What are the options for scanning Minox (8 x 11) film? What scanners and how must the film be mounted in film scanners.

I wonder what the scan to disk option of Minox Labs is like. What pixel resolution, etc.?

Thanks, Bob.

-- Robert Wright (rew@impulse.net), September 24, 1999

Answers

Bob, Polaroid 35mm scanner is often used to scanner Minox 8x11 negative/chrome directly. It has 2700 dpi resolution. Since Minox 8x11 negative is about 1/3 the linear dimension of a 24x36m frame, the effective resolution is 2700/3/8 =112 pixel/mm, or about 56 lines pair/mm . That is barely good for a 15x or 3x5" picture. The best method is still to enlarge the negative with enlarger to 8x10" size, then use a 600 dpi flat bed scanner. With a good enlarger lens (for example Minox enlarger ) you can get about 80 -100 lpmm resolutin picture, more than you can get directly from film scanner.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), September 25, 1999.

Martin -

By your answer, you mean literally projecting the neg onto a flat-bed scanner, with no print being made? Sorry for the dumb question, but I've not been keeping up with digital techniques.

Thanks - Ken

-- Ken Ford (kford@Ameritech.net), March 05, 2000.

Ken, Polaroid Sprintscan is a film scanner, it scans negative or slide directly unlike flatbed scanner which scans only prints. Film scanners are far more expensive.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), March 06, 2000.

Ken, I'm sure Martin was suggesting making a conventional optical print to paper at 8 x 10 inches and scanning that print on a flatbed scanner as opposed to using a film scanner on such a small transparancy.

Bob

-- Robert Wright (rew@impulse.net), March 06, 2000.

Hey, I SAID it was a dumb question! Thanks, Bob, for the clarification - I'm new to non-silver based tech. KF

-- Ken Ford (kford@Ameritech.net), March 06, 2000.

Ken, it is not a dumb question.

In fact there are many Minoxers out there experimenting how to project an enlarged image directly on a flat bed scanner to bypass the darkroom. But so far I am not aware of any positive results. I am planning to do some experiment myself.

Either the glass has to be frosted, or painted white, so a sharp image from enlarger can be form on the painted surface. etc, etc.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), March 07, 2000.

Martin, re your 07Mar post:

That is an interesting proposal. Would you have to turn of the scanners internal light?

I have read somewhere of someone mounting a transparency on a small light table and inverting it on the scanner to simulate a transparency adapter (Of course no enlargement), but it would seem that the focusing screen (or whatever) could be simply set on the scanner bed and the image brought to focus in the surface closest to the scanner. Would Newton's Rings become a factor?

Bob

-- Robert Wright (rew@impusle.net), March 07, 2000.

Bob, I have'nt a chance to try this out yet. It seems to be an interesting project.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), March 07, 2000.

Martin, what follows may seem like a formidable request(s), but it seems that the time may be right to explore in more depth the matter of scanners and printers in relationship to making high quality prints from Minox negatives. The topics of flatbed and film scanners, as well as the differences in printers, will be of interest to more and more Minoxers, especially since technology is improving and better scanners and printers are becoming available at more attractive prices.

Minoxers will want to know what level of resolution is required from a scanner to deliver acceptably sharp prints in a variety of sizes. For example, if the maximum sharp print size desired is 4 X 6, then how may dpi of resolution should the scanner be capable of delivering? How much resolution would be required for sharp 5 X 7, 8 X 10, and even larger prints?

Once the minimum performance level required from the scanner is known, the next matter needing to be addressed concerns printers: how many dpi shall the printer be capable of delivering for the hjman eye to be satisfied for the same size prints as listed above? Then comes the question: ink-jet (including dye-sub variety) or laser?

The answers to questions about scanners and printers are no doubt intermingled, but this is information that everyone needs a better understanding of before purchasing these pieces of equipment. Although for some it mahy seem overly technical, would you relate any such recommendations to what the human eye is capable of resolving in lp/mm or pixels/mm? Thanks you for any advice you can provide on these topics.

-- Daryl Jorud (djorud@prtel.com), March 08, 2000.

I failed to indicate that the film to be used would need to be very high resolution film.

-- Daryl Jorud (djorud@prtel.com), March 08, 2000.

Daryl, you have good suggestions. At this moment, I still need some more experiment. I am upgrading my flatbed scanner and still waiting for delivery of the item. Once that arrives, I shall compare results from thest two scanners with different resolutions, and compare the results from theoretical calculation. I shall post the results then. Thank you for the suggestion.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), March 09, 2000.

Polaroid produce a 4000x4000 dpi scanner and I am told (but who believes a saleman) that the Micotek Artixscan 4000T is the same.

36-bit SCSI scanners for 900GBP (from one phot chain store in London).

The Minolta Dimage Scan Multi has a carriage for 16mm film, this is 2820dpi and has an APS adapter. Price, if you have to ask you can't afford it. I can't.

Starting with 8x11 (10x14, 12x17) needs all the res you can afford. A scanner at 1200dpi is not good enough. Prints can not be made of all negatives/positives, except at very great expence of time and cost.

Gerald

-- Gerald McMullon (gerald@mcmullon.com), October 27, 2000.

Greetings.

I have started to scan minox negatives via a JENOPTEK JS21 film scanner [GBP 199.00] into the computer using either Adobe photodeluxe, or MGI Photosuite III, I have been pleased with the results, both from 100 & 25 ISO speed films.

I have printed very acceptable A4 size prints and I am still experimenting !

I used to use a Minox enlarger many years ago in my darkroom, but I must admit a do prefer to use the computer.

Perhaps we should more discussion based on the merits of minox film scanning.

It works for me.

Barry

-- Barry King (bking38348@aol.com), February 18, 2001.

Just a note on scanning. There is a site on the net which shows scans at 2700. 4000 and 6000dpi. Whilst 4000 appears the max initially - because grain shows - the 6000dpi scans still give better detail. These scans are of 35mm film stock. But it does look as though scanners are nearly at the limit and, incidently, digital cameras are generally not in the running. As for the direct scan suggestion I think its catch 22 situation. If you project onto a screen you have the noise of the screen to contend with. Conversely if you remove the screen you are scanning the film direct anyway. Hope these comments help discussion. Graham

-- Graham Hk (grahamh@c4.com), May 03, 2001.

Like Barry, I've been using the Jenoptik JS21 film scanner for a year or so now, and by and large, I'm pleased with the results - it's certainly good value for money. The 2400 dpi optical resolution is adequate certainly for my EC negatives, B/W anyway though I've reservations about colour work. The software for this scanner undoubtedly is a little primitive, but if you treat it right, you can get excellent results from it. For my LX negatives, perhaps a little more digital resolution would certainly help, but the results taken in the round are quite successful.

There are plenty of examples to look at on my Minox web pages: http://perso.libertysurf.co.uk/hektor/minox1/minox1.html I'd be interested to see what you think ?

Stuart

-- Stuart Hill (hektor@libertysurf.co.uk), June 19, 2001.