Re: [photo-3d] Scanner test files

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Harp wrote:
> --- In photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx, "David W. Kesner" <drdave@xxxx> wrote:
> > Jim Harp asked that I do a few tests of my new Epson Perfection
> > 1640SU Photo scanner and post them in the files section for anyone
> > that is interested. I have done that and they are there in a
> > folder called <Epson 1640SU Photo Scanner>.
> > 
> > One image is a full scan and the other is a zoomed in portion.
> 

You might want to try scanning a Kodak Q-60 test slide in order to
make comparisons.  If you don't want to get a Q-60, perhaps someone
could select a slide and pass it around to people with different
scanners.  You would probably want something with smooth tomes,
details and standard colors.  Blue sky over a grassy field might do
nicely.  Using a standardized test slide will eliminate a lot of
variables (film exposure, processing, focus, etc.).  There would still
be lots of room for variation depending on scanning method and set up.

> Thanks for posting those.  I have an Epson 1200 scanner, and I can
> see that the 1640 does a much better job of producing clear scans
> from transparencies.  I don't think the 1200 focuses perfectly, and
> the optical resolution of 1200dpi doesn't seem sufficient to produce
> sharp prints from 35mm negatives.  B&H sells the Kodak RFS-3600,
> ($1149) which is a 35mm film scanner with a 3600 dpi optical
> resolution and a 3.6 dynamic range.  Based on those specs the RFS-
> 3600 should be able to match the output of Kodak "Photo CD"
> scanners, but unlike the Epson 1640 I can't see any way to use it to
> scan MF slides or View-Master reels.
> 

You shouldn't really expect a flatbed scanner (the Epson) to match a
film scanner (the Kodak).

I was surprised how hard it is to find real specifications for the
Kodak scanner.  I didn't find anything beyond the "glossy pamphlet"
level, even on Kodak's site.

As far as printing goes, most people are satisfied with 300ppi (pixels
per inch) at the final print size.  (NOTE: That's image *PIXELS* per
inch not printer *DOTS* per inch.)  To print an 8x10 from a 35mm frame
you would need a 2540ppi (300ppi * 8 inches / 24mm (doing the correct
units conversion)) scan.  From a MF frame (56x56mm) you would need
about a 1089ppi scan for a 8x8 print and from a 4x5 (3.75x4.75 inch on
the negative) you would need a 640ppi scan.  The 1200ppi of Jim's
Epson scanner could make a 4x6 from 35mm, a 8x8 from MF and a 15x19
from a 4x5.

Affordable MF film scanners are hard to come by.  The Minolta Dimage
Scan Multi II is the one everyone seems to settle on.  You don't even
want to know what a 4x5 film scanner goes for.  Used drum scanners are
cheaper.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"