I’m taking on a project of scanning 50 years of family photos. I’ve tested my scanner (Epson V700), every think is working, positives, negative, and photos.
I’ve tried to enlarge a 35mm negative and the 5X7 print is really grainy. Any ideas for the settings, I using the plastic film strip holder and some how the Espon scanner know how many prints I’m scaning.
What about resolution more then 300ppi and I need to restudy 16bit vs 24 bit etc .
Any help will be appreciated!!!
Attached to this posting is my Epson menu
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
#1. "RE: Scanner Math" | In response to Reply # 0
#2. "RE: Scanner Math" | In response to Reply # 0
That's correct. In your settings you are scanning to a physical size of 1.32 x 0.82 inches with a dpi of 800. If you were to upsize so that you could make a print at 5 x 7 inches you are increasing the long side 5.3 times and the dpi will change to roughly 150 dpi. This will accentuate grain and give you a print with little fine detail. You should scan 35mm film for archival purposes at a resolution of at least 2400 and anywhere up to 4800 dpi.
esartprints.com Ernesto Santos Photography
Get my new e-Book "Churches of Texas"
#4. "RE: Scanner Math" | In response to Reply # 2Thu 11-Oct-12 01:57 AM
Hi Ernesto !!!
Thanks for jumping in!
Some of the negatives are very special and I would like to be able to scan a 35mm slide and improve the quality, so I print at 5X7 or max quality for an 8X10 to the max some of negatives.
I don’t know how the “image type” values are affecting the scanner output. “
I can study my photoshop to see how I can improve the output. Is there software sold to add pixels for 8X10 enlargements for 35mm slides?
As always, Thank You
#5. "RE: Scanner Math" | In response to Reply # 0
I scan negatives and slides at 3200 dpi. That may be a slightly overkill, but I don't feel like undershooting and then needing to go back and rescan them again later. A 3200 dpi scan results in a file that's about 12mp... rather like my D3's. I did an experiment with 6400 dpi and those files are about 45-50mp. They aren't any more usable. The V700 is a little better (I have one of those down at the historical society) but not much.
I recently scanned an old negative at 3200 dpi and was able to produce a reasonable 24x36" print. We have a silver gelatin print of the original negative at the society and I do not think that my print is as good technically. On the other hand, if you put them on the wall, you're unlikely to notice the difference. The original is mounted about six feet off the ground and from the typical viewing distance of maybe 8-10 feet I am confident that digital print would not be viewed substantially differently.
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
#7. "RE: Scanner Math" | In response to Reply # 5Sun 14-Oct-12 05:48 PM
This scanning stuff is so cool, Somehow when I scan film strip negatives or single 35mm positive slides using the film holder the scanner/ software knows that each photo is counted at as individual jpg.
I’m going to try the 3200 dpi and 6400 dpi. Maybe I can use another external hard drive.
Thank you for the suggestions.
#10. "RE: Scanner Math" | In response to Reply # 7RABaker Registered since 30th Sep 2003Thu 18-Oct-12 05:07 AM
I scanned negatives and slides for several years before I got my first DSLR. Here are a few points that I think may be relevant to your goals:
- If you scan 35mm film/slides at 3200 ppi that is sufficient resolution to make a quality print up to about 8x10 (8x12?) or a little larger. If you know you will not print larger than 5x7, then scanning at 2400 ppi will be more than enough resolution.
- If you want to print the image even larger than 8x10/8x12, it is probably worthwhile to scan at higher resolution like 4800 or 6400 ppi. rather than scanning at 3200 ppi and upsizing the file in image editing software. Note that scanning at 4800 or 6400 ppi will work best with fine grain films.
- In order to get the most image information into the file, so that you will have the most options for later processing, scanning at the highest bit depth is desirable. However, going from a 24-bit scan (8 bits per channel) to a 48-bit scan (16 bits per channel) will increase the file sizes significantly. You need to decide whether having more information in the file to work with in post processing is worth the larger file sizes. Large file sizes will not only take up more storage space, they *may* also slow down your image editing software and result in you having to spend more time at the computer - depends on your computer speed and how much memory it has.
- Unlike a dedicated film scanner, the V700 cannot focus its lens on the film being scanned (I have a V750 which is similar). The film strip holder raises the film above the scanner glass and the lens is adjusted automatically for this shift. However, film is often not really flat and it may be necessary to adjust the spacing above the glass to get the best focus - check your V700 manual about how to do this. Unfortunately, if the film is not spaced correctly to allow for a good focus any resulting print will be lower quality than it could be (somewhat unsharp).
- Learn to use the histogram in your scanning software so that you capture all the information from the image that you can without wasting any of the scanner's dynamic range.
Just to relate a small piece of my scanning experience: Scanning has a pretty steep learning curve at first. It does level out to some degree but I was still learning how to improve my scans after 6 years. I found that some of my favorite images, many of the ones that I chose to scan first, I re-scanned later and was able to improve both the scan quality and the printed output. Don't be surprised if the scanning process goes slowly at first - it will speed up (at least to some extent) when you get more experience. But also don't be surprised if you find that after a while you want to go back and repeat some earlier scans.
#6. "RE: Scanner Math" | In response to Reply # 0
Using the 24-bit color image type, you are recording only 8 bits per color channel. While that intensity resolution is adequate for printing, film negatives probably contain information beyond that. The V700 specs suggest it can capture 16 bits per channel, which may be a bit of an exaggeration. I suspect it is more like most SLR cameras, in the range from 12 to 14 bits per channel. Still, the V700 most likely is capable of much better than 8 bits per channel.
So, it may be a good idea to scan witha setting of 48-bit color.
Similarly, 35-mm film has very good spatial resolution. For example, Kodachrome 64 can capture information at more than 2500 dpi. Thus, the earlier suggestions of setting the scan resolution to 2400 or higher are worth following, if you want to get as much from the film image as possible.
#8. "RE: Scanner Math" | In response to Reply # 6Sun 14-Oct-12 06:01 PM
I have a weak understanding of color bits. This has come up when I installed Windows 7 and before that my D200 camera files and then opening a Nikon NEF with Photoshop.
I know that each color has a value of 0 to 255, and then brightness/luminosity values.
It's now time that I set down and study the world of bits.
Thanks for your suggestions!
#9. "RE: Scanner Math" | In response to Reply # 8kmh Nikonian since 04th May 2008Wed 17-Oct-12 04:51 PM | edited Thu 18-Oct-12 02:00 PM by kmh
Here a few comments concerning the number of bits used in a digital image. In a JPEG image, the intensity of each color channel is quantified by an 8-bit number. That means that a color intensity can have values between 0 and 255. Only integer values are possible, so a value of 128.3 is not allowed. In other words, the intensities are quantized; the minimal increment in intensity is one. As a result, a JPEG image of a continuous ramp in intensities is actually a step function with at most 256 steps.
The effect of using a limited number of bits to represent an image is shown in the following two figures:
8-bit per channel image
3-bit per channel image
The first figure shows a portion of a JPEG photo, which uses 8 bits per channel or 24 bits per pixel. At this intensity resolution, the figure appears to be a continuous image. The second figure shows the same scene, but using only 3 bits (corresponding to eight intensity levels) per channel.
In the second figure only specific colors are displayed. Thus, a scene with smooth variations in tone and color produces abrupt jumps. These steps are most easily seen near the top of the image where the cranes in the background are severely blurred. This effect is often referred to as posterization or contouring.
The same effect occurs for the preceding 8-bit image, but the jumps in tone are smaller than we can detect with our eyes, so smooth variations in tone appear continuous. That is why an 8-bit per channel JPEG protocol is acceptable for printing digital images.
However, using an 8-bit representation in an image-editing program, such as Photoshop, can have unfortunate consequences. The reason is that each image manipulation, such as things as simple as brightness and contrast adjustments, can transform integer steps in intensity to non-integer steps in the resulting image. When converted back into an 8-bit per channel image, the result no longer corresponds to a good approximation of the intended continuous image. When one makes numerous adjustments an 8-bit per channel image, the resulting image can be severely degraded.
The bottom line here is that one should try to work with images with more than 8 bits per color channel. That applies to image capture and editing. However, 8 bits per channel are acceptable when you print an image.
Hope this helps,
#11. "RE: Scanner Math" | In response to Reply # 0
I did a complete analysis of the V700 resolution and posted it ih this forum.Just search under my name for V700 and it will come up
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.
#13. "RE: Scanner Math" | In response to Reply # 0
I feel your pain, though in some different directions. After a few fits and starts I am finally embarking seriously on a massive conversion of old shots as well. I did the easy stuff a year or so ago, slides; negatives are what most are, and they are a real mess -- different film types (apparently I was dedicated to testing every film known), storage quality. Some heavily faded, some in perfect condition, some damaged.
This all may have been covered well but in case it is helpful.
One thing I found interesting is the scan DPI vs what we normally think of as sensor resolution. Below is a very rough estimate of the mexapixel equivalent of scanning at different DPI resolutions. This is very approximate especially since scanner manufacturers mislead you on resolution - often it is not "real" but interpolated.
In other words, to get resolution equivalent to, say, a 16 mpx camera, you need somewhere in the mid 3000 DPI. WHich is one reason flatbed scanners do not always excel at 35mm negatives.
I also found extreme variation in the quality of the color from negatives. I tried a large number of tools and found none of them consistent - Vuescan was perhaps the best, Silverfast similar but very complex and expensive, Photoshop almost as good though less automated, ligthroom the least capable (if you include the inversion). The actual scanner software with the scanners (two) I tried were marginal at best -- worked on good negatives very poor at old, discolored, or more niche negative products.
ANd the biggest problem is I can't remember when most of mine were taken, or even who the people in it are?!? IF anyone has a solution to that let me know.
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com
#14. "RE: Scanner Math" | In response to Reply # 13StevenPituch Nikonian since 17th Aug 2012Mon 04-May-15 07:47 PM
I have read I think 2 reviews that stated that all Epson and Cannon scanners when tested have only about 1750 DPI true resolution. That's why many reviewers say to not use more than the 2400 DPI setting. I then read this comparison where one can use a macro lens and easily get 30 megapixel resolution for a 35 mm neg by using a macro lens. I have taken the head off of my old Omega D2 enlarger and made a mount for my D7100. Preliminary estimates show I can get about 60 megapixels for a 6x7 cm negative. In fact the article compares this method to an Epson v700 scanner and the macro lens blows it away.