Now that I've got the negatives...

MyST wrote on 9/22/2005, 6:16 PM

I was thinking of just going over to Wal*Mart and getting the negatives for my stills transfered to picture CD, then import them into Vegas to add to my video.
Is this do-able?
If not, what do you recommend so that I can add them to my video?
My sister-in-law took some great pictures at the beach with her 35mm. I'd like to add them to my project.
How? What size is ideal if I want to pan/zoom?

Thanks in advance.

Mario

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 9/22/2005, 6:30 PM

I don't know if Wal*Mart does this process right there at the photo counter. I expect this is a job for an outside processing lab. I also expect that the outside lab will charge a pretty penny for dealing with cut strips of negatives as compared to the whole roll of film that they usually deal with. I'm sure you can get it done, just expect it to take a while and be pricey.

You could scan them yourself, but in that case it would probably be easier to scan the prints than the negatives, especially if your scanner doesn't handle transparencies.

Size is an interesting topic, but no where near as mysterious as it might appear in other discussions here in the forum. The resolution you need must be high enough so that the smallest part of the image you want to show has at least as many pixels as the video frame. For example ... say you want to zoom in on someone's face that is about 3/4" tall in the picture. The video frame is 480 pixels high, so 480 pixels into 3/4" is 640dpi. As long as you scan at at least this resolution but not much higher you'll do well. In fact, 600dpi would probably be sufficient. 900dpi would give you a little wiggle room in case you need it. If you have a 4x6" print and you won't zoom in farther than 2x, then 480 pixels into 2" is 240dpi and any more than that is a waste.

What size is idea? Whatever size works for that picture and your zooming needs. Can't be any more specific than that.

johnmeyer wrote on 9/22/2005, 6:39 PM

Most of these places can scan at the time they process the film, because the film is actually scanned in order to make prints (i.e., the printing is done via a digital scan). I didn't realize they couldn't also scan the negatives after the fact, but I can see the problem they might have, feeding cut negatives instead of a roll. The price will certainly be higher. However, I'm sure one of your local photo places can do this, if Walmart can't. As Kelly says, anything above 900 dpi will work great in Vegas.

Stonefield wrote on 9/24/2005, 10:11 AM

Ok, now THIS I know about as this is exactly my day-job. I work in a digital pro photo lab and we deal with this all the time.

First of all, it's no problem getting cut negs scanned. We do it all the time. We scan what is called Hi rez or Low rez. Low rez can give you a photo print of 4x6 size and HIgh is a size of 8 x 12. The quality of both is very high.

And 900dpi is way overkill. Our maximum scan is 300 dpi. And that's used for photo prints ( NOT inkjet ) up to 10x15 size. You can get great results in Vegas with just about anything. The only time I've seen it fall apart is when you use a tiny tiny image you've taken from the net. Like a small 18 kilobit file or something like that. Picture resolution doesn't need to be all that large for onscreen video use. Do it at 300 dpi and you'll be fine.

As far as prices, a low rez from cut neg is 2 bucks Cnd. And the high rez is 5 bucks. We can also scan a neg up to 10x15 for 10 bucks. Shop around to any modern lab and you should be able to find decent prices.

Oh and PLEASE, don't individually cut your neg frames ! Heh, makes it much more difficult to work with. Hope that helps.

I've worked with still in Vegas many times and it really is one of Vegas's stronger features. They look great. Here's a sample of some video that incorporates video.

http://www.stonefieldmedia.com/assets/clips/Kristy.wmv

Stan

johnmeyer wrote on 9/24/2005, 10:46 AM

And 900dpi is way overkill. Our maximum scan is 300 dpi.

Ah, the problems of using dpi to specify scan resolution ...

Dots Per Inch (DPI) is a completely useless figure without ALSO specifying the size of the media being scanned. This thread is about scanning 35mm negatives which are 36x24 mm in size, which is roughly 1.5 x 1 inches. Scanning such a small object at only 300 dpi will produce a scan that is 1.5 x 300 = 450 by 1 x 300 = 300 or 450 x 300 pixels. This is not sufficient for a 720x480 video frame.

You are certainly correct, however, if the source of your scan is a 6x4 print. In this case you get 6 x 300 = 1800 and 4 x 300 = 1200 or a 1800 x 1200 pixel scan.

Back to the 900 dpi and scanning a negative: This produces 1.5 x 900 = 1350 by 1 x 900 = 900 which is a 1350 x 900 scan, obviously plenty enough for video, but certainly far from overkill, if you plan to "zoom into" the image at all.

Orcatek wrote on 9/24/2005, 2:50 PM

I've done it myself with a deskop scanner and a transparency adapter. Basically a mirror its a pair fo mirrors mounted at 90 degrees to each other, and 45 degrees to the scanner.

You have to take a negative of the scan as it is a negative in the first place. Works pretty good.

JJKizak wrote on 9/24/2005, 3:17 PM

I have scanned negatives and slides with the Epson Silverfast software and suped them up with Corel Photopaint and Adobe Elements. The negatives are kind of hard because you have to select from a about 15 different types to get the results you want. The 35mm slides are easy and I shoot them at 1200 dpi and convert them to jpg and they wind up at about 540k and will give you a 10 x 1 zoom without much problem. If you clean them up in the Adobe elements it does take a bit of time so if your doing hundreds of pictures make sure you have a large coffee pot. There is this "learning curve" that I conveniently forgot to mention on purpose.

JJK

fldave wrote on 9/24/2005, 6:12 PM

Though I have not bought a film scanner yet, I have done some research a couple of years ago.

The minimum scan for 35mm slides and negatives is 2840 x 2840 optical resolution. Forget about "interpolated" resolution. This captures all of the details of the original 35 film stock. Once scanned, then you can resize with Photoshop, etc, if needed.

I noticed on B&H that their film scanners are now a minimum of 3000 x 3000 optical.

Dave

RalphM wrote on 9/24/2005, 7:35 PM

Negatives are always preferable to prints from a quality viewpoint (more dynamic range).

Having just worked some 35mm scans for video, I would say 900 dpi should be fine unless you want to crop drastically.

MyST wrote on 9/24/2005, 7:57 PM

Thanks for all the input guys! It definitely helps me out when I'm calling around for places that do this type of "conversion".
Wal*Mart does it, but the resolution is too low at 300dpi.
Also, places will scan the negative, as long as they aren't cut individually. Strips of 4 or 5 is ok.
Higher resolution is more expensive, so I'll choose which pictures I want very carefully.

Going slightly off topic on my own thread...
What if I was to (eventually) get an all-in-one unit to replace my printer. You know... printer/copier/scanner.
What should I look for in the scanning properties to make sure I can get good enough results scanning my pictures?
24 or 32 bit colour. Is 24 enough?
Has anyone used an all-in-one and has been happy with the results?

Thanks again.

Mario

johnmeyer wrote on 9/24/2005, 8:54 PM

What should I look for in the scanning properties to make sure I can get good enough results scanning my pictures?

I have scanned close to 50,000 slides, prints, and negatives. I now own my third slide/negative scanner (a Nikon Coolscan 4000) and my third flatbed.

For scanning flat material (prints), pretty much any flatbed scanner will do. 24 bit is fine for the kind of work you'll be doing.

If you want a single device that will also scan negatives, then you need to get a flatbed scanner with a transparency adapter. You can certainly use the little prism gadget that was described earlier in this thread, but it takes a long time to set up and, believe me, when you start scanning a lot of stuff, you don't want to mess with setup.

I have always used HP flatbed scanners. Nothing wrong with Canon or Microtek or any of the others -- just my preference. A good HP flatbed with a transparency adapter will cost between $250-400.

The only downside to scanning slides and negatives on a flatbed is that you won't be able to get the automatic dust removal feature that is standard in any good, dedicated slide/negative scanner. These use a separate infrared channel to scan the transparency. Turns out that most emulsions are pretty clear to infrared, but dust and hair is not. Thus, the infrared channel can be used to identify where the defects in the emulsion, dust, and hair occur, and then automatically patch these areas by blending with adjacent pixels. The results are almost magical. The time saving by not having to "spot" all the resulting scans in post-production makes the expense of the dedicated slide scanner worth it, but only if you have thousands of slides and negatives. Expect to pay over $1,000 for a good slide scanner.