Anyone scan 35mm photo negatives?

[fleabag]

I'm currently scanning some photo negatives with my scanner and it's taking about an hour 1:30 minutes to scan about 24 photos (one roll) and I'm wondering if this is taking far longer than it should be. I'm scanning at 2400dpi and I think what takes the longest is not the scanning, but having to reselect an item through the interface and having to realign the negatives on the holder. I'm just wondering if I'm taking longer than I should and whether or not I should be using the film holder and just put the negatives on the bed and scan which would require less of my time intervening.


CRAP

EPIC FAIL!

I believe the scans I've done were a waste of time simply because what was scanned in and displayed on the computer is less detailed than the 4X5 prints that went along with the negatives. I'm now wondering what DPI I should just scan the prints at since they're far larger than the negatives. I've always thought it was a bad idea to scan prints because they SHOULD be lower quality than the negatives...Am I wrong about this? Or is my scanner just not good enough to be taking full advantage of 35mm film, and I really do need a top notch scanner in order to get better than print quality out of it? If you're interested, I can post a comparison shot of scanning a print and scanning a negative.

 

[Mday]

The time spent seems reasonable to me given the 2400dpi you chose. Hope you're not scanning at higher than the optical res of your scanner.

 

[Aberforth]

use this: http://www.thinkgeek.com/elect...gital-conversion/b070/

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Mday
The time spent seems reasonable to me given the 2400dpi you chose. Hope you're not scanning at higher than the optical res of your scanner.

The scanner is 2400dpi X 600dpi, however according to the manual, in order to take advantage of 2400dpi, you've got to scan at half the scanner's width (4" instead of 8") which is conveniently the amount of space you're alotted when using the film adapter (4"X 5").

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
use this: http://www.thinkgeek.com/elect...gital-conversion/b070/

either that's a terribly decietful device or I'm missing something...
"# Image Resolution - 5 Megapixel (5,174,400 pixels)
# Sensor Resolution - CMOS (5,174,400 pixels)
# Scan Resolution - 3600 dpi "

How can the scan resolution be 3600dpi yet have a resolution of (Especially the CMOS sensor!) of 5 megapixels? Outputs the image at 5 megapixels? 3600dpi is certainly NOT 5 megapixels..

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Aberforth
use this: http://www.thinkgeek.com/elect...gital-conversion/b070/

either that's a terribly decietful device or I'm missing something...
"# Image Resolution - 5 Megapixel (5,174,400 pixels)
# Sensor Resolution - CMOS (5,174,400 pixels)
# Scan Resolution - 3600 dpi "

How can the scan resolution be 3600dpi yet have a resolution of (Especially the CMOS sensor!) of 5 megapixels? Outputs the image at 5 megapixels? 3600dpi is certainly NOT 5 megapixels..

And it's also jpeg. Eeew.

Great for taking film photos and converting to an image for digital photo frames or for family to use on their computers, but you really cannot do jack with the resulting image.

 

[MovingTarget]

I need to get one of those scanners, but $100 is a lot to spend these days....

/me is a 35mm film junkie

 

[fleabag]

Crap... See I bought this scanner online which is a slightly newer (by about 1 year) version of my current scanner (Epson 636U) because I needed a Film adapter so that I could scan my negatives. The film adapter model number was available when my scanner came out but I never bought it, and since I couldn't get it separately now, there was a 1200UPhoto with that same film adapter (is a 1200u but with adapter) and I figured that I could just have a spare scanner in case my current scanner broke and use the adapter with both scanners. So I took the adapter I got with the new scanner and used it with my old scanner and it worked great. So I scan a bunch of photos which took about 2 day's worth of time only to stumble upon a certain photo. I tried to scan the photo but the picture quality was WORSE than what was printed out which frightened me because that's the opposite of what's suppose to happen. So I finally install the new 1200U scanner and was surprised to see that it was a very different scanner despite the closeness in looks with the 636U. The software was different, the sound of the motor which moves the scanner head was different, and when you try out the film scan feature, the interface just seemed more adapt to handling film compared to the 636U.

So anyway I scan with the 1200UPhoto the same picture again (remember, these are NEGATIVES) and the picture quality was MUCH MUCH better! There was far less noise in the picture despite the fact that both scanners support 2400DPI scanning (636U is 600X2400 and 1200U is 1200X2400). However, despite all of this, I'm still disappointed that the 5X7 print is still higher quality than the negative scans with these scanners. I know these scanners are old but I figured that since they supported such a high resolution (some have said that 600DPI or 35mega pixels is the peak of 35mm film) so I figured 2400dpi would more than suffice and a newer scanner wouldn't really be of benefit.

This is a bit irrelevant but I bought a DSLR 6 mega pixel camera in 2003 and while the picture quality is great, it's not as good as it could be. Since I realize technology hasn't quite gotten good enough to replace film or at least entirely replicate it 100% or be EVEN BETTER than film in terms of resolution, I guess I'm just going to go ahead and scan the rest of the photos and just wait a few more years when the technology has finally caught up. It just seems like to me if I fork out more money for a whole brand new scanner with a film attachment that I'm going to be disappointed as the picture quality STILL won't be where it should be and so I'll end up having to scan the pictures AGAIN some 5-10 years later when the scanner quality has improved once again.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: fleabag
Crap... compared to the 636U.

Yeah, I never read manuals, either.

both scanners support 2400DPI scanning (636U is 600X2400 and 1200U is 1200X2400).

You realize those two specs are totally different?

You also realize those scanners are SUPER old? The product brochure from Epson for the 1200U (your NEWER one) was last updated in 1999.

Scanners have come a very long way since then.

(some have said that 600DPI or 35mega pixels is the peak of 35mm film)

First of all, those numbers don't make any sense together. 600 dpi @ 24x36mm = ~1.5 megapixel. I suggest you educate yourself on both of those terms to get a complete understanding of them.

Secondly, the performance of film (in terms of comparing it to digital resolution) will vary wildly - are you talking about Velvia 50 or Tri-X?

Lastly, there's a gigantic difference between the resolution needed on a scanner to pull everything it can from film and digital camera resolution needed to make an acceptable print at a given size. A native digital 10 megapixel image will generally be vastly superior to a 10 megapixel scan.

Since I realize technology hasn't quite gotten good enough to replace film or at least entirely replicate it 100% or be EVEN BETTER than film in terms of resolution...

You have some serious misconceptions.

The technology for digital is here. It's been here for a couple of years. It might not be within your budget yet (since you're buying 10-year-old scanners) but it's here. There aren't very many professional photographers still shooting film exclusively.

The camera you bought in 2003 is probably a Rebel or something similar - using that as a baseline, Canon's had 2 hugely significant revisions (and several smaller revisions) since then.


Bottom line here: For scanning negatives, you can't beat a dedicated negative scanner. I'm not recommending that one specifically, but that's what you should be looking for.

Scanners are very susceptible to variances in the distance between the image substrate and the scanner optics. I've only dealt with one flatbed scanner (and I've used many) over the years that did even an acceptable job of scanning TXs - positive or negative, and it's outdated nowadays. The backlights are often not strong enough and the film carriers rarely flatten warped film. Negative scanners, like the one I linked, are built to deal with that.

 

[bobdole369]

rivan is right about the negative scanning. Even new flatbeds suck at it. The Epson v700 (at >$200) has nothing on a 10 year old dedicated negative scanner thats on the SCSI bus. But the cost is astronomical - even for a decade old piece of equipment.

35mm (24x36mm image area) contains (give or take) - around 25 megapixels of information.

While my scanner the v500 claims "4800 dpi optical" - since the stepper motor can only physically move the scanning head about 1800 lines per inch - I use 2400dpi/24-bit. A 12-pack of 35mm shots takes about an hour to scan.

Flatbeds simply suck for scanning negatives. You can get workable results, but probably not "sellable" results. If you need the quality - you'll pay several thousand for a dedicated scanner.

There aren't very many professional photographers still shooting film exclusively.

I know a few. I know more than one thats sold his digital gear. Nice stuff too like the original 5D. Film is having a relapse or something. Of those guys - both said the same thing - that the dynamic range of available digital gear isn't even close to film. These guys don't want to muck about with dealing with histos and compensating for the cameras inhernt flaws - so they went back to film and just get the shot the first time around. Both wedding photogs btw.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: bobdole369

There aren't very many professional photographers still shooting film exclusively.

I know a few. I know more than one thats sold his digital gear. Nice stuff too like the original 5D. Film is having a relapse or something. Of those guys - both said the same thing - that the dynamic range of available digital gear isn't even close to film. These guys don't want to muck about with dealing with histos and compensating for the cameras inhernt flaws - so they went back to film and just get the shot the first time around. Both wedding photogs btw.

I'm not thoroughly surprised by that (and hey, I said 'very many' 😛). Dynamic range is important when your subjects are in all-black and all-white. Honestly, weddings (or other high end portraiture) is about the only thing I'd consider shooting on film anymore. They're really the last holdout segments that really demand quality anymore. The quality and archival life of film makes it a better fit there than for really any other segment.

That said, I'm surprised they're eschewing digital entirely. It's SOOO much more cost effective. To be able to ignore it (and support your higher prices) you've got to be pretty well established as a wedding photographer, I would think.

(I am not a professional photographer.)

Originally posted by: bobdole369
Flatbeds simply suck for scanning negatives. You can get workable results, but probably not "sellable" results. If you need the quality - you'll pay several thousand for a dedicated scanner.

Another alternative might be a local service bureau or traditional photo lab. We've got a great old school shop here that does high quality scanning fairly reasonably. Visiting their site for the first time in a while, wow does it look bad, but they're great folks who are amazing at what they do.

 

[bobdole369]

They're really the last holdout segments that really demand quality anymore.

And that is so sad. It's the same in the audio world. MP3's are killing a generation of music off - nobody wants good quality anymore except the high end clients. Everyone is more concerned with convenience. Its not "how good does it sound", but "how many places can I get a crappy version of it".

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Aberforth
use this: http://www.thinkgeek.com/elect...gital-conversion/b070/

either that's a terribly decietful device or I'm missing something...
"# Image Resolution - 5 Megapixel (5,174,400 pixels)
# Sensor Resolution - CMOS (5,174,400 pixels)
# Scan Resolution - 3600 dpi "

How can the scan resolution be 3600dpi yet have a resolution of (Especially the CMOS sensor!) of 5 megapixels? Outputs the image at 5 megapixels? 3600dpi is certainly NOT 5 megapixels..

What if it was a 5 megapixel image of a 0.5in x 0.5in object....

 

[fleabag]

Yeah you guys are all right! I think the problem was I totally miscalculated the DPI and resolution...Anyhow, 2400DPI of a 35mm negative from my scanner is still higher than that dedicated device from think geek with its 5 megapixel resolution. It turns out the scans from my scanner are outputting 9 megapixel pictures when scanning at 2400dpi. When you scan the negatives, you do not use the scanner's own backlight, but instead you have a holder, within a small space where you place the film, and then you fold over on top (doesn't touch film) what is a separate light source, pushing the light through the back of the film onto the scanner's sensor.
It looks like this picture Text except in that picture, it's not installed.

Btw I thought I should mention, the 1200U was made available in 2000 and the 636U was made available in 1999, so just because the manual was updated in 1999, that doesn't mean it was available in that year.

 

[n yusef]

Flatbeds are fine, if you're scanning MF or LF film. Sure, it won't be optimal, but poorly scanned 6x7 will still look tons better than 35mm. For 35mm, I would want a dedicated professional device. If you're doing a one time job, you can resell it afterwords.

 

[fleabag]

bump

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: rivan
Bottom line here: For scanning negatives, you can't beat a dedicated negative scanner. I'm not recommending that one specifically, but that's what you should be looking for.

Scanners are very susceptible to variances in the distance between the image substrate and the scanner optics. I've only dealt with one flatbed scanner (and I've used many) over the years that did even an acceptable job of scanning TXs - positive or negative, and it's outdated nowadays. The backlights are often not strong enough and the film carriers rarely flatten warped film. Negative scanners, like the one I linked, are built to deal with that.

You realize that with flatbed scanners, they have a dedicated transparency adapter, using a separate backlight in order to illuminate the pictures. Secondly some higher end scanners have dual focus or autofocus systems. So how can that be worse than these dedicated negative scanners that are not only lower DPI but only support 35mm film. How do you expect me to scan 110film? Or basically anything BUT 35mm film?