john_a._mozzer

<p>To me, key thing is whether the scanning at 1200dpi is being done at 100 percent. If so, then it is the same thing as saying the original is being scanned at 1200 pixels per inch. Your pixel dimensions make me suspect you are okay.</p>

<p >That's exactly the resolution that I use when scanning reflective copy (photographic prints, printed ephemera, etc.) on my Epson flatbed scanner. I like to express that resolution as 1200 pixels per inch at 100 percent, considering possible future print size is not applicable.</p>

<p >Thank you, Bob. In fact, Photo Impact Imaging sets up a channel on their Noritsu scanner for each customer, and they set up a channel for me with the grain filter turned off.</p> <p > </p> <p >Good to hear from you.</p>

<blockquote> <p> </p> <p >The added resolution seems to have gotten past the threshold of grain aliasing.</p> </blockquote> <p > </p> <p >I think so.</p>

<p>Photo Impact Imaging told me they don't turn the grain removal filter all the way up when they do use it. They achieve a sweet spot by turning it up only so much, so perhaps that is why it appears to be a good implementation of it in my comparisons. I have experienced bad implementations of it from other photo labs.</p> <p>Re: sharpening. I think there is a setting for it. I am pretty sure all of my Noritsu scans, by A&I and Photo Impact Imaging, were done without sharpening. I find that sharpening makes film grain look worse, so I never use it.</p>

<p>Here's the second comparison:</p><div></div>

<p>Here's the second comparison.</p>

<p>I finally found a photo lab with Noritsu scanning equipment that will turn off its default grain removal filter for me, after searching for one for a few years.</p> <p>In late 2012, A&I turned it off when they did about 3,000 Noritsu scans of 35mm film negatives for me. But the customer service person who was helping me back then is no longer with the company, and they were purchased since that time. In late 2014, A&I's current manager said "there's no de-grain filter" on the Noritsu.</p> <p>Richard Photo Lab and ScanCafe did test Nortisu scans for me in late 2014 and mid 2015, respectively. Both of them were either unable to figure out how to turn off the grain removal filter, or they don't want to. In late 2015, North Coast Photographic Services didn't answer my inquiry about whether they can and/or will turn it off.</p> <p>Finally, early this year, Photo Impact Imaging here in Los Angeles did over 500 Noritsu scans of 35mm film negatives for me, with the grain removal filter turned off as requested. In fact, the operator was befuddled over why it is such a big deal for other photo labs with Noritsu scanners to turn it off. They have become my photo lab of choice for scanning film.</p> <p >Here are a couple of comparisons showing the grain removal filter on and off, consisting of test scans that Photo Impact Imaging did for me. These images are drastically blown up and cropped from the original scans of the 35mm film frames. But I am able to see the difference at typical view sizes on a monitor. </p><div></div>

<p>No reaction to my comment? Well, this happens to me a lot. I don't have time to read a post of interest immediately when it is posted. So I catch up reading the original post and comments several days later. By that time, the original poster has moved on, and everyone has lost interest.</p> <p>It doesn't seem to me Tony's problem was resolved. Getting sidetracked with discussion of his shooting technique, whether his shots are in focus, and whether to shoot on film in the first place is not the answer. I am interested in Tony's problem, because I am no longer able to find any service that will scan film with Noritsu equipment without the default grain removal filter turned on. A&I (under new management), Richard Photo Lab, and ScanCafe are all doing Noritsu scans with the grain removal filter on, in my humble opinion, based on my earlier experience of having Noritsu scans done of 3,000 film negatives. Instructions on how to turn it off were once posted on this forum, but either nobody can do it, or nobody believes me it can be done. </p> <p>Tony, are the pixel dimensions of the scans 5035 x 3339 by any chance?</p>

<blockquote> <p>There will never be an HDR scanner, because HDR isn't necessary in a scan. In fact it would degrade the image.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm thinking high quality scans of film may already be HDR, but gamma 2.2 hides it. I'm not sure. But why else can I bring out hidden detail in shadows, and sometimes highlights, in the scans of my film, and have to mask?</p>

<blockquote> <p> Experiment if scanning to AdobeRGB color profile gives any advantage in colors over sRGB. SRGB should be good enough and compatible everywhere.</p> </blockquote> <p>You'd need an Adobe RGB color space monitor to see an advantage of Adobe RGB. At least, that is what engineers have told me. Adobe RGB might do wonders for scans of Kodachrome film, but I've never been able to see it on my iMac.</p>

<p>My guess:</p> <p>1.) Walmart uses Noritsu scanners. In fact, a relative who works for Walmart told they do, if memory serves.</p> <p>2.) They have the grain removal filter on.</p> <p>I can't tell from your samples, because I can't enlarge them enough to see whether they have the tell tail "wax museum look".</p> <p>Can you ask them whether they are using Noritsu equipment? </p>

<p>I read <em>Scanning Negatives and Slides</em> by Sascha Steinhoff, and the section quoted by <strong>Colin O</strong> in the original post above, in 2009. Scanning for archival purposes also means future-proofing, and the quoted section didn't make sense to me. Therefore, I asked Sascha for clarification by email. Sascha wrote in an email dated Oct 19, 2009, " . . . the described effect depends very much on the scanner. my example was nikon. as every scanner has its own characteristique the effect my not be given with other scanners."<br> <br /> Also, in 2009, I had two different services scan the same negative film strips as a test. One scanning service, ScanDigital (now in Torrance, CA), used a Nikon Coolscan, at 4000 pixels per inch per my instructions. The other scanning service, A&I (now in Burbank, CA), used Nortisu equipment at its Ultra High resolution setting, over 4000 pixels per inch, per my instructions. When comparing scans displayed at 100 percent on my MacBook Pro monitor, I saw digital noise in the Nikon Coolscan scans, and film grain (pleasing to me) in the Noritsu scans. For that reason, I chose to have about 3000 negative film images scanned on the Noritsu by A&I, rather than on the Nikon Coolscan.<br> <br /> I agree with you, Colin O, that 2000 pixels per inch is not enough for scanning 35mm film for archival purposes. However, I get the impression, the Nikon Coolscan has some sort of sweet spot when it comes to resolution, apparently lower than its its optical resolution.</p>

<p>Thanks, Alan. That is exactly how I think about it.</p> <p>I have a conspiracy theory, though. Noritsu makes the feature for turning off the grain removal difficult to find, to make their customers pay a lot of money for a service contract.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Well, I think the root of the problem is that grain noise in the Noritsu scans (which machine BTW?) is generally pretty bad for what it should be.</p> </blockquote> <p>All I know is that A&I calls it the Noritsu 1700SA on their website and a brochure.</p> <p>So do you think the grain in my above examples looks bad?</p> <blockquote> <p>. . . my experience with scanning was that above 4000 ppi you were merely getting larger scans of the film 'grain'.</p> </blockquote> <p>But it seems to me, I created useable images with those crops to tiny portions of the scans, in my above comparisons . . . I mean, if I wanted to use that small a portion of an image rather than the entire image. Or if I wanted to zoom in on the image to that extent in a video consisting of still images.</p>