Posted by Mark Seaver on January 31, 2011 at 8:04 PM
I have an Epson V700 flatbed scanner that I've been using to convert slides to digital files. Even at it's highest resolution the scans are much softer than images from my Canon 5D. The slides were sharp when examined with a 10X loupe. Am I spoiled by the 5D's resolution or is there something that I'm doing wrong in my scanning? What are other's experience? Thanks,
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 31, 2011 at 8:18 PM
Mark,
You just are not going to get the best quality from 35mm slides on a Flatbed - any flatbed. For starters, even though flatbeds have the ability to scan 35mm, they have holders and everything... the flatbed was never designed for high end scanning of such a small original. I know with larger pieces of film you can get some great scans. Secondly, unless you've done some testing and adjusting, there is always the proper height of the film from the glass for optimum focus. The only way you can really maximize the results for scanned 35mm is to have them drum scanned professionally. then you could make a comparison.
So don't think you're being "spoiled" by the digital resolution, it's just that the results you're getting from the V700 is not a fair comparison. The intermediate step between a flatbed and a high-end drum scan would be a dedicated 35mm scanner, like the Nikons or something like Konica/Minolta Diimage scanner. These are designed for 35mm slides.
Also, the "highest resolution" on the Epson - is that native optical resolution, or interpolated? Typically scanning resolutions can get pretty high, but they're interpolating after some value like 2400ppi, or whatever. That could contribute. Also, scanning higher than the size of the film grain itself will start to work against you.
What you have will be fine for getting your slides digitized, on the web and even some smallish prints. But I don't think getting to 16x20 you will probably not be happy with the quality of the print.
The V700 has a native optical resolution of about 2200 ppi, and, as Lon says, this is not sufficient for 35mm film. Once you start to interpolate above that, you'll start to see noise called grain aliasing.
I have tried to scan 35mm slides with my Microtek 1800-F, and even with the resoultion interpolated to 3200 ppi, the scans are not acceptable for anything larger than about a 5x7 print.
If you are looking for scans that will make a nice 11x14 print, a scan from a dedicated film scanner such as those suggested by Lon will fill the bill. If you're looking to make prints larger than that, you'll have to go the (expensive) drum scan route.
--P
Posted by Jim Bullard on February 1, 2011 at 8:47 AM
Anytime you enlarge an image from the original you will lose sharpness & contrast. Even with film printed in the darkroom it was always a challenge to get a print that came anywhere near the tiny jewels that contact prints often were. That is the appeal of very large format photography (8x10 and larger). Your big prints were contact prints.
It is also important to recognize that film and digital are different animals. A digital image is made up of a regular grid of squares which can be interpolated up by mathematical formulas. Film images OTOH are stochastic, made up of irregular grains which vary in size and shape in no regular pattern. Consequently there is no neat formula for enlarging the film image.
In recent years we have become conditioned to the geometric clarity of digital images but the more organic quality of a film image has it's own charms. I have scanned 35mm images on an Epson 3200 and produced prints that were quite acceptable at 12"x18". The question is "acceptable to whom and by what standard?". If you are expecting every postage stamp sized section to look as sharp as the original slide, you will be disappointed with such a print but we don't normally view 12"x18" prints from the same distance we view a contact print. The sharpness only needs to be adequate for the normal viewing distance for the size print you are making.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 1, 2011 at 3:51 PM
Jim is dancing around this issue. Many slide films should have a similar resolution to the 20MP+ cameras on the market today and both film and digital are probably let down by lens limitations more often than not.
As Preston and Lon said, the Epson cannot get the best out of 35mm slide film. It can scan at 6400ppi or something like that, but the optical system maxes out around 2000-2400ppi. A Nikon 35mm scanner LS-4000 or newer comes closer with resolution of 4000ppi and an optical resolution near that value 3200-3500ppi, but still may not be able to get 100% of the detail from the same slide. A 4000ppi drum scanner gets a little closer with a true 4000ppi resolution, but still may not be able to get 100% of the image from the slide. And then all of a sudden you're scanning individual grains/dye clouds and you've gone too far. There are some 8000ppi drum scanners out there, and they may be very good for 35mm, but...
I can get a decent 12X18 print from 35mm on my Epson 4990, but the same print size is lots better scanned on my Nikon LS-4000. I think if I really wanted a 16X20 print from 35mm, I would start with a drum scan, but a 4000ppi scan from a Nikon LS-4/5000, Minolta 5400 or Imacon would be getting close too.
Unfortunately, scanning isn't a one size fits all deal.
Posted by Mark Seaver on February 1, 2011 at 6:25 PM
Thanks for verifying that I'm not crazy. I had a Diimage unit but it died. I somehow missed the fact that the V700 has 2200 dpi resolution, so I've wasted a lot of hard drive space on pseudo high resolution images...anybody want a used V700? :-)
Posted by Jim Bullard on February 1, 2011 at 7:55 PM
Mel,
The Epson V-700 optical resolution is 4800-6400 ppi. The hardware interpolation can take that to 9600 ppi. 4800 will give you a 16" to 20" short side printed at 300 or 240 ppi scanned from a 35mm original. The point of my "dancing around" was that when you are looking at the whole image as opposed to "pixel peeping" the main difference is going to be how big you make the print. If the scan will give you 240-300 ppi at the output size you aren't going to see any difference by pushing the pixel count higher. The average person can't distinguish anything smaller than 1/100th of an inch. If you go higher the printer driver will interpolate the image to the output size you set at whatever dpi (that's squirts of ink, not pixels) it is set for.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 17, 2011 at 11:00 PM
Jim,
I'm aware that the V700 and V750 have the ability to scan at 4800-6400ppi without interpolation, but trust me, the optical components cannot support that resolution. On my similar 4990, there is minimal difference between scans at 2400 uprezzed in photoshop and scans performed at 4800ppi. That is even when fluid mounting the slides on an optimally configured Betterscanning holder.
You can find an example here. I have a Nikon LS4000 as well and know that this has more detail on the slide than the epson can capture as seen here.
But I do sometimes scan at 3200ppi fluid mounted on my 4990 when I'm making a large print from 4X5 film. I've been pretty successful printing up to 30X40 from that format. There is no more detail, but the color is nice and smooth and it seems to help the final quality of the print slightly.
Discussion
7 repliesYou just are not going to get the best quality from 35mm slides on a Flatbed - any flatbed. For starters, even though flatbeds have the ability to scan 35mm, they have holders and everything... the flatbed was never designed for high end scanning of such a small original. I know with larger pieces of film you can get some great scans. Secondly, unless you've done some testing and adjusting, there is always the proper height of the film from the glass for optimum focus. The only way you can really maximize the results for scanned 35mm is to have them drum scanned professionally. then you could make a comparison.
So don't think you're being "spoiled" by the digital resolution, it's just that the results you're getting from the V700 is not a fair comparison. The intermediate step between a flatbed and a high-end drum scan would be a dedicated 35mm scanner, like the Nikons or something like Konica/Minolta Diimage scanner. These are designed for 35mm slides.
Also, the "highest resolution" on the Epson - is that native optical resolution, or interpolated? Typically scanning resolutions can get pretty high, but they're interpolating after some value like 2400ppi, or whatever. That could contribute. Also, scanning higher than the size of the film grain itself will start to work against you.
What you have will be fine for getting your slides digitized, on the web and even some smallish prints. But I don't think getting to 16x20 you will probably not be happy with the quality of the print.
Lon
The V700 has a native optical resolution of about 2200 ppi, and, as Lon says, this is not sufficient for 35mm film. Once you start to interpolate above that, you'll start to see noise called grain aliasing.
I have tried to scan 35mm slides with my Microtek 1800-F, and even with the resoultion interpolated to 3200 ppi, the scans are not acceptable for anything larger than about a 5x7 print.
If you are looking for scans that will make a nice 11x14 print, a scan from a dedicated film scanner such as those suggested by Lon will fill the bill. If you're looking to make prints larger than that, you'll have to go the (expensive) drum scan route.
--P
It is also important to recognize that film and digital are different animals. A digital image is made up of a regular grid of squares which can be interpolated up by mathematical formulas. Film images OTOH are stochastic, made up of irregular grains which vary in size and shape in no regular pattern. Consequently there is no neat formula for enlarging the film image.
In recent years we have become conditioned to the geometric clarity of digital images but the more organic quality of a film image has it's own charms. I have scanned 35mm images on an Epson 3200 and produced prints that were quite acceptable at 12"x18". The question is "acceptable to whom and by what standard?". If you are expecting every postage stamp sized section to look as sharp as the original slide, you will be disappointed with such a print but we don't normally view 12"x18" prints from the same distance we view a contact print. The sharpness only needs to be adequate for the normal viewing distance for the size print you are making.
As Preston and Lon said, the Epson cannot get the best out of 35mm slide film. It can scan at 6400ppi or something like that, but the optical system maxes out around 2000-2400ppi. A Nikon 35mm scanner LS-4000 or newer comes closer with resolution of 4000ppi and an optical resolution near that value 3200-3500ppi, but still may not be able to get 100% of the detail from the same slide. A 4000ppi drum scanner gets a little closer with a true 4000ppi resolution, but still may not be able to get 100% of the image from the slide. And then all of a sudden you're scanning individual grains/dye clouds and you've gone too far. There are some 8000ppi drum scanners out there, and they may be very good for 35mm, but...
I can get a decent 12X18 print from 35mm on my Epson 4990, but the same print size is lots better scanned on my Nikon LS-4000. I think if I really wanted a 16X20 print from 35mm, I would start with a drum scan, but a 4000ppi scan from a Nikon LS-4/5000, Minolta 5400 or Imacon would be getting close too.
Unfortunately, scanning isn't a one size fits all deal.
The Epson V-700 optical resolution is 4800-6400 ppi. The hardware interpolation can take that to 9600 ppi. 4800 will give you a 16" to 20" short side printed at 300 or 240 ppi scanned from a 35mm original. The point of my "dancing around" was that when you are looking at the whole image as opposed to "pixel peeping" the main difference is going to be how big you make the print. If the scan will give you 240-300 ppi at the output size you aren't going to see any difference by pushing the pixel count higher. The average person can't distinguish anything smaller than 1/100th of an inch. If you go higher the printer driver will interpolate the image to the output size you set at whatever dpi (that's squirts of ink, not pixels) it is set for.
I'm aware that the V700 and V750 have the ability to scan at 4800-6400ppi without interpolation, but trust me, the optical components cannot support that resolution. On my similar 4990, there is minimal difference between scans at 2400 uprezzed in photoshop and scans performed at 4800ppi. That is even when fluid mounting the slides on an optimally configured Betterscanning holder.
You can find an example here. I have a Nikon LS4000 as well and know that this has more detail on the slide than the epson can capture as seen here.
But I do sometimes scan at 3200ppi fluid mounted on my 4990 when I'm making a large print from 4X5 film. I've been pretty successful printing up to 30X40 from that format. There is no more detail, but the color is nice and smooth and it seems to help the final quality of the print slightly.