van_d
Established
There's a difference between scanning at 300dpi and printing at 300dpi? I don't do any of my own printing, so I don't know much about how that end works.
thegman
Veteran
Yes, quite a big difference. Scanning at 300dpi on a 35mm negative would only give you an image of about 360 pixels wide.
Printing at 300dpi causes the printer to attempt to fit 300 dots of ink into an inch of paper.
So if we take the Pakon scanner as an example, that will give you a 3000 pixel wide image from a 35mm negative. A 35mm negative is roughly 1.4 inches wide, so that means the Pakon is scanning at about 2100 dpi.
As a point of comparison, the Nikon Coolscan V scans at 4000dpi.
Of course, the DPI numbers are theoretical, the lens the scanner uses may not actually be able to resolve that much detail. Also, depending on your film/technique/processing, there could easily be less detail than that on the negative.
Printing at 300dpi causes the printer to attempt to fit 300 dots of ink into an inch of paper.
So if we take the Pakon scanner as an example, that will give you a 3000 pixel wide image from a 35mm negative. A 35mm negative is roughly 1.4 inches wide, so that means the Pakon is scanning at about 2100 dpi.
As a point of comparison, the Nikon Coolscan V scans at 4000dpi.
Of course, the DPI numbers are theoretical, the lens the scanner uses may not actually be able to resolve that much detail. Also, depending on your film/technique/processing, there could easily be less detail than that on the negative.
van_d
Established
Thanks, that makes sense and will come in handy as I do eventually hope to begin printing myself...one of these days 
You keep mentioning the Pakon scanners...is there a model in particular you're referring to? The F235 keeps popping up when I do a search, but it doesn't seem like it's still made.
You keep mentioning the Pakon scanners...is there a model in particular you're referring to? The F235 keeps popping up when I do a search, but it doesn't seem like it's still made.
dasuess
Nikon Freak
As I continue my process of scanning my 40 tears of B+W negatives using my V600 scanner, I am amazed that the ability to print to 8x10 and beyond is not limited by the resolution of the scanner, but rather by my ability to focus and hold the camera steady.
I have 35mm images taken 40 years ago that are sharp and stunning when printed to 11x14 and also look great full screen on a 27 inch monitor.
I have 35mm images taken 40 years ago that are sharp and stunning when printed to 11x14 and also look great full screen on a 27 inch monitor.
van_d
Established
The issue I'm having though isn't to do with things being in focus, though, it's just poor resolution.
Here is one of the more problematic photos. IIRC it was at 3200dpi, if not higher, and scanned on my V500 and rescanning on my V600 exhibits the same problems.
Full size.
Here is one of the more problematic photos. IIRC it was at 3200dpi, if not higher, and scanned on my V500 and rescanning on my V600 exhibits the same problems.
Full size.
van_d
Established
Same photo, scanned on the V600
rjstep3
Established
I can't help thinking the OP is wanting to do a bit of pixel-peeping.
To be honest, using my V700 turns out decent scans of 35mm and 120 film - decent, so long as you don't want to blow them up wall size and look at them through a magnifying glass.
If you go the Plustek route, I would get one with an IT8 slide included, it costs more, but you will be able to calibrate your scanner to get better colours out of the thing.
I don't like the Plustek 8200 - the holders are not kept firmly in the device, meaning that every slide is slightly at an angle. The Reflecta is better for this, plus it has a little window so that you can view your picture first before deciding whether it is worth scanning.
TBH, if you are batch-scanning a vast amount of old films, the V600 will do this faster. The Plustek/Reflecta models are really for scanning in a few images from a roll of film. I can't imagine sitting there for hours on end scanning in a whole roll of film with my Plustek. Life's too short.
Vuescan - is good scanning software, compatible with a vast range of scanners, including Plustek and Reflecta, as well as the V600/V700, and capable (in the right hands) of turning in better results than the Epson software which comes bundled with the V600. It needs some persevering with, but I get great results from it and my Plustek 120 (which is whirring away in the background even now, scanning my images of Myanmar over last Christmas).
I suspect you are going to need to come up with more money than your budget though.
rjstep3
To be honest, using my V700 turns out decent scans of 35mm and 120 film - decent, so long as you don't want to blow them up wall size and look at them through a magnifying glass.
If you go the Plustek route, I would get one with an IT8 slide included, it costs more, but you will be able to calibrate your scanner to get better colours out of the thing.
I don't like the Plustek 8200 - the holders are not kept firmly in the device, meaning that every slide is slightly at an angle. The Reflecta is better for this, plus it has a little window so that you can view your picture first before deciding whether it is worth scanning.
TBH, if you are batch-scanning a vast amount of old films, the V600 will do this faster. The Plustek/Reflecta models are really for scanning in a few images from a roll of film. I can't imagine sitting there for hours on end scanning in a whole roll of film with my Plustek. Life's too short.
Vuescan - is good scanning software, compatible with a vast range of scanners, including Plustek and Reflecta, as well as the V600/V700, and capable (in the right hands) of turning in better results than the Epson software which comes bundled with the V600. It needs some persevering with, but I get great results from it and my Plustek 120 (which is whirring away in the background even now, scanning my images of Myanmar over last Christmas).
I suspect you are going to need to come up with more money than your budget though.
rjstep3
van_d
Established
The V700 and V600 are different models, though. I would hope for triple the cost, it yields better results!
As far as pixel-peeping, perhaps a bit, though to be honest this has only become front of mind since I recently got an 8x10 that was a bit pixely. I am trying a few different tricks with my V600 and although I see little difference on screen, it may produce better results in print.
If the test prints come back fine, then I think I will have bought some time, but ideally, a higher quality 35mm scanner would be better long-term.
I agree that the Plustek/Reflecta frame-by-frame scanners wouldn't be ideal for scanning a whole roll. I was thinking about that, and came to the conclusion that I'd still need my V600 for MF, so I could also keep it for quick 35mm scans and then decide from there which few need the sharper scan.
What would be a better budget, then?
As far as pixel-peeping, perhaps a bit, though to be honest this has only become front of mind since I recently got an 8x10 that was a bit pixely. I am trying a few different tricks with my V600 and although I see little difference on screen, it may produce better results in print.
If the test prints come back fine, then I think I will have bought some time, but ideally, a higher quality 35mm scanner would be better long-term.
I agree that the Plustek/Reflecta frame-by-frame scanners wouldn't be ideal for scanning a whole roll. I was thinking about that, and came to the conclusion that I'd still need my V600 for MF, so I could also keep it for quick 35mm scans and then decide from there which few need the sharper scan.
What would be a better budget, then?
rjstep3
Established
LOL I mean, how much have you got?
You have to appreciate that film is a very limited market, so between a Plustek 8200 at £300 odd and a Plustek 120 at £2,000 odd, there isn't a great deal of choice. In fact there is none AFAIK.
If you really really love film and want to stick with it, I'd get the best money can buy. Otherwise, a V600 will always be a compromise, not a bad one, but there will always be something missing.
The other thing you can do is learn how to scan better, get the best out of your kit. There are some useful websites out there with great tips for better scanning. Learn how to use the histogram and unsharp mask tools in PhotoShop (Elements). These skills can squeeze extra quality from average kit. So can learning your way around Vuescan.
Looking at your posts, I'd go that route for the moment while saving your pennies for some serious expenditure on a proper scanner in the future. Scanning isn't easy, I'm still learning after a couple of years, even took a course on it at a photography school, there is much to learn. When you learn a bit more you look at your old scans and want to do them all over again .....
rjstep3
rjstep3
Established
van_d
Established
LOL! I should've expected that after asking that. 350-400CAD would be an ideal cap, but I could do a bit higher than that if necessary. A 2000+ CAD Plustek 120 is definitely out of my budget, though.
Yes, I am trying to make the best out of my scanning regimen by trying different tips and tricks. The V500 scan of that photo is horrible above 5x7 in print, and you can tell it becomes pixel-ated very quickly. My V600 rescans were like that at first, but the version posted above included scanning as 48-bit colour (instead of 16-bit B&W) as a TIFF, then converting to B&W and re-saving as a JPEG. The difference isn't that noticeable, but it is there and I will see how that translates into print when I get that back from my lab.
Would something like Vuescan potentially help with my V600? And thanks for the link to scantips.com, I will give that link a whirl.
And save my pennies? What pennies? We don't have those archaic coins in Canada anymore.
Yes, I am trying to make the best out of my scanning regimen by trying different tips and tricks. The V500 scan of that photo is horrible above 5x7 in print, and you can tell it becomes pixel-ated very quickly. My V600 rescans were like that at first, but the version posted above included scanning as 48-bit colour (instead of 16-bit B&W) as a TIFF, then converting to B&W and re-saving as a JPEG. The difference isn't that noticeable, but it is there and I will see how that translates into print when I get that back from my lab.
Would something like Vuescan potentially help with my V600? And thanks for the link to scantips.com, I will give that link a whirl.
And save my pennies? What pennies? We don't have those archaic coins in Canada anymore
.rjstep3
Established
Vuescan gives vastly more control than Epsonscan, but it comes with a steep learning curve.
BTW I don't see anything wrong with your posted scans, seems like you're getting good detail to me. Detail isn't everything, otherwise you may as well use your money to get a digital camera.
I just can't understand how you are seeing pixellation scanning at 3200 and printing at A4. Is it the printing that's at issue here?
rjstep3
BTW I don't see anything wrong with your posted scans, seems like you're getting good detail to me. Detail isn't everything, otherwise you may as well use your money to get a digital camera.
I just can't understand how you are seeing pixellation scanning at 3200 and printing at A4. Is it the printing that's at issue here?
rjstep3
thegman
Veteran
To be fair, I think most of us pixel-peep or grain-peep a little but. Bokeh peeping is a similar condition too.
Looking at the full size scan on Flickr, the biggest one is only something like 1000 pixels across, and if that is the biggest scan, then yes, you're going to see pixels on a 10x8" print.
I can't help but think the V600 is capable of what you want, but somewhere along the line something is going wrong. The V600 can scan at 6400 dpi (in reality it'll be a lot less than that, but bear with me), that means that you could scan a 35mm negative and end up with almost 9000 pixels across. That is obviously a huge scan, and you could print at twice the size of a 8x10" print and still not see pixels.
If you're not getting scans of at least 4000 pixels across, something is wrong. Try doing a scan on the V700, and in the 'dpi' or 'resolution' menu (it might be called something else). Pick the highest number there, and scan.
You should get a very big file out of that. If still no luck, try a free trial of Vuescan, I find it very easy compared to Silverfast or Epson Scan.
Looking at the full size scan on Flickr, the biggest one is only something like 1000 pixels across, and if that is the biggest scan, then yes, you're going to see pixels on a 10x8" print.
I can't help but think the V600 is capable of what you want, but somewhere along the line something is going wrong. The V600 can scan at 6400 dpi (in reality it'll be a lot less than that, but bear with me), that means that you could scan a 35mm negative and end up with almost 9000 pixels across. That is obviously a huge scan, and you could print at twice the size of a 8x10" print and still not see pixels.
If you're not getting scans of at least 4000 pixels across, something is wrong. Try doing a scan on the V700, and in the 'dpi' or 'resolution' menu (it might be called something else). Pick the highest number there, and scan.
You should get a very big file out of that. If still no luck, try a free trial of Vuescan, I find it very easy compared to Silverfast or Epson Scan.
van_d
Established
I'll keep Vuescan in mind, then. I normally only let the Epson software do the most minimal stuff (Digital ICE if c-41 or e-6, Unsharp Mask) and leave the rest to PSE because editing with the Epson software doesn't give as good of a result.
Yeah, I don't see why I should not be able to get a good 8x10 or 8x12 out of the V600, which is why I'm redoing the print, same lab, different printer though. No idea what kind, though. I think it's quite clear that the V500 scan on the previous page is lower quality and perhaps something to do with when I scanned the negative 14 months ago also was affecting things, but I also noticed it on recent V600 scans. Of course, this was before I learned some tricks, so that may have something to do with it as well...
Yeah, I don't see why I should not be able to get a good 8x10 or 8x12 out of the V600, which is why I'm redoing the print, same lab, different printer though. No idea what kind, though. I think it's quite clear that the V500 scan on the previous page is lower quality and perhaps something to do with when I scanned the negative 14 months ago also was affecting things, but I also noticed it on recent V600 scans. Of course, this was before I learned some tricks, so that may have something to do with it as well...
van_d
Established
I don't have a V700 though.
I do agree about the one on the previous page being poor for whatever reason. I rescanned it with the V600 initially and turned up similar results, however, the one at the top of the page I scanned differently. Still 3200dpi, but as a 48-bit colour (which came out sepia) and as a TIFF later converted to B&W and JPEG.
Here's what that version looks like blown up: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3666/13657798295_56136cef79_o.jpg
It is about 1500px wider, so that should help at least. I'll find out the verdict tomorrow most likely.
Michalm
Well-known
Look here http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaProScan7200.html
It will clear few things up nicely for you. Essentially you get the same effective resolution as Plustek 35mm scanners,better dynamic range which means better shadow detail + lower file size/faster processing. I would try to run it on Vuescan. And yes it has ICE too.
thegman
Veteran
Sorry, a typo on my part, I meant V600.
The 'blown up' version is over 4000px, the detail is not too bad, so I think it should print OK.
A Y
Member
The Reflecta RPS7200/PI Primefilm 7250 Pro 3 can scan an entire uncut roll of 35mm film up to 40 frames automatically. They've been recently replaced by the PI Primefilm XA.
I'm not sure if the flatbed scanners can do this, but I use a DSLR (Sony NEX-5N/Canon FD 50/3.5 macro) scanning method, and take a whole contact sheet shot that I use to select which ones to digitize. I put all of my negatives in a PrintFile archival sleeve, and place a piece of ANR glass on top of the sleeve to flatten it by sandwiching it against a light table, and photograph through the glass.
To digitize each frame, I've recently been using a Nikon ES-1 with extra tubes for extra working distance (ES-1 is designed for a full-frame sensor), but have also taped negatives emulsion side up (matte side up, film markings are reversed, Scotch Magic tape) on the fuzzy side of a piece of ANR glass on a light table to photograph them. Unlike the contact sheet, I'm photographing the emulsion side of the negative directly. I've printed up to 18x18 without a problem.
I'm not sure if the flatbed scanners can do this, but I use a DSLR (Sony NEX-5N/Canon FD 50/3.5 macro) scanning method, and take a whole contact sheet shot that I use to select which ones to digitize. I put all of my negatives in a PrintFile archival sleeve, and place a piece of ANR glass on top of the sleeve to flatten it by sandwiching it against a light table, and photograph through the glass.
To digitize each frame, I've recently been using a Nikon ES-1 with extra tubes for extra working distance (ES-1 is designed for a full-frame sensor), but have also taped negatives emulsion side up (matte side up, film markings are reversed, Scotch Magic tape) on the fuzzy side of a piece of ANR glass on a light table to photograph them. Unlike the contact sheet, I'm photographing the emulsion side of the negative directly. I've printed up to 18x18 without a problem.
kiss-o-matic
Well-known
I guess I never got over that curve. Vuescan (which I paid for) still did a lot of things automatically I didn't want it to. I don't cross process a lot, but have done a few rolls. Vuescan seems to hate the fact that that the orange layer isn't there, whereas EpsonScan is much kinder.
FWIW: I won an Optic Film 8100 and it's in the box right now. Definitely sharper, but must do one at a time, and it doesn't do 120. So, I'm using a V600 for a few reasons. 1) I don't really print off the scans. 2) 1 by 1 takes ages. I'm just putting these on Flickr, for which the V600 suffices.
As for the V600 vs the V700, from what I've read, there's no practical difference in the actual scans. Anyone with experience care to comment?
rjstep3
Established
I've not used the V600 - the really good thing about the V700 is that you can load a large number of slides or film strips and batch scan. True, it takes time, and true, the quality is not up to a proper film scanner, but as you say, for flickr or web viewing, or casual viewing, or just digitising a large collection, it is great. For many people, with the contraction of film usage, that is what they still want a scanner for.
rjstep3