epson 2400 photo vs 3170 regarding 35 mm film scans

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by lotas, May 27, 2004.

  1. lotas

    lotas Guest

    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
     
    lotas, May 27, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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" <3m.es> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Gene Palmiter, May 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. lotas

    Frank ess Guest

    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
     
    Frank ess, May 27, 2004
    #3
  4. lotas

    Ken Weitzel Guest


    >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
     
    Ken Weitzel, May 27, 2004
    #4
  5. lotas

    lotas Guest

    "Frank ess" <> wrote in message news:<vintc.20434$>...
    > 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
     
    lotas, May 27, 2004
    #5
  6. lotas

    Guest

    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!
     
    , May 28, 2004
    #6
  7. lotas

    Guest

    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.


    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


    ============================================================
    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.....
     
    , Jun 1, 2004
    #7
  8. lotas

    lotas Guest

    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

    >
    > ============================================================
    > 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.....
     
    lotas, Jun 7, 2004
    #8
    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. Idris Alooma
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    832
    Idris Alooma
    Sep 1, 2003
  2. Robert E. Williams

    Epson 3170

    Robert E. Williams, Sep 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    783
    David R
    Sep 28, 2003
  3. Charlie Self

    Scanner-Epson 3170

    Charlie Self, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    467
    Stewy
    Oct 7, 2003
  4. Sb083459

    Epson 3170 - scan slides at 24 or 48 bits?

    Sb083459, Oct 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,257
  5. spassig

    Epson Perfection 2400 - scanning medium format film?

    spassig, Oct 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    773
    Gene Palmiter
    Oct 13, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page