![]() I have seen some incredible images scanned from film with consumer grade scanners, both 35mm and 120. OR - my goodness I'm reluctant to say this - was film that bad?įilm was not that bad. I appreciate that the original lens may not have been as good but surely it should come close. ![]() If I scan to yield about the same pixel count and size its compares very poorly. At 100% it had great detail how should a 35mm negative compare to that. The results are very noisy and any attempt to clean them (with Neat Image) destroys more detail.Ī Jpeg from the EPL-2 on full fine gives a 4032X3024 pixel file approx. Is the scanner not up to the job? Are the negatives degraded (I did scan some of the original prints with similar results) - OR am I doing it all wrong? I have scanned in auto mode and experimented up to 3200 DPI giving me pixel counts from the teens to 4500 (I understand that commands print size) and Tiff files up to 45Meg. The color negatives (Fuji 200-1) I am working with were exposed in 1997 with an Olympus IS1 (Bridge camera) that yielded pleasing 5X7 prints that looked sharp and detailed. Using the canon 4200F with Vuescan should I be able to get sharp detailed pictures or are 35mm color negatives incapable of holding sufficient information? I confess to being somewhat disappointed and confused. With advice here, reading the suggested links and the purchase of VueScan I have been capturing 15 year old memories - but not very well.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |