Kiosk resolution?

[fmw]

I think Chris has confused printing dpi with scanning dpi. It is the scanning dpi that, in fact, determine the pixel count and the resolution of the digital image. His scanner will produce 11.5 megapixels on a piece of film large enough to fit every pixel - less on a smaller piece of film and more on a larger one. I generally scan at 1600 dpi and get about a 6 mb file from a 35mm transparency if I scan to a 1:1 file. The result is about the same as a 6mp camera raw image.

Now if you were to print that file without resizing you would get a fprinted image the same size as the original 35mm slide. If you resize to, say, 8 1/2 X 11, you will probably get down to about 400 dpi or so of print resolution without having anything digital visible. The scanner is like the image sensor in the camera except that it reads line by line.

 

[BoblyBill]

That would make more sense... Thanks again fmw

 

[JamesD]

If 4800dpi in the wide dimension, and 2400dpi in the narrow, I'd think a 35mm frame (36mmX24mm) would come out to 6614 X 2267. But.. are the pixels rectangular like that? That seems odd. However, that's 14,993,938 pixels.

Is that a lot?

 

[cosmonaut]

I bought a scanner on e-bay for about thirty bucks. It does as good as the lab and sometimes better. I don't scan much either since I am not much better than the lab, and it does take time. The lab scans at 96 DPI@ 2200X1800,and I think you should be around 225 to 300dpi if you want really good prints. It's nice to have a scanner just because sometimes my scans come out completly different than the labs. You wouldn't think it but it happens. Mine can scan up to 200dpi 2200X1800. But I scan all of my slides, I don't do many, and the lab always seems to screw those up.
Cosmo

 

[mysteryscribe]

James

I went to google and got a url that has a scan calculator and thats what it said to. I'm not worried thats way more than my dedicated scanner was. The color is the thing with scanning.

I scan my black and white on a flatbed and they do okay. A thirty file mm neg on that scanner comes in at about 3mega pix. It seems that the density of the pix has a lot to do with the detail in the negative. If I shoot the 35mm I am shooting for detail. Not so much in the old cameras but I bought the scanner for that so I should be able to get a reasonable amount of detail.

I got the fedex tracking number today so it should be on the way.



the scan calculator is here http://www.scantips.com/cgi-bin/calc.cgi

 

[W.Smith]

[...] that's 14,993,938 pixels.

Is that a lot?

Fourteen and a half megapixels is a lot, yes!
During PP that one file may grow to several hundred MegaBytes. Small wonder most PC's buckle while trying to edit, render and display files of such sizes.

 

[el_shorty]

The lab scans at 96 DPI@ 2200X1800,and I think you should be around 225 to 300dpi if you want really good prints.
Cosmo

There is no difference in resolution between 2200x1800 @ 96 DPI and 2200x1800 @ 300 DPI, the only difference is print size, at 96 DPI you'll get a 22.9 in. by 18.75 in. print, and at 300 DPI you'll get a 7.3 in. by 6 in. print.

 

[Alex_B]

if it is not many you want to scan (below 30 a month), then there might be a professional service you can send your negatives in.
not talking of the big chains but at least here in Europe there are photography shops that sell dedicated film scanners and also offer a scan service with those type of scanners
. maybe you can find something similar where you live`?

 

[mysteryscribe]

after all the himing and hawing I bought the plustec new scanner for 100 bucks with a 20 buck rebate. If I remember to send it off.

It came today and I scanned one of my old 645 negs at 2400 dpi... with a little cropping it came to about 12megapix... I thought I would stick up an old film shot with a dead on strobe no bounce. Old style photography. More or less to show the
scan. I only have to do 25

rolls to make the price of the scanner back. I bought this one because it will do up to 5x7 negs and slides. I really wanted to be able to do larger format things on it.