film scanner resolution needed for ISO 200

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by Monte Castleman, Aug 29, 2004.

  1. I currently scan Fuji Super HG or Agfa (whatever the Walgreens stuff is)
    ISO 200 negatives on a 2400 dpi scanner. Would there be any benefit to
    using a higher dpi scanner? What about if I were to use something
    like Fuji Reala 100? I normally use a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens, so the
    image isn't degraded by a cheap kit zoom.

    Put another way, what's the approximate dpi for reasonably priced ISO
    100 and 200 negative films.
     
    Monte Castleman, Aug 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. It really depends on what you intend to do with the resulting scans;
    and, if you're making prints, what the maximum-size of print you're
    capable of making (or may want to make in the future). If you're not
    going any larger than, say, 8x10", the resolution of your present
    scanner should do (provided you're satisfied with the scanner's
    performance otherwise).

    The "best" DPI to use is, IMO, the maximum you've got - scan it once
    that way, do whatever corrective work you feel the need to perform, then
    saveit (preferably in TIFF format) via the storage medium of your
    choice. When you're ready to print, you'll have a file that should
    print well from 8x10" downwards. If you want to make a small file for
    e-mailing or uploading to a website, you can make a smaller JPEG copy
    from the original file.

    Of course, if you have a hankering to print bigger than 8x10", a
    higher-res scanner is more justified, and at the moment there are a fair
    number to choose from - the "median" point now is around 3200-3600dpi,
    and can be had for as little as $300. More money gets you higher
    resolution (the Minolta 5400, which I currently use, is the leader of
    the pack at the moment at 5400dpi) and time-saving features such as
    Digital ICE (for dust and scratch removal), and batch-scanning. Again,
    it all boils down to what you want to do.

    Hope this helps.
     
    Barrett Benton, Aug 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Monte Castleman

    Alan Browne Guest

    4000 dpi would cover it very well. A nikon 4000/5000, Minolta
    DSE 5400, Scan Dual IV (3200 dp), etc.

    Consider whether ICE would be a benefit to you as well before you
    buy.

    OTOH, as the other poster says, what is the end use of the scans,
    if it is for printing, then the print resoultion drives the scan
    resolution.

    eg: a 300 dpi print for a 8.5 x 11 requires 3300 dots from 36mm
    of frame ... about 2300 dpi. If that is sufficient, then you're
    there.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 29, 2004
    #3
  4. The major issue here is not resolution, but grain aliasing. You can
    do a google search on the subject and find a lot of hits. If I
    remember correctly, when the scanning resolution is about the same as
    the grain size, the grain is emphasized. I had that problem while
    scanning at 2400 dpi. For that reason my digital pictures at 6
    megapixels from my drebel are much better than scanned nagatives, even
    though the result is a 8 megapixel image.
     
    James Cassatt, Aug 30, 2004
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.