Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 18, 2003, 2:07 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4
Default Tranfering film to digital

I got a new 35mm Nikon N80 because I wanted an SLR and did not have the money for a digital SLR.
How can I transfer my photos to digital?
I also have a Canon G1 3MP digi-cam, and when I see the pictures in my computer they look great. I love the size of the photos in my 19" monitor.
Will the transfered photos look as good as if they were shot with a digi-cam?
Angelomar is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 18, 2003, 3:04 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

See:
http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...?p=60352#60352
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2003, 3:15 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

transferring your images to digital via the process of "duping" or reimaging it using your digital camera will result in a considerably lower quality image then what has been produced by your N80. scanning your slides/negatives using a good quality slide scanner is the only way to get anywhere near the quality you would want if your were when you shot it originally.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2003, 2:17 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default Re: Tranfering film to digital

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelomar
Will the transfered photos look as good as if they were shot with a digi-cam?
Yes, if you buy a decent filmscanner (2400dpi is plenty, 4000dpi is overkill). Also get Vuescan (shareware) from www.hamrick.com, which is an excellent software package to control many scanners.

The results are potentially better. My rather downmarket Scanwit2720S filmscanner gives me roughly 3600x2400 pixel images, while a 5Mpixel digicam gives 2560x1920. Your negatives will encompass a much greater tonal range than your digicam can cope with, so you'll more often have both the shadows & the highlights fully recorded to play with later.

However, dust is a nuisance on the negs & slides, and twiddling the images to get them just right may prove time-consuming, just as with digicam image post-twiddling.

And digicams are much. much easier, and you get to see the result immediately, and try again if necessary, as you know.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2004, 4:19 PM   #5
Member
 
kieranmullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 76
Default

I have read that 4000 is not overkill if you want to make posters out of the slide scans. Which many may not want to do though. However dynamic range is the main point of slide scanners versus flatbed scanners for the prosumer market.

Professionals use either professional flatbed or drum scanners. Netiher of which you will find at your local office depot.

Also I am told that Either Photoshop or SilverFast is THE software to have.

KM

Alan T wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelomar
Will the transfered photos look as good as if they were shot with a digi-cam?
Yes, if you buy a decent filmscanner (2400dpi is plenty, 4000dpi is overkill). Also get Vuescan (shareware) from www.hamrick.com, which is an excellent software package to control many scanners.

The results are potentially better. My rather downmarket Scanwit2720S filmscanner gives me roughly 3600x2400 pixel images, while a 5Mpixel digicam gives 2560x1920. Your negatives will encompass a much greater tonal range than your digicam can cope with, so you'll more often have both the shadows & the highlights fully recorded to play with later.

However, dust is a nuisance on the negs & slides, and twiddling the images to get them just right may prove time-consuming, just as with digicam image post-twiddling.

And digicams are much. much easier, and you get to see the result immediately, and try again if necessary, as you know.
kieranmullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2004, 6:47 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

SilverFast and VueScan are comparable utilities. The full SilverFast is excellent but very pricey and has to be made for your particular scanner. Some upper end scanners come with the lite version of SilverFast, which isn't as good as VueScan. Photoshop is an image editor and doesn't replace either VueScan or SilverFast.

You can't directly compare the pixels from a scanner and digital camera. My film scanner gives some big numbers as far as pixels, but the images don't compare directly to images from digital cameras in terms of pixels versus quality.

There was a time when reviewers thought anything over about 3000PPI for a film scanner was overkill. They have done a reverse as they tested the newer 4000 PPI scanners. I don't know where the point of diminishing returns is though. And I'm not sure the 4000PPI and up scanners don't just have better quality CCDs rather than the resolution being the only deciding factor.

Film scanning is a one-off operation unless you have a really good (read pricey) scanner with digital ice and speed. Most upper end film scanners have a grain reduction program, but they don't work as well as Neat Image IMO. They smooth out the grain with a reduction in resolution. Film scanners seem to accentuate the grain – not as bad for slides as for film. Digital Ice takes extra time as does the grain reduction – either the scanner stuff or Neat Image. By the time you get a good image you don't want to scan your entire film collection. But it is a good approach for individual images you want to work with in the digital darkroom.

I'm considering the Epson 4780 flatbed to scan my lifetime collection. The quality of film and slide scans is surprising, and it has a true Digital Ice to combat dust and scratches. You can scan 4 film strips at once or 8 slides. Most of my collection is film, so I could just put 4 strips in and scan the whole bunch while doing something else. If there was a particular one I wanted to make a large print of I could run it through my film scanner or, better yet, have it professionally done on a drum scanner.

This is a good read: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/3000slides.htm

Look at the film scan results on the 4780 – not as good as a high quality dedicated film scanner, but not bad: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Menus/reviews_frame.htm He later in the review used a newer Nikon 4000 PPI film scanner and found it better than the Epson 4780. He also tested the SilverFast lite and recommended the Epson driver as the better choice.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2004, 7:52 PM   #7
Member
 
kieranmullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 76
Default

Yeah I read Kens stuff before. However by renting the 5000 as I did for $50 a day with the bulk feeder attachment saved my about $500 or so. Most places chagre about .99 for a 4000 DPi scan. Anyhow questions about scanners also need to be addressed. 1)Speed & 2)Dynamic Range.

I agree that ICE is a must and I would have a hard time buying one without one. It took about 2 min on a slow computer (Win XP 1 GB RAM 1.8 Ghz) per 4000 Dpi scan. This was with ICE on Fine and ROC and GEM off writing in tiff mode.

Epson 4870
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/c...s&oid=40524124
Range 3.8

Nikon 9000 (Digital Ice)
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=98 4.8

Microtek ScanMaker i900 (Digital Ice)
Dynamic Range http://www.microtekusa.com/smi900.html 4.2

http://www.scantips.com/basics14.html
kieranmullen is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:27 PM.