marek_
Established
Hi,
Got myself a HP G4010 scanner and for the past two days been trying to get a decent scan out of it - it's not having it.
I've tried scanning b&w, slide, colour negative, and all results are out of focus. I have a cheap all-in-one HP scanner/printer and the results from that, with a bodged light box are far better - they're in focus and detailed. I've attached some results. I Basically want to know whether this is the best scan I can expect? Is this the general quality of flatbeds? Or is this HP model just not very good?
The attached picture was scanned as a transparency with all the auto stuff off - just medium sharpening otherwise they're even worse. The negative was placed directly onto the glass as this improves focuse. Output is grayscale, jpeg.
1, inverted and some brightness/contrast in Photoshop.
2, inverted, b/c, sharpened.
3, inverted, b/c, sharpened again after resizing.
The two on the next post are scans with no sharpening, just some brightness/contrast adjustment:
1, film on glass at 100%
2, film in holder at 100%
As you can see the scans using the holder are bad, but the problem with placing the film directly onto the glass is that newton rings appear.
Any ideas and tips to get the scans focused better? Can this scanner be worse than a £40 all-in-one?
Thanks,
Mark
Got myself a HP G4010 scanner and for the past two days been trying to get a decent scan out of it - it's not having it.
I've tried scanning b&w, slide, colour negative, and all results are out of focus. I have a cheap all-in-one HP scanner/printer and the results from that, with a bodged light box are far better - they're in focus and detailed. I've attached some results. I Basically want to know whether this is the best scan I can expect? Is this the general quality of flatbeds? Or is this HP model just not very good?
The attached picture was scanned as a transparency with all the auto stuff off - just medium sharpening otherwise they're even worse. The negative was placed directly onto the glass as this improves focuse. Output is grayscale, jpeg.
1, inverted and some brightness/contrast in Photoshop.
2, inverted, b/c, sharpened.
3, inverted, b/c, sharpened again after resizing.
The two on the next post are scans with no sharpening, just some brightness/contrast adjustment:
1, film on glass at 100%
2, film in holder at 100%
As you can see the scans using the holder are bad, but the problem with placing the film directly onto the glass is that newton rings appear.
Any ideas and tips to get the scans focused better? Can this scanner be worse than a £40 all-in-one?
Thanks,
Mark
Attachments
marek_
Established
thegman
Veteran
Well, it's impossible to say with scans of that size, however, I will say that flatbeds for 35mm film are very far from ideal.
If I were you, for 35mm I'd take back the flatbed and get a Plustek film scanner, and I think it'll be a dramatic improvement.
If I were you, for 35mm I'd take back the flatbed and get a Plustek film scanner, and I think it'll be a dramatic improvement.
thegman
Veteran
I think for a flatbed scan of 35mm, that does not look all that bad. You could apply more sharpening, and maybe get results you're happy with.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
I had a HP Scanjet G40-something and now I have an HP G4050, the HP scanjet software with those is absolutely abysmal. Black/White always looked horrible.
That was, until I got Vuescan. that gave me MUCH better results.
Before
After
That was, until I got Vuescan. that gave me MUCH better results.
Before
After
marek_
Established
That's what I'm starting to think - get a Plustek.
When I used the same method as I use with the all-in-one to scan negatives as reflective media, the G4010 still lags behind. I don't think my presumptions that a dedicated flatbed would be better than a scanner/printer combo is that way off.
As for more sharpening - there comes a point I guess when the choice of film becomes irrelevant, sharpening makes using Tmax or Trix pointless. Suppose I just want to see what each film does.
Anyway. Thanks for the suggestion thegman.
When I used the same method as I use with the all-in-one to scan negatives as reflective media, the G4010 still lags behind. I don't think my presumptions that a dedicated flatbed would be better than a scanner/printer combo is that way off.
As for more sharpening - there comes a point I guess when the choice of film becomes irrelevant, sharpening makes using Tmax or Trix pointless. Suppose I just want to see what each film does.
Anyway. Thanks for the suggestion thegman.
marek_
Established
Rick, Are they scanned as a transparency or b&w negative?
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
To avoid newton rings you can try to put the emulsion side on the glass.
Flatbeds are really stretching to get 35mm right even the hihg end ones.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
Flatbeds are really stretching to get 35mm right even the hihg end ones.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Marek, my Epson V500 flatbed gives good scans within limits. I feel I get scans that will produce good sharp prints up to 6x the linear dimension of the film. That would be 5x7 from 35mm and 12x18 from 120 film shot 6x9. Every scan requires some sharpening, and I prefer Vuescan.
In a test, with USAF glass target, my scanner resolves 2000 ppi in one direction and only 1350 in the other.
A really good film scanner (Nikon Coolscan V or equiv) will do more than twice the real realized resolution of my flatbed. Coolscan resolves just about 4000 ppi.
Hope this helps.
In a test, with USAF glass target, my scanner resolves 2000 ppi in one direction and only 1350 in the other.
A really good film scanner (Nikon Coolscan V or equiv) will do more than twice the real realized resolution of my flatbed. Coolscan resolves just about 4000 ppi.
Hope this helps.
ferider
Veteran
Try Vuescan and set the focus point via Preview.
Roland.
Roland.
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
For scanning 35mm film, flatbeds just aren't the best. I'd say your scans look fine for what you are working with. I expexct all my scans to need sharpening anyway. In my experience, getting good scans take a lot of trial & error with the software. Small changes in different settings can make a lot of difference.
If you want top quality, there's no way around a dedicated film scanner. I tried the Nikon Coolscan IV for a while, and I can definitely vouch for it. But it's expensive, even 2nd hand.
If you want top quality, there's no way around a dedicated film scanner. I tried the Nikon Coolscan IV for a while, and I can definitely vouch for it. But it's expensive, even 2nd hand.
Benitoh
Newbie
I have an hp scanner as well. I think your scans are not that bad... But, maybe doing some of the things that have worked for me apply to you.
First don't scan as a negative. Always use slides
On the preview you can move the sliders to lower the color saturation to black and white
Click on the invert checklist
This is important, don't autolevels, go to that tab and do it manually (the preview sucks, but this is better then auto)
Noise low and descreen
Hope this works, I am also considering a plustek
First don't scan as a negative. Always use slides
On the preview you can move the sliders to lower the color saturation to black and white
Click on the invert checklist
This is important, don't autolevels, go to that tab and do it manually (the preview sucks, but this is better then auto)
Noise low and descreen
Hope this works, I am also considering a plustek
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
Both are scanned as B/W negatives. the film is Adox ART 25 as I recall
marek_
Established
I'm getting better results using your method. I probably expected too much from the scanner.
Thanks for all the tips.