This is what 1 meg scan buys you

<p>The background to this story is that I tried my first mail order film processing by sending them out to the Darkroom(a few threads down). I was cheap so I decided to go with their bare bone scan; something like a meg. That's right, ONE meg. I think Fisher-Price has a camera with a higher resolution. The scans looked gorgeous on the screen but I was curious how they would look in print. So I uploaded the file to Walgreens and asked for an 8x10 enlargement. When I later picked it up I was speechless. It looked amazing, sharp, colorful and every bit the equal of what it looked like on the computer. I don't know what or who to give credit to? My fabulous Yashica FX, The Darkroom, Walgreens or just the photographer. The bottom line is that it looks like I can live with 1 meg scans. Who knew?</p>

<p><img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/415093/82020007.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>If by 'one meg' you mean one megapixel, I'm not really surprised. That converts to about 110 dpi in the 8 x 10 print, which will be pretty decent for most purposes. </p>

<p>If you looked at it side-by-side with a good 300 dpi print, or a good optical enlargement, you'd see a bit of difference. But 110 dpi is close to what the naked eye will resolve under normal conditions.</p>

<p>Their standard scan is about 1K by 1.5K, so about 1.5 megapixels, for 35mm film. Your print is around 128dpi then. Dave is exactly correct, it will look ok, but not as good as a 300dpi print.</p>

<p>How far back in digital photography do you have to go to see 1.5 meg cameras? I have another question. Is the film, camera and lens have something to do with the quality we see here. In other words, would a 1.5 meg digital camera produce pictures as good as this? Anyone remember?</p>

<p>What is the resolution of the scan in pixel dimensions? A "1 meg" scan sounds like one mega<em>byte</em>. That's not equivalent to 1 mega<em>pixel</em>. Depending on the image content, sharpening and other factors, a one megabyte compressed JPEG from a scan large enough in pixel dimension resolution can make a decent 8x10.</p>

<p>My 4.4 mega<em>pixel</em> Nikon D2H (2464x1632 pixel dimensions) produces JPEGs that are around 1.3 mega<em>bytes</em>. At 200 dpi that's enough for a good quality 8x10. The raw files and TIFFs are much larger in file size than 1.3 megabytes, from the same 4.4 megapixel camera, but the pixel dimensions are identical.</p>

<p>My 1999 era first version Minolta film scanner produced files that were roughly comparable to a mid-2000s era consumer grade 8mp dSLR. The scans produced maximum image sizes of 2336 x 3504 pixels for 35mm (24.5 megabytes), and 1776 x 2928 for APS (15.6 megabytes). TIFFs from full resolution scans were over 20 megabytes, but JPEGs were between 1-2 megabytes, depending on image content, while the pixel dimensions were identical to the TIFFs. Good enough for 8x10 prints.</p>

<p>As to whether a 1.5 megapixel digital camera could compare, it depends on many factors. My oldest Olympus P&S digicam is around 1 or 1.5mp and at base ISO produces better quality photos than the 1.3mp camera in my Kindle Fire HD.</p>

<p>And whether the 8x10 print from a 1 megabyte scan would compare with an optical print from the "golden era" of minilabs - around 1980-late 1990s, I'd say nope, probably not. But a lot depends on the machine, settings, materials and operator skill. On one occasion - when our nearest Walgreens still had a film minilab - they produced awful work. Apparently they had a new operator, or the machine was set incorrectly. They tried to make 4x6 prints from scans that were barely suitable for thumbnails, around 200x300 pixels in dimensions. Usually that minilab produced good results, although they closed the film minilab last year and the current ribbon type printer produces mediocre prints.</p>

<p>To be exact, the scans are 1544x1024=1,581,056 pixels. The file size varies depending on the scene. This particular picture is 1.3 MB per iPhoto which translates to 1.2 bytes/pixel. A raw photograph is 3 bytes per pixel(24 bits), so although the picture is in JPEG format there is not that much compression. You would expect something like 8:1 or more. </p>

<p>Well, the mystery is solved. The only remaining point to be explained is whether or not a 1.5 megapixel camera can produce images as good as this. My guess: probably not.</p>

<p>The 35mm frame has much more than 1.5Mpx of information on it. I'm guessing that the scanner may have sampled at a higher native resolution, then down-sampled that to 1.5Mpx, hence the decent enlargement potential despite the low pixel count.</p>

<p>The colour and sharpness on that image is great. I think the scanner and operator are of high quality.</p>