Scanner that is good for negatives

dorayme found these unused words:

What do people think of this scanner:

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfectionv700photo .asp
Sure it is a flatbed, but would it be good to scan and make good prints of 35mm up to 12" x 15" (ie. for negs that one can easily do to this size and more in the darkroom). Appreciate thoughts.

I use an earlier version and am very happy with results at 3200 ppi. You’ll get even better by a slight bit.

You’ll have to override the ‘automatics’ and double check settings. Use the ‘Professional’ mode in the dialogue.

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

dorayme found these unused words:

What do people think of this scanner:

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfectionv700photo .asp
Sure it is a flatbed, but would it be good to scan and make good prints of 35mm up to 12" x 15" (ie. for negs that one can easily do to this size and more in the darkroom). Appreciate thoughts.

I use an earlier version and am very happy with results at 3200 ppi. You’ll get even better by a slight bit.

You’ll have to override the ‘automatics’ and double check settings. Use the ‘Professional’ mode in the dialogue.

Today I saw a neg that a friend of mine scanned on one of these, a tiff file from a 35 MM neg (shot on 400 asa colour film) and it came out at about 380 MB! which is a fair whack. It was very impressive. He has bought one and I get to use it in about a week! He said he scanned at 1200 dpi and it took about 10 minutes.

I am not sure what you were scanning exactly at 3200? How long and what file size and what was the material, a 35mm neg?

—
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

dorayme found these unused words:

What do people think of this scanner:

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfectionv700photo .asp
Sure it is a flatbed, but would it be good to scan and make good prints of 35mm up to 12" x 15" (ie. for negs that one can easily do to this size and more in the darkroom). Appreciate thoughts.

I use an earlier version and am very happy with results at 3200 ppi. You’ll get even better by a slight bit.

You’ll have to override the ‘automatics’ and double check settings. Use the ‘Professional’ mode in the dialogue.

Today I saw a neg that a friend of mine scanned on one of these, a tiff file from a 35 MM neg (shot on 400 asa colour film) and it came out at about 380 MB! which is a fair whack. It was very impressive. He has bought one and I get to use it in about a week! He said he scanned at 1200 dpi and it took about 10 minutes.

There’s something wrong there. A 35mm neg is about 1 by 1.5 inches. Scanning at 1200 ppi will give an image of 1200 by 1800 pixels approximately. 1200 * 1800 pixels is about 2.1 megabytes, so at 8-bit color depth the file would be about 6.3 megabytes uncompressed.

Which is a hell of a long way from 380 MB.

BTW, a 1200 by 1800 MP image at 300 ppi will just cover a 6×4 print.

Colin D.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In article <4c034$480da4e7$>,
Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

dorayme found these unused words:

What do people think of this scanner:

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfectionv700photo .asp
Sure it is a flatbed, but would it be good to scan and make good prints of 35mm up to 12" x 15" (ie. for negs that one can easily do to this size and more in the darkroom). Appreciate thoughts.

I use an earlier version and am very happy with results at 3200 ppi. You’ll get even better by a slight bit.

You’ll have to override the ‘automatics’ and double check settings. Use the ‘Professional’ mode in the dialogue.

Today I saw a neg that a friend of mine scanned on one of these, a tiff file from a 35 MM neg (shot on 400 asa colour film) and it came out at about 380 MB! which is a fair whack. It was very impressive. He has bought one and I get to use it in about a week! He said he scanned at 1200 dpi and it took about 10 minutes.

There’s something wrong there. A 35mm neg is about 1 by 1.5 inches. Scanning at 1200 ppi will give an image of 1200 by 1800 pixels approximately. 1200 * 1800 pixels is about 2.1 megabytes, so at 8-bit color depth the file would be about 6.3 megabytes uncompressed.
Which is a hell of a long way from 380 MB.

It must be that he scanned at a much higher res then. All I saw was the scanned file. It took ages to open. I reduced it pronto to 600 ppi, and jpg’d it at least compression possible and got 19.1 MB and it printed and looked well on 10 x 12 inch paper (I am told, I did not see the print). It was originally, 395 MB! from my records. My reduction to 600 made it 7200 px across for the 12" dimension.

—
dorayme

"dorayme" wrote in message

In article <4c034$480da4e7$>,
Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

dorayme found these unused words:

What do people think of this scanner:

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfectionv700photo .asp
Sure it is a flatbed, but would it be good to scan and make good prints
of 35mm up to 12" x 15" (ie. for negs that one can easily do to this size and more in the darkroom). Appreciate thoughts.

I use an earlier version and am very happy with results at 3200 ppi. You’ll
get even better by a slight bit.

You’ll have to override the ‘automatics’ and double check settings. Use the
‘Professional’ mode in the dialogue.

Today I saw a neg that a friend of mine scanned on one of these, a tiff file from a 35 MM neg (shot on 400 asa colour film) and it came out at about 380 MB! which is a fair whack. It was very impressive. He has bought one and I get to use it in about a week! He said he scanned at 1200 dpi and it took about 10 minutes.

There’s something wrong there. A 35mm neg is about 1 by 1.5 inches. Scanning at 1200 ppi will give an image of 1200 by 1800 pixels approximately. 1200 * 1800 pixels is about 2.1 megabytes, so at 8-bit color depth the file would be about 6.3 megabytes uncompressed.
Which is a hell of a long way from 380 MB.

It must be that he scanned at a much higher res then. All I saw was the scanned file. It took ages to open. I reduced it pronto to 600 ppi, and jpg’d it at least compression possible and got 19.1 MB and it printed and looked well on 10 x 12 inch paper (I am told, I did not see the print). It was originally, 395 MB! from my records. My reduction to 600 made it 7200 px across for the 12" dimension.

—
dorayme

I have a Canoscan for negs and slides
It has a dust removal program (ICE) which saves at least 15 minutes of "spotting" in PS
but the downside is it does not work on B&W negs (Bummer) the highest settings give a file of 48 MB
it is very slow !! and the software is not designed very well

I had a Minolta Dimage before that but it died after about 6 years I liked their twain software better but the old technology did not include ICE

dorayme wrote:

In article <4c034$480da4e7$>,
Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

dorayme found these unused words:

What do people think of this scanner:

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfectionv700photo .asp
Sure it is a flatbed, but would it be good to scan and make good prints of 35mm up to 12" x 15" (ie. for negs that one can easily do to this size and more in the darkroom). Appreciate thoughts.

I use an earlier version and am very happy with results at 3200 ppi. You’ll get even better by a slight bit.

You’ll have to override the ‘automatics’ and double check settings. Use the ‘Professional’ mode in the dialogue.

Today I saw a neg that a friend of mine scanned on one of these, a tiff file from a 35 MM neg (shot on 400 asa colour film) and it came out at about 380 MB! which is a fair whack. It was very impressive. He has bought one and I get to use it in about a week! He said he scanned at 1200 dpi and it took about 10 minutes.

There’s something wrong there. A 35mm neg is about 1 by 1.5 inches. Scanning at 1200 ppi will give an image of 1200 by 1800 pixels approximately. 1200 * 1800 pixels is about 2.1 megabytes, so at 8-bit color depth the file would be about 6.3 megabytes uncompressed.
Which is a hell of a long way from 380 MB.

It must be that he scanned at a much higher res then. All I saw was the scanned file. It took ages to open. I reduced it pronto to 600 ppi, and jpg’d it at least compression possible and got 19.1 MB and it printed and looked well on 10 x 12 inch paper (I am told, I did not see the print). It was originally, 395 MB! from my records. My reduction to 600 made it 7200 px across for the 12" dimension.

There’s still something wrong. Either you or your friend has made a mistake, or your friend is bullshitting you.

A 395 MB file from a 35mm negative would need a scan setting of more than 9,000 ppi – in fact about 9,369 ppi. Math:

9369*14053 (1 by 1.5 inch neg at 9369 ppi) times 3 to get megabytes (each pixel requires 3 bytes to hold color information, 8 bits per color) gives a size of 394.8 MB.

Clearly, scanning at 9369 ppi is ludicrous, not to mention impossible, since there is no scanner I know of that can get anywhere near that ppi, nor is there any need to do so. There simply is not any detail at that level in any negative, period.

Your understanding of this appears to be minimal; perhaps you could study up a bit on this and allied subjects.

Colin D.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In article <2ddc9$480e55e7$>,
Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <4c034$480da4e7$>,
Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

[…]

Today I saw a neg that a friend of mine scanned on one of these, a tiff file from a 35 MM neg (shot on 400 asa colour film) and it came out at about 380 MB! which is a fair whack. It was very impressive. He has bought one and I get to use it in about a week! He said he scanned at 1200 dpi and it took about 10 minutes.

There’s something wrong there. A 35mm neg is about 1 by 1.5 inches. Scanning at 1200 ppi will give an image of 1200 by 1800 pixels approximately. 1200 * 1800 pixels is about 2.1 megabytes, so at 8-bit color depth the file would be about 6.3 megabytes uncompressed.
Which is a hell of a long way from 380 MB.

It must be that he scanned at a much higher res then. All I saw was the scanned file. It took ages to open. I reduced it pronto to 600 ppi, and jpg’d it at least compression possible and got 19.1 MB and it printed and looked well on 10 x 12 inch paper (I am told, I did not see the print). It was originally, 395 MB! from my records. My reduction to 600 made it 7200 px across for the 12" dimension.

There’s still something wrong. Either you or your friend has made a mistake, or your friend is bullshitting you.

There is *still* something wrong with quite what? I replied in a conciliatory way and gave some facts and a vague guess.

1. that I saw the scanned file?

2. that it was 395 MB?

3. that it took ages to open on my machine?

4. that I reduced it pronto to 600 ppi.

5. that I jpg’d it at least compression possible

6. that it printed and looked well on 10 x 12 inch paper

7. that my reduction to 600 made it 7200 px across for the 12" dimension.

8. that he might have scanned at a much higher res

And while at it let me add:

9. The file I got was 14397 wide by 9598 px high

Your understanding of this appears to be minimal; perhaps you could study up a bit on this and allied subjects.

Allied subjects? Like how to deal with a person that is obviously quite helplessly unpleasant for no good purpose?

—
dorayme

On Apr 23, 7:17 am, Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <4c034$480da4e7$>,
Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

dorayme found these unused words:

What do people think of this scanner:

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfectionv700photo .asp

Sure it is a flatbed, but would it be good to scan and make good prints of 35mm up to 12" x 15" (ie. for negs that one can easily do to this size and more in the darkroom). Appreciate thoughts.

I use an earlier version and am very happy with results at 3200 ppi. You’ll get even better by a slight bit.

You’ll have to override the ‘automatics’ and double check settings. Use the ‘Professional’ mode in the dialogue.

Today I saw a neg that a friend of mine scanned on one of these, a tiff file from a 35 MM neg (shot on 400 asa colour film) and it came out at about 380 MB! which is a fair whack. It was very impressive. He has bought one and I get to use it in about a week! He said he scanned at 1200 dpi and it took about 10 minutes.

There’s something wrong there. A 35mm neg is about 1 by 1.5 inches. Scanning at 1200 ppi will give an image of 1200 by 1800 pixels approximately. 1200 * 1800 pixels is about 2.1 megabytes, so at 8-bit color depth the file would be about 6.3 megabytes uncompressed.

Which is a hell of a long way from 380 MB.

It must be that he scanned at a much higher res then. All I saw was the scanned file. It took ages to open. I reduced it pronto to 600 ppi, and jpg’d it at least compression possible and got 19.1 MB and it printed and looked well on 10 x 12 inch paper (I am told, I did not see the print). It was originally, 395 MB! from my records. My reduction to 600 made it 7200 px across for the 12" dimension.

There’s still something wrong. Either you or your friend has made a mistake, or your friend is bullshitting you.

A 395 MB file from a 35mm negative would need a scan setting of more than 9,000 ppi – in fact about 9,369 ppi. Math:

9369*14053 (1 by 1.5 inch neg at 9369 ppi) times 3 to get megabytes (each pixel requires 3 bytes to hold color information, 8 bits per color) gives a size of 394.8 MB.

Clearly, scanning at 9369 ppi is ludicrous, not to mention impossible, since there is no scanner I know of that can get anywhere near that ppi, nor is there any need to do so. There simply is not any detail at that level in any negative, period.

Your understanding of this appears to be minimal; perhaps you could study up a bit on this and allied subjects.

Colin D.
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

This last bit of yours seems a bit below the belt? What has OP said that makes you so scathing? I thought he was just telling that he saw a nice result with this particular scanner. OK so probably the figures don’t add up. But you being so clever and all with your maths and high up knowledge why don’t you propose something more intelligent about what might have gotten a tiff file of such a size on said scanner instead of belittling folk, you fucking little prick.

In article
,
Patricia Aldoraz wrote:

On Apr 23, 7:17 am, Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <4c034$480da4e7$>,
Colin_D wrote:

why don’t you propose something more intelligent about
what might have gotten a tiff file of such a size on said scanner instead of belittling folk,

It’s ok Patricia, don’t upset yourself.

May *I* suggest a theory? This friend of mine has bought the scanner concerned but did not scan the neg himself on his machine but had it done as a test in the shop which had it for sale. The salesman probably did it at 1200, hearing my friend wanted to print it at 10 x 12" opened it in Photoshop or software supplied with scanner (?) and *let* the software add pixels by changing the size to 10 x 12" from its humble natural size. Hence the massive file.

I took little notice of this at the time, was very surprised at the massive file but simply did not think about it, concerned more with the pic being quite nice and printing well and sharing this with folk. Anyway that’s my theory now. I am not saying it is wise to have done this. But the truth is that al my friends are idiots as am I, we form a sort of scatterbrain idiotic society. Colin D will be barred from entry on character grounds. You sound simply too sensible for it too. <g>

—
dorayme

Patricia Aldoraz wrote:

On Apr 23, 7:17 am, Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <4c034$480da4e7$>,
Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

dorayme found these unused words:

What do people think of this scanner:
http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfectionv700photo .asp Sure it is a flatbed, but would it be good to scan and make good prints of 35mm up to 12" x 15" (ie. for negs that one can easily do to this size and more in the darkroom). Appreciate thoughts.

I use an earlier version and am very happy with results at 3200 ppi. You’ll get even better by a slight bit.
You’ll have to override the ‘automatics’ and double check settings. Use the ‘Professional’ mode in the dialogue.

Today I saw a neg that a friend of mine scanned on one of these, a tiff file from a 35 MM neg (shot on 400 asa colour film) and it came out at about 380 MB! which is a fair whack. It was very impressive. He has bought one and I get to use it in about a week! He said he scanned at 1200 dpi and it took about 10 minutes.

There’s something wrong there. A 35mm neg is about 1 by 1.5 inches. Scanning at 1200 ppi will give an image of 1200 by 1800 pixels approximately. 1200 * 1800 pixels is about 2.1 megabytes, so at 8-bit color depth the file would be about 6.3 megabytes uncompressed. Which is a hell of a long way from 380 MB.

It must be that he scanned at a much higher res then. All I saw was the scanned file. It took ages to open. I reduced it pronto to 600 ppi, and jpg’d it at least compression possible and got 19.1 MB and it printed and looked well on 10 x 12 inch paper (I am told, I did not see the print). It was originally, 395 MB! from my records. My reduction to 600 made it 7200 px across for the 12" dimension.

There’s still something wrong. Either you or your friend has made a mistake, or your friend is bullshitting you.

A 395 MB file from a 35mm negative would need a scan setting of more than 9,000 ppi – in fact about 9,369 ppi. Math:

9369*14053 (1 by 1.5 inch neg at 9369 ppi) times 3 to get megabytes (each pixel requires 3 bytes to hold color information, 8 bits per color) gives a size of 394.8 MB.

Clearly, scanning at 9369 ppi is ludicrous, not to mention impossible, since there is no scanner I know of that can get anywhere near that ppi, nor is there any need to do so. There simply is not any detail at that level in any negative, period.

Your understanding of this appears to be minimal; perhaps you could study up a bit on this and allied subjects.

Colin D.
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

This last bit of yours seems a bit below the belt? What has OP said that makes you so scathing? I thought he was just telling that he saw a nice result with this particular scanner. OK so probably the figures don’t add up. But you being so clever and all with your maths and high up knowledge why don’t you propose something more intelligent about what might have gotten a tiff file of such a size on said scanner instead of belittling folk, you fucking little prick.

Well, notwithstanding the fact that I was replying to the OP and not to you, you waded in with both barrels blazing regardless. And your last sentence contains real nice language coming from a lady, or should I say bitch?

FWIW, my last remark was not intended to be ‘scathing’; the OP’s posts to date reveal a person who would benefit from learning more about the subject of scanning and ppi ranges. Everybody these days is in some sort of learning curve about something, so if he is at all interested in the subject, he should study it. A 395 megabyte file from a 35mm negative *is* ridiculous, even if it could be scanned at that resolution. The OP states later that the size of the file is about what I calculated for it, so, ok, he has a file of that size. How did it get that big? I seriously doubt that it was scanned that big, so maybe it was up-rezzed for some reason. Whatever, it is empty magnification, since there is absolutely no detail to resolve at such a size. The best available knowledge says that there is little if any detail in a negative beyond about 4000 ppi, and some think that there is little beyond 2,400 ppi.

I tried to help by explaining. Clearly it didn’t work.

Colin D

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

dorayme wrote:

In article
,
Patricia Aldoraz wrote:

On Apr 23, 7:17 am, Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <4c034$480da4e7$>,
Colin_D wrote:

why don’t you propose something more intelligent about
what might have gotten a tiff file of such a size on said scanner instead of belittling folk,

It’s ok Patricia, don’t upset yourself.

May *I* suggest a theory? This friend of mine has bought the scanner concerned but did not scan the neg himself on his machine but had it done as a test in the shop which had it for sale. The salesman probably did it at 1200, hearing my friend wanted to print it at 10 x 12" opened it in Photoshop or software supplied with scanner (?) and *let* the software add pixels by changing the size to 10 x 12" from its humble natural size. Hence the massive file.

Yes, that’s possibly what happened, a mistake in up-rezzing the image. However, the salesman should have scanned at about 3,000 ppi, as a 10×12 image is a 10-times enlargement from a 35mm negative, and a 3,000 ppi scan enlarged 10 times will give a 300 ppi image, just right for printing. The size of such an image is 10*300*12*300*3 (3 bytes per pixel), which comes out to 32.4 megabytes.

I took little notice of this at the time, was very surprised at the massive file but simply did not think about it, concerned more with the pic being quite nice and printing well and sharing this with folk. Anyway that’s my theory now. I am not saying it is wise to have done this. But the truth is that al my friends are idiots as am I, we form a sort of scatterbrain idiotic society. Colin D will be barred from entry on character grounds. You sound simply too sensible for it too. <g>

Knowledge doesn’t imply sense. If I had any sense I’d keep out of usenet {:-)

Colin D. (barred)
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In article <efb2$481114d6$>,
Colin_D wrote:

And your last
sentence contains real nice language coming from a lady, or should I say bitch?

Now now Colin, can’t you see what you have done? You have succumbed to the same intemperate temptation that snared the very forthright Patricia. <g>

—
dorayme

In article <4abe8$481119a2$>,
Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article
,
Patricia Aldoraz wrote:

On Apr 23, 7:17 am, Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <4c034$480da4e7$>,
Colin_D wrote:

why don’t you propose something more intelligent about
what might have gotten a tiff file of such a size on said scanner instead of belittling folk,

It’s ok Patricia, don’t upset yourself.

May *I* suggest a theory? This friend of mine has bought the scanner concerned but did not scan the neg himself on his machine but had it done as a test in the shop which had it for sale. The salesman probably did it at 1200, hearing my friend wanted to print it at 10 x 12" opened it in Photoshop or software supplied with scanner (?) and *let* the software add pixels by changing the size to 10 x 12" from its humble natural size. Hence the massive file.

Yes, that’s possibly what happened, a mistake in up-rezzing the image. However, the salesman should have scanned at about 3,000 ppi, as a 10×12 image is a 10-times enlargement from a 35mm negative, and a 3,000 ppi scan enlarged 10 times will give a 300 ppi image, just right for printing. The size of such an image is 10*300*12*300*3 (3 bytes per pixel), which comes out to 32.4 megabytes.

I have no dispute with your figures (or with you any longer <g>). Couple of interesting questions:

If it took a goodly few mins to scan at 1200, I wonder how long for 3000 pp1 on this scanner? You are quite right, of course, it should have been scanned at much higher. I will know when my friend gets his scanner delivered. Looking forward to it as I have thousands and thousands of my negs going back 40 years and will now have easier digital access to them when I borrow it!

The other interesting question is this. Given that someone wants a larger print than you would normally produce from a given scan, under what circumstances does it help to allow some additional pixels to be added by the bicubic algorithm?

—
dorayme

On Apr 17, 11:22 pm, dorayme wrote:

What do people think of this scanner:

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfectionv700photo .asp
Sure it is a flatbed, but would it be good to scan and make good prints of 35mm up to 12" x 15" (ie. for negs that one can easily do to this size and more in the darkroom). Appreciate thoughts.

—
dorayme

The best way to scan negatives is in an upright drum scanner. Flatbed scans have a tendency to collect dust, and drum scans at the moment are the best available in the industry. Try find a Hasselblad, they are arguably the best available at the moment for their price tag.

Drum scans can create very large files, which is obviously a bonus if you’re wanting to scale the images up. theprintspace offer drum scan hire for £35/hour pro rata. If you want to come and try one out, you can make a booking for an hour (usually enough to scan between 12-15 negs anyway), contact details are available from theprintspace.com

D

dorayme wrote:

In article <4abe8$481119a2$>,
Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article
,
Patricia Aldoraz wrote:

On Apr 23, 7:17 am, Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

In article <4c034$480da4e7$>,
Colin_D wrote:

why don’t you propose something more intelligent about
what might have gotten a tiff file of such a size on said scanner instead of belittling folk,

It’s ok Patricia, don’t upset yourself.

May *I* suggest a theory? This friend of mine has bought the scanner concerned but did not scan the neg himself on his machine but had it done as a test in the shop which had it for sale. The salesman probably did it at 1200, hearing my friend wanted to print it at 10 x 12" opened it in Photoshop or software supplied with scanner (?) and *let* the software add pixels by changing the size to 10 x 12" from its humble natural size. Hence the massive file.

Yes, that’s possibly what happened, a mistake in up-rezzing the image. However, the salesman should have scanned at about 3,000 ppi, as a 10×12 image is a 10-times enlargement from a 35mm negative, and a 3,000 ppi scan enlarged 10 times will give a 300 ppi image, just right for printing. The size of such an image is 10*300*12*300*3 (3 bytes per pixel), which comes out to 32.4 megabytes.

I have no dispute with your figures (or with you any longer <g>). Couple of interesting questions:

Thanks. Sorry about the delay, my news server (Teranews) is a bit slow sometimes posting messages.

If it took a goodly few mins to scan at 1200, I wonder how long for 3000 pp1 on this scanner? You are quite right, of course, it should have been scanned at much higher. I will know when my friend gets his scanner delivered. Looking forward to it as I have thousands and thousands of my negs going back 40 years and will now have easier digital access to them when I borrow it!

If you are intending to scan even a small selection of those negs, you will probably need to buy a scanner, or your friend won’t see his one back for months. I have the top-of-the-line Canon scanner, a 9950F, which will scan 30 35mm negatives at one time, and at 2400 ppi takes about 2 minutes per negative if FARE – same as ICE in Epsons – is on, or about a minute per neg of FARE is off. FARE/ICE can’t be used with silver-based monochrome negs, only color negs or dye-image monochromes.

The other interesting question is this. Given that someone wants a larger print than you would normally produce from a given scan, under what circumstances does it help to allow some additional pixels to be added by the bicubic algorithm?

The printing standard is generally accepted as 300 ppi, and Frontier printers print at that resolution. A 2400 ppi scan is roughly 2400*3600 pixels, and dividing each dimension by 300 gives the maximum size printable at 300 ppi without interpolation, which for such a scan is 8×12 inches. If you want to print bigger, you have to choose between printing at a lower ppi, or interpolating – ‘up-rezzing’ – the image.

Photoshop’s bicubic algorithm is good, but not the best available, and there’s another problem too. Interpolating with any algorithm is always a compromise, and up-rezzing to 300 ppi is a mistake, and here’s why.

Modern printers all print at a native 600 pixels per inch (Canon) or 720 ppi (Epson). When you send an image to the printer, the printer driver automatically uprezzes the image again with some unspecified algorithm to the printer’s native resolution, and the two-step interpolation does nothing for the image quality.

The answer to this is a program called ‘Qimage’, available off the net for about $50 US. You feed Qimage with the image to be printed at whatever resolution it comes at – do not uprez in your image editor. Qimage uses first-class algorithms to uprez the image straight to the printer’s native resolution, yielding appreciably better images. It’s a quirky program to use, but well worth it for the final result.

That’s maybe more than you wanted to know,

Colin D.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1

dorayme wrote:
| In article ,
| Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
|
|> dorayme found these unused words:
|>
|>> What do people think of this scanner:
|>>
|>> http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfectionv700photo .asp |>>
|>> Sure it is a flatbed, but would it be good to scan and make good prints |>> of 35mm up to 12" x 15" (ie. for negs that one can easily do to this |>> size and more in the darkroom). Appreciate thoughts. |> I use an earlier version and am very happy with results at 3200 ppi. You’ll
|> get even better by a slight bit.
|>
|> You’ll have to override the ‘automatics’ and double check settings. Use the
|> ‘Professional’ mode in the dialogue.
|
| Today I saw a neg that a friend of mine scanned on one of these, a tiff | file from a 35 MM neg (shot on 400 asa colour film) and it came out at | about 380 MB! which is a fair whack. It was very impressive. He has | bought one and I get to use it in about a week! He said he scanned at | 1200 dpi and it took about 10 minutes.
|
| I am not sure what you were scanning exactly at 3200? How long and what | file size and what was the material, a 35mm neg?
|

Given that a decent film scanner will still empty a grand or two from your bank account…

Slide copiers – the kind that fit on an M32 lens mount – with the right $30 adapter for a DSLR might produce some surprisingly good results. No need to bother with monster file size made up mostly of noise either.

There is not an Epson scanner made that you can rely on it’s published specifications to be true. I own a V750 wet bed Epson. It’s good, expensive and troublesome with 35mm film.

Before ever you spend $1000 on a scanner you will not be using daily, it is always a good idea to explore other alternatives. I would particularly encourage you to consider the digital alternative. It would give you a DSLR after you’d scanned your negs.

All you need to do is control the light source and how well it is diffused to obtain exceptional results from ever a 6 megapixel Olympus E300 which can be had used, for a few hundred bucks now.

– —

from Douglas,
If my PGP key is missing, the
post is a forgery. Ignore it.
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFIFoJ7huxzk5D6V14RAtXWAJwPaelDdbqAkoPHA5J7qVsfUz8LFQCe Mnxh DqtoK3VTV5q7418mv1mID9I=
=unUW
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:26:06 -0700 (PDT), theprintspace_Dom wrote:

On Apr 17, 11:22 pm, dorayme wrote:

What do people think of this scanner:

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfectionv700photo .asp
Sure it is a flatbed, but would it be good to scan and make good prints of 35mm up to 12" x 15" (ie. for negs that one can easily do to this size and more in the darkroom). Appreciate thoughts.

—
dorayme

Some many year ago I bought a FS2710 – a pig to install but I would now not be without it. I have just scanned all my slides and some of the negs and if I go mad I can get sizes of 27M for a 35mm neg.
No I will not sell

Børge in sunny Perth, Australia

The best way to scan negatives is in an upright drum scanner. Flatbed scans have a tendency to collect dust, and drum scans at the moment are the best available in the industry. Try find a Hasselblad, they are arguably the best available at the moment for their price tag.
Drum scans can create very large files, which is obviously a bonus if you’re wanting to scale the images up. theprintspace offer drum scan hire for £35/hour pro rata. If you want to come and try one out, you can make a booking for an hour (usually enough to scan between 12-15 negs anyway), contact details are available from theprintspace.com
D

In article <b7607$48165371$>,
Colin_D wrote:

dorayme wrote:

If it took a goodly few mins to scan at 1200, I wonder how long for 3000 pp1 on this scanner? You are quite right, of course, it should have been scanned at much higher. I will know when my friend gets his scanner delivered. Looking forward to it as I have thousands and thousands of my negs going back 40 years and will now have easier digital access to them when I borrow it!

If you are intending to scan even a small selection of those negs, you will probably need to buy a scanner, or your friend won’t see his one back for months.

I have a cunning deal with him! I do some scans for him for the use of it for me… Don’t worry! He’ll not get it back till I am good and ready. <g>

I have the top-of-the-line Canon scanner, a 9950F,
which will scan 30 35mm negatives at one time, and at 2400 ppi takes about 2 minutes per negative if FARE – same as ICE in Epsons – is on, or about a minute per neg of FARE is off. FARE/ICE can’t be used with silver-based monochrome negs, only color negs or dye-image monochromes.

Almost everything I want to scan is a B&W 35mm neg. If it was not for the coming of digital cameras, I might never have moved to colour photography. I have a small percentage of colour, including some Widelux 35mm.

The other interesting question is this. Given that someone wants a larger print than you would normally produce from a given scan, under what circumstances does it help to allow some additional pixels to be added by the bicubic algorithm?

The printing standard is generally accepted as 300 ppi, and Frontier printers print at that resolution. A 2400 ppi scan is roughly 2400*3600 pixels, and dividing each dimension by 300 gives the maximum size printable at 300 ppi without interpolation, which for such a scan is 8×12 inches. If you want to print bigger, you have to choose between printing at a lower ppi, or interpolating – ‘up-rezzing’ – the image.
Photoshop’s bicubic algorithm is good, but not the best available, and there’s another problem too. Interpolating with any algorithm is always a compromise, and up-rezzing to 300 ppi is a mistake, and here’s why.
Modern printers all print at a native 600 pixels per inch (Canon) or 720 ppi (Epson). When you send an image to the printer, the printer driver automatically uprezzes the image again with some unspecified algorithm to the printer’s native resolution, and the two-step interpolation does nothing for the image quality.

The answer to this is a program called ‘Qimage’, available off the net for about $50 US. You feed Qimage with the image to be printed at whatever resolution it comes at – do not uprez in your image editor. Qimage uses first-class algorithms to uprez the image straight to the printer’s native resolution, yielding appreciably better images. It’s a quirky program to use, but well worth it for the final result.
That’s maybe more than you wanted to know,

Actually no, it is exactly the sort of thing I do want to know, so thank you for this. I will explore this software.

—
dorayme