2 ms·

*film stock in optimal conditions.

• dehrmann 4y ago
  I took a photography class in middle school. We used 35 mm black and white film. I scanned all the negatives in with a decent Nikon film scanner. I can't remember why I settled on scanning at 2MP, but you could already see the grain: https://i.imgur.com/dcFksGp.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/dcFksGp.jpeg
  • _aavaa_ 4y ago
    Sounds like it was a fun class! If you still have them, and a digital camera with a macro lens, you'll be surprised how much better result (actual resolved resolution versus MP "resolution") you'll get with than using a scanner. If I had to guess as why you stopped at 2MP, it was probably a mixture of diminishing returns in terms of extra resolving power and size. Idk when you took them, but I imagine size was also a consideration. A 2MP uncompressed tiff (which I imagine is what the scanner gave you) is ~5MB. Now, you could drop that down to ~1.6 if you could save them as single channel rather than RGB. This is also where the optimal conditions come in (motion blur, camera shake, exposure, and how it was developed).
    • dehrmann 4y ago
      It was! I scanned them around 2009, so it wasn't size, it was that I wasn't getting more useful resolution. The scanner was a Nikon Coolscan V ED. I might still have some prints I can look at to compare, but I'm not sure how to do the same with a negative.