Question On Film Scanner

[jyl]

I'm getting ready to bite the bullet and buy a film scanner. It will be used for 35mm negatives, both B&W and color. I'm leaning toward the new Minolta 5400 because it seems well-reviewed, Minolta's been making film scanners for a long time, it can use Firewire (I'm a Mac user), and it is pretty compact.

However, something is bothering me. Why are scan files so huge? Apparently the Minolta at max resolution can produce a 42MB file. This seems a lot bigger than the file that a high-end digital SLR would produce. Does the scan file have more information? Or is the scan file inherently less efficient?

The new Mac computer I'd be buying at the same time has a 250GB hard drive. I'm thinking that at 42MB a file, that hard drive won't seem so big . . .

[Nick R.]

The more information you can save in the scan the more detail you'll have to work with when post processing on your computer. Besides, you can always scan with less resolution for smaller files. In Vuescan, which I use on my Mac, I could scan directly to jpeg if I wanted. In practice during a scan, I usually simultaneoulsly output one high resolution tiff for archiving and one jpeg for whatever.

[Terence T]

250gb is plenty. The internal HD is nothing more than a temporary working space. One would usually archive the original scans onto a CD or DVD. You always have the option of adding on an external firewire HD for additional storage too.

[Biber]

An uncompressed image at 5400dpi (7800x5232) 16bit color is 233Mb...

[peter_n]

Yeah, I scan to tiff at 3200dpi on my Minolta SDIV and the file size is ~83MB.

[bmattock]

However, something is bothering me. Why are scan files so huge? Apparently the Minolta at max resolution can produce a 42MB file. This seems a lot bigger than the file that a high-end digital SLR would produce. Does the scan file have more information? Or is the scan file inherently less efficient?

I have the Scan Dual IV. It commonly produces TIF files in the 22 to 28 megabyte range, using Vuescan and 24-bit images. So yes, 42 megabyte seems quite possible on a higher-end scanner such as the one you're contemplating.

My wife has a Nikon CoolScan 995 3.34 megapixel digital camera. It stores files in JPG format, and they're something like 1 meg each in size. These JPG files are compressed, as all JPG files are. They represent something like 8 megabyte files in reality. Obviously nothing like my scanned 35mm images. Why?

Part of it is TIF versus JPG. JPG files are compressed - and 'lossy' in nature, meaning they lose information. TIF files are compressed a bit, but not with any loss - so they're bigger.

And, despite what anyone has been saying online or in photography magazines, digital cameras do not yet approach the theoretical capability of film to store data. A recent article I read indicated that a newly-released 12 megapixel camera is FINALLY capable of storing more information than Kodak Gold 100 in 35mm. And that's a close thing.

So, no consumer and most pro digital cameras do not produce anywhere near the amount of information that is stored on a frame of film. I'm sure that will change in time - the balance is already tipping.

It should also be said that my 20 meg files are not ALL USEABLE information. I get the same file sizes from scanning the frames that come from my el crappo point-n-shoot and my best Canon FD lenses or my Canon LTM lenses on my Bessa R. So file size is NOT necessarily an indicator of quality - they are just an indicator of quantity, and POSSIBLY quality.

I hope you find this useful.

FYI - You can't store even a whole roll of scanned negatives on a CD-ROM - not enough space. You need a 250 mb hard drive (minimum - I have three of them) AND a DVD burner. That's just been my personal experience. I store my scanned DVD's with my negatives, and keep the image files online until I have space issues, then I delete the oldest ones first.

Another tip - have a file naming convention. Calling your files 'SCAN001.TIF' and storing them in a directory called '/Scans/ is not conducive to finding what you're looking for 4 years later.

One more tip - most graphic image editing files can insert JFIF information into the file itself - not visible, but viewable in an editor as 'metadata' Put your copyright information there, and if you store things like shutter speed and f-stop, put that there too. Only takes a second and worth having ready at hand if you ever need it again.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[Doug]

Originally Posted by bmattock

Another tip - have a file naming convention. Calling your files 'SCAN001.TIF' and storing them in a directory called '/Scans/ is not conducive to finding what you're looking for 4 years later.

A very useful point, Bill! I name each roll of film by the date I finished shooting it, and I start its data record on my computer when the film is loaded into the camera. So it's easy to track which cameras are loaded, and with what! I make notes there about subjects and exposure dates, and when submitted for processing too. Anyway, the roll number follows the yymmdd format, so a roll finished today would be 050507. And then I add BW or CN as a reminder whether it was B&W or color. So, 050507BW for instance. If I finish more than one roll today, I add a letter to the numbers, thus 050507ABW, 050507BBW, etc. These numbers will natually sort by increasing date on the computer. For the scan files, I number them with the roll number and add the negative frame number to the end. First exposure could be 050507-01, and the last might be 050507-36, and I put all the scans from one roll into a folder with the roll name and a reminder of the camera tacked on too, like 050507BW MinCLE. This way I can very quickly identify the negative the scan came from...

[phototone]

I own a Kodak SLR/n which is a 14mp Camera, and it produces a 17mb "RAW" file. It does not produce a TIFF file. When I open this file in the Photoshop CS raw converter and save it as a TIFF it becomes a 36mb 8 bit TIFF..which will produce a 10x15" print at 300dpi.

A scanner does not output its data as a RAW file, therefore you can only save as a TIFF for the same (or better quality)..Some scannera allow you to save your file as a 16bit TIFF, which preserves more data than an 8bit TIFF. This allows you to make broader ranging corrections in Photoshop without running out of data.

A 4000dpi scanner scanning a 35mm negative (or slide) in 8 bit color mode will generate a 64mb TIFF. Or much higher in 16bit mode. Greyscale will produce a smaller file.
You have the option with a scanner to create smaller file sizes. You can either reduce the resolution of the scan...say to 2400dpi, for instance., which would not allow you to print as large a print at 300dpi, or you can save your scan as a JPEG, which will be considerably smaller, but will not allow you to make as many exposure/color corrections in Photoshop without running out of data. Most scanners have software that allows you to make those corrections to a preview image before making the final scan, and in that case a JPEG may be OK.

So you have choices. You do not have to scan at the maximum resolution that a scanner offers, if your only need is for smaller prints, or web images.

[jan normandale]

Hi jyl

as you see most of the advice so far has a common thread. Scanning a film , storing it on a hard drive or CD and then storing the film and CD/info on the HD.

Make it easy on your self. Buy your scanner. Then take the film to the processing shop and have it processed and a small CD burned with the images. Store the film and take the small images usually jpeg's and play with them. When you decide to manipulate an image try it with the small jpeg. If you like it and want to go to print, find the film and frame, scan it to max resolution and then manipulate it in the same way. When done burn it to a CD and take it to a pro shop for the large print.

Way less time is spent personally scanning. Less storage is used too. The rest of the advice on filing is worth a second read. Once you start you will never regret it and you will not have to play catch up.

good luck, Jan

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I noticed that JLW mentioned getting a new Mac as well as the Minolta scanner. JLW- have you selected a mac that has a DVD burner? If so you have the perfect device for storing images.

Someone earlier recommended being prudent about what you actually store. Spend time determining which frames are truly worthwhile and which are not. Save smaller reference scans from the entire roll. The Most worthwhile shots can be scanned at a higher resolution for prints. Also, take the time to store your negatives well. (this last bit goes without saying)

When I first got my scanner I got a little carried away and scanned everything at higher resolutions. Less than 25% of the images were truly worth it.

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by jan normandale

Hi jyl

as you see most of the advice so far has a common thread. Scanning a film , storing it on a hard drive or CD and then storing the film and CD/info on the HD.

Make it easy on your self. Buy your scanner. Then take the film to the processing shop and have it processed and a small CD burned with the images. Store the film and take the small images usually jpeg's and play with them. When you decide to manipulate an image try it with the small jpeg. If you like it and want to go to print, find the film and frame, scan it to max resolution and then manipulate it in the same way. When done burn it to a CD and take it to a pro shop for the large print.

Way less time is spent personally scanning. Less storage is used too. The rest of the advice on filing is worth a second read. Once you start you will never regret it and you will not have to play catch up.

good luck, Jan

Jan,

With respect, I have to disagree with your method. Scanning the film at the high street shop is expensive (processing only costs about $2 per roll at the typical one-hour shop here in the USA, versus $8 or more per roll for processing/print/scan). That adds up fast. Second, the act of scanning the film at the high street shop scratches the negs, usually horribly. Third, the scans are universally of bad quality. Even the so-called 'high end scans' short of a pro shop and a drum scanner. The look like what you get out of a sub-megapixel camera.

I suggest using the 'preview' and then scanning the frames you like. Depending on software, you can save the preview as a smaller size and achieve the objective you stated. Very fast.

Once you make the investment in a dedicated film scanner, you quickly earn the money back by saving costs in processing if you have your negatives processed ONLY. Saves about $4 per roll. Times 100 rolls, that's nearly the cost of the scanner. If you do more than 100 rolls of film over the expected life of the scanner, there you go. And the quality is MUCH MUCH better than commercial scans.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by phototone

A scanner does not output its data as a RAW file, therefore you can only save as a TIFF for the same (or better quality)..Some scannera allow you to save your file as a 16bit TIFF, which preserves more data than an 8bit TIFF. This allows you to make broader ranging corrections in Photoshop without running out of data.

Not true. A scanner outputs data to the scanning software, which saves it as it is capable. Vuescan allows RAW saves, which can then be opened again and manipulated then saved as JPG or TIFF or RAW again. I don't know about the other scanning software programs.

That said - I do save my scans as TIF files, as large as possible. HD space is cheap. Finding and rescanning a neg at a higher resolution later on is not.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[phototone]

Originally Posted by bmattock

Not true. A scanner outputs data to the scanning software, which saves it as it is capable. Vuescan allows RAW saves, which can then be opened again and manipulated then saved as JPG or TIFF or RAW again. I don't know about the other scanning software programs.

That said - I do save my scans as TIF files, as large as possible. HD space is cheap. Finding and rescanning a neg at a higher resolution later on is not.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

I forgot about VueScan, as I tried it (purchased) and it produced terrible results with my scanner, although supposedly supported and I got almost no help from Hamrick.

I also save my scans at the highest possible resolution. I can evaluate my negatives just fine with a loupe, so I do not need to produce an overview of a roll to determine what I want to scan at high resolution.

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by phototone

I forgot about VueScan, as I tried it (purchased) and it produced terrible results with my scanner, although supposedly supported and I got almost no help from Hamrick.

I also save my scans at the highest possible resolution. I can evaluate my negatives just fine with a loupe, so I do not need to produce an overview of a roll to determine what I want to scan at high resolution.

Sorry you had a bad experience with Vuescan. I run Linux as my chosen operating system on all my computers at home and that makes Vuescan pretty much my only choice, but I really like it.

I have had the occasional problem, but nothing major. Mostly, just read the manual and looked on Google to see if others had similar problems and found the fix that way. One thing I've found is that for most film for my SD IV, I just scan it as 'generic color' - even for B&W. I then do whatever I need to do in The Gimp (Linux PS clone) and that works great for me. I have had great good luck scanning slides, I just don't shoot them enough because there is no place to get them processed in my little town.

I use Vuescan also with my Epson Perfection PHOTO 2400 flat-bed. I bought the accessory TPU from Epson some years back. Works great for my 120 and 4x5 stuff.

I have to say I'm pleased, and I think that's the general consensus. But nothing is universal, and if it doesn't work for you, I'm sorry to hear that.

I am not sufficiently skilled with a loupe to read 35mm negs and decide if I really want to go to the trouble of scanning them or not. A quick preview works for me.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[Gabriel M.A.]

Silly me, I thought there was a question written on a scanner.

I second Bill/bmattock's comment that given C-41 processing costing $2, if you have a quick scanner, like in my case, a Konica-Minolta scanner that takes < 20 seconds @ highest dpi resolution, it is indeed speedy, and make much much more sense to take this route than to ask (and fork out the extra $5-9) the processing Lab for some rather shoddy scans at about 800 dpi (average lab).

My method is to scan at a reasonable resolution of about 800 or 1600; all dummy mode. If there is a shot that I *really really* like, then I set it at the highest, spend the time with the pre-scan settings and on 16-bit mode. This way you don't burn disk space foolishly, you know what you have in your film, and you only spend the time and space where it's needed by you.

[kbg32]

Has anyone used the Epson Perfection 4990 - Photo or Pro, or the 4870 series scanners for medium and large format? What can you recommend?

Thanks.

[r-h]

Hi Keith,
I own a 4870 for 4x5". As the true resolution is somewhere around 2000 dpi - the scanns from 4x5" are still good for A 2 prints with 300 dpi output. This is much more than I need. So far I run it with B/W negativ only and I'm very pleased with the results.
Regards
Robert

[kbg32]

Thanks Robert. I am trying to decide on which to get. I can't really see any differences between the 4990s and the 4870 other then price.

[phototone]

As a side note...you may have a difficult time getting the top-of-the-line Minolta and Nikkon scanners. I know I waited several months for my 9000ed. Most vendors don't have them in stock. Microtek and Epson scanners, though, seem to be quite available.

[jan normandale]

Originally Posted by bmattock

Jan,

With respect, I have to disagree with your method. Scanning the film at the high street shop is expensive (processing only costs about $2 per roll at the typical one-hour shop here in the USA, versus $8 or more per roll for processing/print/scan). That adds up fast. Second, the act of scanning the film at the high street shop scratches the negs, usually horribly. Third, the scans are universally of bad quality. Even the so-called 'high end scans' short of a pro shop and a drum scanner. The look like what you get out of a sub-megapixel camera.

I suggest using the 'preview' and then scanning the frames you like. Depending on software, you can save the preview as a smaller size and achieve the objective you stated. Very fast.

Once you make the investment in a dedicated film scanner, you quickly earn the money back by saving costs in processing if you have your negatives processed ONLY. Saves about $4 per roll. Times 100 rolls, that's nearly the cost of the scanner. If you do more than 100 rolls of film over the expected life of the scanner, there you go. And the quality is MUCH MUCH better than commercial scans.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Hey Bill you can disagree all you want. Even 'disrespectfully'

I would say that I'd like to have the cash to buy a dedicated scanner for film. I don't so paying the 7 bucks is easier for me. I understand the accounting exercise you demonstrated but if I walked in with a dedicated scanner. My wife who is pretty easy going would say 'one bridge too far'. She would be right. We are running out of room in our apartment all desktops are taken!

The lab that I take my film to (Toronto Image Works) is very very good. They are the only licenced Scala processing lab in Canada, and they respect film and handle it appropriately, even for scans to CD.


I'll be looking for a scanner toward the year end.. maybe ;-)

Jan

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks for a god post, Brian.

I've recently been doing quite a lot of comparison scanning, comparing high-res with upsampling, and an awful lot depends on the quality of the original image: big grain, or the tiniest amount of camera shake, usually means that an upsampled 2700 dpi scan is all but indistinguishable from a 5400 dpi original (I use the latest Konica-Minolta, recently acquired after my 8-year-old Coolscan died, hence the scan comparisons). Even an upsampled 1800 may look the same for some hand-held night shots.

But with (for example) optimally exposed Ilford Delta 100 or Pan F developed in Perceptol, where I can get 125 lp/mm from the 75/2 Summicron, I can see more in a 5400 than in a 2700.

Of course, on a monitor, resolution is abysmal anyway...

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- and the Photo School is now up and running)

[Imagestreet]

I have a Nikon D100 for my studio shots so I'm considering a film scanner just for my Bessa R3A shots. www.7dayshop.com are selling the Nikon 5000ED for £679 - this is the best deal I have yet come across and it does seem to be amongst the best of the 35mm film scanners. However given that I only usually have 2-3 keepers on a roll at best, I am seriously considering the alternative of drum scanning these selected shots. Or I could sell EVERYTHING I own and buy a Nikon D2X. Anyone know of any good reasonably priced scanning services in London that don't take 10 days to return the results??

[Roman]

How about just getting a slide copier attachment for your Nikon, and photographing the Nikon - with such a pro digital, results should be quite good, I presume...?

Roman