Film Scanning Question

[wide.angle]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not sure whether this is the right forum, but I am having difficulty getting good-quality scans with my Minolta ScanDual III, though I've (at least attempted to) calibrate it with a Kodak Q60 slide. I scanned the images at 2820 dpi, the highest resolution offered by the scanner, and at 48 bit color depth. However, my calibration and skills at reproducing the slide film seem to be quite lacking.

 

Today I called a local photo shop, which has a high-end drum scanner (Archival giclee printing, Scitex digital scans, and phase one digital scans. , scanning at up to 14,000 dpi). They will scan the slides at 50 cents per megabyte.

 

To get the same scan size from the drum scanner that I get from my Minolta, the cost per slide is quite expensive.

 

So my question is, can I expect a better quality image by scannig from the drum scanner at a lower resolution than I can get by scanning with a higher resolution of my Minolta scanner? (Will for example a 20 MB file from a drum scanner be better than a 60 MB file from a Minolta ScanDual III?)

 

If so, then how do I know how much resolution is needed from a drum scanner?

 

I appreciate any guidance I can get.

[andybarton]

What do you want to do with the scan when it's been made?

 

The end use can determine the resolution at which you scan.

 

If you can work with the file sizes, though, the higher the resolution, the more information you have to play with.

 

Which scanning software have you been using?

[wide.angle]

For a few (~20) images, I would like to print them at 11 x 16 (inches). Other images, I would like to print at 6 x 9 or 7 x 11, and put on the web (at even lower resolution).

 

I have a Macbook Pro with 2GB ram, so I am ok working with larger file sizes.

 

I am using VueScan Pro. But I am not sure I understand how to correctly use it because it seems to make color/exposure decisions even though I've calibrated it (which means I put a Kodak Q-60 slide into it, placed the IT8 file in the right directory and clicked "calibrate scanner."

 

The scanner also leaves the file much, much less sharp than I see in the slide on the light table.

 

I am getting pretty frustrated and just want to be able to get my scans to look like the film on the light table.

[wda]

Scott the sharpness issue is worrying. A good scanner should yield sharp scans.

 

Having said that, I have recently had trouble focusing my LS5000 and fear that the scanner may have to go in for a service. It is only 18 months old and I would not have expected it to drift out of focus like it has done. Has anyone else experienced this deterioration?

 

David

[like_no_other]

Scott, my advice is to give the original Dimage Scan software a chance.

It's much easier to use and should be able to produce results with the maximum resolution and sharpness your scanner can deliver.

If the colours don't come out as you want them to be you can easily change them with photoshop. Don't do the post processing with the the Dimage software. These functions (colours etc.) don't influence the scanning process itself, they are applied after the scanning by the software. Photoshop is the better solution for post processing.

Save the scans as they come from the scanner, don't use the colour mangement functions. Dimage software isn't good with these things.

[cbretteville]

Scott,

A litmus test is to scan the slide using the KM software (if you have it) som times I mess up the settings in VS and get weird results. VS might be better when it works propperly with your scanner, but it dosen't exactly have the best, most intuitive user interface around.

[skunkworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To begin with, no matter how well calibrated your scanner you'll still need to ensure your entire workflow is color managed. On your Mac you'd use ColorSync to translate color spaces between devices and software.

 

Regarding file size, drum scans are best for exhibition or large format prints. It's worth the price for special cases that require highest quality. Resolution for most print jobs is 400 to 380 dpi, but higher rez is good to allow for loss of data when adjusting files in Photoshop; usually double the resolution of the final output is sufficient. If you intend to do heavy cropping, go for even higher rez.

 

For standard prints a home scanner can be pretty good. For internet use, flatbed or film scanners are excellent since resolution requirements and compressed image gamut drop substantially.

[cbretteville]

Scott,

You don't say which version of VS you're using. I just checked Ed Hamerick's site out and see that in 8.3.65 he fixed an issue with the Scan Dual III. Haven't got a clue as ti whether this fixes your problem or not, but it is worth a try.

 

- Carl

[wide.angle]

@ Philip, i recently changed from windows to mac, and only had windows software w/ scanner (I think).

 

@carl, Unfortunately I don't have the slide you refer to. The scanner didn't come with it. I'll check on the update re vuescan, thanks for the info.

 

@jonathan, i've not used "ColorSync" or don't think so. I'm new to the mac computer though. So this needs to be used in addition to Vuescan or photoshop converting the colors/luminosity to what i see on my screen? so confusing.

[cbretteville]

@carl, Unfortunately I don't have the slide you refer to. The scanner didn't come with it. I'll check on the update re vuescan, thanks for the info.

 

Scott,

I was referring to the slide you used and got poor results with, not one that came with the scanner. Sorry for the confusion.

[skunkworks]

@jonathan, i've not used "ColorSync" or don't think so. I'm new to the mac computer though. So this needs to be used in addition to Vuescan or photoshop converting the colors/luminosity to what i see on my screen? so confusing.

it's not too difficult to grasp the basic ideas, and the irony is that Colosync was meant to address and simplify the correction of a serious problem, namely that each piece of hardware "sees" or displays color differently. Apple was part of the consortium that came up with the ICC system to facilitate the translation of color values across devices, and Corlorsync is what they call the built-in system to coordinate this on the Mac.

 

roughly, you start by calibrating your monitor to display colors as accurately as possible. on the Mac, open the System Preferences, choose Displays, click the button for Color. a list of Display Profiles opens, with a button to run through a calibration procedure. (if you really want to be accurate, get a colorimeter and calibrate with that.) this creates an ICC profile for the monitor, which you would highlight in this menu.

 

You already now how to calibrate your scanner. calibrating your printer would be good, too. in each case, manufacturers usually include ICC profiles for their devices, but these are only fairly accurate at best.

 

the difficult, hair tearing part is coordinating all this in Photoshop, since there are many choices to be made depending on your output goal. in fact, i suggest you visit the Adobe website and look for color management information there. Photoshop's Color Settings are in the Edit menu, and some help is available there.

[like_no_other]

Scott, if you are still interested I have a link for you:

 

Scanners : DiMAGE Scanner Series | KONICA MINOLTA

[Ritsch-Ralph-Klick]

Hi!

What is your experience regarding a commercial lab scan, for example the Fujicolor CD (1840x1232 pixels) in combination with negative processing? I thought this would be a cheap way to update my M6 into the digital world, but I doubt that the resolution is rewarding - or am I wrong?

Cheers!