Image quality from negative film?

(Ghastly) Krueger · Mar 12, 2007

Hi

I have some rolls of film waiting to be developed. I'd like to have them scanned afterwards (my home scanner is quite crappy).

Thing is, I haven't done this with my local shop and I'm not sure they'll do a good job (in terms of image size and resolution, for example).
What should I expect from a pro-scanner in these terms?

I mean, if I just tell them to scan them, they do whatever they want... if I tell them to maximize the size and resolution I might get files that are too big...

In short, I don't know what to ask them

Thanks for your help.

Big Mike · Mar 12, 2007

A few year ago, when I had all my film scanned/put onto CD, when it was developed...typically the files had slightly more resolution that I would use to print 4x6. I could make 8x10 prints with some up-sampling. Some places offered an upgraded service with bigger files and better resolution.

It's a pretty easy task for them, or at least it should be. Almost all the modern photo labs use digital machines now anyway. The machine scans and then prints the images...so outputting them to a CD is not a big deal.

Alex_B · Mar 12, 2007

(Ghastly) Krueger said:
I mean, if I just tell them to scan them, they do whatever they want... if I tell them to maximize the size and resolution I might get files that are too big...

There is nothing like too big regarding scans

You can always reduce them in size afterwards by yourself.

I usually scan at the scanners native resolution and with full 16-bit colour depth ... which gives me files over 120 MBytes each

Of course that is beyond the resolution of both lens and film ... but then i reduce it later when I create useable images from them.

(Ghastly) Krueger · Mar 12, 2007

Thanks, Big Mike

Alex_B said:
There is nothing like too big regarding scans You can always reduce them in size afterwards by yourself.

Well, there is hard drive space, number of CDs / DVDs andmaybe $ to take care of.

I usually scan at the scanners native resolution and with full 16-bit colour depth ... which gives me files over 120 MBytes each

For over 200 photos that's... what 24 GB? A bit too much for what I'd expect.
To be honest, I just want to be able to post some good quality pics here for a change.

Alex_B · Mar 12, 2007

(Ghastly) Krueger said:
For over 200 photos that's... what 24 GB? A bit too much for what I'd expect.
To be honest, I just want to be able to post some good quality pics here for a change.

Of course that was just if you go for 16-bit TIFF

8-bit JPEG might be OK if the images are well exposed. Then you can probably divide by 10 ...

(Ghastly) Krueger · Mar 12, 2007

Alex_B said:
8-bit JPEG might be OK if the images are well exposed. Then you can probably divide by 10 ...

ppi?

fmw · Mar 12, 2007

(Ghastly) Krueger said:
ppi?

Pixels per inch - used to describe scanner resolution.

Alex_B · Mar 12, 2007

(Ghastly) Krueger said:
ppi?

[SIZE=-1]4000

That is probably more than your film grain can resolve, or your lens, but you are on the safe side then.
[/SIZE]

(Ghastly) Krueger · Mar 12, 2007

Alex_B said:
[SIZE=-1]4000 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]That is probably more than your film grain can resolve, or your lens, but you are on the safe side then.[/SIZE]

Great, thanks for the help

(Ghastly) Krueger · Mar 12, 2007

fmw said:
Pixels per inch - used to describe scanner resolution.

Oh, I know. I was asking what ppi setting would be recommended. Thanks

usayit · Mar 12, 2007

You shouldn't assume that the local lab is using top rate equipment to scan those negatives... I've seen some crappy scans from local shops and others have two offerings; regular scan and professional scans. You only get professional scans to TIFF if you ask for it.. for a premium on price of course.

I wasn't happy enough with local offerings to go ahead and purchase my own scanner.