Scanning Film with HP 3210

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charles Goodman
  • Start date Start date
C

Charles Goodman

I'm reluctant to post this because I know the issue has been thoroughly
discussed. However, I have spent some time reading the newsgroup archives
and looking at film/scanning sites yet my test scans have left me confused.
I'm hoping some kind souls out there will offer some info/advice.

I recently bought an HP 3210xi as a replacement for an older HP printer. I
realize there are better printers and better scanners (particularly film
scanners), but this model fit my budget and had most of the features I want,
including networking which wasn't built in to the other flatbeds I
considered.

One of my objectives with this device is to scan some color negatives that
are 10-15 years old. I plan to put some of them on DVD slideshows and I
might print some on 5" x 7" photo paper. However, I thought I might save
them at a better ppi than I need now, just in case my needs expand over the
years (HD-DVD?) My scanner is supposedly capable of 4800ppi (optical) and
can interpolate to 19200ppi. From what I've read, I realize that going
beyond 4800ppi really won't improve things, but I expected to see quality
differences at various settings below 4800ppi.

My software lets me set both the ppi and scaling. For purposes of testing,
I kept the scaling at 100% and scanned at 200ppi, 300ppi, 2400ppi, 3600ppi,
and 4800ppi. I tried both JPG and TIF formats for my test scans. I was
surprised to find that I could not see any quality differences between the
various ppi settings. The file size certainly was different, but they all
looked about the same to my eye. Now for my questions:

Any thoughts why the quality didn't look any different?
Is it possible that even the lowest ppi levels are exceeding the
"resolution" of my film? (The pictures were taken with a Minolta 35mm SLR on
Kodak Gold 200 film.)
Given my particular scanner, what settings (ppi & scaling) would you
recommend for the two purposes I mentioned above?
What about settings for "best quality" scans so that I might have more
capabilities with the images down the road? It may be some years away, but
I presume at some point, I'll want to make HD-DVD slideshows. I don't
particularly like prints larger than 5"x7", so that will probably be the
most I'll ever do in a hard copy.
Finally, is scaling just a substitute for a higher ppi?

Thanks in advance for any help.
Charles
 
Charles said:
I'm reluctant to post this because I know the issue has been thoroughly
discussed. However, I have spent some time reading the newsgroup archives
and looking at film/scanning sites yet my test scans have left me confused.
I'm hoping some kind souls out there will offer some info/advice.

I recently bought an HP 3210xi as a replacement for an older HP printer. I
realize there are better printers and better scanners (particularly film
scanners), but this model fit my budget and had most of the features I want,
including networking which wasn't built in to the other flatbeds I
considered.

One of my objectives with this device is to scan some color negatives that
are 10-15 years old. I plan to put some of them on DVD slideshows and I
might print some on 5" x 7" photo paper. However, I thought I might save
them at a better ppi than I need now, just in case my needs expand over the
years (HD-DVD?) My scanner is supposedly capable of 4800ppi (optical) and
can interpolate to 19200ppi. From what I've read, I realize that going
beyond 4800ppi really won't improve things, but I expected to see quality
differences at various settings below 4800ppi.

My software lets me set both the ppi and scaling. For purposes of testing,
I kept the scaling at 100% and scanned at 200ppi, 300ppi, 2400ppi, 3600ppi,
and 4800ppi. I tried both JPG and TIF formats for my test scans. I was
surprised to find that I could not see any quality differences between the
various ppi settings. The file size certainly was different, but they all
looked about the same to my eye. Now for my questions:

Any thoughts why the quality didn't look any different?
Is it possible that even the lowest ppi levels are exceeding the
"resolution" of my film? (The pictures were taken with a Minolta 35mm SLR on
Kodak Gold 200 film.)
Given my particular scanner, what settings (ppi & scaling) would you
recommend for the two purposes I mentioned above?
What about settings for "best quality" scans so that I might have more
capabilities with the images down the road? It may be some years away, but
I presume at some point, I'll want to make HD-DVD slideshows. I don't
particularly like prints larger than 5"x7", so that will probably be the
most I'll ever do in a hard copy.
Finally, is scaling just a substitute for a higher ppi?

Thanks in advance for any help.
Charles
Click to expand...

Hi Charles...

I respectfully suggest that your test is flawed in that it's
easy to produce a good picture on your monitor, and I'd expect
the results that you got.

A meaningful test would be to find one of your favorite negs,
one that you and other members of your family might enjoy
an 8 x 10 of (I'm of the waste not want not generation :)

Scan that neg at a few sample resolutions; name them all
in a way that allows you to later know which is which. Take
those into one of the print labs (walmart, etc) and have
8 x 10's printed.

I absolutely guarantee that there will no longer be any doubt
at all in your mind that biggest is far and away best :)

And I'd also suggest that you don't limit yourself to a resolution
that restricts you to 5 x 7's. Storage is so cheap it's almost
free now, and you can't possibly predict what future generations
might want to do with the scans that you're making now. So don't
limit them :)

Take care.

Ken
 
Hi Charles,

I'm thinking of getting this printer (HP 3210). I have the same objective as yours, scanning 35 mm negative.

What do you think of the printer? Would you recommend to buy?

Thank in advance.
DavidL
 
Back
Top