Persistent Pixelization Problems Prevening Proper Print

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Scott, Dec 12, 2003.

  1. Scott

    Scott Guest

    Hi,
    Hopefully you gurus here can help me out. Scanning a negative with a
    Minolta Dual Image III scanner at full res, about 2800 dpi, results in a
    rather large viewable file (using Photoshop 7). The problem is that at 100%
    magnification, the picture is not smooth. Lots of 'close coloring'; a shot
    of my car which has a dark green finish had a resulting image in which you
    could clearly see darker green and lighter green pixels. Almost looked like
    a tv image when viewed very closely. Same with sky background, or trees,
    etc. Not smooth at all. Yet a shot taken with a 5mp digital, while not as
    sharp, was seamless. Full magnification, no problem.

    So what am I doing wrong? I have tried the scan at 8 bit w/pixel polish,
    8 bit w/o pp, 16 bit, with the dust utility on and off, and the unsharp mask
    both on and off. No joy.

    Ideas?

    Thanks,
    Scott
    Scott, Dec 12, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Scott

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:10:42 GMT, "Scott" <>
    wrote:

    >Hi,
    > Hopefully you gurus here can help me out. Scanning a negative with a
    >Minolta Dual Image III scanner at full res, about 2800 dpi, results in a
    >rather large viewable file (using Photoshop 7). The problem is that at 100%
    >magnification, the picture is not smooth. Lots of 'close coloring'; a shot
    >of my car which has a dark green finish had a resulting image in which you
    >could clearly see darker green and lighter green pixels. Almost looked like
    >a tv image when viewed very closely. Same with sky background, or trees,
    >etc. Not smooth at all. Yet a shot taken with a 5mp digital, while not as
    >sharp, was seamless. Full magnification, no problem.
    >
    > So what am I doing wrong? I have tried the scan at 8 bit w/pixel polish,
    >8 bit w/o pp, 16 bit, with the dust utility on and off, and the unsharp mask
    >both on and off. No joy.



    Downsample the film scan to 5 mpixels. That should
    make the film scan look a lot more like the digicam
    capture.

    Make sure your film scanner is properly focused.

    Film scans are only as good as the optics in the
    scanner, and only as good as the image being
    scanned. Yes, there may be 2x or 3x more pixels
    in the image that the scanner creates, but the
    actual information content is still limited by optics
    and other factors (eg., the quality of the scanner's
    analog electronics or A/D, etc.)

    You can see some typical film scans compared
    with typical digicam captures compared on a
    "constant film area" basis at the 2nd link below.

    Compare your Minolta scans to some of the 2667
    dpi scans on that page. (Although in the very best
    case, I don't think they'll be quite as sharp.)


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    film scanner & digicam comparisons
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
    Rafe B., Dec 12, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Scott

    gsum Guest

    You don't state what film you're using. At that
    resolution with say, Provia 100 or Kodak 100
    print film, grain will be plainly visible and will
    give the effects that you describe.

    Graham


    "Scott" <> wrote in message
    news:SkaCb.368776$ao4.1237456@attbi_s51...
    > Hi,
    > Hopefully you gurus here can help me out. Scanning a negative with a
    > Minolta Dual Image III scanner at full res, about 2800 dpi, results in a
    > rather large viewable file (using Photoshop 7). The problem is that at

    100%
    > magnification, the picture is not smooth. Lots of 'close coloring'; a

    shot
    > of my car which has a dark green finish had a resulting image in which you
    > could clearly see darker green and lighter green pixels. Almost looked

    like
    > a tv image when viewed very closely. Same with sky background, or trees,
    > etc. Not smooth at all. Yet a shot taken with a 5mp digital, while not

    as
    > sharp, was seamless. Full magnification, no problem.
    >
    > So what am I doing wrong? I have tried the scan at 8 bit w/pixel

    polish,
    > 8 bit w/o pp, 16 bit, with the dust utility on and off, and the unsharp

    mask
    > both on and off. No joy.
    >
    > Ideas?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Scott
    >
    >
    gsum, Dec 12, 2003
    #3
    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. dmorgan1

    why's my bridge un-persistent?

    dmorgan1, Aug 2, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    397
    dmorgan1
    Aug 2, 2005
  2. [iMpLoDe]
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    6,154
    [iMpLoDe]
    Jan 17, 2005
  3. Sascha E. Pollok

    Cisco dialer-persistent reconnect delay

    Sascha E. Pollok, Mar 20, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,191
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    552
  5. Bun Mui
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    800
    Phantom
    Sep 13, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page