A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Understanding a 35mm negative/slide scanner spec



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 23rd 09, 11:53 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
ColinD[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Understanding a 35mm negative/slide scanner spec

jim wrote:
Please can someone help me understand the basics of a current advert.

Ignoring all questions about quality, software, aliasing, etc etc, it
is the very basic arithmetic that doesn't seem to add up.

------------
http://www.aldi.co.uk/uk/html/offers/2827_11713.htm

Turns negatives into digital photos/files. Enhance or edit your
favourite pictures.

5 mega pixels
Film and slide strip scanner
48 bits
3600dpi optical resolution
---------------------
BUT how do you connect the numbers together?

35mm negs are 36x24mm or 1.417322835ins x 0.94488189ins - at 3600 dpi
that is 17.35million dots overall.

Even if the claimed 3600dpi reduces, as is common in scanners, to
(say) 1800dpi in the other direction that becomes 8.7m dots.

But, either way, the spec states 5 mega pixels! ignore that & carry
on

Each dot contains 3 values - one for each primary colour.

The combined colour value at each dot is stored in 48 bits = 6 bytes

So 17.35 million dots therefore needs 17.35m x 6 bytes of storage =
104MB!

Which, again, doesn't seem to square with a stated 5M pixels.

There must be something very basic I am misunderstanding, but what is
it?

No doubt the machine will make heavy use of data compression. To what
extent does that explain the sums?


No, because compressed files are always measured in so many bytes, not
pixels. To take another example, my digital camera takes 6.3 megapixel
images. At 24-bit depth (the usual) the image file is 18 megabytes. At
48-bit depth the file is 36 megabytes. Both files are still 6.3
megapixels. When the files are saved as a Jpeg compressed file, the
file size is around 2 to 4 megabytes.

I would guess that the 5 pegapixels mentioned in the ad should be 5
megabytes, which makes more sense, and implies a fairly heavy jpeg
compression.

However, the bottom line is, as Alan intimated, that at 40 pounds, the
scanner has to be junk. Prices for recognised good scanners are about
10 to 15 times that price. It's a toy. Be pleased you asked before
doing your 40 quid.

Colin D.

BTW the scanner looks cheap but in the UK ALDI special offers (there's
a new lot every week & when they're gone, they're gone) are often of
above average quality.

TIA for an explanation

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB: negative/ slide scanner apkesh In The Darkroom 0 March 17th 04 02:30 AM
NIKON LS-30 Coolscan III slide/negative scanner [email protected] Darkroom Equipment For Sale 0 January 17th 04 01:05 AM
NIKON LS-30 Coolscan III slide/negative scanner [email protected] Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 0 January 17th 04 01:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.