Canon slide scanner resolution?

I'm thinking of buying this Canon flatbed scanner that also does slides
and negatives. It says up to 4800x9600 dpi resolution. How does that
resolution compare to a digital camera in mp? It doesn't say optical
resolution in the ad so I am guessing this is just interpolated
resolution right and the real optical resolution is probably half of
that? They don't even list the model number but their price is $129.00
which is in my affordable range. I want to use it mostly for scanning
slides but if the resolution is not good enough then I will save up for
a better model.

"John Adams" wrote in message
news
I'm thinking of buying this Canon flatbed scanner that also does slides
and negatives. It says up to 4800x9600 dpi resolution. How does that
resolution compare to a digital camera in mp? It doesn't say optical
resolution in the ad so I am guessing this is just interpolated resolution
right and the real optical resolution is probably half of that? They don't
even list the model number but their price is $129.00 which is in my
affordable range. I want to use it mostly for scanning slides but if the
resolution is not good enough then I will save up for a better model.

No comparison. There is no camera with that much Resolution (Megapixels).

It is optical resolution for several Canon Scanners.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...odeli d=15561

on the Specifications tab. See note 2.


Assume a 35 mm Slide. A 35mm slide is 36 mm x 24 mm.

Convert to inches 36/25.4 = 1.417322835 Use 1.4 inches for long side
Convert to inches 24/25.4 = 0.945 inches (rounded) for short side.

Scan at 4800 dpi you get

0.945 * 4800 = 4536 pixels
1.4 * 4800 = 6720 pixels.

Megapixels is 4536 * 6720 = 30481920 pixels or 30.48 Megapixels.

You try to find a 30 Megapixel camera

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

CSM1 wrote:


No comparison. There is no camera with that much Resolution (Megapixels).

It is optical resolution for several Canon Scanners.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...odeli d=15561


on the Specifications tab. See note 2.


Assume a 35 mm Slide. A 35mm slide is 36 mm x 24 mm.

Convert to inches 36/25.4 = 1.417322835 Use 1.4 inches for long side
Convert to inches 24/25.4 = 0.945 inches (rounded) for short side.

Scan at 4800 dpi you get

0.945 * 4800 = 4536 pixels
1.4 * 4800 = 6720 pixels.

Megapixels is 4536 * 6720 = 30481920 pixels or 30.48 Megapixels.

You try to find a 30 Megapixel camera


OK, thanks. I think the highest mp I can find in a consumer camera is
12mp. I went to buy the scanner yesterday but they were out of stock. It
was the Canon 4400F, they also had the 8600F but that one was a bit more
than I want to spend. They both have the same resolution anyway but the
8600F can scan medium formate negatives too and I don't need that. The
Futureshop salesman tried to put me off the Canon flatbed scanners
saying I should buy a dedicated slide scanner instead, which they don't
sell. I looked at the prices of dedicated slide scanners online and they
cost too much money. I also read a comparison review of flatbed versus
dedicated slide scanners and they said the flatbeds do a good job with
slides and negatives. What do you think? Dedicated slide scanner or
flatbed with adapter for slides? I would rather have the versatility of
a flatbed but not if the slide scanning quality is crap.

"John Adams" wrote in message
...
CSM1 wrote:


No comparison. There is no camera with that much Resolution (Megapixels).

It is optical resolution for several Canon Scanners.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...odeli d=15561
on the Specifications tab. See note 2.


Assume a 35 mm Slide. A 35mm slide is 36 mm x 24 mm.

Convert to inches 36/25.4 = 1.417322835 Use 1.4 inches for long side
Convert to inches 24/25.4 = 0.945 inches (rounded) for short side.

Scan at 4800 dpi you get

0.945 * 4800 = 4536 pixels
1.4 * 4800 = 6720 pixels.

Megapixels is 4536 * 6720 = 30481920 pixels or 30.48 Megapixels.

You try to find a 30 Megapixel camera


OK, thanks. I think the highest mp I can find in a consumer camera is
12mp. I went to buy the scanner yesterday but they were out of stock. It
was the Canon 4400F, they also had the 8600F but that one was a bit more
than I want to spend. They both have the same resolution anyway but the
8600F can scan medium formate negatives too and I don't need that. The
Futureshop salesman tried to put me off the Canon flatbed scanners saying
I should buy a dedicated slide scanner instead, which they don't sell. I
looked at the prices of dedicated slide scanners online and they cost too
much money. I also read a comparison review of flatbed versus dedicated
slide scanners and they said the flatbeds do a good job with slides and
negatives. What do you think? Dedicated slide scanner or flatbed with
adapter for slides? I would rather have the versatility of a flatbed but
not if the slide scanning quality is crap.

I would recommend the Canon 8600F it is a bit better than the 4400F.
I have had film scanners, My Canon 8400F does a really good job of scanning
35 mm film.

All of my film scanners died after a year of hard use.
The only Film scanners left are the Nikon's, they start at around $500.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...V_ED_Film.html

The 8600F is the modern replacement for the 8400F.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

CSM1 wrote:

I would recommend the Canon 8600F it is a bit better than the 4400F.
I have had film scanners, My Canon 8400F does a really good job of
scanning 35 mm film.

All of my film scanners died after a year of hard use.
The only Film scanners left are the Nikon's, they start at around $500.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...V_ED_Film.html


The 8600F is the modern replacement for the 8400F.


Too late. I found another store with the 4400F and went and bought it
before I read your reply. Scanned in a slide at 4800DPI and the results
were very good. Thanks for your input.

Are you sure only Nikon make dedicated film scanners still? During my
search I cam across a few other brands, like Plustek(sp?). They were all
very expensive though.

"John Adams" wrote in message
...
CSM1 wrote:

I would recommend the Canon 8600F it is a bit better than the 4400F.
I have had film scanners, My Canon 8400F does a really good job of
scanning 35 mm film.

All of my film scanners died after a year of hard use.
The only Film scanners left are the Nikon's, they start at around $500.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...V_ED_Film.html
The 8600F is the modern replacement for the 8400F.


Too late. I found another store with the 4400F and went and bought it
before I read your reply. Scanned in a slide at 4800DPI and the results
were very good. Thanks for your input.

Are you sure only Nikon make dedicated film scanners still? During my
search I cam across a few other brands, like Plustek(sp?). They were all
very expensive though.

Just a few years ago they were several manufacturers building Film Scanners.
The lowest price one sold for less than $200. (I seem to remember $189).

Wayne has a list of past and present film scanners.
http://www.scantips.com/basic13f.html

I don't think his list is complete, There have been many scanners come and
gone.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

CSM1 wrote:


Just a few years ago they were several manufacturers building Film
Scanners.
The lowest price one sold for less than $200. (I seem to remember $189).

Wayne has a list of past and present film scanners.
http://www.scantips.com/basic13f.html

I don't think his list is complete, There have been many scanners come
and gone.


OK, thanks. I didn't really want a dedicated film scanner anyway and
would rather have the flatbed with film adapter. The 4400F gives good
results so I'm happy with it.

Hey CSM1,

Someone in another group just pointed me to the below. My scanner may be
equavalent to 30mp but it sure looks like a 12mp DLSR beats it. Time to
save up for a Canon EOS 5D.

http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projec...anon%205D).htm

"John Adams" wrote in message
...
Hey CSM1,

Someone in another group just pointed me to the below. My scanner may be
equavalent to 30mp but it sure looks like a 12mp DLSR beats it. Time to
save up for a Canon EOS 5D.

http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projec...anon%205D).htm


Yes, there are many flatbed scanner vs. film scanner vs. digital camera
sites on the web.

The conclusion I have come to is use what you think is right for you.
More money is not always the best route.

There are so many factors in the process of capturing an image from film to
digital images, you can find every reason there is to justifiy your
position.

The Commercial method for years has been a Drum Scanner that cost thousands
of dollars. But today you can buy consumer Film Scanners that are as good
and maybe better that the drum scanner of years past.

The flatbed scanners of today are better than some film scanners of a few
years ago.

Film scanners used to be no more than around 2700 DPI. Now you can get
flatbed scanners with greater resolution. You Canon 4400F is good for up to
4800 DPI, in practice about half of that is usable.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

The Hasselblad has a 35 Megapixel digital back.

Cameras for aerial photography have more, say 90 MP.


Kind regards,


Rob van Albada, Amsterdam.



Megapixels is 4536 * 6720 = 30481920 pixels or 30.48 Megapixels.

You try to find a 30 Megapixel camera

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--