insane sized TIFF files out of 35mm scans...

A

AlexMax

Established
Local time
10:39 AM
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
51
View My Gallery
Hi

I have recently bought a Reflecta ProScan 10T, they boast some 10000 dpi resolution.

I scan all my negs at 10000 dpi, this yels something like 132 MegaPixels, and 700s Megabytes per file.

...i mean... is this for real...??

Assuming i have scanned Fuji Acros 100, or Adox CMS 20, pictures taken with a Summicron f2 Dual Range, or a Zeiss Planar 50mm f2... is it rationally expectable, that i am getting 131 Megapixels per scan...???

This is a bit weird IMHO....

Best regards,

Alexandre
 
I also have 2 folders, and 1 SLR for MF,

1 Agfa Super Isolette, and a Konica Perl III, and one Bronica SQ ai... i plan to digitize all in a CanoScan 9000f Mk2... And i am getting prepared to get multigigabyte tiff files...

somehow, a top notch laptop that i use for Engineering simulation, along with Image processing, with a Core I7, and 32 Gb RAM, begins to feel a bit underpowered...

I run everything in Linux, ( Gimp with addons, as well as Fotoxx ) and in a windows 7 Virtual machine ( Adobe Photoshop, Corel Draw, Adobe Elements, and Lightroom ) with 4 processors, and 25 GB Ram...
 
The scan line may have that many pixels, but you are limited by the resolution of the scanner lens and its focus accuracy (NONE, I assume, as it seems to be fixed focus) - where the Reflecta will do something around 2700dpi (going by the ColorFoto test) at the very best. That is, you can downsize the images to that scale without losing any meaningful data.
 
Yes and no. The large file size numbers you came up with are technically correct for Mpx based on the 10,000 samples/inch figure, and the resulting files will also be very large (depending on bit depth and compression levels). But as I think you suspect, even under ideal circumstances the image on a 24x36mm frame of film is not likely to carry that much information, and unfortunately the optics of the scanner are not nearly good enough to capture all of that even if it did. High resolution numbers like that are good for marketing, but since they are achieved just by very fine movements of the stepping motors (which exceeds the resolution of its lens) and/or by software interpolation of a lower resolution scan, they are not meaningful in an image resolution sense. I don't know that particular scanner well enough to say what a good figure for the "real" resolution is, or what the optimum settings are in order to get the most out of the scanner. But assuming the scan resolution is adjustable, I'm sure you can get equally good results with a much lower setting.
 
Thanks for your replies 🙂

What kind of scanner should I buy then, to get these 40Mb + resolutions out of very fine grain 35mm film, and tack sharp lenses... ??

Is the canoscan 9000f likely to perform better... ??

Best regards,

Alex
 
No. 40MP is actually stretching the limits of 35mm, even when using special black and white film with lenses beyond the budget of the average consumer - no maker of a consumer scanner ever designed his product for such a resolution. You can sort of get there, using scanners roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than what you seem to be considering. But you would still be restricted to specially processed black and white microfilm with many undesirable properties. Regular photographic film won't deliver significantly more than 10-25MP of effective resolution off a 24x36mm frame regardless what scanner you use.

If you want resolutions upward of 30MP, medium or large format and a decent flatbed scanner (say, Epson V500/V700) would get you much closer, on a lower budget.
 
AlexMax said:
Thanks for your replies 🙂

What kind of scanner should I buy then, to get these 40Mb + resolutions out of very fine grain 35mm film, and tack sharp lenses... ??

Is the canoscan 9000f likely to perform better... ??

Best regards,

Alex
Click to expand...

I don't know if you really mean "Mbit" "MByte' or MPixel" when you write 40Mb. As others have said, 40MP from 35mm film is stretching the capabilities of the format; the file size is purely a function of the MPs, the number of channels and the bit depth - then this combined with any compression format you save it in.

The Nikon 9000, 8000, 5000, V, 4000 all scan 35mm film at 4,000 DPI. That about 21.4 MP which, as a TIF, gives a file size about:
  • 128 MB as a 16-bit colour image
  • 64 MB as an 8-bit colour image
  • 43 MB as a 16-bit greyscale
  • 21 MB as an 8-bit greyscale

Don't expect much more...
 
According to http://www.filmscanner.info/ (sorry, the test of the Reflecta T10 seems to be in German only at the moment) your scanners real optical resolution lies around 4100dpi, which is very good and should be more then enough.

In order to get those 4100dpi you need to scan your films at only 5000dpi. The 10000dpi setting will get you no more details, only bigger files.


(btw. the Canoscan 9000f you mentioned is only able to scan something like 1700dpi 😉 )
 
Maybe I missed it but what is your intended purpose for the images. Generally you scan for a specific purpose and that dictates your scan resolution. Are you making huge poster prints that require these super hi res scans?
 
I will be printing to make gallery posters... Nothing bigger than 2m in bigger side though...

This means that smaller side should be 1.333 m... Landscape format...

Posters will be seen at a distance of 1m...
 
I scan 16 bit tiffs at 4000 ppi on my coolscan 9000 at the original size. When scanning medium format I knock the resolution per inch down to 2500. Seems like plenty to me. I'm not sure a higher number (which the scanner doesn't have anyway) would yield me any more information. Do you find scans at 10,000 ppi any better than scans, say, at 4000 or 2000 ppi? I'm genuinely curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom