Scanning service for 6x6 vs 35mm

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just got into 6x6 and I sent out my film to be developed and scanned which I have always done with my 35mm film.

 

While the scans were more detailed then my 35mm scans, I did not get the super enhanced detail I thought I would going from 35mm to 6x6 format.

 

These are the specs of the Scanning service:

--------------------------------

ENHANCED SCAN

35mm

3339x5035 pixels

 

120 Film

4824x3533 pixels

--------------------------------

 

I know these are not drum scans but it seems to me that maybe while the scans might be good, they don't seem to be as highly detailed as I thought they would be going from 35mm to 6x6.

 

Is this because the pixel count on the 120 scans is not that much greater then the 35mm count?

 

not sure.

 

Can someone please clarify?

 

thank you

[DigitalHeMan]

To have the equivalent dpi on the 6x6 image as on the 35mm scan the resolution should have been around 8200x8200. However the resolution is the same which suggests they were either scanned at a much lower dpi, or the image was down sized and reduced in quality before it was sent to you. It also looks like you were shooting 6x4,5 rather than 6x6

 

If they weren't resized then it looks like the 35mm was scanned at 3600 dpi, and the 120 film only at 1400dpi or so.

 

There are a couple of factors which will contribute to the quality of the final scan:

 

- quality of the original negative

- quality of the scanner and scan method

- dpi used

- jpg compression

 

All things being equal, a high quality 120 neg scanned at the same dpi as a 35mm neg should deliver more definition.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[stump4545]

there is more definition in my 120 scans but not as much as I anticipated.

 

i forgot to mention that the service says that the files are 48mb scans, but when I open the jpgs files on my desktop it shows he files are only about 15mb each.

 

why is this?

 

 

thanks for the help.

[250swb]

Are you sure you are not confusing 48 bit scans with 48mb? 48mb should be 48mb when opened up.

 

Have you tried sharpening it? But anyway your 6x6 scan is no better than your 35mm scan, looking at the dimensions of the image there isn't much in it, the pixel dimensions don't reflect the larger size of the negative, pro rata the 120 is smaller and should also be equal dimensions along both edges, 6x6 is square after all.

 

Steve

Edited August 9, 2014 by 250swb

[chrism]

Depending on the cropped edges, a 4000dpi scan of a 6x6 negative on a Nikon 9000 is 150-200MB. The Imacon 848 doing a no-holds-barred .fff scan is about 300MB. However, I don't generally use these maximum pixel count scans as they really aren't needed for posting to Flickr or printing 8.5x11. For A3 prints I would.

 

It certainly sounds like you aren't seeing your 6x6 in their full glory!

 

Chris

[stump4545]

the scans might be 48 bit..... not sure.

 

 

But is it sayfeto say all the resolution of the 6x6 scan is not coming through to my cpu because the scans are not that great/big?

 

to get all that 6x6 goodness, what kind of scan should I be looking for?

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As Chris says they should be much bigger.

 

Your 6x6 scan should be proportionally a vast increase in megabytes, but of course the actual size depends on if the neg is a colour or B&W original. I think what your lab has done is simply offer the same size scan for a larger negative, so they don't do any more work so shouldn't charge any more.

 

Steve