View Full Version : Using scanner to capture 8"x10" positive
I want to get a film scanner to capture 8"x10" positive to PC. Could you give me some advices regarding:
1. What is the file size (best quality) with a scanning resolution of 6400x9600 dpi?
2. What is the quality of this file? I mean if I send this file to photo printing lab to print a 16"x20" photo. What is the quality of this photo? Of course, you may ask why not send the film directly for a print.
3. Which scanner do you suggest? Epson? Nikkon? Drum scanner?
4. How much should I pay for a good quality scanner?
Thanks a lot.
When you say 'positive' do you mean a print or transparency?
from 8x10 to 16x20 is only a 2x enlargement, so you only need a scanner capable of about 600-1000 dpi
Any flatbed scanner capable of scanning your 8x10 original should be fine.
If all you want is a 16x20 from 8x10, you could use almost any scanner with a transparency adapter that covers 8x10 because you only need about 1200 DPI in the scan to more than max out any 16x20 printing media. Your big issue would be avoiding Newton's rings, not resolution. Dmax could be an issue, but again, you have so much resolution to spare you could filter out the noise and still be fine.
Your real question should be how big a print do I want to make from these scans? If it is less than about 40x60, you are not going to tax the scanner.
Hello Davie, the 9600 dpi you state is probably an interpolated figure, and is overkill in any case. You need about 300 ppi for most printing. At 4800 dpi from an 8x10 you could print128" x160". But in an case the file would be too large for Photoshop to handle.
What is your budget, an what is the largest that you plan to print in the future? A 16x20 is only a 2x enlargement from the chrome. You could do that with an Epson 4990 easily.
Since your questions reveals that you're not experienced at this, I suggest starting with an inexpensive Epson that will scan 8x10, like the 4990 or one of the newer models that have just been announced but are not yet shipping (the Epson 750 series).
Even if you do have the deep pockets to do drum scans and ultra large prints, you will still need the cheap Epson for proofing and tests. You're not going to want to scan and print everything large, and even if you did, it would behoove you to do a quick and dirty test with the Epson to confirm that your film is good and sharp before investing the time and money into a drum scan. You will also need to make rough proofs for others to go by, make small scans for the internet, etc.
A few more thoughts. There are several models available in the 500 or less range from Micreotek and Epson and any of them will do what Frank says. This is a good starting point. The next step up is the Microtek 1800f which will cost you around 1000 and the next step up after that will run you into many many thousands for 8x10 capability.
You really do need to answer a number of questions for yourself before you proceed .... all along the lines already posed. Additionally, you will want to evaluate the material you are scanning to see how much shadow deteail you are dealing with as that is where you have the real issues with the scanners we are discussing v. the drum scanners.
I don't know where you are located but if it is anywhere in North America you might want to consider one of our Scanning Workshops where you will get a chance to try out a number of different scanners. I will send you some details offlist.
dvie ... tried to send you an emailand it bounced back
I scanned an 8x10 positive, vintage print, worked on it in Photoshop, and got excellent inkjet results reproducing it to 1:1. I haven't tried it, but I would feel comfortable going to 11x14. I dunno about 16x20, but knowing that excellent results are possible at 1:1, I'd give it a try.
I used a 4870 scanner, and the image was scanned at 900 ppi. This was probably overkill, but I wanted to allow for the possibility of enlargement later on.
When one considers the stringent demands placed on scanners by film, given enlargement and dynamic range factors needed, the same scanner can do an excellent job with reflective media.
By positive I thought you meant a transparency - do you mean a print? If it is a print, nearly any scanner will work.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.