What Input Resolution for BW Negative?

[RedSun]

Sorry if this is a repeat. What input do you use for BW negatives? Both 4x5 and 120 roll films. Use the max optical resolution of the scanner? Or too much waste of storage?

[Lenny Eiger]

I use the max. But the question is incomplete. For what purpose? Are you scanning for printing? What gives you the idea that the max optical is too much quality - for what medium?

Lenny

[Preston]

I use the max on my scanner, too. You can always resample a duplicate of your scan file for a print or the Web. In my opinion, you should consider getting the highest quality scan your hardware will deliver, and if you're short on storage space, consider upgrading your storage system.

--P

[SergeiR]

Sorry if this is a repeat. What input do you use for BW negatives? Both 4x5 and 120 roll films. Use the max optical resolution of the scanner? Or too much waste of storage?

yes. Waste it is. Newer flatbeds peak at around 2400-3200, others - at lower. No point in quadrupling file sizes to squeeze out mythic 6400dpi. There are datasheets on this very site, that you can check.

[Lenny Eiger]

yes. Waste it is. Newer flatbeds peak at around 2400-3200, others - at lower. No point in quadrupling file sizes to squeeze out mythic 6400dpi. There are datasheets on this very site, that you can check.

He did say max optical, vs just max.

FWIW, just so the numbers are all there, the Aztek Premier scanner has a max optical of close to 8,000. Most of the other drum scanners are at 4,000, some higher, some lower. The lower numbers you specify are just for the consumer flatbeds...

Lenny

[SergeiR]

He did say max optical, vs just max.

FWIW, just so the numbers are all there, the Aztek Premier scanner has a max optical of close to 8,000. Most of the other drum scanners are at 4,000, some higher, some lower. The lower numbers you specify are just for the consumer flatbeds...

Lenny

correct. As mentioned in my post i do talk about flatbeds. Which is what i suspect OT is asking about. Overwise post would be "whohooo.. i scored drum scanner, what i should run it at".. or just do search.

[RedSun]

Sorry I did not make it clear. I use both a Epson flatbed (4990) and a Minolta 5400 35mm film scanner. Since this is a LF forum, I did not want to make this a 35mm discussion.

Well, the Minolta can do 5400 optical (as far as I know). a BW scan is already 37MB and a color scan is 111MB. Although storage is cheap these days, but with this pace, the HD can be filled up quickly. In additional to scans, I have digital images, videos, etc.... I'm not sure exactly how large the 4x5 can get, but it should be larger than the 35mm scans. Everything adds up.

I guess we need all the resolutions for SF, but do we need the max optical resolution for LF? Or the other question: at what optical resolution a 4x5 scan still prints well at 20" by 25" large?

[Frank Petronio]

You scan it at the max the flatbed can do and resample it down to 20x25 @ 360dpi.

Of course the best way to know your optimum is to try a few scans and prints at different rezs and see for yourself. Nothing beats actually doing it and then you'll know for sure.

[Lenny Eiger]

Sorry I did not make it clear. I use both a Epson flatbed (4990) and a Minolta 5400 35mm film scanner. Since this is a LF forum, I did not want to make this a 35mm discussion.

Well, the Minolta can do 5400 optical (as far as I know). a BW scan is already 37MB and a color scan is 111MB.

Two things. A Minolta can NOT do 5400 optical. Reality is in the 2000-2500 range. Just because something can generate that many pixels does not mean that the optical capturing system is that good. Only the Eversmart Supreme claims that much in a flatbed, and most drum scanners can do about 4000, with one or two at the 8000 level.



Although storage is cheap these days, but with this pace, the HD can be filled up quickly. In additional to scans, I have digital images, videos, etc.... I'm not sure exactly how large the 4x5 can get, but it should be larger than the 35mm scans. Everything adds up.

No, it doesn't. 4 Terabyte drives are now around $300. You can get an inexpensive case and put two of them in there, one for backup and have a lot of storage that will last for a lot of what you could do for some time.


I guess we need all the resolutions for SF, but do we need the max optical resolution for LF? Or the other question: at what optical resolution a 4x5 scan still prints well at 20" by 25" large?

The arithmetic is simpler than you might imagine. If you multiply the 25 inches by 360 (=9000) you get the number of pixels you need for the longest edge. When you go to a scanner, you set the ppi to the size of the original x the number of pixels you need to get to 9000 total. (Or 9000 / size of the original.)

For 4x5, that's 2000 ppi. (Will get you 10,000 pixels on the 5 inch edge). For 35mm that's 9000/1.5 or 6000ppi.

That's why people use drum scanners like the Aztek Premier, with its 8,000 optical rez, to do 35mm. ICG 380 also has some good rez. They are more sensitive and the images are sharp when they are scanned, vs needing additional sharpening. The smaller the film, the better of a scanner you need. It is a good reason to use 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10.

Lenny

[SURF]

Hi Lenny,

Two things. A Minolta can NOT do 5400 optical. Reality is in the 2000-2500 range.
I have seen USAF resolution target scanned by Minolta and it is impressive. Depending on the scan direction numbers differ from 4000 dpi to 5000 dpi. And it is REAL.

That's why people use drum scanners like the Aztek Premier, with its 8,000 optical rez, to do 35mm. ICG 380 also has some good rez.
And this is not real to me till somebody bother to scan film copy of the USAF target. I know those scanners can make a great scans. (If it is in perfect condition and operator knows the things.)

[AFSmithphoto]

Two things. A Minolta can NOT do 5400 optical. Reality is in the 2000-2500 range. Just because something can generate that many pixels does not mean that the optical capturing system is that good. Only the Eversmart Supreme claims that much in a flatbed, and most drum scanners can do about 4000, with one or two at the 8000 level.


I think you're confused about which minolta he means. There are two Minolta 5400 Elite scanners (I and II) They are both dedicated film scanners, and both capable of far more than 2500. I haven't much experience with the I, but I own the II and it is the best 35mm scanner I've ever had the priveledge of working with. It blows away my Nikon 8000 (4000 dpi) for 35mm.

[Brian Ellis]

Based on the tests done by reviewers around the time the 4990 was first sold, it can resolve about 2100 - 2200 ppi. That's what I use when scanning 4x5 and 8x10 b&w film with mine. I don't use it to scan smaller formats.

[Lenny Eiger]

I think you're confused about which minolta he means. There are two Minolta 5400 Elite scanners (I and II) They are both dedicated film scanners, and both capable of far more than 2500. I haven't much experience with the I, but I own the II and it is the best 35mm scanner I've ever had the priveledge of working with. It blows away my Nikon 8000 (4000 dpi) for 35mm.

With all due respect, I am not confused. You are talking about manufacturer's numbers vs real resolution. There is no Minlota capable of more than 2500, nor is there e Nikon capable of 4000 - in optical resolution.

These are CCD scanners and there is physics to consider...

Lenny

[sanking]

Lenny,

You really should avoid commenting about equipment you yourself have not tested. Have you ever tested a Minolta 5400 Elite? The answer is obviously no, because if you had you would know that these machines are indeed capable of real resolution of 4000 dpi, or in fact higher.

Several years ago I saw some comparison scans of a very high resolution negative (Leitz aspherical glass, low ASA very high resolution film) made with a Howtek 4500 drum scanner and a Minolta 5400. These scans were made by a very smart operator who knew how to get the most out of his camera and scanners. The Minolta scans captured more detail than the Howtek drum scanner, no doubt about it.

The fact that a scanner is based on a CCD does not mean that it is not capable of capturing a very high percentage of the stated optical resolution. Some do, many don't.

Sandy




With all due respect, I am not confused. You are talking about manufacturer's numbers vs real resolution. There is no Minlota capable of more than 2500, nor is there e Nikon capable of 4000 - in optical resolution.

These are CCD scanners and there is physics to consider...

Lenny

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,
You really should avoid commenting about equipment you yourself have not tested. Have you ever tested a Minolta 5400 Elite? The answer is obviously no, because if you had you would know that these machines are indeed capable of real resolution of 4000 dpi, or in fact higher.

Sandy,
You should really stop making this personal. I have indeed seen scans from this machine. I believe it was a II, but its possible I am incorrect about that. I did scans with my machine, and the ones from the Minolta did not compare on a number of fronts. They weren't bad, just like a Nikon scan... which, with a glass carrier can be fine. The most surprising thing was that my Premier saw a lot more subtle colors that the other scanner didn't even see. The photographer agreed wholeheartedly. Did he have have an out of alignment Minolta? Could be.


Several years ago I saw some comparison scans of a very high resolution negative (Leitz aspherical glass, low ASA very high resolution film) made with a Howtek 4500 drum scanner and a Minolta 5400. These scans were made by a very smart operator who knew how to get the most out of his camera and scanners. The Minolta scans captured more detail than the Howtek drum scanner, no doubt about it.

The fact that a scanner is based on a CCD does not mean that it is not capable of capturing a very high percentage of the stated optical resolution. Some do, many don't.

I would say its possible that many of the scanners work better if they are somehow perfectly aligned. I see no reason to doubt that you have seen something amazing happen. I would certainly say that a Howtek after a maintenance is way better than one before. I have experienced this directly.

I was just on Facebook looking at the posts of some of my friends. Everything they posted is a photo. Except that most things are actually not photos at all, but posters. It bothers me. As photographers, we make all kinds of things work. I see no reason why someone couldn't make a very nice print by taking a picture with a digital camera (even the smallest of them), making a digital neg at a reasonable size and making an alt process print. They can have atmosphere, lots of feeling to them and everything else. Is it the same as using an 8x10 neg and contact printing? No. It's different.

It's not right to say one is the same as the other.

I am not saying everyone needs a drum scan. But they are different, they do have a better sensor than a ccd, and the files come off of them are sharp. It isn't right to compare them to the consumer scanners. They're different.

Lenny

[sanking]

Lenny,

Yes, perhaps I should not have responded. Before commenting on your remarks about the capabilities of the Minolta scanner I should have reminded myself of something I read recently in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.

"Even if you burst with indignation, they will still carry on regardless."

Sandy