New Member Scanning Questions

[NClandman]

New member here, been lurking for a while. I have been a casual+ film shooter since the mid 80's starting with my X-700. I have stayed with film, dipped into digital ( 7D, Mk 1 and Mk 2) but really trying to build my film skills as that is what I enjoy most since I hate sitting behind a computer PP. I shoot several film cameras including the original x-700, EOS Elan 7, Zeiss Ikon.

My question is based in my difficulty (like many others I think) getting my head around scanning, file size and the end result.

I recently had Dwayne's develop and scan (their high res) several rolls of film. They are 4492x6774 files. Based on 35mm size, am I correct in that the original film was scanned around 4800 dpi to get that file size?

At that file size I am looking at a 30mp file, correct? If so then why do my 18mp digital files enlarge so much more, and stay so cleaner than the the scanned film files? Basically the scanned film looks like crap blown up

Any help would be greatly appreciated, I am still a novice and trying to get educated to the scanning part.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
Assuming that Dwayne's doesn't scan at a lower resolution and then resize up (unlikely) you are correct that the original scans were probably made at 4800 ppi (pixels per inch, not dots per inch).
And that would translate into about 30 Mp in a file.
Those files do, however, require processing before they are optimized. An 18 MP file from a digital camera - even if it is in RAW format - reflects a huge amount of digital processing at the in-camera, digital processor, firmware level before you see the results.
The equipment Dwayne's uses to scan at higher resolution may also be optimized more for speed + economy rather than high quality + economy.

 

[NClandman]

Thanks for your reply. I guess my question becomes then that if I have to process the scanned film files to get the same "clarity" and enlargement potential assuming that the issue is not "me related" then I am really back at digital photography. I am used to enlarged prints from negatives, this entire scanning thing is new to me and quite frankly kills some of the fun of film photography.
My knowledge of digital PP is elementary at this point. Can you even process a scanned film image in a way to offer the same enlargement potential and clarity as a digital file without negative consequences elsewhere> I guess I am just puzzled that in the end, assuming I did my part behind the camera, that 18mp digital file is extremely sharper than the scanned 30mp files when enlarged to the same size.

 

[Les Sarile]

At that file size I am looking at a 30mp file, correct? If so then why do my 18mp digital files enlarge so much more, and stay so cleaner than the the scanned film files? Basically the scanned film looks like crap blown up

What size blown up?

Was it a poor scan or perhaps the scene as captured on the film was done poorly?

Of course the only way to know is to see side by side comparisons. You compare to 18MP so below I compare 100% crops from 24MP Sony A900 at ISO400 compared to Fuji Sensia 400 scanned on my Coolscan 5000 at 4000dpi. So higher then your 18MP DSLR and lower DPI then your scans.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/B6BF7BF83DA25A7/orig.jpg

Obviously there are many factors that come into play but we have to start with getting more specific information and examples of what you find are not up to standards.

 

[MattKing]

"Sharpness" is a whole conversation unto its own - it is far more subjective than you might think. Mostly, it is a consequence of how edge details are rendered - acutance.
What you see as sharpness in the digital image is in no small measure a result of the sharpening algorithms built into the system.
Digitizing an image - whether by digital capture or scanning - is destructive of acutance. That destruction can be reversed through processing, which is what happens in digital cameras.
And you can do it to scanned images as well. It works best if you have control of the scanning process, because you can match your scans to your post-processing technique, but scans from a good consistent lab can also be useful.
Achieving good, usable scans from film, and good prints from those scans is both achievable and rewarding, but some work is necessary. It is a skill worth devoting some time to.

 

[Alan9940]

I guess I am just puzzled that in the end, assuming I did my part behind the camera, that 18mp digital file is extremely sharper than the scanned 30mp files when enlarged to the same size.

Sorry, I'm puzzled by this statement...

Your Dwayne's film scan would print to about 15 x 22.5" at a print resolution of 300ppi. Are you saying your 18mp digital file, when interpolated up to this size, is extremely sharper than the film scan? How big do you wish to enlarge to? Are you wanting to print your film scan at wall size?

I ask these questions because I've been scanning 35mm film and shooting a Canon 5D II for many years and, in my largest print size of about 13x19", I guarantee that you'd be hard pressed to pick the film print from the digital print; assuming that I added appropriate grain to the digital print.

FWIW, any digital file from any modern sensor will always look "cleaner" than a film scan because there's no grain in the digital file, if one generally shoots at base ISO. If your film scans don't reflect the quality you're looking for, then I'd take a good look at my camera technique, film used, and/or the lab itself. Since I do all my own film processing and scanning, I don't have any experience with sending stuff out.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

At that file size I am looking at a 30mp file, correct? If so then why do my 18mp digital files enlarge so much more, and stay so cleaner than the the scanned film files? Basically the scanned film looks like crap blown up

This is the difference between getting 8 bit jpegs that are pretty compressed and having a pretty uncompressed camera original.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

NCland, what type of file did you get from your scanned negatives? You need to specify this.