35mm scanned to CD - only 2MP resolution being offered by the labs?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by P G, Dec 29, 2003.

  1. P G

    P G Guest

    Hi,

    Do people have any recommations on the best way to get my 35mm scanned?
    Reason for asking is that I looked into the fine print at the places which
    offer film development and the images they are offering to burn on CD seem
    to be only 1 or 2 MP - I believe 35mm has a theoretical limit of 6 MP
    (roughly), so I am not too inclined to take the labs up on their offers just
    yet.

    Thanks!
    Paul
    P G, Dec 29, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. P G

    JR Guest

    If you need alot of it, then buy a scanner. If not go to a Pro Lab, not
    a mini lab type place. A Pro lab will scan it at a very high
    resolution, but at a premium cost. And 35mm has a theoretical of about
    12-16MP for slow slide film...

    JR
    JR, Dec 29, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. P G

    Tom Monego Guest

    If you don't want to buy a scanner, get a Kodak PHOTO CD made. www.imagers.com
    does it for $.90 per image. 18 meg (6mp) files actually 5 resolutions from
    thumbnail to 18meg.

    Tom

    In article <ujKHb.63935$VB2.124427@attbi_s51>, says...
    >
    >Hi,
    >
    >Do people have any recommations on the best way to get my 35mm scanned?
    >Reason for asking is that I looked into the fine print at the places which
    >offer film development and the images they are offering to burn on CD seem
    >to be only 1 or 2 MP - I believe 35mm has a theoretical limit of 6 MP
    >(roughly), so I am not too inclined to take the labs up on their offers just
    >yet.
    >
    >Thanks!
    >Paul
    >
    >
    Tom Monego, Dec 29, 2003
    #3
  4. "P G" <> wrote in
    news:ujKHb.63935$VB2.124427@attbi_s51:
    > Do people have any recommations on the best way to get my 35mm

    scanned?

    I got awful results from local "professional" labs here in the
    Norfolk, VA area, and they charged me a huge amount of money per
    slide to do it.

    I got much better results for a more reasonable cost per slide here:
    http://www.digitalley.com

    You can see some of the results from digitalley.com here:
    http://www.mindspring.com/~dreamflier/Films-vs-Coolpix.html

    and here:
    http://www.mindspring.com/~tony1964/Films-vs-Coolpix-Pg2.html

    I also had good luck using my Nikon Coolpix 5000 on a tripod with an
    old-fashioned slide viewer:
    http://tinyurl.com/269pm

    And, you can buy a $70 slide duplicating adapter that fits a variety
    of Nikon Coolpix cameras:
    http://tinyurl.com/3b4gu

    This adapter would be easier to use and produce more consistent
    results than trying to photograph through a slide viewer. It would
    also be very fast and not require as much image editing if any.

    And finally, my newest toy is a $200 Epson Perfection 3170 scanner.
    It comes with adapters for scanning 35mm slides and negatives and
    medium format slides and negatives. The results are much inferior to
    the digitalley.com scans which were done with a dedicated film
    scanner, but still pretty good - good enough for 8x10s. However, I
    think the results would be as good or better with a 4 or 5 megapixel
    Coolpix and the slide duplicating adapter, and MUCH faster. But You
    wouldn't be able to do negatives with the Nikon adapter. It takes 4
    or 5 minutes per 35mm slide or negative with the scanner, and the
    resulting images are huge - very time consuming to edit.









    --
    To email me, type my 1st name before my last.
    Tony Whitaker, Dec 29, 2003
    #4
  5. P G

    stanb Guest

    "P G" <> wrote in message
    news:ujKHb.63935$VB2.124427@attbi_s51...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Do people have any recommations on the best way to get my 35mm scanned?
    > Reason for asking is that I looked into the fine print at the places which
    > offer film development and the images they are offering to burn on CD seem
    > to be only 1 or 2 MP - I believe 35mm has a theoretical limit of 6 MP
    > (roughly), so I am not too inclined to take the labs up on their offers

    just
    > yet.
    >
    > Thanks!
    > Paul
    >
    >

    RU surprised with thelow resolution? as soon as they give you the disk they
    give away any chance of any profit on reprints... At least with low res you
    might go back for enlargements.

    With the limited experience I've had with the photo cds - most have also
    been very noisey, and contain a lot of scratches / dust marks... and needed
    a lot of work to prepare for reprints...If you want only a few scans done
    then try the proffessional labs, or get a film scanner
    stanb, Dec 29, 2003
    #5
  6. P G

    HANSTEIS Guest

    >I got awful results from local "professional" labs here in the
    >Norfolk, VA area, and they charged me a huge amount of money per
    >slide to do it.
    >
    >I got much better results for a more reasonable cost per slide here:
    >http://www.digitalley.com


    Can anyone recommend a lab for scans of 6x6 and 6x7 cm negatives?

    (John Stanley)
    Oh, threats of hell and hopes of Paradise--
    One thing at least is certain: This life flies.
    One thing is certain, and the rest is lies:
    The rose that once has blown forever dies.
    HANSTEIS, Dec 29, 2003
    #6
  7. P G

    Tom Monego Guest

    The least expensive is the Kodak ProPhoto CD again www.imagers.com 6
    resolutions to 70mb for about $12 each.
    If you have a lot buy a Nikon/Minolta/Polaroid/Microtek medium format scanner,
    all are very good, Nikon being the best Polaroid the cheapest but probably not
    supported by polaroid.

    Tom

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    >>I got awful results from local "professional" labs here in the
    >>Norfolk, VA area, and they charged me a huge amount of money per
    >>slide to do it.
    >>
    >>I got much better results for a more reasonable cost per slide here:
    >>http://www.digitalley.com

    >
    >Can anyone recommend a lab for scans of 6x6 and 6x7 cm negatives?
    >
    > (John Stanley)
    >Oh, threats of hell and hopes of Paradise--
    >One thing at least is certain: This life flies.
    >One thing is certain, and the rest is lies:
    >The rose that once has blown forever dies.
    >
    Tom Monego, Dec 29, 2003
    #7
  8. "Tom Monego" <> wrote:

    > The least expensive is the Kodak ProPhoto CD again www.imagers.com 6
    > resolutions to 70mb for about $12 each.


    That's a good price if it's the max resolution, which is only 1800 dpi for
    MF. From MF slides, Kodak ProPhoto CD are very very nice: extremely sharp,
    saturated colors. If you've been using an Epson flatbed, your socks will be
    knocked off. (Assuming they do as good a job as the lab in Tokyo that hit me
    for US$25 a scan plus $25 for the CD and $25 for "opening" the CD. Ouch.)

    > If you have a lot buy a Nikon/Minolta/Polaroid/Microtek medium format

    scanner,
    > all are very good, Nikon being the best Polaroid the cheapest but probably

    not
    > supported by polaroid.


    I'm quite sure the Polaroid name will not appear anywhere on the Microtek
    120tf. I agree that the Nikon is the best, but that's a dangerous thing to
    say, since the Minolta fans are vociverous and there are a couple of
    obnoxious jerks out there who violently object to either the 8000 or Nikon
    scanners in general<g>.

    The Nikon scanners use LEDs and make all 4 exposures (RGB and IR) for a
    given pixel without moving the film, guaranteeing perfect registration. This
    comes at the cost of less light on the film requiring a faster lens with
    less DOF.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 29, 2003
    #8
  9. P G

    Tom Monego Guest

    David.


    >
    >> The least expensive is the Kodak ProPhoto CD again www.imagers.com 6
    >> resolutions to 70mb for about $12 each.

    >
    >That's a good price if it's the max resolution, which is only 1800 dpi for
    >MF. From MF slides, Kodak ProPhoto CD are very very nice: extremely sharp,
    >saturated colors. If you've been using an Epson flatbed, your socks will be
    >knocked off. (Assuming they do as good a job as the lab in Tokyo that hit me
    >for US$25 a scan plus $25 for the CD and $25 for "opening" the CD. Ouch.)


    It is $12 for the full res scan and $10 for the standard res (70mb file vs 18mb
    file) plus $10 for the CD, up to, I think, 25 full res scans to a CD. Imagers
    does a good job.
    >
    >> If you have a lot buy a Nikon/Minolta/Polaroid/Microtek medium format

    >scanner,
    >> all are very good, Nikon being the best Polaroid the cheapest but probably

    >not
    >> supported by polaroid.

    >
    >I'm quite sure the Polaroid name will not appear anywhere on the Microtek
    >120tf. I agree that the Nikon is the best, but that's a dangerous thing to
    >say, since the Minolta fans are vociverous and there are a couple of
    >obnoxious jerks out there who violently object to either the 8000 or Nikon
    >scanners in general<g>.
    >
    >The Nikon scanners use LEDs and make all 4 exposures (RGB and IR) for a
    >given pixel without moving the film, guaranteeing perfect registration. This
    >comes at the cost of less light on the film requiring a faster lens with
    >less DOF.


    I have had friends that have had severe problems with earlier Nikon scanners so
    I understand where the anti Nikon sentiment lies. But short of an Imacon or a
    desk to drum scanner the 8000 is great.

    Tom
    Tom Monego, Dec 30, 2003
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mr_Bill
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    478
    Boomer
    May 5, 2004
  2. Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³

    Nikon D70 Being Offered

    Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³, Feb 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    671
    teebo
    Feb 18, 2004
  3. Megan

    Being scanned by my router

    Megan, Dec 27, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    606
    donnie
    Dec 27, 2004
  4. Ned Buntline

    Print Resolution of Scanned Image

    Ned Buntline, Mar 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    442
  5. Jim Waggener
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    312
Loading...

Share This Page