Maximum usable resolution from old 35mm slides - type of scanner to use?

Hi everyone,

 

I and my son recently tried scanning a bunch of old 35mm slides on an Epson V600, and were highly disappointed with the results. It claims a resolution up to 6400 x 9600, but for practical purposes (including using a SilverFast USAF 1951 target resolution slide), I found it only capable of ~2400 dpi. Its software also had some SERIOUS issues with automatically recognizing the boundaries of slides, forcing us to manually create boundaries for each and every slide, in their tiny Preview window whose zoom can't be adjusted. (Read: My son gave every single slide a non-trivial big black border around the image. Because I, as an amateur photo-editing software guy, didn't want to do any post processing if I could help it. Any time I crop a JPG, I bet it's losing a little more resolution.) Here's more on Epson flatbed scanners' sucky software for slides at Epson Scan crops 35mm slides, Document Size doesn't help

 

So, to make a long story short:

• What would you say is the maximal real resolution a 35mm slide can impart? I have heard it might be as much as 9000 dpi (see post #13 at and of this Photo.net thread: Something common to test fine resolution on my scanner?)
  
• Any recommendations on a scanner to buy, for a ton of slides and photos? A thousand slides. Hundreds of photos. I'm willing to spend a few hundred. Will that get it?
  

Thanks if you can help!

Flatbeds are readily available and quick, but don’t give very high resolution. If you use 3rd party software like Vuescan you can have more control over color and levels but the resolution is still limited.

 

If you want high resolution you need to do one of three things:

 

1. Get a dedicated film scanner with high resolution and the ability to focus on the film frame. Some of these even have slide feeders.

 

2. Get some service that has a high end scanner to do it for you.

 

3. Rig up a high res DSLR or mirrorless with a macro lens, a light source and something to hold it all together, and photograph the slide frames.

 

These days, #3 can make a lot of sense. I find that using a light table and a tripod with the column inverted, and either my XPro2 or my D800, I can get similar detail to what a good film scanner yields, and usually faster.

Flatbeds are readily available and quick, but don’t give very high resolution. If you use 3rd party software like Vuescan you can have more control over color and levels but the resolution is still limited.

 

If you want high resolution you need to do one of three things:

 

1. Get a dedicated film scanner with high resolution and the ability to focus on the film frame. Some of these even have slide feeders.

Thanks Andy,

 

Gosh guy ... I'm way out on a limb just trying to scan old slides. Now you'd recommend I look into DSLRs, macro lenses, a light source, and something else to hold it all together?

 

I appreciate the time you took to respond. But it would be good if folks can keep responses simpler for me. I've already sunk tons of money and time into just understanding and playing with a flatbed scanner, which turned out to be a bust. I'm sure you know DSLRs backwards and forwards, but I literally haven't touched one. Ever.

 

Can you go into more detail on your option #1 option?

 

I do appreciate your time. But ... gosh. I have a hundred other things in the fire. I'm not trying to make a career out of these slides.

Send them out for conversion to a scan service. I can tell you're going to blow your brains out if you try do it yourself. It's not worth the misery even if you don't pull the trigger. Trust me. I know, I've been there. One suggestion. Do you need all the slides converted? Usually there are duplicates or crummy shots you can eliminate. If there are a couple you want to blow up and print, you can spend more on those to be done with a drum scanner.

In my experience flatbed scanners are the least desirable choice for 35mm, even with very good software such as Vuescan - they are ok for medium format. Decent dedicated 35mm scanners of quality either cost a fortuneif you can find them in working condition or you are limited to old used 35mm scanners. I have both but gave up using them to convert my slides and thousands of negatives. Got a good DSLR and then switched to a m4/3 body and sturdy support (I use an old enlarger, but a copy stand works great too)...macro lens and made a lightbox. Quicker and better than the flatbed or dedicated 35mm scanner. Still no joy, but I get great results. Sorry I can't offer you an easier or less expensive option.

For a "few hundred dollars," the Epson V600 is as good as it gets. You can set up a default crop and apply it to all images. It's best to exclude the slide mount or film borders to get the best exposure and rendering.

 

It takes 3000 to 4000 ppi to resolve dye clouds in color film. The total resolution can't be any better than that. 4000 ppi represents 24 MP per image, or about 72 MB per TIFF image. JPEGs are okay for derived images, but TIFF is better for the master, especially if you need to adjust the exposure and color.

 

The de facto standard for home scanning is probably a Nikon Coolscan LS-4000 or LS-5000 (35 mm slides and negatives). They haven't been made for 5 years or so, but are available, used, for $1000 or so. Make sure you get the film holders, which can get very expensive and hard to find on the open market. It takes about 2 hours to scan a roll of film, assuming 36 slides or frames. Judge for yourself how many days, months or years it will take to complete your project.

 

Your local photo store or photo center and produce postcard-quality scans quickly and cheaply. The resolution is good enough for social media, but the colors are generally off the wall gaudy. High resolution, high quality scans can cost $15/frame and up.

 

IMO, the best solution is a DSLR or MILC camera with a macro lens capable of 1:1 magnification (0.75 resolution for APS-C), and a slide/film holder like a Nikon ES-2. You can scan 5-10 rolls an hour, with film-scanner quality. I have a Nikon LS-4000 and LS-8000 (medium format) scanner, but choose to use a camera instead. The setup is compsct and rigid, so no tripod or special support is needed. I use a desk lamp with an LED screw-base daylight bulb for a light source.

 

Sony A7ii + Nikon F lens adapter + Nikon PX-13 extension tube (for 1:1) + Nikon 55/2.8 Macro + Nikon ES-1 (shown) or ES-2 film holder.

The Epson V800 holds twelve slides and the EpsonScan supplied with it is not bad and reasonably fast. Vuescan would be good also but perhaps slower. What you need is "Batch Scan" in the software, do all the settings and let the scanner do the rest. I think tiff would be better than JPG for post processing. A size of say 6000x4000 in tiff allows the scan to be expanded quite a bit to spot out defects and not cause too much "destructiveness" of the image data.

 

Different scanning softwares have different ways of adjusting resolution. Vuescan is simple with it's drop down for custom resolutions, select 3200 perhaps, or type your preferred one into the "Scan Resolution" box. Epson Scan also has a drop down and Silverfast 8 has a slider.

 

I found my Epson V800 quite adequate for doing everyday 35mm scans. Once the film holders are height adjusted for the sharpest focus it produces scans I'm happy with. Just lately, I've been using it more than my LS 8000 Nikon dedicated film scanner, but then the Epson can also do 4X5 where the Nikon can't. The Epson is exceptional for prints scanned on the platen, but too high a resolution for a large print will mean a whopping file size of 300-400MB, good for post processing, but takes up room in the hard drive.

For a "few hundred dollars," the Epson V600 is as good as it gets.

 

Thanks, Ed... the Epson V600 cost me $206 from Amazon on 7/25/18. It's be more than enough for documents versus my old Xerox DocuMate 515. But not slides or negatives, I now see.

 

You think 35mm slides have 4000 dpi max? Please note, I am not asking you what it is possible to buy. I am asking you, what you think the max resolution of slides might reasonably be. These are only consumer-grade 35 mm slides that my Dad made.... Kodak rolls bought from any stores from the 1940s to the 1980s.

 

You're saying I'd need to put down $1k+ to get something better than the ~1800 dpi that the V600 can realistically do? Or send the slides to a specialized service?

 

No, I won't consider sending slides to a consumer service - not unless someone advises me of a serious one. I would like not only the slide image at best realistic resolution, but also metadata on the slide cardboard frame/mount. Optimally including images of the slide's frame/mount both front and back (but of course, it doesn't have to be nearly as high rez as the image itself). Do you know any shop that takes that kind of care?

 

Thanks ... I'm trying to get all these thousand slides in order, and do them justice... and trying to learn here. I paid my son a pretty penny to image all a thousand. He did everything I asked. And what I found is that the V600 sucks for slide resolution and borders, and I have no images of the frame/mount.

Edited August 12, 2019 by mikef7

Send them out for conversion to a scan service. I can tell you're going to blow your brains out if you try do it yourself. It's not worth the misery even if you don't pull the trigger. Trust me. I know, I've been there. One suggestion. Do you need all the slides converted? Usually there are duplicates or crummy shots you can eliminate. If there are a couple you want to blow up and print, you can spend more on those to be done with a drum scanner.

 

Yes thanks, these are from old family albums. In most other peoples' situations, there are crap slides. But the opposite is true here: After 50 years, and many showings, and Dad giving many away in his later years, we (me and sibs) are left with many gaps - the crap slides long gone, and only the bottom of the barrel of what's good is left. So most every slide counts. Also FWIW you're stating the ultimate conundrum - you have to scan it to know if it's worth scanning, smile. I found that out the hard way by spending $200 on an Epson V600 and found its hardware AND software sucks for slides. AFTER I paid my son to scan a thousand slides. Oh well, at least the money stays in the family, lol.

 

In case any newcomer is reading this - don't get a V600 unless you don't have a budget for more, or time for more. It really sucks for slides.

 

Alan, if you can suggest some pros who can also capture both sides of the slide frame/mount (at lower rez), and the image at best resolution, that will be cool.

 

I don't know anyone that does that.

 

What do you think is the max dpi resolution realistically usable for 35mm slides?

Edited August 12, 2019 by mikef7

Thanks Andy,

 

Gosh guy ... I'm way out on a limb just trying to scan old slides. Now you'd recommend I look into DSLRs, macro lenses, a light source, and something else to hold it all together?

 

I appreciate the time you took to respond. But it would be good if folks can keep responses simpler for me. I've already sunk tons of money and time into just understanding and playing with a flatbed scanner, which turned out to be a bust. I'm sure you know DSLRs backwards and forwards, but I literally haven't touched one. Ever.

 

Can you go into more detail on your option #1 option?

 

I do appreciate your time. But ... gosh. I have a hundred other things in the fire. I'm not trying to make a career out of these slides.

 

As the poet once said, “Good, cheap or fast? You can pick two.”

 

Here’s the thing. In 2019, most of the companies that made good film scanners in the past have stopped doing so. It’s been more than 10 years since any serious development was made in consumer-accessible slide scanning.

 

So if you want to scan a large number of slides with minimal work and maximum resolution, you’re looking at either old gear, or stretching the use cases of new gear.

 

In old gear, the best option for you is to find a used Nikon LS-5000 in good condition with the slide feeder accessory. That’s not cheap, and though it feeds the slides automatically so you don’t need to actively operate it during scanning, it takes a couple minutes per frame at high quality. That’s good and fast.

 

You can get a less advanced model for less money (my Minolta Dual IV was about $100) but it will be slower, with less resolution and each slide needs to be loaded by hand into a holder, so it’s good and cheap but it would not meet your requirements.

 

Cheap and fast is those under-$100 film scanners you can buy new on Amazon that have an internal crappy digital camera that photographs frames.

 

For the average person here, getting access to a digital camera with a macro lens, a tripod and a light source is much easier. Once you get the hang of it you can do 36 slides in 5 minutes. This is actually a fast and good option, and if you happen to have access to a digital camera, a macro lens, a tripod and a light source (which is all normal stuff for a lot of people on here to have lying around the house) it’s also cheap.

Slide film has a resolution of about 80 lines/mm (2000 ppi) for real world contrast (6:1). Higher figures are cited for targets with extreme (1000:1) contrast. The net resolution is a composite of the film, lens, and scanning method, roughly additive as the root-sum-square of individual uncertainties (fuzziness). If the scanner has the same resolution as the film, the net result is only half the ideal value. The estimated net resolution for a 4000 ppi scanner is only 1800 ppi. That's still better than net 1000 ppi for a 2000 ppi scanner.

 

The Nikon slide feeder is horrendously unreliable unless the slide mounts are in perfect condition. Even then, you have to place the folded edge of the cardboard mount leading. If you have any frayed or bent edges, jams are inevitable. Save your money!

Sorry, I don't have any scan services I can recommend since I haven;t used any. Why don't you take a couple of slides and send them out to a service to see how they do? Then, after you get them back, send the same slides to another service and compare the results. Pick the better service. Also, beforehand, speak to the management at each of the services to get an idea how they do their scans and if they can accommodate your special needs. Obviously the better the results, the more you're going to have to pay. Good luck.

Many so-called 'film scanners' do have a practical, as opposed to claimed, resolution of 1600 ppi to maybe 2400 ppi at best--the higher counts given are "interpolated".

 

Dedicated film scanners like the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 will go up to a real 4000 ppi, which at that point resolves grain or dye cloud on films like Kodachrome or Ektar-- meaning you've reached a practical limit (see Canon 9950f - bulk scanning workflow for one discussion)

Any scan resolution over a true 4000 ppi is pretty much wasted.

 

All colour film has a substantial emulsion thickness, spread over 3, 4 or more layers. Those emulsion layers have 'turbidity'; meaning they scatter light. Therefore there's a physical limit to the fineness of detail that can be focussed onto, and into the film - no matter how good the camera lens is, or how fine the dye-clouds forming the image are.

 

I defy anyone to produce a slide on any current or previously available retail film that shows any real detail much above 4000 ppi. And in most handheld shots the level of detail is going to be considerably lower. Whether a scan resolves the individual dye clouds or not doesn't alter the level of image detail that the slide holds.

 

4000 ppi represents a combined lens/film resolution of around 80 cycles or line-pairs per millimetre, which is about all the resolution anyone could wish for right across the frame. At the edges and corners you'd be very lucky to capture half that resolution.

 

Figures of 6400 ppi, 9600 ppi and suchlike scan resolution are pure nonsense. When no past or present practical film/lens combo could make use of such a resolution.

There's no nonsense about the spec's Epson claims for this scanner; it's optically 6400PPI and they even define this:

* Optical resolution is the maximum scan resolution of the CCD elements, using the definition of ISO 14473.

But that one value is kind of meaningless when you consider it alone, without context. Even if we were to believe that scanner 'actually' produces an optical resolution of 2400PPI, I can assure you there's a massive difference in a 2400PPI scan from say an Imacon using a Rodenstock lens and this pup which cost far less than the Imacon's lens alone at 2400PPI. And the difference in quality between a good PMT scanner and gel mounted transparency (like my old Howtek and Scanmates) at 2400PPI would appear night and day. To even the Imacon!

This is akin to saying "my camera at F8 produces soft images" without taking into account so many conditions (lens, sensor/film size, shutter speed while hand holding, processing, the ability of the photographer to actually focus the shot).

Don't go there. It's a waste of time. The numbers alone tell us very little about scan quality. Of anything.

In my experience flatbed scanners are the least desirable choice for 35mm, even with very good software such as Vuescan - they are ok for medium format.

That may indeed be your experience but it's a bit limited and as such: "All generalizations are false, including this one".-Mark Twain

I think both Scanmate and Scitex would find issue with this, at least in the old days when such flatbed scanners were pretty darn expensive and produced pretty good quality for those prepress companies that used them day in and day out.

 

http://www.wide-format-printers.org/scannereports/SupremeReport_2.pdf

Overall the Creo EverSmart Supreme scanner is a very high quality professional scanner that produces spectacular results.

....the spec's Epson claims for this scanner; it's optically 6400PPI and they even define this:

* Optical resolution is the maximum scan resolution of the CCD elements, using the definition of ISO 14473.

That's complete crap.

The optical resolution of any scanner is the combined resolution of lens and sensor, and Epson's flatbeds come nowhere near to 6400 ppi resolution, due to use of an inferior lens.

 

ISO 14473 was last revised in 1999. That's several lifetimes ago in terms of digital imaging equipment. Also, it describes the minimum information that should be published for office equipment. Hardly relevant for high quality film digitisation.

 

If the ISO really do believe that a scanner's optical resolution is solely defined by its photosite count, then those miserly Swiss gnomes aren't fit to be in charge of the world's standards.

 

And I'm not sure why you've appointed yourself apologist for Epson either.

Edited August 13, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

I think both Scanmate and Scitex would find issue with this, at least in the old days when such flatbed scanners were pretty darn expensive and produced pretty good quality for those prepress companies that used them day in and day out.

Most of us accept "flatbed scanner" refers to affordable, consumer grade scanners. A Creo/Scitex scanner is basically a process camera in a box, and cost $75K in 2004 dollars.

 

I bought an Epson 1600 in that time frame for about $1300, which has a single, focusing lens rather than the much cheaper micro-lens array scanners that followed. Advertised at 1600 ppi, it actually performs very close to that level. The bed is very deep (>6"), in order to provide the necessary working distance. However 1600 ppi does not do justice to film, except that it has a full-sized light source covering the entire legal-sized bed, suitable for medium and large format film.

 

Optical site count is a verifiable number, and companies tend to seize on specifications that hold them in the best light. It represents legitimate use, consistent with ISO standards. We all know the number is meaningless in practical terms, largely because micro-lens images overlap about 50%.

A very high quality 35mm slide film can give you up to 24 MP of resolution. This applies to Velvia 50, for example. For most purposes, however, this is overkill unless the chromes were shot with a very good lens on a solid tripod.

That's complete crap.

 

And I'm not sure why you've appointed yourself apologist for Epson either.

1. Isn't,

2. Is.

Most of us accept "flatbed scanner" refers to affordable, consumer grade scanners. A Creo/Scitex scanner is basically a process camera in a box, and cost $75K in 2004 dollars.

I don't speak for 'most of us' or what most of you understand. I speak for myself and I provided a few flatbed scanners that go against the generalization of flatbed scanners provided.

I agree. Wouldn't I like to have a Scitex?

I agree. Wouldn't I like to have a Scitex?

Check ebay! There are two there now...

Dedicated slide/negative scanners are too slow if you have a lot of work to get through. I had a Nikon LS50, sold it bought a Epson V800 and extra

film holders. I calibrated it to get the best scans. It uses a system of adjustable feet.

I just use EpsonScan which will batch scan 18 frames , so can do a 36exp film in about 2 hours, with ICE 3200dpi and 48bit

I make RAW scans with minimal processing, leaving head room. I post process in Lightroom, rendering the frames as 3000x2000pixel 8 bit compressed tiffs

I recommend against compressed TIFF files. There seems to be no real consensus regarding TIFF compression, hence poor compatibility. Besides, 6 MP images aren't going to clog the system.