Trying to improve 35mm slide scans w/1200 dpi scanner

I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus CX5200
rated at 1200 dpi. Running Win98SE, PIII 550, 384 megs ram.

I've been using one of these multi-tube fluorescent bulbs and experimenting
with various diffuser materials and the light at different distances from
the diffuser. I tried a homemade 90-degree slide-scanning gadget that uses
the reflected light of the scanner bar and a couple of battery powered
fluorescent lights but seem to get the best results with the multi-bulb
extended horizontally over the slide. Gives well lit scans with minimal need
for enhancing the contrast/brightness. I have the slides sitting on a sheet
of black construction paper with a slot cut that's the same size as the
photo portion of the slide, with the diffuser over that.

I've been able to get scans that I would describe as okay after scanning
with the Epson scan software and tweaking with Paintshop Pro ver 7, the
color is actually pretty decent but they fall way short of the super
sharpness of the slides.

Here's an example of scans make with a Plustek OpticPro 9636T which is also
a 1200 dpi scanner, on someone's website that look far better than mine.

http://www.krausehouse.com/plustek.htm

Is it that the scanner is just better or perhaps there's something I could
be doing differently? Am I swimming upstream using a 1200 dpi scanner to
begin with?

Any input will be appreciated.

Doc wrote:
>
> I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus CX5200
> rated at 1200 dpi. Running Win98SE, PIII 550, 384 megs ram.
>
> I've been using one of these multi-tube fluorescent bulbs and experimenting
> with various diffuser materials and the light at different distances from
> the diffuser. I tried a homemade 90-degree slide-scanning gadget that uses
> the reflected light of the scanner bar and a couple of battery powered
> fluorescent lights but seem to get the best results with the multi-bulb
> extended horizontally over the slide. Gives well lit scans with minimal need
> for enhancing the contrast/brightness. I have the slides sitting on a sheet
> of black construction paper with a slot cut that's the same size as the
> photo portion of the slide, with the diffuser over that.
>
> I've been able to get scans that I would describe as okay after scanning
> with the Epson scan software and tweaking with Paintshop Pro ver 7, the
> color is actually pretty decent but they fall way short of the super
> sharpness of the slides.
>
> Here's an example of scans make with a Plustek OpticPro 9636T which is also
> a 1200 dpi scanner, on someone's website that look far better than mine.
>
> http://www.krausehouse.com/plustek.htm
>
> Is it that the scanner is just better or perhaps there's something I could
> be doing differently? Am I swimming upstream using a 1200 dpi scanner to
> begin with?
>
> Any input will be appreciated.


If you are going to scan slides, you should be using a film scanner, not
a flatbed scanner, and you should have an optical resolution of at least
2000 dpi to start (unless you will be satisfied with small scans for use
on the web). Actually, I would aim for something around 4000 dpi
optical resolution, if possible.

If you have 35mm negatives, the same applies. When I have negatives, I
prefer to scan the negative over scanning a print.


--
* * * To reply, remove numbers from address.

Stan, New Orleans

http://www.neworleansphotographs.com
http://www.atneworleans.com
http://www.sbeckart.com/sbeck

scanning slides on a 1200dpi scanner is a guaranteed exercise in
frustration, made more so by the end result---an incredibly small image.
A 35mm slide is about 1 x 1.5 inches. Thus, 1200 pixel per inch scan
is only going to give you a 1200 x 1800 pixel image. Even printing at
only 240dpi, the bare minimum for a photorealistic print, the final
result is 5 x 7.5 inches without any cropping.

Also, the Stylus CX5200 is realy meant for documents to copy or fax,
rather than photographs. At its highest setting it is going to be very
electically noisy---all scanners are at their highest setting. This is
not normally a problem for documents, which can be easily postprocessed
and are probably scanned by default at 300dpi (for copy) or 200dpi (for
fax) anyway.

I think you have answered your own question---you are swimming upstream.

On the other hand, it is fun to experiment, and if you can get something
decent out of that setup you will be very well-educated by the time you
buy something truly useful. I think far too many people buy expensive
scanners, get crappy results, and blame it on the scanner because they
did not do the due diligence of figuring out how the things work.

As for upgrading, if you want to stay with flatbeds I would recommend a
refurb Epson 3170 from Epson at a great price---$124*. Of if you can
find a 2450 in good condition it will probably be under $100. Last year
I bought a film scanner (Acer Scanwit) on eBay for $99 that is
truckloads better than any flatbed. The point is, upgrading doesn't
have to be outrageously expensive.

Good luck, and keep experimenting!

*<http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=45471984>
or go to epson.com and click on Clearance Center


> Is it that the scanner is just better or perhaps there's something I could
> be doing differently? Am I swimming upstream using a 1200 dpi scanner to
> begin with?

Doc wrote:

> I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus CX5200
> rated at 1200 dpi. Running Win98SE, PIII 550, 384 megs ram.
>
> I've been using one of these multi-tube fluorescent bulbs and experimenting
> with various diffuser materials and the light at different distances from
> the diffuser. I tried a homemade 90-degree slide-scanning gadget that uses
> the reflected light of the scanner bar and a couple of battery powered
> fluorescent lights but seem to get the best results with the multi-bulb
> extended horizontally over the slide. Gives well lit scans with minimal need
> for enhancing the contrast/brightness. I have the slides sitting on a sheet
> of black construction paper with a slot cut that's the same size as the
> photo portion of the slide, with the diffuser over that.
>
> I've been able to get scans that I would describe as okay after scanning
> with the Epson scan software and tweaking with Paintshop Pro ver 7, the
> color is actually pretty decent but they fall way short of the super
> sharpness of the slides.
>
> Here's an example of scans make with a Plustek OpticPro 9636T which is also
> a 1200 dpi scanner, on someone's website that look far better than mine.
>
> http://www.krausehouse.com/plustek.htm
>
> Is it that the scanner is just better or perhaps there's something I could
> be doing differently? Am I swimming upstream using a 1200 dpi scanner to
> begin with?
>
> Any input will be appreciated.
>
>
forget this type of 1200 dpi-scanner completely for 35mm and buy a used
2700 dpi-one instead. maybe epson perfection 4990 will do even better
tha 2700 dpi ones. we will see when it will be available.

Doc wrote:
> I've been experimenting with scanning slides using an Epson Stylus CX5200
> rated at 1200 dpi. Running Win98SE, PIII 550, 384 megs ram.
>
> I've been using one of these multi-tube fluorescent bulbs and experimenting
> with various diffuser materials and the light at different distances from
> the diffuser. I tried a homemade 90-degree slide-scanning gadget that uses
> the reflected light of the scanner bar and a couple of battery powered
> fluorescent lights but seem to get the best results with the multi-bulb
> extended horizontally over the slide. Gives well lit scans with minimal need
> for enhancing the contrast/brightness. I have the slides sitting on a sheet
> of black construction paper with a slot cut that's the same size as the
> photo portion of the slide, with the diffuser over that.
>
> I've been able to get scans that I would describe as okay after scanning
> with the Epson scan software and tweaking with Paintshop Pro ver 7, the
> color is actually pretty decent but they fall way short of the super
> sharpness of the slides.
>
> Here's an example of scans make with a Plustek OpticPro 9636T which is also
> a 1200 dpi scanner, on someone's website that look far better than mine.
>
> http://www.krausehouse.com/plustek.htm
>
> Is it that the scanner is just better or perhaps there's something I could
> be doing differently? Am I swimming upstream using a 1200 dpi scanner to
> begin with?
>
> Any input will be appreciated.
>
>
Months ago I scanned over 800 35mm slides taken from the 1950's to early
70's using an Espon 4870 photo scanner, optical res 4800. I scanned them
at 1200. Amazingly good results! I then transfered them to a DVD slide
show with music using Ulead software and distributed them around the
globe (made them region free) to relatives to view on their TV's. Took
me about 2 weeks (working at night) to complete.
What a project!
Frank

I didn't get too bad results with my Epson 1240U flatbed which has a
separate light hood for slides and negs. Its supposed to have resolution
1200 x 2400 but in practise a setting of 1200 is the same as setting 2400
but the latter file is much bigger.

Got a secondhand Canon FS4000US film scanner with 4000 dpi which got good
reviews. Problem is most film looks grainy when scanned on this which tends
to spoil the fine detail blow-ups. Neatimage does a good job and only a very
little detail is lost. I am currently experimenting with a light source
diffuser (Scanhancer). Initial results show a very slight reduction in grain
but nowhere near significant however I have much more to do with testing.
The worst film is my old 126 Kodak 'Instamatic' cartridges which is very
grainy

Steve wrote:
>
> I didn't get too bad results with my Epson 1240U flatbed which has a
> separate light hood for slides and negs. Its supposed to have resolution
> 1200 x 2400 but in practise a setting of 1200 is the same as setting 2400
> but the latter file is much bigger.
>
> Got a secondhand Canon FS4000US film scanner with 4000 dpi which got good
> reviews. Problem is most film looks grainy when scanned on this which tends
> to spoil the fine detail blow-ups. Neatimage does a good job and only a very
> little detail is lost. I am currently experimenting with a light source
> diffuser (Scanhancer). Initial results show a very slight reduction in grain
> but nowhere near significant however I have much more to do with testing.
> The worst film is my old 126 Kodak 'Instamatic' cartridges which is very
> grainy


Before you blame too much on grain, remember that digital scanners (like
cameras) generate digital noise. Sometimes, they both look similar. I
have had that problem. I also use Neat Image, and it improves my scans
quite a bit.

Remember, also, that 4000 dpi film scanners that cost $2000 are still
low end devices compared with professional drum scanners (which give
better results, and are priced out of reach).


--
* * * To reply, remove numbers from address.

Stan, New Orleans

neworleansphotographs.com, atneworleans.com, sbeckart.com/sbeck


x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
x-- Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month
x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD

I've got something similar going on, related to your question and to an
earlier posting: "The purpose of high resolution is for enlargement (for
example, 35 mm film is only about 1.4x0.9 inches - scan at 2400 dpi, print
at 300 dpi, for 8x enlargement). "

I'm scanning 35mm slides on my Epson 4180 (and want to be able to print them
at 6 x 10). There seem to be two ways of going at this. One is to scan at
the original size (tiny, tiny, tiny) and a high dpi (2400?) and then print
large at 300dpi. The other way is to scan at 300 dpi but save it at the
larger 6x10 format. I've only tried the second method so far, and haven't
tried printing, so I can't say for sure if these are interchangeable
solutions. Anyone else try this or have ideas?

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:22:15 -0700, "Oshad" <oshad@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I've got something similar going on, related to your question and to an
>earlier posting: "The purpose of high resolution is for enlargement (for
>example, 35 mm film is only about 1.4x0.9 inches - scan at 2400 dpi, print
>at 300 dpi, for 8x enlargement). "
>
>I'm scanning 35mm slides on my Epson 4180 (and want to be able to print them
>at 6 x 10). There seem to be two ways of going at this. One is to scan at
>the original size (tiny, tiny, tiny) and a high dpi (2400?) and then print
>large at 300dpi. The other way is to scan at 300 dpi but save it at the
>larger 6x10 format. I've only tried the second method so far, and haven't
>tried printing, so I can't say for sure if these are interchangeable
>solutions. Anyone else try this or have ideas?
>
Your second method is NOT equivalent, and will yield much poorer
results.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

"Charlie" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:a80ou0pdiuefmp0tubhbu33ugqgf2um5bf@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:22:15 -0700, "Oshad" <oshad@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I've got something similar going on, related to your question and to an
> >earlier posting: "The purpose of high resolution is for enlargement (for
> >example, 35 mm film is only about 1.4x0.9 inches - scan at 2400 dpi,
print
> >at 300 dpi, for 8x enlargement). "
> >
> >I'm scanning 35mm slides on my Epson 4180 (and want to be able to print
them
> >at 6 x 10). There seem to be two ways of going at this. One is to scan at
> >the original size (tiny, tiny, tiny) and a high dpi (2400?) and then
print
> >large at 300dpi. The other way is to scan at 300 dpi but save it at the
> >larger 6x10 format. I've only tried the second method so far, and haven't
> >tried printing, so I can't say for sure if these are interchangeable
> >solutions. Anyone else try this or have ideas?
> >
> Your second method is NOT equivalent, and will yield much poorer
> results.
> Charlie Hoffpauir
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Hi Charlie,
Okay, I tried it both ways and they seem nearly identical. If you can, tell
me what I'm missing (I'm new to this, so I wouldn't be surprised if I AM
missing something important.) Anyway:

Using the same slide:

Image one:
Scanned at 300 dpi
Target size set to 10 x 6.
File size: 15.8 MB

Image two:
Scanned at 2400 dpi
Target size set to "original" (1.32" x .86")
File size 18.73

One possible reason for the difference in the file sizes (though they are
nearly the same), is that I already retouched a bit on Image one -- I
lightened it a bit.

Other "evidence" is visual. Enlarged on my computer screen, neither shows
pixels at 200%. Both do at 300%.

Also, it SEEMS to make sense, mathematically. A print 10 inches across is
7.5 times larger than the slide's 1.32 inches. If you divide 2400 by 7.5 you
get 320 dpi.

It seems as if there are at least two ways of skinning this particulary cat.
But, like I said, please do let me know if I went wrong somewhere.