PDA

View Full Version : better scans from film development service




andiwm2003
Feb 11, 2006, 05:12 PM
Hi,

I know it's a bit off topic and i tried a search but couldn't find anything.

I have a conventional SLR camera that i like to use. it uses standard 35mm film and i develop it at the usual CVS Pharmacy Kodak development centers.

I let them digitize the pictures and burn a CD. The digital pics are o.k.. However the scan resolution is ridiculously low (1545x1024).

Is there a way to get my film scanned with 3000x2000?

I wouldn't mind paying more if necessary.

Thanks, Andi



iMeowbot
Feb 11, 2006, 05:24 PM
Yes, you should be able to get photo CDs with at least 3072 x 2048, at least Kodak offer that (and higher for a premium). CVS really leave those off? Wow.

cgratti
Feb 11, 2006, 07:06 PM
Why dont you just spend a little extra $$ and buy a scanner? The money you save in the lohgrun will probably be wrth it, and you can scan to any size you like.

jared_kipe
Feb 11, 2006, 08:00 PM
Why dont you just spend a little extra $$ and buy a scanner? The money you save in the lohgrun will probably be wrth it, and you can scan to any size you like.
I think this might be a really good option if you're willing to "make" it work. I have seen somewhat older nikon film scanners that only use SCSI interface selling for really cheap on ebay. And I have come across SCSI to USB interfaces with mac, which are known to work using a program called VueScan.
http://www.ratocsystems.com/english/products/subpages/u2scx.html
the scanner is the Nikon Coolscan III or LS-30

I have considered this myself, but I have an acceptable dSLR and plan on trading it up for a 20D when the new canon dslr comes out soon.

mcarnes
Feb 12, 2006, 04:20 AM
I use WCI for my LF and 617 stuff. They use a Tango, which would be overkill unless your 35 stuff is top end.

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/

It is expensive, so I only mention them if you want the best. I'm familiar with them and they do good work. A decent 35mm scan would be about $80 (16-bit, 400MB).

ScubaDuc
Feb 12, 2006, 08:10 AM
Hi,

I know it's a bit off topic and i tried a search but couldn't find anything.

I have a conventional SLR camera that i like to use. it uses standard 35mm film and i develop it at the usual CVS Pharmacy Kodak development centers.

I let them digitize the pictures and burn a CD. The digital pics are o.k.. However the scan resolution is ridiculously low (1545x1024).

Is there a way to get my film scanned with 3000x2000?

I wouldn't mind paying more if necessary.

Thanks, Andi

I use a Nikon Coolpix V scanner and it is fantastic! It can scan at resolution up to 4,000 dpi and outomatically fixes blemishes like scratches and so on: I give it the highest ratings! Thanks Nikon!

Thomas S
Feb 12, 2006, 09:44 AM
I use WCI for my LF and 617 stuff. They use a Tango, which would be overkill unless your 35 stuff is top end.

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/

It is expensive, so I only mention them if you want the best. I'm familiar with them and they do good work. A decent 35mm scan would be about $80 (16-bit, 400MB).

I have also used WCI for years.

The quality is beyond top-notch, however the price is very high. In the end, its worth it.

revenuee
Feb 12, 2006, 10:31 AM
Scanner do save you money in the long run

but only if you can a lot, if you do it occasionally then it might take a very long time before you break even.

if develop at least 1 or two weekly then that would probably be your cheapest way.

if you do it occasionally ... ask around you're camera shops for better services in your area.

andiwm2003
Feb 12, 2006, 12:00 PM
Scanner do save you money in the long run

but only if you can a lot, if you do it occasionally then it might take a very long time before you break even.

if develop at least 1 or two weekly then that would probably be your cheapest way.

if you do it occasionally ... ask around you're camera shops for better services in your area.


thank's for the infos. i guess i'll try ot find a service that scans with 3000x2000. the recommended 35mm scanners start at $550. you would need a lot of films to make up for that.

andi

jared_kipe
Feb 12, 2006, 12:06 PM
thank's for the infos. i guess i'll try ot find a service that scans with 3000x2000. the recommended 35mm scanners start at $550. you would need a lot of films to make up for that.

andi
Not my idea, you just have to wait for one to show up. All in all probably wouldn't cost you more than $150.

-hh
Feb 12, 2006, 04:58 PM
I think this might be a really good option if you're willing to "make" it work. I have seen somewhat older nikon film scanners that only use SCSI interface selling for really cheap on ebay. And I have come across SCSI to USB interfaces with mac, which are known to work using a program called VueScan.
http://www.ratocsystems.com/english/products/subpages/u2scx.html
the scanner is the Nikon Coolscan III or LS-30.

FWIW, I've tried throwing a SCSI card into my G5, and have been unsuccessful in getting my ancient LS-1000 to talk with the system (external HD's work fine). Any suggestions would of course be appreciated. Overall, I have my doubts about trying the USB->SCSI route.

For the OP, I'd look around for other camera shops to see what they offer...the local small shop I've been using for years has 2000x3000 and while they originally were asking $10/roll, but they've come down to $5/roll.

In any event, I think the real question here is how many images per roll do you think you're going to scan, and how much of your "touch labor" are you willing to continuously 'spend' on doing the job (vs paying someone else).

I've done enough film scans at home to recognize that its worth some amount to me to have someone else do the scanning - - which probably also includes dropping $1500 for an LS-5000 with bulk slide feeder, so it can do its thing overnight without me in attendance. Overall, its a case of 'be careful of what you wish for'.

Overall, I find it pays to get it all scanned when its being developed. Currently, for my old stuff, I've been getting by with a better-quality flatbed scanner that has a light in top for use on transparencies.

-hh

andiwm2003
Feb 12, 2006, 05:11 PM
...................For the OP, I'd look around for other camera shops to see what they offer...the local small shop I've been using for years has 2000x3000 and while they originally were asking $10/roll, but they've come down to $5/roll.

In any event, I think the real question here is how many images per roll do you think you're going to scan, and how much of your "touch labor" are you willing to continuously 'spend' on doing the job (vs paying someone else).

I've done enough film scans at home to recognize that its worth some amount to me to have someone else do the scanning - - which probably also includes dropping $1500 for an LS-5000 with bulk slide feeder, so it can do its thing overnight without me in attendance. Overall, its a case of 'be careful of what you wish for'.

Overall, I find it pays to get it all scanned when its being developed. Currently, for my old stuff, I've been getting by with a better-quality flatbed scanner that has a light in top for use on transparencies.

-hh

i'm a total amateur photographer. so i shoot once in a while a film .so buying anything for more than $200 isn't worth it. on top of that i would have to develop the films anyway. so $5 for a good scan per film is absolutely worth it. i just have to find a shop in convenient location that does 3000x2000 or better. i eonder why the CVS centers don't offer that. maybe they do and their largely clueless personal just doesn't know.

PBGPowerbook
Feb 12, 2006, 07:14 PM
wci is beyond overkill, ask CVS if they can make you a 'premium CD' or go to your local ritz camera and ask for the same. Most digital minilabs have a higher resolution option, the scans are about 25-30 MB tiffs, more than enough for most 35mm applications.

jared_kipe
Feb 12, 2006, 08:09 PM
FWIW, I've tried throwing a SCSI card into my G5, and have been unsuccessful in getting my ancient LS-1000 to talk with the system (external HD's work fine). Any suggestions would of course be appreciated. Overall, I have my doubts about trying the USB->SCSI route.

-hh

Thats why I recommended the LS-30 because of the listed devices here. http://www.ratocsystems.com/english/support/Compatible/u2scxlistmac.html More might work, thats just what has been tested. I would GUESS that if your scanner works with Vuescan, then I bet the scsi->usb would work.

zlhade
Feb 12, 2006, 08:50 PM
i'm a total amateur photographer. so i shoot once in a while a film .so buying anything for more than $200 isn't worth it. on top of that i would have to develop the films anyway. so $5 for a good scan per film is absolutely worth it. i just have to find a shop in convenient location that does 3000x2000 or better. i eonder why the CVS centers don't offer that. maybe they do and their largely clueless personal just doesn't know.


id say, better buy a scanner then... if you got lots of film that needed to be scanned.. then, its better to buy your own.. you'll surely save a lot more.. =)

cgratti
Feb 13, 2006, 01:47 PM
I have an epson 2400 Photo Scanner, it does negatives and it's less than $100US right now.

balamw
Feb 13, 2006, 02:47 PM
wci is beyond overkill, ask CVS if they can make you a 'premium CD' or go to your local ritz camera and ask for the same. Most digital minilabs have a higher resolution option, the scans are about 25-30 MB tiffs, more than enough for most 35mm applications.
35 mm scanning is definitely a very variable experience, and I have found that some stores do it very differently than others. For example: Longs drugs near my house usually gives me high res (~3096x2048) TIFF scans with medium res (1536x1024) JPEGs on the same CD, but the Longs near work will only do medium res JPEGs (no TIFFs) using the same Fuji Frontier minilabs.

Wolf Photo used to give me great resolution scans (although they all had a slight blue tint) before they were bought out by Ritz and closed the branch I was using. The local Ritz refuses to do anything but the standard medium resolution (1536x1024) JPEGs.

Using flatbed scanners like the Epson 2400 previously mentioned is a good, inexpensive fallback, but usually doesn't get you results that are close to the minilabs. Dust is a big issue, and the didicated film scanners have approaches to deal with it.

One final note.

If you plan on trying out film scanners in a variety of stores, or even if you think you just might want to scan the negatives in later elsewhere, you might want to consider asking the lab doing the original development not to cut your negatives. Once cut, most labs will charge you a lot more money to scan an entire 35 mm roll than if the negs are uncut (kinda like reprints usually being 4-5x as expensive as the same prints with development). Of course this is a non-issue if you only want to scan individual frames.

EDIT: For Example: http://www.bostonphoto.com claim to offer 2 day Photo CD scan service for $2/frame uncut and $3/frame from cut negs. They probably also have minilab scanning in-house.

B

ChrisA
Feb 13, 2006, 08:10 PM
I have an epson 2400 Photo Scanner, it does negatives and it's less than $100US right now.

It might be worth spending a bit more for a beter scanner. The 2400 is not going to capture film's full dynamic range nor is 2400ppi enough to capture all the detail that a good SLR lens and slow film can record.

The way I figure it, It will take me hundreds of hours to scan my film. hundreds of hours of my time is worth more the a few hundred dolars (I won't work for two bucks an hour) so I may as well find the best scanner I can afford. I don't want to have to do the job twice. You need about 24MP to capture a 35mm frame and the dynamic range should go up to about a Dmax or 4.0 and you have to worry about dust and scratches

andiwm2003
Feb 13, 2006, 10:33 PM
It might be worth spending a bit more for a beter scanner. The 2400 is not going to capture film's full dynamic range nor is 2400ppi enough to capture all the detail that a good SLR lens and slow film can record.

The way I figure it, It will take me hundreds of hours to scan my film. hundreds of hours of my time is worth more the a few hundred dolars (I won't work for two bucks an hour) so I may as well find the best scanner I can afford. I don't want to have to do the job twice. You need about 24MP to capture a 35mm frame and the dynamic range should go up to about a Dmax or 4.0 and you have to worry about dust and scratches


i'm currently looking at a "Minolta DiMage Scan Elite 5400 II" or a "Nikon COOLSCAN V ED". Both scanners are in the $500 range (ouch!). both seem to be good scanners for hobbyists. minolta stops their camera business soon.

does anybody have experience with these scanners? i'm not only interested in the scan quality but also in the quality of the software supplied.

the minolta scanner claims to have a superior software, allows multiple scans from the same negative to improve quality, removes scratches and dust. it scans full frame and supports fire wire.

does the nikon have similar features?

also, does the different resolution (4000dpi for nikon, 5400dpi for minolta) make any difference in real life?

ScubaDuc
Feb 14, 2006, 02:47 PM
i'm currently looking at a "Minolta DiMage Scan Elite 5400 II" or a "Nikon COOLSCAN V ED". Both scanners are in the $500 range (ouch!). both seem to be good scanners for hobbyists. minolta stops their camera business soon.

does anybody have experience with these scanners? i'm not only interested in the scan quality but also in the quality of the software supplied.

the minolta scanner claims to have a superior software, allows multiple scans from the same negative to improve quality, removes scratches and dust. it scans full frame and supports fire wire.

does the nikon have similar features?

also, does the different resolution (4000dpi for nikon, 5400dpi for minolta) make any difference in real life?


Go with the Nikon: the software is much better, the light is LED so it won't change frequency, and the 4000 dpi yields images already...too big! I have not looked at the latest Minolta but the correction filters on the Nikon work like charms. I have scanned nearly 10'000 images with the coolpix V. Works like a charm, only the APS adaptor gets stuck if the film canister is not perfect

andiwm2003
Feb 14, 2006, 03:21 PM
Go with the Nikon: the software is much better, the light is LED so it won't change frequency, and the 4000 dpi yields images already...too big! I have not looked at the latest Minolta but the correction filters on the Nikon work like charms. I have scanned nearly 10'000 images with the coolpix V. Works like a charm, only the APS adaptor gets stuck if the film canister is not perfect


thanks. i deceided to go with the nikon anyway because the minolta seem to dissapear from the market. most sites say "out of stock".

where did you buy your nikon?
there seem to be only a few internet shops and nobody actually sells accessories like a second negative strip holder. comes in handy when you can prepare the next strip while the first is scanned.

btw. does the nikon allow to scan a negative multiple times to reduce noise on low light images?

andi