File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Does anyone own a film scanner?

Am I right in assuming you feed the film in and it reproduces the image in digital format?
>> Anonymous
>>77017
Yes. You feed it the film and it reproduces the images in a digital format.
>> Anonymous
>>77019
Thanks for the effort you took in responding. Hope you feel better.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
Yes, and i actually own that particular scanner. It has two attachments; one for negatives and one for transparencies, slides. Work's out fantastically.
>> Anonymous
>>77031
So you can't just insert undeveloped film into it?
>> des
>>77038
It has to be developed; most places will develop and sleeve C41 for 1.50-3USD. It's a lot cheaper than getting "meh" 4x6es for $10. You get used to looking at negatives to decide what to scan pretty quick.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
I've got a Canon CanoScan 8600F flatbed scanner that can scan film. Works reasonably well, and a lot cheaper than a dedicated film scanner (also, it'll scan medium format as well as 35mm).

Pic (scanned from my last roll of Delta 3200) related.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
     File :-(, x)
just like Liska, i also have this scanner (Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED).
its expensive, but the results are amazing.
I also have the SA-30 attachment (see the drum on the rear and fricken expensive too), that allows me to batch scan a whole roll of developed film, takes about 30mins without ICE turned on for 36exp, it makes it 10 times easier than scanning individual cut strips.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70Camera SoftwareVer.2.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern824Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmSerial Number200159d4Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:08:10 21:07:53Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Return DetectedFocal Length18.00 mmCommentCopyright 2007 Patrick BridgmanColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width681Image Height1024RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastSoftSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used200Image QualityFINEWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningAUTOFocus ModeAF-SFlash SettingNORMALAuto Flash ModeOptional,TTLFlash Compensation0.0 EVISO Speed Requested200Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVTone CompensationAUTOLens TypeNikon D SeriesLens Range18.0 - 70.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/4.5Auto FocusSingle Area, Center Selected, Top FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModeLandscape sRGBLighting TypeSPEEDLIGHTNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations11674Image OptimizationVIVIDSaturation 2NORMAL
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77038
Hah. No. You have to get the film developed first.

I would mock you more for this, but I thought the same thing at first when I was first getting into shooting film.

(Of course, I did the research on my own without asking questions on public forums to embarrass myself)
>> Anonymous
>>77046
Cheers. In my defence, the advertising material for these devices pretty much implies that they can do this
>> Anonymous
Hey, this topic has me curious - I've heard it said that digital image compression will realistically never approach the quality of film photographs for reasons that went way over my head at the time (something about euclidean points, actually, ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA, I think you were the one explaining it at the time). Do film scanners allow for you to choose how detailed you want the final product to look? And if so, what's the maximum size you can scan the film at (does it change depending on the price of the machine)?
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>77052
You can set the resolution you want to scan it at, yeah.
>> Anonymous
>>77052
I'd imagine it would be the same as a regular scanner - you choose the quality, DPI etc when you start to aquire a set of images. Then the images would be in digital format (jpeg?) and you can do to them what you wish
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>77052

The actual negative settings of the scanner, default unless I change it, is 4,000dpi when I go to scan it. My computer cant' even create the thumbnail.

>>77038
has to be developed first. Otherwise it'll just be blank because there's too much light getting to your film.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
i just did a test scan on the max settings,
i managed 6000x4000 at 4000dpi 16bit colour with 16x Multisampling and ICE on Normal, it took 5mins for one frame and made a 136MB TIF/NEF file.

By default, i use 6000x4000 at 4000dpi at 8bit, no multisampling and ICE either on or off (depends on how dirty the neg is). Makes about a 30MB JPEG file
>> Anonymous
this machine looks like something any 35mm shooter would need to have. It bridges a lot of the gaps between digtal and film SLRs. Sure beats scanning printed photos on a flatbed
>> Anonymous
There's a local photography place nearby that lets you rent/use a PC (per minute), and as such lets you scan slides/film, use photoshop, illustrator, etc (if you don't have it yourself), as well as renting a darkroom to develop your own film. :D

Don't know what type it is, but I do know it has a plastic holder that you put the developed negative, then fed the plastic sleeve into the machine (might have been a drive in the pc? dunno). I imagine there was a different holder for slides. But, yeah, seemed easy enough.

Just be sure to scan in at, like, 1500 dpi or something. First time I tried, I did it at 300 dpi, and small pic was SSMMAAALLLLL!!!!!
>> des
>>77057
Depends on if you're used to making prints or using photoshop. Hand-printed stuff is worth scanning if you want to digitally display or reproduce it the way that you printed it.
>> Anonymous
theoretical: a neophobe holdout who still shoots film has a spare 600 bucks to blow. Understanding the implicit obsolescence of the first few waves of digital slrs, he wisely waited for features to improve and prices to drop. He could wait another four years quite easily until he buys a DSLR, except that provia is too expensive for snapshots and experiments.

Question: D40 or Coolscan?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77052
Hehe.

I was confused by this because it didn't sound like me at all, but then it clicked and I remembered what post you were talking about. It was one in which I was being extremely sarcastic.

See, the person I was responding to was claiming that film would always have higher quality than digital because film is analog. Which shows a distinct lack of understanding about how both film and digital cameras record images.

Tones on film look continuous, but if you look close enough (e.g., with a microscope. Or enlarge the picture significantly) you'll find that film pictures are actually made up of millions of tiny dots of chemicals, called grains. The size of the film grain determines the resolution of the film.

(A "Euclidian point" is a point defined mathematically as having neither width nor height. I was sarcastically pointing out that film grain does, in fact, have both width and height)

Anyway, the resolution you can pull out of a negative is determined by three things:
1. The size of the film grain. This varies from film to film, with higher ISO films generally having larger grain than lower ISO films (if you've heard of a "grainy photo", that's what that means)
2. The quality of the lens. Doesn't matter how fine your grain is if the lens is a PoS that smears the light way less sharply than the lens is capable of dealing with.
3. The skill of the photographer. Doesn't matter how good your lens is, doesn't matter how good your film is, if there's a retarded chimp behind the viewfinder who can't focus worth a damn.

Of these, #3 is by far the most important.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77052
tl;dr: Fuji Velvia 50 is, by all accounts, one of the highest resolution films available. According to Fuji's own propaganda, a perfectly-exposed frame of Velvia 50 shot with a high quality lens has the equivalent of 22 megapixels of information. There is at least one 21 megapixel digital SLR available right now.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>77089
actually, there are a few films with the finer grain ratings (as resolution as you define it)
than Velvia 50.
Velvia 50 has an RMS value of 9
Velvia 100 and 100f has an RMS value of 8
also, Kodak Ektachrome E100G and E100GX also have an RMS value of 8.
Astia 100F is the finest at RMS 7.

therefore, Velvia 50 is not of the finest grains of the chromes are many think it is.

>>The quality of the lens. Doesn't matter how fine your grain is if the lens is a PoS that smears the light way less sharply than the lens is capable of dealing with.
in my experience, Film is far more forgiving to lenses of lesser quality (or even high quality) than digital, especially when it comes to cas. For example, the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 its a lovely lens, totaly wonderful on film, but on digital, it points out every single flaw of that lens with ease.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77096
>therefore, Velvia 50 is not of the finest grains of the chromes are many think it is.
Well I did say "one of"...

But yeah, I was too lazy to do actual research, so I just hit the Wikipedia page and ignored the "citation needed" next to the bit about being the finest grain film out there. :)

>Film is far more forgiving to lenses of lesser quality (or even high quality) than digital
This is a function of sensor size. It's about the same if you use a full-frame camera. But yeah, that's a valid point for us mere mortals who can't afford to spend over five kilobucks on a camera.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
     File :-(, x)
here is a 100% crop of a RMS11 film, i chose the grainiest point to show it at its worst.
looks bad when zooooooom in, but at 4000dpi, what wouldn't. At screen size or print size, its very pleasing.