35mm negatives to jpeg

  WtheM 07:46 12 Apr 2004

Hi, does anyone know if there is software available to convert 35mm negatives into digital photo's on your PC?

  badgery 07:53 12 Apr 2004

I transfered all my 35mm 'slides' to jpeg by using a Microtek Filmscan 35. The results were pretty good.
The software comes with it.

  badgery 07:55 12 Apr 2004

Sorry - should have said it also does negatives as well as slides.

  Chronos 08:00 12 Apr 2004

which ever way you go the neg or slide will have to be scanned first.....either an adaptor on a flatbed scanner or a film scanner, after that the software is out there, tons of it...

  WtheM 08:05 12 Apr 2004

When you say an adapter on a scanner? Seeing as the Microtek's about £300.....

  Chronos 08:44 12 Apr 2004

depends how many you want to do, if it is only a few then take them into any photoshop and they will put them on a CD, if you have thousands then get a film scanner, i have the Minolta dimage Scan Dual...perfect..........

  Stuartli 09:11 12 Apr 2004

Scanning 35mm negatives with a flatbed scanner is of little value as the resolution capability is far behind that of the negatives.

Either a dedicated film scanner (they can be acquired for around £130 upwards) or a reconditioned Minolta model from click here will be far superior.

I think your thread title is a bit misleading - .jpeg is a lossy conversion of a digital image in order to allow sensible files sizes, especially relevant when e-mailing.

  griffon 56 00:07 28 Jul 2004

Hi Stuartli,
I followed your link to Morgan Computers and found the two Minolta dedicated scanners were £588 and £705. Out of the question on price. The Dutch company Microtek do a range starting at about £130 but even this is out of my limited budget. Though you are right if you are thinking of the kind of resolution you can get on the document or print photo scanning bed of the typical scanner, there are flatbed scanners with special slide adaptors and software which will give scan densities of 3200 dpi coupled to 48 bit colour rendering. I am using an Epson Perfection 1670 and getting some excellent results, though with quite massive file sizes in the bitmap format the scanner prefers, and though I am scanning at the relatively low density of 1200 dpi it is more than adequate for 6 x 4 inch prints which is the default size supplied by most print film processing companies. However, the bitmap at 6 x 4 comes out at about 38mb, so, after processing from the original 35mm size (about 16mb), I reduce the pixel density to 300 dpi and scale the photo to 6 x 4 centimetres which gives a file size of about 1mb, and then save it as a jpeg. Setting the printer to Best quality and using good paper produces good prints.
The photo processor used is Adobe Photo de Luxe Business Edition, getting a bit old now but I stick to it because of its flexibilty and user-friendliness. Sorry about the length of this response, it just sort of went on.

  jack 08:33 28 Jul 2004

The Scanning of film has been well covered cheap naff results - good results -expensive kit

however if this is a one off situation as opposed to ongoing
1. As suggested any processing station will pu them onto CD.
2. Get them printed then scan them flatbed wise.
I also note that my recently aquired Epson 2400 perfection [with film scanning about £130]
not only does a fair film job at 48 bit but delivers TIFF files iys pretty dam good.
Much better then my yonk old ACER whjich blew its film hood.

  stlucia 08:45 28 Jul 2004

I agree with griffon 56 -- my eyes may be getting dim, but I can see no need for any resolution better than the 1200 d.p.i which I get with my Epson flatbed scanner with a negative & slide adapter.

If I want high-quality A4 prints, I can still take the slides to the photo shop. But for smaller prints or for showing in a slide show on the TV, 1200 d.p.i is more than enough.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5T review

How to draw a mandala

iPhone X review

Les meilleures enceintes Bluetooth à moins de 150 euros