Is it worth investing in a more modern scanner?

Bebop

Bebop

Messages
7,200
Edit My Images
No
Hopefully this is the best place to ask, although possibly it should be in the equipment section... I know there are quite a few threads about scanners, but I haven't been able to glean the information I'd like.

Like many others before me I am trying to scan some old prints. I have a Canon 5600f scanner. I choose the maximum of 600dpi and it seems to do a reasonable job. In fact I was pleased as I hadn't used it for some time and it all worked fine with no driver updates needed.

What I would like to know... I see that more modern scanners have 4800dpi or 6400dpi listed. They also say they have two lenses and may automatically switch (presumably for the different dpi.). Before I invest a lot of time going through scanning all the old photos and slides (and possibly negatives), is it worth upgrading the scanner? Is there a noticeable step up with modern technology?

I no longer shoot film, but my daughter does, so potentially it could have more use beyond the prints I have to do - which is several hundred I think, maybe more. It will be a long term project (another one :) )

Hopefully you'll all tell me to save my money, but I have to ask!
Thank you for any info.
 
Hi

600dpi will be fine for prints, especially if they are small as they won't usually have enough detail to make scanning them at more than 600dpi worthwhile.

Slides or negatives on the other hand I would say you cant have enough dpi, but watch out for these quoted big numbers coming from interpolation as you could do that in Photoshop if you need to.

On the downside scanning at big dpi numbers will produce very big files.

HTH

David
 
Many thanks @Willid1 , that is useful.

Some are quite precious photos - like my father during WWII - that's about 6x8", but many are just records of family events. I haven't started looking through the slides yet and it may be that many are not worth scanning.

I'll save my money for the moment then :)
 
Assuming 35mm film is 36mm x 24mm which is 1.4 x 0.9 inches.
At 600ppi, a scan will produce a file that is approx 840 x 560 pixels. You can gauge how much screen this will take up depending on your monitor resolution. On a 1024x768 monitor it'll take up about 2/3 of the screen which is fine.
A 6"x4" print from this however would have a resolution of 140ppi which isn't great but probably OK on such small paper sizes. An A4 (11 x 8) print though would have a resolution of about 72ppi which would probably be noticeable - esp up close.

Everyone's definition of "reasonable", "worth" and "good enough" is different, but I'd say for screen display (Here, Facebook, Instagram etc), proofing & contact sheets, it would be fine. Even 6x4 prints would probably be OK.

Anything larger though I'd be wanting better resolution.


Of course, if you're scanning 120 negs or larger, that's a whole different ballgame as you have more negative to play with. 6cm = 2.3inches and @ 600ppi a scan will produce a 1380 pixel image which will print on 6x4s at 340ppi (assuming a square print at 4" x 4") which is overkill, and A4 at 170ppi (assuming an 8"x8" print). I'd be fine with that. A3 though (16x11) would be 85ish which would probably be fine from a few feet away, but wouldn't stand close scrutiny.

Tl;dr - If you're doing large prints and care about quality (A3 and up), I'd get a new scanner (Epson V550 for £160?), or, if the volume is small, send the neg off to get is scanned at a larger resolution by a professional. If it's just for electronic display, or small prints, you're probably fine.
That's my tuppence - with a bit of science.
 
@Harlequin565 Thank you so much - stupidly I hadn't thought to do the maths!! I suppose I was thinking that although it scans at 600dpi, the output could be different. I guess it could only increase if the software interpolated it as @Willid1 said and that would only be an issue for negatives or slides where I need to enlarge them. I did also wonder if the results just might be 'better' with more recent technology. I appreciate 'better' is subjective and I probably am a bit fussy :)

Some of the older family photos were official portraits and these are more important, but there aren't many of these, so perhaps worth paying to get done. My plan was to print copies for my family, but I've yet to see if the negatives (yes 35mm) would be worth reproducing. Certainly some of the prints are worth doing, but very few will be A4 size.

Thanks so much for your input. I will have a go at printing some I've scanned and see. I don't expect anyone else in the family would even notice the quality. The slides will have to wait for now.
 
If the prints are glossy, and you'll forgive the artistic licence, they will be 30 dpi (reasoning for conversion of continuous tones to dpi on request). That means that virtually any scan would give a same size reproduction at the same size, and your 600 dpi is fine.

Negatives on the other hand will be much higher, and 600 won't extract all the detail.

As stated, we're going to have different standards, and I don't drop below the 300 ppi limit, meaning that for a 10x8 print, I'd want a scan of 3000x2400 minimum. At a 600 dpi scan, working backwards, the negative would have to be 5x4 inches. I should also add that I don't use 35mm much, preferring 6x6, 6x7 or large format.

I use an Epson flatbed, the V850, but for my size negatives I've been happy with the older Epsons.
 
StephenM said:
If the prints are glossy, and you'll forgive the artistic licence, they will be 30 dpi (reasoning for conversion of continuous tones to dpi on request). That means that virtually any scan would give a same size reproduction at the same size, and your 600 dpi is fine.
Click to expand...

This is a valid point. I'd not noticed that the OP was scanning photos as well as negs. So @Bebop my post is all about scanning negs. If you're scanning photos, and assuming they're 6x4 or larger, you'll be fine.
 
Basically, for scanning prints, 600 ppi is fine (it would allow you to make a new digital print 4 times the area of the original; much bigger than that, and the shortcomings of the original print will become increasingly apparent). For scanning 35mm negatives/slides, even 1200 ppi is a bit tight; fine for a nice 6*4 inch print, but quite limited for anything else IMHO. Somewhere up around 2000 ppi gives you a lot more flexibility. Few desktop scanners really give you much actual resolution beyond 2400 ppi, even if they advertise up to 7200 ppi. Medium format has larger negatives, so doesn't need such high scanning resolutions.

The Epson V500 is a pretty good scanner that will do both prints and negatives. The main drawback is that it can be a little difficult to load a curly negative into the film holders. But it's very doable!
 
Harlequin565 said:
This is a valid point. I'd not noticed that the OP was scanning photos as well as negs. So @Bebop my post is all about scanning negs. If you're scanning photos, and assuming they're 6x4 or larger, you'll be fine.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, I had realised that :) I also enjoy printing so am used to thinking about dpi to an extent. I don't yet know if the negatives and slides are worth scanning and printing - need to get the projector set up!

StephenM said:
If the prints are glossy, and you'll forgive the artistic licence, they will be 30 dpi (reasoning for conversion of continuous tones to dpi on request). That means that virtually any scan would give a same size reproduction at the same size, and your 600 dpi is fine..
Click to expand...
The prints I'm scanning are not terribly glossy. Semi-gloss? Some of the older ones are black and white from the 1940s onwards - I wouldn't describe them as glossy or matt - not sure what they are? The 30dpi is intriguing, but perhaps I will just accept 600dpi is fine!

ChrisR said:
Basically, for scanning prints, 600 ppi is fine (it would allow you to make a new digital print 4 times the area of the original; much bigger than that, and the shortcomings of the original print will become increasingly apparent). For scanning 35mm negatives/slides, even 1200 ppi is a bit tight; fine for a nice 6*4 inch print, but quite limited for anything else IMHO. Somewhere up around 2000 ppi gives you a lot more flexibility. Few desktop scanners really give you much actual resolution beyond 2400 ppi, even if they advertise up to 7200 ppi. Medium format has larger negatives, so doesn't need such high scanning resolutions.

The Epson V500 is a pretty good scanner that will do both prints and negatives. The main drawback is that it can be a little difficult to load a curly negative into the film holders. But it's very doable!
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input. My current scanner has a holder for slides, but I'm not sure about negatives. In any case, from all of the information here, I will hold off scanning any negatives and slides until I know they are worth doing, and will then consider whether to buy one with a greater resolution or pay someone to scan them.

Jessops have some scanners in the sale including the V500 which is what prompted me to think about it at this time, plus i've just inherited a load of old family photos. It is very hard to tell what separates one scanner from another and there is a considerable difference in the price range.

Thank you everyone for your help - saved me some money for now... the slides and negatives will come later!
 
No great mystery re prints. If you look up film data sheets, the makers will usually tell you the resolution that they can achive. The grain size limits how fine the detail can be, just as inkjet drop size and spacing limits digital prints. A glossy print will normally have a 30 lpm (or lppm - I can never remember which) although some Kodak papers were down to 20. Matt, semiglossy etc will be less because of the surface roughness. Hence, the limit on how much scanning resolution you need.

Although the visual limit of acuity is about 6 lpm (meaning a print could be enlarged 5 times in an ideal world) the human eye isn't quite as simple as that piece of maths suggests. Even though we can't make out the detail, we can sense a loss of sharpness when the resolution drops below the 30 figure. Kodak came in for some stick when they introduced the 20 lpm paper, because people could see that the image was less sharp, even if they couldn't theoretically make out the detail.

We do run into the realms of "just noticeable difference" and the fact that some loss of quality will only become apparent when you can make a side by side comparison.
 
Last edited:
I recently had to scan a print for a friend overseas (of him and his then girl friend, for his wife's funeral); it was a semi-textured print and the texture was very noticeable in the scans. Luckily I found the negative just before the funeral and was able to scan that, a much better result. Actually, thinking about it, i photographed the negative over an iPad as a white box, and inverted it using my PP software, as I didn't have a 120 scanner available.
 
We sometimes forget just how wide a range of printing papers used to be available. I just dug out a 1961 catalogue which listed 5 different makers, but only gave prices for single and double weight papers. I can recall that surface textures ran to at least glossy, satin, lustre and matt; and the colours included white, ivory and cream. I must have prints around on all of those somewhere; and I know that this list isn't exhaustive.

Edit to add: just going back to the magic 6 lpm, I did once calculate that that converted (in digital terms) to 300 ppi. Someone might like to check my calculation though.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
No great mystery re prints. If you look up film data sheets, the makers will usually tell you the resolution that they can achive. The grain size limits how fine the detail can be, just as inkjet drop size and spacing limits digital prints. A glossy print will normally have a 30 lpm
Click to expand...

I missed a couple of (semi) important bits out here. What I should have said was:

No great mystery re prints. If you look up film data sheets, the makers will usually tell you the resolution that they can achive - for a medium speed black and white film the figure will be around 125 lpm (or lppm :D). The grain size limits how fine the detail can be, just as inkjet drop size and spacing limits digital prints. A glossy print will normally have a 30 lpm (but I'm not sure that this figure is quite so easy to look up)

No difference to the overall sense, but a bit more information to put the resolution differences of film and print into context.
 
According to specs, the 5600f has a maximum hardware resolution of 4800x9600dpi. In tests, scanners never actually resolve detail anywhere near their highest specification, but you should certainly be able to obtain much better than 600dpi. What scanning software are you using? Maybe try updating it, or install an alternative. Some scan programs have very frustrating interfaces or limitations.
 
StephenM said:
I missed a couple of (semi) important bits out here. What I should have said was:

No great mystery re prints. If you look up film data sheets, the makers will usually tell you the resolution that they can achive - for a medium speed black and white film the figure will be around 125 lpm (or lppm :D). The grain size limits how fine the detail can be, just as inkjet drop size and spacing limits digital prints. A glossy print will normally have a 30 lpm (but I'm not sure that this figure is quite so easy to look up)

No difference to the overall sense, but a bit more information to put the resolution differences of film and print into context.
Click to expand...
Lpm (lines per mm) are twice lppm (line pairs per mm) so 30 lpm would be 15 lppm. Converting to dpi or ppi is not a simple matter, for monochrome images of 1 bit depth (pure white and black original) multiplying lppm by 24 ish is pretty close in practice. Once you start worrying about shades of grey or colour and viewing distance you are out of the realm of optics and into the less quantifiable area of visual acuity and perception.
 
Happily, I know the difference between lpm and lppm, but I still have difficulty remembering which is which in terms of film and paper specs, and have to look it up each time. I'll agree with the difficulty of making a conversion when swapping from analogue to digital, and even apart from anything else we have to consider the Nyquist limit anyway. Even with a soot and whitewash black and white image, given the size of the silver particles we aren't going to get a transition that goes from 100% black to 100% transparent within the limits of any scanner; the resolution of a microscope would be nearer the mark I think.
 
Prumble said:
I've been doing the same as you - scanning old negatives and prints which belonged to my father. There's some very interesting stuff here https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ well worth a read.
Click to expand...
Many thanks for the link - hadn't thought about all the video tapes I have too!! Luckily my brother has taken all the old cine films.

khakoo said:
According to specs, the 5600f has a maximum hardware resolution of 4800x9600dpi. In tests, scanners never actually resolve detail anywhere near their highest specification, but you should certainly be able to obtain much better than 600dpi. What scanning software are you using? Maybe try updating it, or install an alternative. Some scan programs have very frustrating interfaces or limitations.
Click to expand...
600 is what appears in the dropdown menu. I confess I just plugged in the scanner and started. I didn't download more software. I used to have the software installed, but I have updated my operating system since then, so it is possible it would no longer automatically start up. I will investigate further.. perhaps that is what I am getting?? Will double check- thanks for pointing it out!

@dmb and @StephenM - I love that there are people on here who know so much.

My main take away is that my scanner is probably just fine for my prints - particularly if I ensure I am using the correct software. If I get 4800x9600dpi it's not too shabby for slides and negatives, though it could be improved on. At the moment I'm not going to worry about that. Thank you everyone for the input.
 
StephenM said:
we have to consider the Nyquist limit
Click to expand...

I had to google that!!:p
I read the following two sentences then realised it's for those more intelligent/ technically minded than me:confused::D

The Nyquist rate is twice the maximum component frequency of the function being sampled. For example, the Nyquist rate for the sinusoid at 0.6 f s is 1.2 f s, which means that at the f s rate, it is being undersampled.
 
Then look at it this way. Consider a sine wave - one of those nice regular wavy things, with equally spaced peaks and troughs. Now consider taking a "depth sounding" to get the height at regular intevals. If you have an infinite number of samples, you'll be able to plot a graph exactly like the original wave. But suppose your samples were one wavelength apart -every reading would be the same, and you'd get a straight line. If you think about how many samples you need, you'll see that given enough, you'll be able to sketch in the curve. And if not enough, you can get anything from a good approximation to a totally false result.

Easier with a graph.
 
Last edited:
P.S. It took me a while to work out what on earth it meant when I first came across it.
 
StephenM said:
Then look at it this way. Consider a sine wave - one of those nice regular wavy things, with equally spaced peaks and troughs. Now consider taking a "depth sounding" to get the height at regular intevals. If you have an infinite number of samples, you'll be able to plot a graph exactly like the original wave. But suppose your samples were one wavelength apart -every reading would be the same, and you'd get a straight line. If you think about how many samples you need, you'll see that given enough, you'll be able to sketch in the curve. And if not enough, you can get anything from a good approximation to a totally false result.

Easier with a graph.
Click to expand...
Love that analogy. I was discussing a similar scenario today with wind measurement - where it was only recorded once an hour - it really doesn't give a very true picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top