Scanning slides vs Prints

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by mjmm, Nov 3, 2004.

  1. mjmm

    mjmm Guest

    I have not been satisfied with the scanned images I have been getting
    with my Elite Chrome slides. I compared a scanned print with the
    scanned slide of the same old building taken minutes apart in
    different cameras and the print was much sharper than the slide. The
    slides look sharp when viewed with a magnifying lens, I use an 8 mm
    movie projector lens back-to-front.

    I loaded both into PS Elemnents and viewed them at the same size side
    by side. Could the difference be that the negs are scanned at the
    minilab with a much better scanner than the Epson RX510 I use at 2400
    DPI & 48 bit for the slides and 300 dpi & 48 bit for the prints. I get
    12.7 M files for the prints & 34-37 M files for the slides. Could I
    expect to match the sharpness of the prints with a good quality film
    scanner? It seems to be harder to get good scans from the Elite Chrome
    slides than it was for the Kodachrome slides I used previously.

    I used Kodak HD 200 in a Pentax Espio 95WR and a Pentax *ist with a
    Tamron 24-135 lens for the Elite Chrome 100.

    Thanks
    Mike
     
    mjmm, Nov 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. mjmm

    Alan Browne Guest

    It's not clear to me how you scanned the slides, but in any case, if it was the
    RX510, then it is not a dedicated film scanner and film scans using it will not
    be particularly good v. a dedicated film scanner.

    Minilab scans are rarely as good as what you can do at home with a good film
    scanner. A 4x6 print won't show very many problems with a scan ... print the
    same at 8x12 or higher and see how the miniab negative based print looks...

    Elite Chrome, in my experience, scans quite well, though grain structure is
    apparent at very high resolutions.
    It is best, when making comparisons, to use the same taking lens.

    see news:comp.periphs.scanners and www.scantips.com as well

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Nov 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. mjmm

    mjmm Guest

    I scanned both slides and 4x6 prints with the RX510. In PS elements I
    viewed the slide at 200% then increased the scan of the print until it
    was the same size as the slide. At the full screen view there was not
    much difference, it was when viewing both at increased magnification
    that the difference is more noticeable.

    I didn't take the photos with the 2 cameras to compare them, I used
    Kodachrome until it was withdrawn from the Australian market and I was
    trying the EC 100 to see how I liked it. I wasn't sure how the slides
    were going to come out, it was the first time I tried the EC on a dull
    day and took a few shots with print film to make sure I had some
    photos of the building.

    Thanks
    Mike
     
    mjmm, Nov 3, 2004
    #3
  4. I have found EC pretty good, although I personally prefer the colours from
    Fuji Sensia. I scan mine through the Fuji Frontier at work and get an image
    that is 3300x2200, which will be roughly the same size as a 2400dpi scan.
    IME scans from Frontiers are much better than the scans from flatbed
    scanners - even those that supposedly have higher resolution. Presumably
    dedicated film scanners are in the same league as the Frontier, but you'd
    have to be doing a lot of it to justify the expense vs the cost of getting a
    frontier lab to scan them to CD for you.
    For some untouched scans from Kodak EliteChrome on a Fuji Frontier, check
    out...
    http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000010.JPG
    http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000013.JPG
    http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000014.JPG
    A word of warning though - these are pretty big, nudging 2MB each.

    Back to Fuji Sensia vs Kodak EliteChrome - I think the Fuji gives more
    natural colours, but seems to have a bit larger grain size than the Kodak.
    The colours from the Kodak seem to be a little warmer although not badly so.
    Certainly looking at the Kodak slide, it looks good, but when I look at a
    Kodak and a Fuji side by side, the Fuji's colours look a bit more natural.
     
    Graham Fountain, Nov 4, 2004
    #4
  5. mjmm

    mjmm Guest

    Maybe I'll try the Sensia, I have used only a few EC films and I've
    noticed that some of the slides are a bit too saturated, I prefer the
    more natural colours I got with Kodachrome.

    I have been getting my print film processed at a Fuji minilab and
    until recently they used to put all the scans onto a CD as well as the
    prints, until the last time when they used 1 CD and charged the price
    of a CD for each film. The scans are 1 M or less JPG files, 1840 x
    1232. I asked if I could get some of my films scanned at higher res
    but they said they scan at 300 dpi. Obviously the Frontier scanner
    isn't the limiting factor.

    Thanks
    Mike



     
    mjmm, Nov 5, 2004
    #5
  6. The frontier has a few different scanning resolutions. It is designed to
    scan so that the resulting print is at 300dpi, so it has enough resolution
    to go up to 300dpi from an 8x12, which is the resolution that i get my
    slides scanned in.
    There are a couple of ways of doing scan-to-cd from a frontier. The one
    most commonly used by labs, is to scan and print at the same time, then it
    will scan at whatever resolution will give 300dpi at the selected output
    size, so if you are printing the standard 6x4 then the output will be approx
    1800x1200. If on the other hand you asked for 8x12 the output will be about
    3600x2400.
    The frontier also will do scan-only. In this mode you can select from a few
    different ways of doing the scan. Most labs will select "4 Base JPG", which
    again is approx 1800x1200. The machine also has "16 Base JPG" and "CD-PRO"
    as options. 16 Base JPG will give approx 3300x2200. With CD-Pro you also
    select a print size (even though you aren't printing anything), and it will
    scan in the appropriate format and resolution. CD-Pro also puts lo-res and
    mid-res copies onto the CD, in addition to the hi-res version. The reason
    labs tend to only do the 1800x1200 scans is because of the time taken to do
    them. a 4-Base scan zooms through, taking about a minute for a roll of 24
    exposures (a bit longer for slides though because they have to be done
    individually). A 16-Base scan however takes between 30 sec and 1 minute per
    frame, and while the frontier is doing this it can't be used for any other
    jobs. Obviously most labs won't want their machine tied up for half an hour
    unable to do any other printing. Where I work, we will do the high res
    scans, but the price is much higher than normal low-res scans.
     
    Graham Fountain, Nov 5, 2004
    #6
    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.