Film Scanning Question (20D equivalent)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Harry, Oct 21, 2005.

  1. Harry

    Harry Guest

    I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be the
    equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
    Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?
     
    Harry, Oct 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Harry

    W (winhag) Guest

    That's a hard one a bit of apples and oranges. I would just recommend
    getting a film scanner capable of at least 4000ppi (e.g. Nikon Coolscan
    5 or 5000) or the Minolta 5400 II (5400ppi). Having used both 35mm
    scans (4000ppi)and the 20D in my opinion, the scans will never be as
    good as your 20D images generally speaking even though they are scanned
    at a higher PPI, due to film response and grain.

    Harry wrote:
    > I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be the
    > equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
    > Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?
     
    W (winhag), Oct 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Harry

    Eatmorepies Guest

    "Harry" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be the
    > equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
    > Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?
    >
    >

    Try before you buy.

    I bought a 3600 film scanner 2 weeks ago - it's rather poor. The tonal range
    is much more limited than the negatives; I have compared the results with
    the original prints I made 30 years ago. I can't sort it out with Photoshop
    CS II - this may be my fault of course.

    Luckily the British firm of Jessops has a no quibble money back choice - I
    will be choosing this.

    John
     
    Eatmorepies, Oct 21, 2005
    #3
  4. Harry

    Colin D Guest

    Harry wrote:
    >
    > I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be the
    > equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
    > Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?


    Try using your 20D as a copier for the negatives. I do this with my
    300D, using a home-made cardboard holder taped to a slide light-box for
    the strips, and a macro lens. You'll need a copy stand, maybe use the
    column and arm of an old enlarger as I do. I use manual exposure,
    setting the aperture to f/11, speed 100 ISO, and set the shutter speed
    to the point where the histogram is just touching the right side of the
    graph (with no negative in place, so the camera is looking at peak white
    from the light-box).

    Then, in Photoshop, I invert the negative image from the 300D and use
    auto levels to adjust the image to a reasonably good positive. A few
    images need a bit of tweaking, but not many. (invert in PS-speak means
    changing the negative image to a positive image).

    Upside is the camera is way faster than any scanner, but you have to set
    up a custom white balance using the light-box illumination. Auto white
    balance destroys the masking in the negative and makes subsequent
    inverting difficult.

    If you are intending to buy a scanner, use the cash on a macro lens
    instead, IMO a much better use of the money. This setup is also
    excellent for copying old photographs as well.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Oct 21, 2005
    #4
  5. Harry

    Guest

    I remember the review of the Minolta 5400 II in AP they got there
    regular digital guy to do the test, he showed one 50% crop, that filled
    half an A3 spread from Fuji Provia 100 pushed to 400 and he said that
    he was astonished by the quality and that he could not think of a
    single consumer leval DSLR that could offer the same quility, so If I
    would you I would get that scanner.
     
    , Oct 21, 2005
    #5
  6. Harry

    Douglas... Guest

    Harry wrote:
    > I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be the
    > equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
    > Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?
    >
    >

    Here's the tip of the day...
    Get a print made from your negative - maybe 5* wide or so then scan that
    on a nice, middle of the range flat bed scanner and like magic, you'll
    have a scan to marvel at!

    Film scanners you can afford are best used for transparencies although
    up to about 8"x ## you get very nice prints from their neg scans. When a
    print is made from a negative by a mini lab, it is generally digitally
    adjusted to remove grain. If you scan a film with a film scanner the
    grain and the texture of the film itself are all in the resulting file.

    http://www.ryadia.com/film-digi.jpg shows you what you are up against.
    Film was scanned on a Nikon 5000 ED at default settings. A mid range
    scanner is under $500. An average film scanner is at least twice that.

    As usual, wear an aluminum skull cap if you don't like what I post. That
    way you won't get an obsession to stalk me because I'm constantly on
    your mind! ...Read that did you Brian Baird?

    --
    Douglas...
    Specifications are good to read but
    When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
    I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.
     
    Douglas..., Oct 22, 2005
    #6
  7. Harry

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>, Harry <> wrote:
    >I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be the
    >equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
    >Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?


    You'll need a pretty decent scanner to match the 20D from 35mm, and you'll
    also have to use slow slide film. If you're looking to get 20D-style quality
    from 35mm colour print film at, e.g. 200 ISO, then IME you're going to be
    very disappointed.
     
    Chris Brown, Oct 22, 2005
    #7
  8. Harry

    W (winhag) Guest

    That article must have been written quite a while ago, in my opinion, a
    20D cannot be matched by any 35mm color film positive or negative.
    Look at the comparisons at:
    http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/film_ccd/Garage/building.htm




    wrote:
    > I remember the review of the Minolta 5400 II in AP they got there
    > regular digital guy to do the test, he showed one 50% crop, that filled
    > half an A3 spread from Fuji Provia 100 pushed to 400 and he said that
    > he was astonished by the quality and that he could not think of a
    > single consumer leval DSLR that could offer the same quility, so If I
    > would you I would get that scanner.
     
    W (winhag), Oct 22, 2005
    #8
  9. Harry

    bmoag Guest

    Any dedicated film scanner from Minolta, Nikon or (if you can still get one)
    the Cannon 4000 will totally outperform the 20d and a transparency adapter.
     
    bmoag, Oct 22, 2005
    #9
  10. Harry

    Douglas... Guest

    bmoag wrote:
    > Any dedicated film scanner from Minolta, Nikon or (if you can still get one)
    > the Cannon 4000 will totally outperform the 20d and a transparency adapter.
    >
    >

    I have no axe to grind here but it is statements like this which tell me
    you don't own a digital camera - of any resolution. If you did and you
    used Photoshop or any of the other popular editing programs you'd know
    that even a 2 Megapixel image can, when interpolated, exceed the image
    quality of a 35mm film scanned on any of the scanners you mentioned.

    --
    Douglas...
    Specifications are good to read but
    When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
    I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.
     
    Douglas..., Oct 22, 2005
    #10
  11. "Douglas..." <> wrote in message
    news:4359b072$...
    > bmoag wrote:
    >> Any dedicated film scanner from Minolta, Nikon or (if you can still get
    >> one) the Cannon 4000 will totally outperform the 20d and a transparency
    >> adapter.

    > I have no axe to grind here but it is statements like this which tell me
    > you don't own a digital camera - of any resolution. If you did and you
    > used Photoshop or any of the other popular editing programs you'd know
    > that even a 2 Megapixel image can, when interpolated, exceed the image
    > quality of a 35mm film scanned on any of the scanners you mentioned.


    Oops. You misunderstood what bmoag said, which was, by the way, correct.

    Try reading it again.

    By the way, 2MP can't touch 35mm. That's really silly. You can interpolate
    all you want but you can't create detail, and 35mm (with Provia 100F)
    captures well over 6MP of detail that's easily extracted with any decent
    film scanner. My experience is that if you upsample a dSLR image by a factor
    of four (two linearly) you get an image that is worse than a good 4000 dpi
    scan. Which puts 6MP at just not quite good enough to complete with 35mm.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 22, 2005
    #11
  12. Harry

    Jim Guest

    On 2005-10-21 23:22:25 -0400, "Douglas..." <> said:

    > bmoag wrote:
    >> Any dedicated film scanner from Minolta, Nikon or (if you can still get
    >> one) the Cannon 4000 will totally outperform the 20d and a transparency
    >> adapter.
    >>

    > I have no axe to grind here but it is statements like this which tell
    > me you don't own a digital camera - of any resolution. If you did and
    > you used Photoshop or any of the other popular editing programs you'd
    > know that even a 2 Megapixel image can, when interpolated, exceed the
    > image quality of a 35mm film scanned on any of the scanners you
    > mentioned.


    Which is complete horse ******. I have a Nikon Coolscan IV 2900 dpi
    scans. I can make excellent 11x14's and have made OK 16x20' (suited the
    purpose, no match for large format film) There is nothing you can do
    to a 2 mp image to make even a marginally acceptable 8x10 much less an
    11x14. Even 6 mp images are marginals for 11x14.. 8's may make it.,
    I don't have an 8 mp camera to test with.
    --
    Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo
     
    Jim, Oct 22, 2005
    #12
  13. Harry

    Colin D Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > I remember the review of the Minolta 5400 II in AP they got there
    > regular digital guy to do the test, he showed one 50% crop, that filled
    > half an A3 spread from Fuji Provia 100 pushed to 400 and he said that
    > he was astonished by the quality and that he could not think of a
    > single consumer leval DSLR that could offer the same quility, so If I
    > would you I would get that scanner.


    With respect, that doesn't sound too likely to me. Provia pushed
    four-fold would never have the shadow capability of a digital shot from
    even a compact. let alone a good dslr.

    Let's not forget that the OP wants to scan 'old' negatives, that
    probably don't have the quality of modern films, and are probably
    consumer films to boot. It's pointless using a 4000 or 5,400 dpi
    scanner on such negs, plus which the image sizes are mammoth with scans
    at that dpi.

    The 20D will do a more than adequate job, with images useful up to at
    least A4, and I don't think he will be printing images from old
    negatives bigger than maybe 6x4 at any rate.

    Not to forget that scanners are s-l-o-w. He can shoot 20 or more images
    with the camera while the scanner is scanning one 4-frame strip.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Oct 22, 2005
    #13
  14. Harry

    Tony Polson Guest

    Jim wrote:

    >On 2005-10-21 23:22:25 -0400, "Douglas..." <> said:
    >
    >> bmoag wrote:
    >>> Any dedicated film scanner from Minolta, Nikon or (if you can still get
    >>> one) the Cannon 4000 will totally outperform the 20d and a transparency
    >>> adapter.
    >>>

    >> I have no axe to grind here but it is statements like this which tell
    >> me you don't own a digital camera - of any resolution. If you did and
    >> you used Photoshop or any of the other popular editing programs you'd
    >> know that even a 2 Megapixel image can, when interpolated, exceed the
    >> image quality of a 35mm film scanned on any of the scanners you
    >> mentioned.

    >
    >Which is complete horse ******.



    As is everything else Douglas posts - under any of his multiple
    identities. All we get is ridiculous assertions which are never, ever
    backed by any evidence.

    In Douglas's Dreamland, you could upsample a scan of a 4x6 inch print
    made from 100 film (ISO 400) to a 20 x 30 inch poster and it would
    have as much detail as a print from a 4x5 inch negative.

    ;-)
     
    Tony Polson, Oct 22, 2005
    #14
  15. Harry

    ian lincoln Guest

    "Eatmorepies" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Harry" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I am looking to buy a film scanner for my old negatives. What would be
    >>the
    >> equivalent scan settings for a 35mm negative, to be about the same as a
    >> Canon 20D 8MP image (if there is such a thing)?
    >>
    >>

    > Try before you buy.
    >
    > I bought a 3600 film scanner 2 weeks ago - it's rather poor. The tonal
    > range is much more limited than the negatives; I have compared the results
    > with the original prints I made 30 years ago. I can't sort it out with
    > Photoshop CS II - this may be my fault of course.
    >
    > Luckily the British firm of Jessops has a no quibble money back choice - I
    > will be choosing this.
    >
    > John


    Ah that explains it. Was it the manual feed 3600dpi jessops branded
    scanner? The model that is auto feed and can do a strip at a time is
    better. It also has proper ICE. Otherwise you want a £300+ flatbed scanner
    like the epson perfection series or the top end canon. Quality film
    scanning is an art in itself. If you really want to rival a 20D you are
    going to have to go high end. Such as Konica Minolta 5400II. Its not just
    the resolution that defines the final quality.
     
    ian lincoln, Oct 22, 2005
    #15
  16. Harry

    Douglas... Guest

    Tony Polson wrote:
    > Jim wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On 2005-10-21 23:22:25 -0400, "Douglas..." <> said:
    >>
    >>
    >>>bmoag wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Any dedicated film scanner from Minolta, Nikon or (if you can still get
    >>>>one) the Cannon 4000 will totally outperform the 20d and a transparency
    >>>>adapter.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>I have no axe to grind here but it is statements like this which tell
    >>>me you don't own a digital camera - of any resolution. If you did and
    >>>you used Photoshop or any of the other popular editing programs you'd
    >>>know that even a 2 Megapixel image can, when interpolated, exceed the
    >>>image quality of a 35mm film scanned on any of the scanners you
    >>>mentioned.

    >>
    >>Which is complete horse ******.

    >
    >
    >
    > As is everything else Douglas posts - under any of his multiple
    > identities. All we get is ridiculous assertions which are never, ever
    > backed by any evidence.
    >
    > In Douglas's Dreamland, you could upsample a scan of a 4x6 inch print
    > made from 100 film (ISO 400) to a 20 x 30 inch poster and it would
    > have as much detail as a print from a 4x5 inch negative.
    >
    > ;-)
    >
    >

    And you base this judgment on precisely what, Tony? Surely not your own
    photographic adventures (snigger) Maybe your scans of the trains I
    recently had the privilege of seeing are the source of your derision -
    sorry, decision.

    Certainly you are not one of my many satisfied customers who pay
    handsomely to have their pictures enlarged to 20"x 30" from 6"x 4"
    originals. The only precursor is that they are from a camera with a
    decent lens - same as most other big print requirements.

    Of course you people out of touch with reality will never comprehend
    anything you haven't made yourself. If your published photos are the
    measure of your ability... You have none to judge others with so why
    don't you just crawl back under your rock?

    --
    Douglas...
    Specifications are good to read but
    When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
    I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.
     
    Douglas..., Oct 22, 2005
    #16
  17. In article <4359C50A.541C57F7@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
    Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
    >Let's not forget that the OP wants to scan 'old' negatives, that
    >probably don't have the quality of modern films, and are probably
    >consumer films to boot. It's pointless using a 4000 or 5,400 dpi
    >scanner on such negs, plus which the image sizes are mammoth with scans
    >at that dpi.


    Just about any kind of film benefits from scanning at 4000 ppi or higher.
    The reason is that at lower resolution you risk grain aliasing.

    Old color negative film may have ugly grain, but it doesn't mean that the
    images are fuzzy.

    Using an 8 Mpixel camera is likely give results that are less sharp than a
    2700 dpi scanner. And 2nd hand LS-30s or LS-2000s don't cost all that much.
    And then there is ICE (unless the film is B/W or Kodachrome).


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 22, 2005
    #17
  18. Harry

    Tony Polson Guest

    "Douglas..." <> wrote:
    >
    >Certainly you are not one of my many satisfied customers who pay
    >handsomely to have their pictures enlarged to 20"x 30" from 6"x 4"
    >originals.



    Even if I lived for a thousand years, you can be sure I would avoid
    ever becoming a customer of yours.

    However, I congratulate you on your apparent ability to make a living
    from selling crap dressed up as something it clearly is not.
     
    Tony Polson, Oct 22, 2005
    #18
  19. Harry

    Alan Browne Guest

    Tony Polson wrote:

    > In Douglas's Dreamland, you could upsample a scan of a 4x6 inch print
    > made from 100 film (ISO 400) to a 20 x 30 inch poster and it would
    > have as much detail as a print from a 4x5 inch negative.


    If it were one of your train shots, that would hardly matter in any case.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 22, 2005
    #19
  20. "Douglas..." <> wrote in message
    news:4359b072$...
    > bmoag wrote:
    >> Any dedicated film scanner from Minolta, Nikon or (if you can still get
    >> one) the Cannon 4000 will totally outperform the 20d and a transparency
    >> adapter.

    > I have no axe to grind here but it is statements like this which tell me
    > you don't own a digital camera - of any resolution. If you did and you
    > used Photoshop or any of the other popular editing programs you'd know
    > that even a 2 Megapixel image can, when interpolated, exceed the image
    > quality of a 35mm film scanned on any of the scanners you mentioned.
    >

    Can't you, "interpolate" an image after (or before) scanning it into
    Photoshop with a 5000 ppi film scanner?
     
    William Graham, Oct 23, 2005
    #20
    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. Richard Kaszeta

    Re: Film camera equivalent to Canon 10D?

    Richard Kaszeta, Jul 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    392
    Allan Mayer
    Jul 28, 2003
  2. Doghouse Riley
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    3,892
    David J Taylor
    Aug 10, 2004
  3. germano

    Film 35mm :Equivalent resolution with 20 MPXL

    germano, Nov 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    526
  4. Ilya Zakharevich

    [LONG] Theoretical estimates for film-equivalent digital sens

    Ilya Zakharevich, Mar 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    789
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,953
    Michael Benveniste
    Jun 13, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page