jmooney
Guy with a camera
Hi All,
I'm looking to pick up a fllm/slide scanner. I'm confounded by the resolution question. I'm going to be scanning for web sharing and printing up to 8X10. What resolution will serve my needs? I'd rather buy used as I don't have a huge budget for it. I'm also no a fan of PP so it would be nice to have automated dust removal and such. 35mm only is fine (APS would be nice as I have some I'd like to archive) I shoot some 6X6 but have an Epson flat bed I'll use for that as it seems that a dedicated film scanner that does MF is rather pricey.
Thanks for any light you can shed on this subject!
Jim
I'm looking to pick up a fllm/slide scanner. I'm confounded by the resolution question. I'm going to be scanning for web sharing and printing up to 8X10. What resolution will serve my needs? I'd rather buy used as I don't have a huge budget for it. I'm also no a fan of PP so it would be nice to have automated dust removal and such. 35mm only is fine (APS would be nice as I have some I'd like to archive) I shoot some 6X6 but have an Epson flat bed I'll use for that as it seems that a dedicated film scanner that does MF is rather pricey.
Thanks for any light you can shed on this subject!
Jim
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Do some searching on Google- there has been loads written on this subject. Basically, you want the highest resolution you can afford. It makes sense to scan always at the highest resolution available, and adjust the files for your intended uses afterwards, keeping a "master file" for archiving. For web use, you don't need a big file- you only want 72dpi, with the dimensions adjusted to size appropriate for the site you want to show on. For prints, you want a roughly 300dpi file sized to the dimensions of your intended print size. This means that you need to scan to at least 2700dpi to get a file with enough resolution to enlarge the 35mm original to 8x10 inches. So look for a scanner with at least 2700dpi of optical (non-interpolated!) resolution. This shouldn't be too hard, as most film scanners these days have resolutions higher than this. 4000dpi has been the norm for dedicated 35mm scanners for a while now, and the few new film scanners recently introduced seem to have gone up from there.
These days, there are flatbeds which have enough resolution for your needs, and these seem to be a good idea since they will do larger (and smaller) film, too- but the general consensus seems to be that dedicated film scanners to a better job with 35mm.
These days, there are flatbeds which have enough resolution for your needs, and these seem to be a good idea since they will do larger (and smaller) film, too- but the general consensus seems to be that dedicated film scanners to a better job with 35mm.
Last edited:
jmooney
Guy with a camera
Thanks Drew. That gives me a place to start. My flatbed is new enough to do the MF stuff but I have a lot of 35 I want to scan so I'm hoping to find one with some automation as well (slide feeder, etc).
Jim
Jim
venchka
Veteran
Why not use the Epson flatbed for 35mm also? For web sharing it'll be fine. For 8x10s it'll probably be fine too. Don't buy a film scanner until you've tried the Epson. Which model Epson is it? The 4990 does a very nice job with 35mm film.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
What flatbed are you using for the 120? It might do a decent job with the 35mm- there are a few out there which do. Unfortunately, I wouldn't hold out much hope for much automation- there are a couple of Nikon scanners with various film feeder accessories, but the combinations get very expensive quickly. Most scanners will have holders which will handle four to six frames, and that's about it. Furthermore, batch scanning tends to be a fairly iffy proposal- but this will be as much a software issue as a hardware one. If you can sort that out, batches will generally only give good results when scanning batches of like film which have been similarly exposed, since the settings will need to be tweaked according to these factors.
To bum you out further, my experience has been that most dust and scratch removal schemes are pretty useless. Negatives generally fool these things (Digital Ice doesn't work at all with silver-based film like negatives and Kodachromes- only with dye-based materials like color negs and E6 slide film, for instance). My point is that the only way I have really been able to get good results consistently is to scan each piece of film independently, tweaking my settings for best results, and then doing at least minimal clean-up work in PS afterwards. I then save a full resolution PSD or TIFF file for archiving, and make small files for any web sharing I want to do, and other files for printing, all from the master file which has been adjusted for best results.
Hopefully other folks will have more positive input on tools and techniques for good automation, but my experience with scanning has unfortunately been that for best results, almost each image needs at least ten minutes of individual attention, if not more. Anyway, good luck, and hopefully others can help us both get better (faster and easier) results!
To bum you out further, my experience has been that most dust and scratch removal schemes are pretty useless. Negatives generally fool these things (Digital Ice doesn't work at all with silver-based film like negatives and Kodachromes- only with dye-based materials like color negs and E6 slide film, for instance). My point is that the only way I have really been able to get good results consistently is to scan each piece of film independently, tweaking my settings for best results, and then doing at least minimal clean-up work in PS afterwards. I then save a full resolution PSD or TIFF file for archiving, and make small files for any web sharing I want to do, and other files for printing, all from the master file which has been adjusted for best results.
Hopefully other folks will have more positive input on tools and techniques for good automation, but my experience with scanning has unfortunately been that for best results, almost each image needs at least ten minutes of individual attention, if not more. Anyway, good luck, and hopefully others can help us both get better (faster and easier) results!
venchka
Veteran
Epson 4990 Samples
Epson 4990 Samples
Here's a 35mm sample. I know the scanner well. It belongs to a friend of mine & I've used with good results.
Epson 4990 Samples
Here's a 35mm sample. I know the scanner well. It belongs to a friend of mine & I've used with good results.
swoop
Well-known
For scans that I just want to do quick and put on the net I scan at 1200dpi. For scans I intend to keep and print, 4800dpi. I use an Epson V700. I think there's a low end Epson that'll fit your budget.
jmooney
Guy with a camera
The scanner I have is an Epson 4180. Should I just stick with that?
swoop
Well-known
After looking at scan results on flickr I'd say if you're just putting them on the net the 4180 is fine. If you don't have much of a budget I would suggest holding on to the 4180 for awhile and then putting more toward a high end scanner.
Flatbed scanners are a lot better than the reputation they once had. But a dedicated film scanner will give you much better quality.
Flatbed scanners are a lot better than the reputation they once had. But a dedicated film scanner will give you much better quality.