dba

just about to get a film scanner,so some questions

I know ICE can't be used for b&w,but is that the same for b&w c41?

is cleaning negs a big deal? what is the best way to do it?


is there a bit difference between a 12 and 16 bit a/d? bearing in mind i will only print to 7x5 and they will only end up in a family album or posted on the web?

dr_ming

dba, some answers for you:

No, digital ICE works fine on C41 b&w film.


With a compressed air can in the first instance to remove dust/debris. For finger prints and other mark 'Aspec' photo emulsion cleaner and a very soft, lint-free cloth (a syntheric lens cloth is ideal). Aspec can be bought from 7DayShop and many other places , Smells nice too .

No, not really - unless you buy a very, very expensive pro scanner.

A 12 bit a/d gives a maximum optical density range rating of 3.6, for 16 bit, OD rating = 4.8. Colour negative film had a density range of around OD 3.5, so any more is overkill. In addition, the density rating given in the scanner literature are almost always theoretical, not measured.

Probably the only real benefit of 16 bit a/d is you will achieve a real 12 bit range (the lower least significant bits will just be noise), whereas with a 12 bit a/d, probably the LSB is noise, so you only really achieve 11, or maybe even 10 bits of picture info.

To be honest, resolution and a/d bit depth is not so important as CCD noise, and optical quality. That's why a lot of low end scanners (like the Jessop's ones) claim impressive resolution and bit-depth, but the results are rubbish. Whereas a Nikon/Canon/Minolta scanner with a lesser spec. on paper will produce much better results.

One other thing to beware of is scanning time per frame. The figures quoted in specs are always hugely optimistic. When I bought my film scanner, I was choosing beween the Canon FS4000 (4000DPI), and the Nikon Coolscan IV (2900DPI). I saw some example scans (of the same neg) from both scanners, and the Canon had the edge, but not by much. However, The canon FS4000 takes 20 mins to scan a single frame (4000DPI, 16-bit, digial ICE, GEM and ROC on), whereas the Nikon takes 4 minutes (2900DPI, 12-bit, digital ICE, GEM and ROC on). Life was too short for the Canon IMHO.

dba

thats a great help,cheers

based on that advice,i think I will go for a Dimage II.They don't have ice,but can be picked up cheap now thanks to the newer 16bit IIIs,the II has 12.If i'm lucky enough to take a pic worthy of a decent sized print,i would take it too a pro lab anyway,to get the best from the lense i use,a Zeiss (i'm assuming pro labs would use at least 4000dpi scanners?)

Mine will be used predominantly for c41 b&w,but i'm not that bothered about ICE,it would cost an additonal £200 at least for a s/h Elite with ICE

thanks again

dr_ming

dba, whatever you do, buy a scanner with ICE. It will save you hundreds of hours of re-touching to get rid of dust marks, scratches etc. You will not appreciate how much work digital ICE saves until you try it.

Interestingly (!) If you use a piece of software called Vuescan to drive a digital ICE scanner (rather than the manufacturer's propietary software), you can view the infra-red (digital ICE) channel separately. You would not believe how much cr@p appears, even with a seemingly clean negative.

I cannot over-stress how much work digital ICE will save you.

Cheers, Ming.

P.S. Nikon have just replaced the Coolscan IV (2900DPI) with the Coolscan V (4000DPI), so you might find a few Coolscan IVs for sale a sensible prices.

[Edited by dr_ming - 12/6/2003 2:54:00 PM]

dba

hmmm,food for thought

the Nikon IVs are going for 350-400 on Ebay,and the Dimage IIs for less than half that

will give it some thought re ICE

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I'm just starting to get interested in digital photography, other than e-mailing/publishing to the web my results.

Anyone suggest a good book/magazine etc, worth reading?

My scanner is an Epson perfection 1250. It has an attachment for scanning negatives.

I'm not sure how good it is, so:

What sort of resolution is the scanner, and is it suitable for digi photos? I did one, but was not impressed wiith the result, could this be the printer, and Epson C70 plus?

If I scan negs in, can I then print them as colour photo's? How on earth does this work?

Thanks for any advice.

Alcazar

imlach

Spent some time scanning in my wedding negs on a Coolscan IV (courtesy of MarkO). Had ICE switched off initially as didn't know what it was and found the scans were COVERED in dust/muck etc....

MarkO told me to turn on the ICE, and it is UNBELIEVABLE what a difference it makes!! TOTALLY 100% (to the visible eye) dust-free scans!!!

MAGIC!

dr_ming

Alcazar, I have an Epson Perfection 1200 Photo, that I used for scanning negs before I got my Nikon Coolscan. You can get acceptable result, but it's a lot of work. I certainly wouldn't recommend it if you have a lot of negatives to scan.

You biggest enemy is dust, because flatbed scanners seem to be dust magnets.

For each film type you use, you need to make a profile for it in the Epson TWAIN software, this is basically to remove the oranga/brown cast of the film base material (assuming you are using colour negative film). Fine tweaking of the colour balance can be done in Photoshop.

Edited to say: I'm pretty sure that the max optical resolution of the Perfection 1250 is the same as my Perfection 1200, i.e. 1200x2400 DPI. I used to scan at 2400 (interpolated) x 2400 (true)DPI, which gave pretty good results. There is no comparison with a proper film scanner though.


[Edited by dr_ming - 12/6/2003 4:23:58 PM]

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Dr Ming: so what "Proper" film scanner should I be looking at, and what does it do that mine won't?
As you can see, I know loads about this sort of thing.........NOT!

Alcazar

dba

Alcazar,

basically,i film scanner at 2800 dpi is the equivalent of approx 10 million pixels,so if you have decent glass you will not get the full benefit,to do that you need to go for in excess of 4000dpi.Its a trade off between quality and price.Although i have a superb lense,i think 2800 will be fine,because i wont be taking prints from the scans,i will send the neg off to do that.Dr Ming hs made me think about ICE though (this is software that removes the appearancve of scratches and dust from negs).I'm no expert,but using a flatbed to scan negs is nowhere near as good as using a decent lens in a flim scanner.

btw,i bought a beginners guide to digital photography from Waterstones,and its proved invaluable.

I will dig it out later and try and find it in Amazon for you.

dr_ming

Alcazar, I'll try to answer your questions:

A proper film scanner is optimised to do just that, so the sensitivity of the sensor array, the scanner optics etc. are made for the sole task of scanning film. As a result, resolution and optical density range are normally better, and sensor noise is lower.

However, the main difference is probably down to convenience. To scan a strip of negatives, I just poke the strip into the hole on the front of my scanner, choose the film type etc. (from pre-saved profiles), and hit the go button. A few minutes later, I have the pictures in photohop, ready to edit. There are no imperfections due to dust debris or scratches, thanks to Digital ICE, and the colour balance and exposure are normally spot-on. By comparison, to do the same with a flat-bed is a lot of effort, although if you are willing to expend this effort (just to get the negs straight on the glass is a pain in itself!), you will get fairly good results, just not quite as good as a dedicated film scanner.

Hope this helps, Ming.

Edited to say: If your serious about buying a film scanner, look at Canon, Nikon, Minolta or Microtek. Make sure that whatever you buy has Digital ICE (look back in this thread to see why). Don't bother with the sub-£300 cheapies from Jessops and the like, the results you get will be little better than you could achieve with your Epson flatbed. I chose the Nikon Coolscan IV because, the scanners in my price range, it was the best fit to my requirements. If you don't mind waiting 20 mins for each frame, the Canon FS4000 will give (slightly) better quality scans for the same money.

[Edited by dr_ming - 12/6/2003 8:48:40 PM]

dba

Jessops and Jacobs now doing the Nikon Iv for £399!!! that makes the current Ebay bids look plain daft

thats for the tip Dr Ming

dr_ming

Bargain. Go for it. I'm very happy with mine. Certainly no plans to upgrade. 2900DPI is more than adequate for A3+ prints.