Is this a good scan ?

<p>Hello!<br>

Recently I received scans of two 35mm films (ISO 200) on <strong>NORITSU KOKI Model: QSS-29_31;</strong> at 23,9 MP !!! I have no experience with so large files and scanned from film , so ,do you think it is a good scan ?</p>

<p>I have some problems with the attachment</p>

 

<p>Pretty small compared to what I do at home.</p>

<p>attachment:</p>

<p>Larry did you see anything? thanks for the answer.I have some problems uploading the file. anyway ,it seems to me that the level of grain is too high compared with the alleged resolution and file dimension 23,9 MP. IF that is REALLY 23,9 !!!</p>

<p>There's lots of things that make a scan a good scan, and megapixels is just one of them<br>

A 23.9MP scan from a 35mm negative is enough resolution to get all you can get out from the film (if your numbers are accurate). But are you sure you are talking about megapixels and not megabytes? There is a factor of 3 difference between these two units.<br>

Dynamic range, bit depth, color balance and overall image quality is another aspect to consider. A while ago I was also using a lab that had a Noritsu machine pumping out high resolution 35mm film scans at developing time. I found that the scans were over-sharpened bringing out film grain in a pretty bad way; the contrast was over the top which meant a very small dynamic range; the colors were also often too saturated.<br>

Generally doing your own scans will give you the best results, but that also means sinking significant amounts of cash and especially spending lots of spare time making scans.</p>

<p>Teo - your attachment is not loading most likely because it is too big. There are limits to the size of a file you can upload as an attachment.<br>

You may want to use some photo editing software to make a crop or a down-size your image.</p>

<p>Thank you , Daniel .File Size 10162 KB ,Image Size 6000x3978</p>

<p>Probably the file is too big to upload .I'll try to upload a half of frame , as a sample</p>

 

<p>So , a file trimmed in half</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Teo<br>

I'd say it looks as I would expected it to look... It's not a true 29 megapixel image. The scanning resolution is probably too high for what the film holds, and the results look soft when looked at 100% magnification - this could also be due to a combination of other factors like a soft camera lens?. There is a very coarse grain pattern visible, which is a combination of film grain and poor sharpening which I've also seen in lots of lab-machine scans.<br>

Have a look <a href="00Bq95">here</a> for a similar sample at a smaller resolution.<br>

If you want to see how various films look like under a very good scanner have a look at Les Sariles <a href="http://www.fototime.com/inv/083F985536715B3">film scans album</a></p>

 

<p>Teo, what film was it exactly? And can you remember what lens you used? Finally, did you focus manually or using AF?</p>

<p>Your example images is, for the most part, so far out of focus that it's hard to say anything about the scan. The grain and noise are about what I'd expect from an 'average' scanning system. Can you post something with more detail?</p>

<p>Yes, Zoltan , it was a Kodak Profoto 100 , the lens was Rokkor 28mm manually focused.<br>

Greg, I'll try to post something with more depth of field , for focused details.</p><div></div>

<p>This one is manually focused , Hexanon 50 mm f/1.7 , Agfa Vista 200</p>

<p>and a 45 mm Rokkor f/2 Profoto 100</p><div></div>

<p>I don't think it is a very good scan to be honest. It does not look very sharp to me. It does not look really that much better than I get from an Epson V500.</p>

<p>My impression too is that , despite the dimensions of the file, the level of detail isn't at least on par with the 10MP files of my XTi, and even those of the G9 !!!<br>

But maybe the 35mm can't give better results ?!? The scans in the link given by Daniel did not impressed me either.</p>

<p>Scans from film look different when viewed at 100% compared to viewing digital capture at 100%. A scan viewed at will 100% will usually lack the crispness and have visible very visible grain compared to viewing shots from your DSLR when shot at low ISOs.</p>

<p>This is what I am looking at with 35mm Trix. this was scanned at 2500ppi with a v500 but I don't think it really does 2500ppi its closer to 2000. The neg is a little soft and HC110 is not the sharpest developer.</p><div></div>

<p>Back to Teo's samples - the more I look at them the more they look like fairly standard 6MP scans (around 3000x2400 pixels, something like a 2000dpi scan, with indulgence) being blown up by up-scaling to double the dimensions (yielding 4 times the megapixels) but without any additional information.<br>

The link to the Noritsu vs Coolscan comparison posted by Les kind of sums it up: the Noritsu scans are reasonably sharp but over-sharpened and over-contrasty; they do look OK on small paper prints, which is what they were made for, and anyone can get them cheap with film processing without spending a lot of time. Coolscan scans are far better, but they also require a good deal of investment in equipment and spare time.</p>

<p>Your scan isn't all that bad.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>they look like fairly standard 6MP scans (around 3000x2400 pixels, something like a 2000dpi scan, with indulgence) being blown up by up-scaling to double the dimensions (yielding 4 times the megapixels) but without any additional information.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. The "graininess" looks unnatural - like an up-rezed image. True film grain doesn't look like that.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>A 23.9MP scan from a 35mm negative is enough resolution to get all you can get out from the film</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends on the film and the image. I have a Nikon 5000ED (4000ppi) and an Imacon 646 (6300ppi). If an image is well exposed, sharp and on fine grain, high resolution film, 4000ppi is not extracting all the information. There is a long thread about scan quality elsewhere on pnet. I agree with the general thrust of that thread - that film often gets a bad rap because it is not well scanned. The following example and the next two are 50+MP scans (6300ppi) from 35mm film.</p><div></div>

<p>Next one</p><div></div>

<p>Grain? What grain?</p><div></div>