Steve,

If you re-read my report on the Epson Perfection V750M-Pro I think you will find on this rare occasion I did a comparison of scans of one very detailed 35mm slide with both the Epson and a no longer available Minolta Scan Elite 5400 2, and the results are very hard to distinguish, virtually on par with each other. Now that is at 4800dpi scan resolution, higher than any currently available consumer dedicated 35mm scanner.

But also considering most of your images are 35mm, and if the film is flat not curved as some older 35mm often is, you can successfully use the fluid mount feature of the Epson scanner and get significantly better, cleaner scans of B&W film.

Considering this scanner is moderately priced, especially compared to any dedicated film scanner of comparable performance quality, I find it hard to suggest any better option that would not be more than 10 times more costly.

Thanks, David. That slight clarification provided the guidance I required.

Regards,

Steve

Dear David ~

Like Steve, I have gone completely digital and have only a limited number of 35mm slides/negatives to digitize. I have considered a more cost-effective alternative - a slide copier on the front of my Canon 30D/60mm macro - but have been warned off this approach by people with more experience than I. Are they right - and if so, why?

~ Charles Briefer [color:black] [/color]

Dear David ~

Like Steve, I have gone completely digital and have only a limited number of 35mm slides/negatives to digitize. I am considering a more cost-effective alternative, a slide copier on the front of my Canon 30D/60mm macro, but people who "know better" keep warning me off this approach. Are they right - and if so, why?

~ Charles Briefer

A dedicated film scanner will give you more detail in the shadows and highlights.

I'm afraid I cannot be any more encouraging than Larry, but for a very different reason. The sensors in the linear array of a scanner are not substantially different in sensitivity than those in an area array chip in a digital camera. In fact one of the very best early film scanners made by Leaf (ultra expensive and slow) used an area array chip.

The main limitation using a digital SLR to copy slides is resolution. The popular dSLR's now have 10-12 megapixel chips That's a far cry from the output of my scanner, a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II, which is roughly 40 megapixels.

The reason why more resolution is needed for scanning film is that unlike shooting a picture of reality a film image contains a lot of noise (grain) , in fact a film image is really just organized noise. So the scanner needs to be able to record the noise accurately, which of course is very fine, hence the need for the high resolution. When slide scanners typically had just 2700/2800dpi rather than 5000dpi and higher, the relationship of sensor size and grain pattern would set up an interference pattern which resulted in an exaggerated grain effect which was particularly limiting scanning B&W film and color negatives. When scanner resolution passed 5000 that problem has largely disappeared.

To equal a scanner's current resolution by using a digital camera you'd need the largest, highest resolution medium format back (39mpx), and that is a very expensive proposition, in fact you could buy 100 of the current highest resolution slide scanners, the Plustek OpticFilm 7200i, for the cost of a 39mpx dSLR MF back.

While the above is certainly true, pragmatically, few people actually can utilize this level of resolution unless they have a very large format printer. Using the common resolution of 300 dpi(ppi for the picky), an 8x10 only needs a scan of 2400 x 3000 pixels. It is pointless to fill your hard-drive with gigabytes of information that will simply be discarded by the printer driver. Interpolating down from a 9600 x 12,000 pixel file gains nothing, but the appreciation from hard drive manufacturers.

If you are scanning historic photos for a museum archive, there may be some justification for using redundant pixels on each silver grain or dye cloud. You are probably funded by grants, so who cares? Archival scanning is only justified in the case of truly historic photographs. It is pointless for snapshots of the trip to Podunk in 1973 - unless you photographed the single historic event that took place there that year.

Film, when filed for easy retrieval, and kept in archival sleeves, is a pretty efficient way to store image information. Unless time has no value and you feel a need to fill terabytes of hard drive space, scan on demand. Scan to the exact size of print or screen image you need for maximum quality. This takes far less time and produces as good results as spending decades digitizing a lifetime of photography.

Quote:
I haven't done wet photography in a decade and there's a good chance I won't again -- and that manufacturers aren't investing heavily in a technology that has a limited future.

The first positive/negative print was made in 1836 by William Henry Fox Talbot. In the nearly two centuries that have followed, an incredible number of photographs have been made - and only a very small percentage converted to digital form. I would confidently wager that scanners will not only continue to be produced, but the lower end continually improved, giving far higher quality for less and less money. The current generation of Epson V7x0 scanners is a good example.

For those bent on scanning a lifetime's worth of negatives and slides, consider that scanning and image processing both require a reasonably high level of skills. By the time you finish the project - assuming you can do it within your lifetime - the first scans will be done with much lower levels of skills and possibly poorer equipment than the last. Scanning on demand allows one to use the best skills and equipment available at the time, making the best scan of which you are capable for the specific need of the moment.

Spend your time filing your film in an orderly fashion and becoming expert at scanning and image processing instead of grinding through thousands of exposures - most of which will never be printed nor displayed.

Larry,

Although your comments are justifiable and supported from a practical and common sense perspective, the reality of the technologies involved does not support your perspective.

First a 7200dpi linear scan array's sensor sites are much smaller relative to distance and grain the grain size providing a more accurate sampling that results in a better quality scan even if the output is not at the scanner's maximum setting. The physical attributes of sensor sampling are not changed by setting the resolution of the scanner to a lower level.

Anyone should be advised it is neither wise from a security perspective or a cost perspective to store scanned image files on a hard drive. I have never kept ANY digital photo images on a computer hard drive except for short periods when in immediate use. I have found Gold/Gold CD's have a very high level of reliability and permanence over time, and the cost per megabyte of storage is substantially lower than any other form of image storage. I have been scanning my film image library which was begun in 1952 for over 10 years now. You are correct some of my earliest scans were not optimal due both to inexperience and early scanner have ben much improved by current models. The saved images I consider now worth keeping exceeds 7000 on some 600 CD's. At less than a dollar for blanks purchased in quantity at wholesale the cost for storage in negligible, and storing the CD's for maximum preservation is also a negligible cost.

Storing color film images so they don't deteriorate is not so easy or cheap. Using the necessary technology to prevent deterioration according to "conservation" standards is difficult and beyond the cost most individuals can afford. Some of my earliest images were scanned just in time because even though I live in a very dry climate ideal for film storage, the image color had almost disappeared, so time is of the essence. This is as true and applicable to more recent color films, particularly color negatives.

Your advise regarding storing images on film is advisable and practical if the film involved is silver-based black and white, but if color scan it as soon as possible. Color film deteriorates and that deterioration makes scanning the image all that more difficult, while an archival high-resolution digital image file does not change over time, and remains accessible as the TIFF file format is an international standard that will remain for the foreseeable future.
.