Scanning 8x10

[tenderobject]

Hi guys,

I want to ask what is the standard output size to use when scanning 8x10 negatives?

I'm using Microtek i800+. I usually use 2400ppi max res. I wonder what should be better for printing larger than 8x10 from it.

Thanks!

[Ari]

I scan 8x10 on the Epson v750, usually at 720 dpi; this gives me a 16x20 at 360 dpi.
It depends how large you want to print.

[tenderobject]

Wow! So, i'm over doing it?!

16x20 sounds good to me. I've been scanning my 8x10 negs at 8x10 output, 2400dpi!!!
Is this too much? I never see any problem with my image when scanned like this. Actually i like it although it is slow to scan and get a lot of space..
Ha! I never printed the scanned images yet.

Ari, do you use any glass to flat the neg in the glass bed? Any tips on that? I noticed some of the negs i scanned earlier has white corners..


I scan 8x10 on the Epson v750, usually at 720 dpi; this gives me a 16x20 at 360 dpi.
It depends how large you want to print.

[Ken Lee]

what is the standard output size to use when scanning 8x10 negatives?

I'm using Microtek i800+. I usually use 2400ppi max res. I wonder what should be better for printing larger than 8x10 from it.

You might find this article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.php) helpful: see the section entitled Which Scanning Resolution ?

[Ari]

Wow! So, i'm over doing it?!

16x20 sounds good to me. I've been scanning my 8x10 negs at 8x10 output, 2400dpi!!!
Is this too much? I never see any problem with my image when scanned like this. Actually i like it although it is slow to scan and get a lot of space..
Ha! I never printed the scanned images yet.

Ari, do you use any glass to flat the neg in the glass bed? Any tips on that? I noticed some of the negs i scanned earlier has white corners..

I've used Ken's scanning article before as a guide, and it's worked well for me.
I don't know your scanner, but 2400 dpi is possibly overkill, again depending on your desired print size.

I haven't spent time to see if scanning at 1440dpi, then reducing to 360dpi, will make for a better print; maybe someone here has done so and can offer their expertise.

For 8x10, I scan directly on the scanner bed, no extra glass; my film usually comes out flat, but when it doesn't, I tape down the corners.

Good luck with the Microtek!

[Peter De Smidt]

These scanners work by having a linear ccd sensor with a given number of elements, probably around 4000, and a zoom lens. (The pro scanners at the time used a Kodak 8000 element tri-linear ccd.) The lens zooms to cover the film, but you will always only have a given number of samples in the short direction of the bed. What that means is that resolution of the scanner changes with film size. So if a 35mm film is limited to a theoretical resolution of 4000, then 120 film, being roughly twice as wide, will be limited to 2000.... The only way around this is to scan in small strips and combine the files. Some Creo scanners do that automatically, and they had a patent on it. (I'm not sure who owns this now.) Those scanners cost thousands of dollars, and so I doubt very much that the Microtek does that. Anything over the resolution of the sensor will be interpolated in software. It's unlikely that your scanner is giving you anywhere close to 2400 dpi of real resolution with 8x10 film. The only way to know would be to test with a chrome on glass resolution target. Another way, even better really, would be to scan a negative at different resolutions and then make prints. Do the higher res files give better results in your workflow? You might check scanning at 720 versus 1440. Anything higher is probably a waste of time with your scanner and 8x10 film.

[tenderobject]

Thank you Ken!


You might find this article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.php) helpful: see the section entitled Which Scanning Resolution ?

[tenderobject]

Thanks Ari. I'm still trying to figure out this digital workflow. I have this scanner for about 1 year now and i haven't maximized it's potential.
I'll try to print some of my scanned images soon to check how good this scanner is. As this is not like the Epson v750/700. It's PITA sometimes. The software included with my scanner is really bad! It has some presets for film which i can't disable! Maybe getting a Silverfast software would ease my process..



I've used Ken's scanning article before as a guide, and it's worked well for me.
I don't know your scanner, but 2400 dpi is possibly overkill, again depending on your desired print size.

I haven't spent time to see if scanning at 1440dpi, then reducing to 360dpi, will make for a better print; maybe someone here has done so and can offer their expertise.

For 8x10, I scan directly on the scanner bed, no extra glass; my film usually comes out flat, but when it doesn't, I tape down the corners.

Good luck with the Microtek!

[tenderobject]

WOW thanks for this info!

This is the specs of my scanner.

http://www.microtekusa.com/products.php?KindID=3&ID=38

4800 x 9600 dpi resolution and 4.0 Dmax optical density
Built-in 8" x 12" transparency adapter delivers professional results
Exclusive EZ-Lock™ film holders
No need to warm up
6 Smart-Touch buttons
Unique ColoRescue™ system
Tailor-made Scanning Software for Mac System

I know this is not better than any other flatbed around that can scan up to 8x10 but this is what i have here right now. So, maximizing its potential for me is a must.. I'll try to print some of my scans soon to check the quality. So i have to keep in mind that scanning my 8x10 negative @ 2400dpi is a waste of time. Maybe with 35mm film 2400 is good? Although i rarely shoot 35mm now. 8x10 and 617. To be in the safe side what resolution should i use for an 16x20 to 24x30 prints for 8x10 format? I'm a bit confused on the output settings as well. If i scan 8x10 for example. An output setting of 8x10 would be good enough?
For example: 8x10 negs output setting: 8x10 (inch) 1200dpi, 6x17 negs output setting: 6x17 (cm) at 1200dpi?

Thank you guys!!!



These scanners work by having a linear ccd sensor with a given number of elements, probably around 4000, and a zoom lens. (The pro scanners at the time used a Kodak 8000 element tri-linear ccd.) The lens zooms to cover the film, but you will always only have a given number of samples in the short direction of the bed. What that means is that resolution of the scanner changes with film size. So if a 35mm film is limited to a theoretical resolution of 4000, then 120 film, being roughly twice as wide, will be limited to 2000.... The only way around this is to scan in small strips and combine the files. Some Creo scanners do that automatically, and they had a patent on it. (I'm not sure who owns this now.) Those scanners cost thousands of dollars, and so I doubt very much that the Microtek does that. Anything over the resolution of the sensor will be interpolated in software. It's unlikely that your scanner is giving you anywhere close to 2400 dpi of real resolution with 8x10 film. The only way to know would be to test with a chrome on glass resolution target. Another way, even better really, would be to scan a negative at different resolutions and then make prints. Do the higher res files give better results in your workflow? You might check scanning at 720 versus 1440. Anything higher is probably a waste of time with your scanner and 8x10 film.

[StoneNYC]

It's interesting about the line reducing the resolution and interpolation, I find that I can scan 120 at 3200 but 35mm doesn't seem much better past 2400 and 4x5 does best at 2400 again, maybe it's the film base thickness? I don't know lol

Edit: with my V750

[Peter De Smidt]

Keep output size the same as the film size. That's how most people refer to scanner resolution. "Output size" is a remnant from 1990s pre-press work. Today, most scans are done at the best resolution for the film, which includes film size, type ...., and then resized as needed in Photoshop to make prints. Scanning takes time, and so it's usually most efficient to scan once instead of making many scans for different sizes. Always archive the original scan. In other words, treat it like a negative. If you overwrite it at a lower res, you'd have to re-scan.

Consumer flatbeds, such as yours, do best with bigger film. As long as you keep the enlargement size down to about 4x, and your workflow, especially how you sharpen the file, is up to snuff, you can get good results, especially if your film doesn't get too dense. The specs put out by consumer scanner companies are bogus, especially the dmax and max resolution numbers.

With a flatbed, I've found that finding the proper height for the negative is very important. I'm not sure if your scanner is auto or set focus, but with Epsons the best result is often with the film raised a bit. It also needs to be kept flat.

[tenderobject]

ha! This digital workflow is now confusing! lol


It's interesting about the line reducing the resolution and interpolation, I find that I can scan 120 at 3200 but 35mm doesn't seem much better past 2400 and 4x5 does best at 2400 again, maybe it's the film base thickness? I don't know lol

Edit: with my V750

[enneffe]

Around 2400 for 8x10 is my standard for creating a master file. I'd suggest avoiding scanning above the optical resolution max of your scanner. If making prints that require 2000+ resolution, I'd suggest outsourcing the work to a shop with a drum scanner like the Tango or Aztek Premier - costs more but will save you in the end as you'll have a much sharper (across the entire plane of focus) and cleaner scan...unless of course you are skilled in the art:-)

[tenderobject]

Thanks peter for the all the info!


Keep output size the same as the film size. That's how most people refer to scanner resolution. "Output size" is a remnant from 1990s pre-press work. Today, most scans are done at the best resolution for the film, which includes film size, type ...., and then resized as needed in Photoshop to make prints. Scanning takes time, and so it's usually most efficient to scan once instead of making many scans for different sizes. Always archive the original scan. In other words, treat it like a negative. If you overwrite it at a lower res, you'd have to re-scan.

Consumer flatbeds, such as yours, do best with bigger film. As long as you keep the enlargement size down to about 4x, and your workflow, especially how you sharpen the file, is up to snuff, you can get good results, especially if your film doesn't get too dense. The specs put out by consumer scanner companies are bogus, especially the dmax and max resolution numbers.

With a flatbed, I've found that finding the proper height for the negative is very important. I'm not sure if your scanner is auto or set focus, but with Epsons the best result is often with the film raised a bit. It also needs to be kept flat.

[tenderobject]

Thanks enneffe. I'm not sure about the optical res max of my scanner (Microtek i800+). The info in their website says 4800 x 9600 dpi. I only scan at 2400dpi max. Would this be better enough to create master file? I'm still new with digital workflow. My main purpose for scanning negs are for printing bigger positive and negative. I hope that scanning my negs at 2400 won't make my master files worst.



Around 2400 for 8x10 is my standard for creating a master file. I'd suggest avoiding scanning above the optical resolution max of your scanner. If making prints that require 2000+ resolution, I'd suggest outsourcing the work to a shop with a drum scanner like the Tango or Aztek Premier - costs more but will save you in the end as you'll have a much sharper (across the entire plane of focus) and cleaner scan...unless of course you are skilled in the art:-)

[Peter De Smidt]

Testing on similar scanners shows a max res of about 2400 dpi using a resolution target. That would be for scanning 35mm film. As you go up in size, that number will drop, as mentioned before.

[tenderobject]

Thanks again Peter. I'll try to make some test scans and have it printed here to see whats in there. This digital workflow is a bit complicated for me. :D



Testing on similar scanners shows a max res of about 2400 dpi using a resolution target. That would be for scanning 35mm film. As you go up in size, that number will drop, as mentioned before.

[Peter De Smidt]

...This digital workflow is a bit complicated for me. :D

Don't worry, it's complicated for everyone!

[Jordan]

If you're scanning 8x10" negatives you can make 32x40" prints easily and have them look sweet. I've done it and have seen it done numerous times on just an Epson V700 (not even the higher end 750). I've also compared fluid mounting and and just using painters tape (or whatever less adhesive type of tape) to keep the negative flat and haven't noticed much of a difference between the two outside of dust reduction. Anyhow, I find it pretty straight forward and once you get the hang of it I'm sure you will as well.

[StoneNYC]

If you're scanning 8x10" negatives you can make 32x40" prints easily and have them look sweet. I've done it and have seen it done numerous times on just an Epson V700 (not even the higher end 750). I've also compared fluid mounting and and just using painters tape (or whatever less adhesive type of tape) to keep the negative flat and haven't noticed much of a difference between the two outside of dust reduction. Anyhow, I find it pretty straight forward and once you get the hang of it I'm sure you will as well.

With fluid mounting the negative, since the negative is already wet before you dry it, is it possible to fluid mount it right after processing and then dry it after? Or is there some reason to wait and mount it after because of some kind of emulsion swelling that doesn't happen after the initial drying time?

[Peter De Smidt]

That's not a good idea. When the negative is wet, the emulsion is swelled and soft, as you guessed. Scanning fluid does not contain water, and it doesn't swell the emulsion.

[StoneNYC]

That's not a good idea. When the negative is wet, the emulsion is swelled and soft, as you guessed. Scanning fluid does not contain water, and it doesn't swell the emulsion.

OHH!!! It doesn't? Ok got it!

So, when you're done with the fluid, you still have to wash it off right it doesn't just evaporate? So then you have to wash it and hang it again?

[Peter De Smidt]

The fluid will evaporate quickly. It's mostly high purity naphtha, or similar. Supposedly you don't have to clean off things like Kami and Lumina, but they do leave a tiny bit of residue on the negs contrary to what their makers claim, which could be an issue if you dry scan or enlarge optically down-the-road. Kami makes film cleaner, and that can be used if the residue causes a problem. Using the proper wipes is very important, as is technique. Cleaning negs puts them in peril of scratches. You don't want to wash the neg with water if you can help it, as that makes damage even more likely.

To the original poster: don't worry about fluid mounting the film. With some systems it has very little effect, and it adds a bunch of possible gotchyas. When I had a consumer flatbed, I tried it but didn't think it was worth the effort with that scanner. Once you have everything else in the workflow nailed down, you can always give it a try if you feel like it.

[Ari]

I agree with Peter on this; fluid mounting vs dry mounting yielded very similar results, only that dry mounting might take a minute longer (to tape down the negative).
The mounting fluid rarely left any residue, but it did happen on occasion.

Tenderobject: if you want to make an 8x10 print from your 8x10 negative, scan it at 360 dpi.
If you want a 2x enlargement (16x20) scan it at 720 dpi, and so forth.
I scan B&W negs as 48-bit colour; target size is always 8x10, as you can increase file size by reducing resolution in PS (i.e. from 720dpi to 360 dpi) after scanning.
De-saturate and re-size in PS.

[Peter De Smidt]

Before de-saturating to make a BW image, look at each of the channels, i.e. the red, green and blue channels, independently. Sometimes one of them will be clearly better than the others. With my scanner, it is usually the green channel. You can then make the bw image from just that channel.

[Ari]

Before de-saturating to make a BW image, look at each of the channels, i.e. the red, green and blue channels, independently. Sometimes one of them will be clearly better than the others. With my scanner, it is usually the green channel. You can then make the bw image from just that channel.

Are you doing this in the scanner software, Peter, or in PS?

[Peter De Smidt]

I usually do it in Photoshop. While my scanner can be set to make the bw image from any channel, I like to make the choice for each negative, and so I scan BW film as an RGB positive. Some film and developer combos, especially ones made with a staining developers, can react differently than regular developed film. For instance, Pyrocat negatives see much more density through the blue channel than through the green. Sometimes it a trade off between finest grain, image detail, and tonality. With large format film, I normally choose the channel with the best tonality.

[Ari]

Interesting, thank you.

[tenderobject]

Thank you all guys! Another scanning question.

My software has this M. Sampling option. Is it necessary to use this when scanning 8x10?

Thanks!

[tenderobject]

Interesting! How do you scan BW film as RGB positive? Also, you guys use Tif as output? I always does Tif then resize to Jpeg for online posting.



I usually do it in Photoshop. While my scanner can be set to make the bw image from any channel, I like to make the choice for each negative, and so I scan BW film as an RGB positive. Some film and developer combos, especially ones made with a staining developers, can react differently than regular developed film. For instance, Pyrocat negatives see much more density through the blue channel than through the green. Sometimes it a trade off between finest grain, image detail, and tonality. With large format film, I normally choose the channel with the best tonality.

[Ari]

Interesting! How do you scan BW film as RGB positive? Also, you guys use Tif as output? I always does Tif then resize to Jpeg for online posting.

There should be that option in your scanner software.
And yes, I always output to TIFF, save it as RGB file. If I need to make a JPEG, I will save that as sRGB, with a resolution of 100 dpi.
I have not heard of the M. Sampling option, perhaps it's only Microtek software?

[Peter De Smidt]

As Ari says, always save the scan as a 16-bit-per-channel TIF or better. Jpegs are lossy, whereas Tifs are not. So, Scan into a tif. Archive that file. I have a folder, which I back up, called "Original Scans". When I want to work on the file. I open one from the "Original Scans" folder. I then immediately rename that file and save it in a "Working File" folder. Edit the file. Save. You now have a full res 16-bpc image. That's your master file. You make print files, web files (100 dpi, 8-bit-per-channel, sRGB jpegs)...from the master file. Make sure to back up the master file, because if you lose it, all of your work is gone, except for the "original scan" file.

My guess is the the M. Sampling option reads the negative multiple times and then averages the value. This can help with noise. Note, though, that there are two types. The first scans the whole negative, and then scans the whole thing again. It can do this many times. This will lower noise, but consumer flatbeds aren't precise enough the the multiple scans always line up. So this type can lead to a loss of detail. The second type of multi-scanning reads one scan line of the negative multiple times before moving on. Since there is no movement between the multiple exposures, image registration won't be a problem. This type of multi-sampling is much better than the first, with the only negative being increased scan time.

[tenderobject]

Peter, excellent idea! Thank you very much. I would try to do this next time i scan my negs. This would be a good start for a new workflow!

By the way, my software scanner have up to 16 line sof M. Sampling. I'm not sure what type of multi-sampling my scanner does.
Would it be safe to use this? 2,4,8,16 settings. Maybe using this for my master file would help?

Thanks again guys!


As Ari says, always save the scan as a 16-bit-per-channel TIF or better. Jpegs are lossy, whereas Tifs are not. So, Scan into a tif. Archive that file. I have a folder, which I back up, called "Original Scans". When I want to work on the file. I open one from the "Original Scans" folder. I then immediately rename that file and save it in a "Working File" folder. Edit the file. Save. You now have a full res 16-bpc image. That's your master file. You make print files, web files (100 dpi, 8-bit-per-channel, sRGB jpegs)...from the master file. Make sure to back up the master file, because if you lose it, all of your work is gone, except for the "original scan" file.

My guess is the the M. Sampling option reads the negative multiple times and then averages the value. This can help with noise. Note, though, that there are two types. The first scans the whole negative, and then scans the whole thing again. It can do this many times. This will lower noise, but consumer flatbeds aren't precise enough the the multiple scans always line up. So this type can lead to a loss of detail. The second type of multi-scanning reads one scan line of the negative multiple times before moving on. Since there is no movement between the multiple exposures, image registration won't be a problem. This type of multi-sampling is much better than the first, with the only negative being increased scan time.

[Peter De Smidt]

Regarding multiple sampling, the best way to answer this is to run a test. Make a scan, it doesn't have to be a huge area, but it's good if it has a full range of tones. Don't use multi-sampling. Now repeat using 2x, multi-sampling, then 4x, then 8x...... Make sure you know which scan is which. Compare the the image with no multisampling to the one down at 16x at 100% on screen. Is there a sharpness difference? Now compare the grain rendition in the densest part of the negative. Do the ones with multi-sampling look cleaner? If you lose sharpness, or you don't gain less noise, then it's not worth doing multi-sampling, at least with film of that max density. If it's less noisy with no loss of sharpness, then it might be worth doing. Compare the ones at various levels. Doing this you should be able to make an informed decision regarding sharpness, noise and scan time.

[tenderobject]

Thank you Peter. I will try some testing this week and will try to post it here. :)

[Jeremy Moore]

Depending upon your printer and your printer driver you can print at resolutions higher than 360 and there is a real detail increase. I print my images at 720 ppi.

[tenderobject]

720ppi? How big is the print? How big is the output size of your scanned 8x10 negative? Thanks!


Depending upon your printer and your printer driver you can print at resolutions higher than 360 and there is a real detail increase. I print my images at 720 ppi.

[Peter De Smidt]

There are all sorts of resolutions....how many samples-per-inch in the scan, how many of the smallest dots that the printer can make (this is what you get with the 1440 or 2880 dpi statement), and what is the maximum resolution file that your printer will use without re-sizing. Most Epson printers won't resize a file at 720 dpi. With some Canon and HP printers, it's 600 dpi. Let's call the resolution that a printer driver won't re-sample the image the printer's native resolution. (That's not the same thing as the smallest drop the printer will print. Points on the image are usually made with many printer dots.) I have an Epson 7600 printer. It prints best with a file at the final output size and at 720 dpi. This assumes that the file really has info at that level. Moving down to 480 dpi shows a tiny loss. Down to 300 a much bigger loss... (Note that color prints can often get away with lower dpi images than grayscale. Also, digital cameras can get away with a little less and still look pretty good.) So, if you have a scanner, and a system that can handle the hi res files, you can maximize quality for an Epson printer by ending up with a 720dpi file at print size. But if your file doesn't really contain that much image data, i.e. if your scanner cannot pull enough info from the film, then your simply having your scanner software interpolate the image instead of the print driver. Which is better might be worth testing. What is important, though, is that you understand what's going on, and you can keep all of the various resolution figures straight. Leave it to marketing folks to make things as confusing as possible.

[Leigh]

You might find this article[/URL] helpful: see the section entitled Which Scanning Resolution ?
The whole problem with that method is that it requires you to determine your maximum enlargement before you do the scan.

Perhaps your crystal ball is better than mine, but I've often enlarged images to a much greater degree than I anticipated.

I do agree with the earlier statement in that article: "It's easiest if we scan at the highest resolution we'll ever need."
That's particularly important if you plan to archive the real image and use the digital rendition as your primary source.

- Leigh