Some questions regarding film scanners

[Woolloongabba]

I'm planning on purchasing a film scanner to use for some negatives of old family photos, as well as new 35mm film that I am taking. From what I understand, it is the DPI that determines the quality of the scan, correct? — what DPI capability/rating should I be looking for in a scanner?
Is there some kind of equivalence between the DPI value of scanned film and the megapixel value of a digital photo, or is it more complex than that?

I don't really intend to enlarge and print very many of my film negatives, but I do really enjoy being able to zoom to high levels of the 'jpg' file and be able to examine every detail captured on the film, and from what I understand, 35mm film is still (currently) of better quality than the megapixel value of most digital cameras.

 

[bhop]

What's your budget?

 

[3bayjunkie]

You can get a good one for 250 and a great one for 750. You want at least 4800 dpi for a good scanner. They get kind of technical with the options. Just look around. Search google for scanner reviews.

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum

 

[bhop]

Eh.. I think the good ones start at around the $500 range (epson v700 specifically). Canon 9000F is the cheaper alternative, and seems to be 'ok' but has an actual dpi of only around 1700, where the epson seems to be around 2400. That matters IMO, when it comes to 35mm film. The best is from Nikon, but they stopped supporting their scanners, except the Coolscan 9000, plus they're expensive, between $800-$1700 for the older ones, the 9000 seems to sell for around $3k.

 

[Ysarex]

I'm planning on purchasing a film scanner to use for some negatives of old family photos, as well as new 35mm film that I am taking. From what I understand, it is the DPI that determines the quality of the scan, correct?

Not correct. The most critical technical characteristic of a photo upon which quality hinges is tone response. It's important to consider the scanner's optical resolution but equally important to consider it's Dmax.

— what DPI capability/rating should I be looking for in a scanner?
Is there some kind of equivalence between the DPI value of scanned film and the megapixel value of a digital photo, or is it more complex than that?

You can ask that question, but there's more to consider. In terms of just resolution the question can be phrased like this: What scan resolution is necessary to capture all the detail recorded by the film? If your scan for example succeeds in recording the actual film grain then you have scanned all the detail captured by the film. Film in this regard is not a fixed target: a 35mm ISO 25 Kodachrome (no longer made) captured a lot more detail than a 35mm ISO 400 Tri-X negative. That given let's set a 35mm ISO 100 color negative as an average target. You'll be scanning the grain in that film between 2400 and 3000 dpi. As noted above you also have to concern yourself with Dmax and color reproduction.

I don't really intend to enlarge and print very many of my film negatives, but I do really enjoy being able to zoom to high levels of the 'jpg' file and be able to examine every detail captured on the film, and from what I understand, 35mm film is still (currently) of better quality than the megapixel value of most digital cameras.

When all of the quality variables are weighed, 35mm film can't hold a candle to modern digital cameras -- digital smokes 35mm film. A comment which will likely illicit a quick defensive response from a film photographer who will point out that there's always 120 roll and sheet film. No argument, get a Hasselbald and one of these Hasselblad Flextight X1 Scanner 70380201 B&H Photo Video and you've got digital beat! Digital smokes 35 mm film.

You didn't mention if those old family photos are also 35mm. If they are then your best bet is to look for a used dedicated 35mm film scanner. For the most part they stopped making those when there was no more film to scan (hint there). You should be able to find something like this: Canon CanoScan FS4000US Slide Film Scanner | eBay or this: Nikon CoolScan V ED Slide Film Scanner | eBay

Joe

 

[bhop]

When all of the quality variables are weighed, 35mm film can't hold a candle to modern digital cameras -- digital smokes 35mm film.

I shoot mostly film.. I'd agree with that comment though. Maybe a few years ago it might've been the case, but not anymore. I still prefer film though because it has a certain 'look' that I like right out of the camera that it takes a lot of time to recreate using digital methods.

 

[gsgary]

I shoot mostly film.. I'd agree with that comment though. Maybe a few years ago it might've been the case, but not anymore.

But digital will never look like 35mm

 

[bhop]

I shoot mostly film.. I'd agree with that comment though. Maybe a few years ago it might've been the case, but not anymore.

But digital will never look like 35mm

I agree, I just meant it in a sense that most people think (or what I think they think), which is sharpness and noise/grain.

 

[gsgary]

I shoot mostly film.. I'd agree with that comment though. Maybe a few years ago it might've been the case, but not anymore.

But digital will never look like 35mm

I agree, I just meant it in a sense that most people think (or what I think they think), which is sharpness and noise/grain.

Since i started developing my negs at home i have not shot any digital for 3 weeks