anticipate ever wanting to print at 8*12, or cropping
to any great extent. What I am not sure about is, if I did want to print at
8*12 inches, would a professionally scanned neg at 800kb be better than a
2000kb file done at home using a borrowed scanner (Minolta Dimage Elite
5400)? Any generally useful comments would b appreciated.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tesco News
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2006
"michaelG" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:duigkv$3g6$(E-Mail Removed)-infra.bt.com...
> Hoping that someone here can give me an idea of which course of action to
> take regards scanning all my old negs. I have a lot of negs that each
> came with a Jessops cd containing scans of each image at about 800kb. I
> can also borrow a friends scanner and scan those same negs so that I have
> images at about 2000kb. I don't anticipate ever wanting to print at 8*12,
> or cropping to any great extent. What I am not sure about is, if I did
> want to print at 8*12 inches, would a professionally scanned neg at 800kb
> be better than a 2000kb file done at home using a borrowed scanner
> (Minolta Dimage Elite 5400)? Any generally useful comments would b
> appreciated.

Hi.

Would an 800Kb Scan be better than a 2 Mb Scan?

Stupid question, but if you must have an answer, it has to be "No Way"

You might not realise it, but a Minolta 5400 is capable of producing a 230Mb
Scan from a 35mm Neg or Slide.

Roy G



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2006
michaelG wrote:
> Hoping that someone here can give me an idea of which course of action to
> take regards scanning all my old negs. I have a lot of negs that each came
> with a Jessops cd containing scans of each image at about 800kb. I can also
> borrow a friends scanner and scan those same negs so that I have images at
> about 2000kb. I don't anticipate ever wanting to print at 8*12, or cropping
> to any great extent. What I am not sure about is, if I did want to print at
> 8*12 inches, would a professionally scanned neg at 800kb be better than a
> 2000kb file done at home using a borrowed scanner (Minolta Dimage Elite
> 5400)? Any generally useful comments would b appreciated.


800KB is a very small file for a scanned negative. Due to the grain in
film scans they don't compress at all well, this makes the 800 KB
number very low.

I would be looking at file sizes a fair bit larger then 2MB for your
scans, even as jpeg. I think you are going to be looking at more like 8
- 10MB as a jpeg file to get a good quality image.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Ellwood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2006
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:29:36 +0000, michaelG wrote:

> Hoping that someone here can give me an idea of which course of action to
> take regards scanning all my old negs. I have a lot of negs that each came
> with a Jessops cd containing scans of each image at about 800kb. I can also
> borrow a friends scanner and scan those same negs so that I have images at
> about 2000kb. I don't anticipate ever wanting to print at 8*12, or cropping
> to any great extent. What I am not sure about is, if I did want to print at
> 8*12 inches, would a professionally scanned neg at 800kb be better than a
> 2000kb file done at home using a borrowed scanner (Minolta Dimage Elite
> 5400)? Any generally useful comments would b appreciated.

Why not just copy the Jessops cd?
--
Neil
Delete 'l' to reply by email
 
Reply With Quote
 
michaelG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2006
I'm thinking of keeping the Jessops 8ookb for my neg bakups for those negs
that are not ever going to be blown up above 6*4. For the others I'm not
sure quite what to do. Many of my negs are now battered and scratched and I
noticed that an 800kb scan at the shop removes the scratches, whereas my
scan would take a very long time to scan and remove scratches at the same
time. I don't have the time to scan at very high resolution and use ICE.
My other concern relates to wether the higher resolution is going to make a
noticable difference for a A4 size print. My friends compact camera
produces jpeg images of about 4-5MB, his Nikon F70 of about 2MB. When he
prints images from the diffreent cameras at A4 size the Nikon wins, always.
As I said, any comments appreciated, before I start scanning. There are
about 1000 scans to do!



"Neil Ellwood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed) m...
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:29:36 +0000, michaelG wrote:
>
>> Hoping that someone here can give me an idea of which course of action to
>> take regards scanning all my old negs. I have a lot of negs that each
>> came
>> with a Jessops cd containing scans of each image at about 800kb. I can
>> also
>> borrow a friends scanner and scan those same negs so that I have images
>> at
>> about 2000kb. I don't anticipate ever wanting to print at 8*12, or
>> cropping
>> to any great extent. What I am not sure about is, if I did want to print
>> at
>> 8*12 inches, would a professionally scanned neg at 800kb be better than
>> a
>> 2000kb file done at home using a borrowed scanner (Minolta Dimage Elite
>> 5400)? Any generally useful comments would b appreciated.

> Why not just copy the Jessops cd?
> --
> Neil
> Delete 'l' to reply by email



 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Meyer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2006
michaelG wrote:
> Hoping that someone here can give me an idea of which course of action to
> take regards scanning all my old negs. I have a lot of negs that each came
> with a Jessops cd containing scans of each image at about 800kb. I can also
> borrow a friends scanner and scan those same negs so that I have images at
> about 2000kb. I don't anticipate ever wanting to print at 8*12, or cropping
> to any great extent. What I am not sure about is, if I did want to print at
> 8*12 inches, would a professionally scanned neg at 800kb be better than a
> 2000kb file done at home using a borrowed scanner (Minolta Dimage Elite
> 5400)? Any generally useful comments would b appreciated.


The numbers you offer aren't sufficient for making judgements unless
you tell us what they represent. Are those compressed or uncompressed
values? Is the compression the same in each case? What are the
uncompressed numbers for each technique?

But in a way, that's all besides the point. What you really need to
do to make a decision is to scan one of the negatives with the Minolta
scanner and then print both it and the professional scanned image
and examine them. You don't need to print at 8x12, but if you print
at a smaller size, crop a part so that it is shown at the same size
it would appear in an 8x12 print.

Be sure to choose an image that has some fine detail in it. Broad
shapes will look good even at low resolutions but fine detail will be
lost if the scan resolution is too low.

If the 800kb image looks as good as the other to your eye, or if it
looks good enough, you've got your answer. If not, you've also got
an answer.

I went through similar decision making processes to try to determine
how many megapixels I needed in scans and photos, and how much
to compress images. In the end, I decided that what I needed for
me was less than what a graphics artist would demand. I threw in
a little extra on the theory that I might later want more than I want
now, but I still don't try to produce perfect high res images for my
personal, family use.

Alan

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tesco News
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2006

"michaelG" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:duk7ls$9fp$(E-Mail Removed)-infra.bt.com...
> I'm thinking of keeping the Jessops 8ookb for my neg bakups for those
> negs that are not ever going to be blown up above 6*4. For the others I'm
> not sure quite what to do. Many of my negs are now battered and scratched
> and I noticed that an 800kb scan at the shop removes the scratches,
> whereas my scan would take a very long time to scan and remove scratches
> at the same time. I don't have the time to scan at very high resolution
> and use ICE. My other concern relates to wether the higher resolution is
> going to make a noticable difference for a A4 size print. My friends
> compact camera produces jpeg images of about 4-5MB, his Nikon F70 of about
> 2MB. When he prints images from the diffreent cameras at A4 size the Nikon
> wins, always. As I said, any comments appreciated, before I start
> scanning. There are about 1000 scans to do!
>

Hi.

You seem to be giving some mixed information here.

When you speak of file sizes do you mean a Jpeg which has been compressed
and the size is being read off the Icon, after the image has been closed.

I suspect so, because a Nikon D70 will produce an image size of about 18Mb.

6Mp sensor working in 3 colours, 6x3 = 18mb

If Jpeg compression is applied the file size on disc (closed) could be 2Mb,
( or less), but when opened for printing or editing, in a program it will be
18Mb.

There is no way anyone can give you advice based on the closed file sizes of
compressed Jpegs.

Not only that but the Compression process will discard information, and the
quality will suffer.

When an image is open for printing, you need a resolution of 300 Pixels per
Inch for a good quality print. For a 6 x 4 that means 6x300x4x300 Pixels (
2.1Mb).

As I said earlier a Minolta 5400 is capable of producing a 230Mb scan from a
35mm frame. It can do so in 45 secs without the use of ICE or Grain
Dissolver. This time does not include Preview Scans or time for Adjustments.
Using a lower resolution scan will not really save any of that time.

Have a read at www.scantips.com

Roy G


 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Ellwood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-08-2006
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:08:45 +0000, michaelG wrote:

> I'm thinking of keeping the Jessops 8ookb for my neg bakups for those negs
> that are not ever going to be blown up above 6*4. For the others I'm not
> sure quite what to do. Many of my negs are now battered and scratched and I
> noticed that an 800kb scan at the shop removes the scratches, whereas my
> scan would take a very long time to scan and remove scratches at the same
> time. I don't have the time to scan at very high resolution and use ICE.
> My other concern relates to wether the higher resolution is going to make a
> noticable difference for a A4 size print. My friends compact camera
> produces jpeg images of about 4-5MB, his Nikon F70 of about 2MB. When he
> prints images from the diffreent cameras at A4 size the Nikon wins, always.
> As I said, any comments appreciated, before I start scanning. There are
> about 1000 scans to do!

For an individual neg. the old method with a darkroom (b+w) was to put a
pool of clear oil such as medicinal liquid parafin on the cover glass
place the neg (rear side to oil) on the glass and place in the enlarger
and carry on as normal. I don't know if you could do this with any scanner
available now.

--
Neil
Delete 'l' to reply by email
 
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
Medium Format Neg Scanning?? Mike in Dallas Digital Photography 4 10-21-2004 06:02 PM
flatbed scanners with neg film scanning ability ? Beowulf Digital Photography 7 09-01-2004 10:10 PM
Batch B&W neg scanning: mscan? Dominic Richens Digital Photography 3 03-04-2004 04:39 PM
Eos 10D as a MF neg scanner? Warren Jones Digital Photography 8 08-18-2003 04:09 PM
Color neg to CD to printer...or? ArtKramr Digital Photography 0 07-28-2003 05:44 PM



Advertisments