Pro scans from film - what is "base"?

09/07/2006 08:20:08 PM · #1

I have had some films scanned by a pro lab that I use for my prints from digital, the prints are wonderful and I know several pros that use them. I tried to ask the owner what resolution the files would be in but he simply didn't know! He was able to give e some other numbers (e.g will print upto 12"x18") and I guessed from those... We ended up setting on base 4 which has produced 6Mp files (2000x300 pixels) from 35mm negative film which is (just) enough for what I wanted.

Two questions:
(1) How does the scanning term "base" relate to resolution in pixels?

(2) All the scanned images are grainy, many beyond the abilities of neat image. The films are 10 years old and taken by a keen amateur - I know some will be under or over exposed but all of them? Should this be expected? My impression is that I would have got better results by scanning a print which is disappointing. He asked if I wanted them colour corrected, I said yes, was this a bad idea? The colours in the scans themselves are good, but some need the contrast boosting which increases the grain :-(

Here is an example of the BEST ones - the worst are truly awful...

Resized..............100% crop

ralph

Nikon Z9

09/07/2006 09:00:04 PM · #2

you haven't mentioned what format the files were - but 6 meg is pretty 'light' for a film scan even if it was a jpg
though the images don't look bad for a scan
my guess 'base' is the compresion level

--
I've just started on a project after getting a resonable scanner (Nikon Coolscan IV)
my father-in-laws 10000 slides & 2000 negitives the files are to scanned at 2900 dpi which gives ~ 2600x4100 -
if i used TIFF files the 12 bit are 74Meg, 8 bit are 36 meg - jpgs at best resolution are 15-19meg (Which is what i'm using)

done the test run of the first 120sildes (from 1963) & 6 rolls of B&W (from 1953) .. i need another disk ...
they look no better / worse that what you have ... (except the early B&W ones were when he was just learning to shoot -- so the pics are DPC votes of '2' or '3' withthe occasional '5' ..)

i think we have been spoilt with the low noise of dSLRs

Message edited by author 2006-09-07 21:00:42.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

09/07/2006 09:05:24 PM · #3

Thanks Ralph...
This was one of the problems I had with the owner - the difference between Mp (megapixels = resolution) and Mb (megabyes = file size)

All the scans are 2000x3000 pixels making them 6Mp

They are jpegs - ranging in size from 5-7Mb (big files as noise doesn't compress well) My SLR produces 6Mp images that are 2-3Mb and look MUCH better.

You are right - I assumed that a well exposed shot on 35mm would scan at a similar quality to a well exposed frame from a DSLR...

ralph

Nikon Z9

09/07/2006 09:22:26 PM · #4

with what i've been working with (ok they are 40-50 years old ) 35mm film does't cut it anymore ... (except B&W really does have more range -- but the grain is HUGE... ;)
this is one of my B&W scans from film (taken year)

with obvious film grain

100% crop showing banding (8 bit scan)
i may fault some ofthe film issues with me (soft focus & i do my own developing ... )
EDIT: oops didn't use the same originals .. .. but you get the idea ..

Message edited by author 2006-09-07 21:23:12.

Ristyz

Apple iPhone 12 Pro

09/07/2006 09:29:27 PM · #5

I have a Nikon super coolscan 4000. It scans at 4000dpi (about 5400x3800 at the 35mm size)
It saves to 58MB tiffs. (no compression) I do see a lot of grain since I shot a lot of 400ISO film. However I know I'm seeing the actual film's grain, not computer generated extra stuff.

If you had yours scanned by a "Pro" lab and you are unhappy have them redo it although it may be a moot point if he doesn't even know the specifics of the scanner! Also some of my film that was processed in a one-hour lab has degenerated some and has some haloing between very dark and very light areas. I haven't checked the "pro lab" processed film.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

09/07/2006 10:05:43 PM · #6

Originally posted by Ristyz:

Thanks. He did know the specs of his scanner - but only in scanner jargon which made no sense to me. He was not able to translate it into the photography type jargon... I get the feeling that the scanning is not a big part of his business.

You got me thinking about the film itslef, something I forgot all about. The shots taken by the main photographer are on Fuji 523 200ISO film, there is one roll of Ilford B&W 400ISO. My brother in law shot 2 rolls of 1600ISO Kodak film - with a big zoom (probably 200mm) indoors at night with no flash - his prefereed method of attack :-) These are grainy but in a more pleasant way... and there are some great candid shots.

Still curious if anyone knows the definition of "base" in scanning nomenclature.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

09/07/2006 10:41:19 PM · #7

You got me curious. I'd never heard the term before so did a quick google search and came up with a couple of links that may shed some light on the subject.

//www.panoscan.com/Resolution.html

//www.adobe.com/products/adobemag/archive/pdfs/9601reps.pdf

09/09/2006 04:33:31 AM · #8

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Yes I tried Google too - didn't find a clear answer either...

Message edited by author 2006-09-09 06:29:17.