How big do you scan a 35 mm original?

The thread where I started out to explain why pixel dimensions are
meaningful to me while dpi is not made me question my (amateur)
scanning technique. Have I been missing some quality by not scanning at
a higher resolution on my inexpensive desktop scanner?

I decided to do a test today. The original was a mediocre image,
literally the first 35 mm slide out of the first box I came to. I
scanned it once at about 3600 px wide, then my usual 1800.

The quality of the raw scans is shabby compared to what a high-end
drum scanner can do, and there were NO Photoshop tweaks applied, other
than saving both as JPEGs in the size you see, down-sampled to 1080
pixels wide, with the same amount of compression.

See if you can guess which is which before I say any mo

http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iW...st_070922.html
--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic

On Sep 22, 4:09 pm, sheepdog 2007 wrote:
The thread where I started out to explain why pixel dimensions are
meaningful to me while dpi is not made me question my (amateur)
scanning technique. Have I been missing some quality by not scanning at
a higher resolution on my inexpensive desktop scanner?

I decided to do a test today. The original was a mediocre image,
literally the first 35 mm slide out of the first box I came to. I
scanned it once at about 3600 px wide, then my usual 1800.

The quality of the raw scans is shabby compared to what a high-end
drum scanner can do

I keep hearing this, but given the quality of 35mm film images (or
lack of quality), what is the point in going to a drum scanner?
I think you're experiment proved that there is none.

Rich wrote:
On Sep 22, 4:09 pm, sheepdog 2007 wrote:
The thread where I started out to explain why pixel dimensions are
meaningful to me while dpi is not made me question my (amateur)
scanning technique. Have I been missing some quality by not scanning at
a higher resolution on my inexpensive desktop scanner?

I decided to do a test today. The original was a mediocre image,
literally the first 35 mm slide out of the first box I came to. I
scanned it once at about 3600 px wide, then my usual 1800.

The quality of the raw scans is shabby compared to what a high-end
drum scanner can do

I keep hearing this, but given the quality of 35mm film images (or
lack of quality), what is the point in going to a drum scanner?
I think you're experiment proved that there is none.

Here are some examples:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...html#testarea2

To me the 6000 ppi drum scan shows more than the 4000 ppi, which
shows more than the 2700 ppi. 1800 ppi would be worse.

For the OP, when you show comparisons, instead of down sampling
to something lower than either scan, show original scans,
or interpolate lower resolution scans up to the highest resolution.

Roger

On Sep 23, 12:50 pm, Rich wrote:
On Sep 22, 4:09 pm, sheepdog 2007 wrote:
I decided to do a test today. The original was a mediocre image

Sigh. So using a mediocre image, the op did a 'test'. Interesting
approach. (O;

I keep hearing this, but given the quality of 35mm film images

(sarcasm on)
Yes, Rich. Brilliant thinking. *Any* negative/slide will give
*exactly* the same results. From an 800ISO supermarket single use
camera, to a Kodachrome 25 or Velvia sldie from a prime-lens-fitted
camera on a tripod, they all only deserve 1800 pixels.

what is the point in going to a drum scanner?
Yeah exactly. Why on earth did those fools even design (let alone
build) something that could scan at 8000 ppi or better? *Surely* they
must realise that the only 35mm images ever created are as bad as
those in Rich's vast experience.

I think you're experiment proved that there is none.

Oh yeah.

And that sentence proved you're (sic) grammatical expertise.
(end sarcasm)

Rich wrote:
On Sep 22, 4:09 pm, sheepdog 2007 wrote:
The thread where I started out to explain why pixel dimensions are
meaningful to me while dpi is not made me question my (amateur)
scanning technique. Have I been missing some quality by not scanning at
a higher resolution on my inexpensive desktop scanner?

I decided to do a test today. The original was a mediocre image,
literally the first 35 mm slide out of the first box I came to. I
scanned it once at about 3600 px wide, then my usual 1800.

The quality of the raw scans is shabby compared to what a high-end
drum scanner can do

I keep hearing this, but given the quality of 35mm film images (or
lack of quality), what is the point in going to a drum scanner?
I think you're experiment proved that there is none.

Not if you restrict the image quality to 1,000 pixel screen width! You
might as well claim there was no point in buying a fast car because in
your careful testing they all went at the same speed down the local high
street in the rush hour.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:09:30 -0700, sheepdog 2007 wrote:

The thread where I started out to explain why pixel dimensions are
meaningful to me while dpi is not made me question my (amateur)
scanning technique. Have I been missing some quality by not scanning at
a higher resolution on my inexpensive desktop scanner?

I decided to do a test today. The original was a mediocre image,
literally the first 35 mm slide out of the first box I came to. I
scanned it once at about 3600 px wide, then my usual 1800.

The quality of the raw scans is shabby compared to what a high-end
drum scanner can do, and there were NO Photoshop tweaks applied, other
than saving both as JPEGs in the size you see, down-sampled to 1080
pixels wide, with the same amount of compression.

See if you can guess which is which before I say any mo

http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iW...st_070922.html

To answer the question: I generally scan everything in at a fairly low
resolution. Those I want more detail, I rescan at a higher setting. Save
disk space and time.

ray wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:09:30 -0700, sheepdog 2007 wrote:

The thread where I started out to explain why pixel dimensions
are meaningful to me while dpi is not made me question my (amateur)
scanning technique. Have I been missing some quality by not
scanning at a higher resolution on my inexpensive desktop scanner?

I decided to do a test today. The original was a mediocre image,
literally the first 35 mm slide out of the first box I came to. I
scanned it once at about 3600 px wide, then my usual 1800.

The quality of the raw scans is shabby compared to what a
high-end drum scanner can do, and there were NO Photoshop tweaks
applied, other than saving both as JPEGs in the size you see,
down-sampled to 1080 pixels wide, with the same amount of
compression.

See if you can guess which is which before I say any mo

http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iW...st_070922.html

To answer the question: I generally scan everything in at a fairly
low resolution. Those I want more detail, I rescan at a higher
setting. Save disk space and time.

And my answer, as always: I scan at the highest resolution available
to me.

Disk space is cheap; I know how to make use of "time"; you never know
when some software genius is giong to come up with a plug-in that will
turn a high-res scan (or two) into a life-size hologram of my beloved
late long-time companion naked mole-rat.

--
Frank ess

Scott W wrote:

Have you every seen a scan that comes even close to needing 8000 ppi?
I find it interesting that the makers of drum scanned never seem to have
sample of scans from their scanners.

Hi Scott,
Here is a series from a drum scan at:
8000, 6000, 4000, and 2700 ppi. Look at areas A and B in each
scan and you'll see a significant difference between
4000 and 6000 ppi scans, but not much between 6,000 and
8,000 (at least that is the way I see it).
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...html#testarea3

But few images are really that sharp, and you need good ISO 50
or less film, tripod mounted to get it. I once had a number of
frames of the same scene drum scanned at 6,000 ppi with
the idea of stacking to improve S/N and resolution, but when
I got the scans, I found one was really sharp, and the others
were really good, but not superb. (This is the image
on my home page with the rainbow, for which I have sold
20x30 inch pints; it is a 35mm image.)

Boy, looking at these old scans, Yuk! Digital, especially
mosaicked digital is so much nicer. I'm selling my
8x10 camera.

Roger

You can seem some drum scans here, as well as from other scanners
(thanks to Rafe B.)

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

People who believe in needing super high resolution scans are mostly
looking at gain and thinking it is detail.

Most scans I see have very little detail past 2000 ppi, even when using
very good film and a very good scanner.

One effect of higher resolution scans is better definition of grain.
The grain appears finer. But this effect only works on the
finest grain film. The guy who did my drum scans (he still
has the scanner; I just don't do drum scans anymore)
had a 30x40 enlargement of a guy on horseback taken
60+ years ago on Kodachrome 25. He scanned the 35mm frame
at 11,000 ppi. I thought it was medium or large format. I
would not have believed it if someone told me about it.
No fooling!

Oh for some new Kodachrome 25 and a drum scanner (and enough
money to pay someone full time to scan) ....

Roger

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:17:41 -0700, Frank ess wrote:



ray wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:09:30 -0700, sheepdog 2007 wrote:

The thread where I started out to explain why pixel dimensions
are meaningful to me while dpi is not made me question my (amateur)
scanning technique. Have I been missing some quality by not
scanning at a higher resolution on my inexpensive desktop scanner?

I decided to do a test today. The original was a mediocre image,
literally the first 35 mm slide out of the first box I came to. I
scanned it once at about 3600 px wide, then my usual 1800.

The quality of the raw scans is shabby compared to what a
high-end drum scanner can do, and there were NO Photoshop tweaks
applied, other than saving both as JPEGs in the size you see,
down-sampled to 1080 pixels wide, with the same amount of
compression.

See if you can guess which is which before I say any mo

http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iW...st_070922.html

To answer the question: I generally scan everything in at a fairly
low resolution. Those I want more detail, I rescan at a higher
setting. Save disk space and time.

And my answer, as always: I scan at the highest resolution available
to me.

Disk space is cheap; I know how to make use of "time"; you never know
when some software genius is giong to come up with a plug-in that will
turn a high-res scan (or two) into a life-size hologram of my beloved
late long-time companion naked mole-rat.

Disk space is cheap. Time is not.

"ray" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:17:41 -0700, Frank ess wrote:



ray wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:09:30 -0700, sheepdog 2007 wrote:

The thread where I started out to explain why pixel dimensions
are meaningful to me while dpi is not made me question my (amateur)
scanning technique. Have I been missing some quality by not
scanning at a higher resolution on my inexpensive desktop scanner?

I decided to do a test today. The original was a mediocre image,
literally the first 35 mm slide out of the first box I came to. I
scanned it once at about 3600 px wide, then my usual 1800.

The quality of the raw scans is shabby compared to what a
high-end drum scanner can do, and there were NO Photoshop tweaks
applied, other than saving both as JPEGs in the size you see,
down-sampled to 1080 pixels wide, with the same amount of
compression.

See if you can guess which is which before I say any mo

http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iW...st_070922.html

To answer the question: I generally scan everything in at a fairly
low resolution. Those I want more detail, I rescan at a higher
setting. Save disk space and time.

And my answer, as always: I scan at the highest resolution available
to me.

Disk space is cheap; I know how to make use of "time"; you never know
when some software genius is giong to come up with a plug-in that will
turn a high-res scan (or two) into a life-size hologram of my beloved
late long-time companion naked mole-rat.

Disk space is cheap. Time is not.

Your time may not be cheap. However, as I am retired, my time costs me
nothing.
If I were not scanning, I would be doing something else equally useful
Jim