Scanning 35mm negs and printing to 12x18

I am interested in scanning my 35mm b&w negs to digital with the ability to print to 12x18 which, I believe, requires a scan resolution of 3600 dpi (to achieve 300 dpi for printing). Now this would seem to be easy to achieve with the current crop of Canon and Epson scanners which are cataloged much higher than that. (I am interested in the Canon 9000F in particular.)

However, I came across this review http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html
which claims that the scan resolution of this, and others, is much less based on their testing (as 1700 dpi vs a claimed 9600). If you would delve into their report and testing method you see that they scan a target and calculate a resolution based on the lpi that can be resolved by eye. This seems to make a lot of sense. They are measuring the result, not the input to the sensor.

If this is all correct, then what I have learned is that unless I am willing to spend in excess of $500 I will not get a scanner that will meet my needs. This includes many others, in addition to the Canon.

So, the question is then, has anyone had any practical experience in producing large prints from this printer, or any others in that price range?

Thanks!

Hi Paul

I scan monchrome film with an Epson V750 and a Nikon 9000. The epson is spposed to have a true resolution of about 2400dpi. In Practice it makes good 20 by 16 prints from 6 by 7 (mixing units!) so 8x enlargement. Having said that, 35mm seems to be a bit more tricky.

I'm not convinced you really need 300dpi to print 12 by 18, but you do need to test yourself first. From my perspectvie, I'd not print that size from 35mm without using the Nikon, so that may answer your question on the need to invest in a more expensive scanner.

If you want to see how a 2400dpi epson scan prints then pm me your email address and I'll make a scan for you to play with.

Regards

MIke

Paul Ostand said:

I am interested in scanning my 35mm b&w negs to digital with the ability to print to 12x18 which, I believe, requires a scan resolution of 3600 dpi (to achieve 300 dpi for printing). Now this would seem to be easy to achieve with the current crop of Canon and Epson scanners which are cataloged much higher than that. (I am interested in the Canon 9000F in particular.)

However, I came across this review http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html
which claims that the scan resolution of this, and others, is much less based on their testing (as 1700 dpi vs a claimed 9600). If you would delve into their report and testing method you see that they scan a target and calculate a resolution based on the lpi that can be resolved by eye. This seems to make a lot of sense. They are measuring the result, not the input to the sensor.

If this is all correct, then what I have learned is that unless I am willing to spend in excess of $500 I will not get a scanner that will meet my needs. This includes many others, in addition to the Canon.

So, the question is then, has anyone had any practical experience in producing large prints from this printer, or any others in that price range?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Paul,

You just need to go up ~ 6 times approx. That's not a huge challenge. For large prints you may be already limited by the resolution of your film. (The quality of the AD convertor is as important as resolution.)

There must be someone right near you who has an Epson 700 series and would do a scan for you. Important also is software choice. Consider using Hamrick software with multiple scans to eliminate noise and maximize dynamic range. If the film can be wet-mounted on the 750, you might do better. Trying seems to be the way to go. I like the idea of the Eposon 750 flatbed scanner as it's very good for MF and large format too. If you need more resolution for a few pictures, then you can pay $30 to have a fine scan commercially!

Asher

Thanks for your good information. The reality seems to be that for the best results, you need to spend $$; no big surprise here.

I have decided to purchase the Canon 9000F for several reasons. Price. Quality as compared to others in the price range. Canon's warranty practice which I know to be superb.

I will evaluate Silverfast software (trial version) to see how it improves the scans.

If I am not pleased with the results on 35mm I can always sell the scanner used because most users don't use that feature and the reputation of this unit on larger subjects and graphics is superb. So, my risk is slight.

Hi Paul

I've just finished scanning a couple of negs for you and will try to email later this evening. I've done a couple of frames from a test roll of Rollei 80S - very fine grain and high resolution. I've scanned both on my epson V750 (3200dpi) and Nikon LS9000 (4000 dpi) using Vuescan (I prefer to Silverfast and it's less expensive) to scan as raw files then inverting in ACR and doing levels in Photoshop. No curves or dodge burn at this point. Both sharpened using smart sharpen (250,1 for the Nikon and 250, 1.5 for the epson). This should give you some idea of how they look at 18 by 12 if you want to print one off - not that they're particularly wall hangers, but useful for test shots!.

Any questions please ask

Mike

Mike, thanks very much. I look forward to receiving them and I will be in touch with you via the forum.

I may wait about a week until my 9000F arrives and I scan a few there too.

Paul

All

After struggling to send some scans by email I've uploaded them to 4shared, so anyone who is interested can download and look at them. There are 5 scans in total - all have been scanned as raw files, inverted in acr and then had sharpening, levels and a little curve applied in photoshop. No dodging or burning used in these though. They are designed to allow you to compare some real world results - i.e. these are all easily achievable scans and are of handheld frames. Having said that, I expect that they will all print OK.

Mike

- Epson V750 scan at 3,200dpi, Rollei 80S

- Nikon 9000 scan at 4,000dpi, Rollei 80S

- second Epson V750 scan at 3,200dpi, Rollei 80S

- second Nikon 9000 scan at 4,000 dpi, Rollei 80S

- Nikon 9000 scan of Mamiya 7ii frame, Tmax 100

Mike, thanks very much. I will be downloading these and will work with them. I appreciate your efforts as I am sure others will also.

I will have a Canon 9000F tomorrow and after I become used to it, I will post some scans too for others to look at.

I am thinking that anyone else posting 35mm scans from other scanners would help others and create a little reference library for the forum.

Thank you for the scans. They are definitely quality and print well at 300dpi output.

It is difficult for me to compare yours to mine as we have scanned different negs. So for general information I am posting this scan on 4 shared where anyone can download it.

It is a scan of a 35mm Tmax100 neg scanned at 3000 dpi in my new Canoscan 9000F. The scan was sharpened in CS2 with unsharp mask, and adjusted with curves. Sharpening is essential to the raw scan.

I have printed this to image sizes of approx 7x10.6, 8.6 x 12.7 and 10 x 15 which is 300dpi, the others being of higher resolution. I believe that larger prints, like the 12x18 I wanted would not be as good. I realize that in the wet darkroom, I never printed larger than 11x14, except when the image was cropped, and printed to the full paper size.

All three prints appear nice and of course are "sharper" in the smaller, higher resolution, outputs. I think that someone who can sharpen images better than I could even produce a better file.

This file can be downloaded at http://www.4shared.com/dir/hgbTGR33/Image_sharing.html

Feel free to ask me questions, and of course holler if you cannot access the file. I will appreciate all comments and critiques.

Paul

Thanks for taking the effort to post your scan. The differences are interesting, although I cannot necessarily identify all the causes. Of course, your negative is different, but knowing how Tmax can look (my MF scan) at least provides a start.

Looking at your scan on screen ther were three tings that I noticed:

- the real resolution apperas to be well below the 3,000 dpi scanner number. This is the case for the epson scans, but the canon doesn't seem to offer as high resolution as the epson.

- the surfaces look somewhat 'flat' and 'plastic'. I tend to associate this with noise reduction in small sensor cameras, but I would have expected more texture in the rocks etc.

- the necessary sharpening (possibly a result of noise reduction) has created halos along big edges.

I also printed the file at 18 by 12 to compare to the epson and Nikon scans at the same size. The epson and nikon are actually remarkably close at this size, with quite close examination being needed to separate them (most viewers wouldn't notice any difference and certainly either print would likely be acceptable in practice). At this size, the canon scan artifacts are quite obvious and so the print doesn't work as well - though the subject is far nicer than mine!

Out of interest, and because the nikon and epson were actually quite close at 18 by 12, I then printed these files at 20 by 30 inches (from 35mm!). Now the difference between the scanners was quite clear. The Nikon resolves the texture in the sprinkler and the edge of the log more clearly and cleanly than the epson. Having said that though, if you stand back from the print (it is after all a big print) the differences are much reduced to my old eyes at least. It's also the case that I've never wanted to print 35mm (film or digital) to 30 by 20 other than to see how it held up.

Mike

Thanks for your comments and observations.

Let me say, without excusing my actions or the scanners capability, that I wonder if (among others) two things are involved. One I have not taken any noise reduction, and second, I am not comfortable with producing a good sharpening. I have a hard time seeing the differences as I adjust the settings. I may have gone quite far with the amount, until I saw halos around the girls hat, then backed off a bit.

Your comments on resolution may confirm the tests made by "filmscanner" that I referenced in my initial posting.

I am wondering if I should take the neg to a local, commercial service and have it scanned there at 3000 dpi and compare the results. That might confirm some of my deficiencies in post processing.


I did not attempt to clean up the print in any manner, such as dust removal.

Hi Paul

Actually I was wondering if the Canon software did noise reduction automatically - thought there shouldn't be any need on a negative scan really.

Sharpening is really hard to work out - if you spend time on the fora you will see it come up time and again. The issue is that it is very source and image dependent. For the Nikon with Rollei 80S I use smart sharpen in photoshop at amount 250 and radius 1, wheras the epson gets the same amount and more radius - typically about 1.5. For a more grainy film the amount would be less and the radius may be more... Lightroom or ACR allow even more options directly such as masking and noise reduction, which give a bit more control on how grain is emphasized or not. Sometimes I don't sharpen at all until I print, and I tend to keep that pretty low.

A commerical scan might be a good starting point, but it's worth finding out what they scan with as some shops will not be using anything more capable than you already have!

Keep us posted on your experiences, it does get easier and better with practice.

Mike

I will stay in touch and appreciate your comments. Especially about what the locals use to scan with.

Hi Paul

There's a special offer on scanning here, and I think they're in the US. I've never used them, but might be worth a try?

Mike

Update. FYI.

The Canoscan 9000F is not acceptable to me. I returned it because of poor quality scans.

I subsequently have been told that Pacific Image is the manufacturer of the Reflecta scanner and the Reflecta Crystal Scan 7200 is marketed as the PF7250u by Pacific Imaging in the US.

So I purchased the Pacific Image scanner and it is a decent unit. I have printed to 10x15 nicely, and at 8 x 10 it is excellent. It does not have a film transport and only mounts and scans one frame at a time so it is not for production. That is not an issue with me.

I am pleased with this unit and will keep it . I recommend it if your budget is as mine and I felt $US 260 was all that I would pay for a scanner.

As to sharpening I purchased NIK Sharpener PRO 2 and that has been a great help to me in achieving the necessary sharpness.

Thanks for the input you guys gave.