Scanning old 35mm slides and negatives

[Blackbird]

There was a bit of interest in a post I made recently about researching scanners for digitising the zillions of 35mm slides and negatives that we have at home. Prices for different types of scanner vary enormously depending on specifications and to cut a long story short, we finally decided on an Epson V600 flatbed scanner, priced at $598 from Photo Warehouse. I haven’t done a lot of experimenting yet but in full auto mode, the results have been remarkable – better than we’d hoped for. The photo shows the scanner with the attachment for 35 mm slides and negatives.

Most of the scans are at 800 dpi although I’ve done a few at 1200 dpi. Scanning time varies depending on resolution. Typically, at 300 dpi, each slide takes 45 seconds. At 800 dpi, 1 minute 45 seconds. The quality from negatives is better than for slides in terms of blemishes because they’ve been better protected in plastic sleeves over time (right back to the 1960’s). Some of the slides have scratches or dirt/mould. In many cases, I can clean the slides up a bit with a slightly damp cloth, cotton buds or a soft brush. I also use aftermarket software on some of them for blemish removal (still have Picasa!). I’ve only used it once for actual old photos as the Canon printer/scanner we already own is pretty good for photo scanning. That photo scan is of my drag bike Icarus taken in 1969 at 800 dpi.

Just for reference, the other examples are.

Tudor Rose dragster – 1970 1200 dpi

Rocket 3 production racer – 1971 800 dpi (cropped)

My yacht capsize – 1979 800 dpi

My wife on our honeymoon - 1972 800 dpi (cropped)

Hope that’s of interest to anyone else who has old slides and negatives. Also, thanks again to all the KB'ers who offered their own experiences with scanners.

Cheers,

Geoff

[HenryDorsetCase]

Those results are very good! I love that dragster pic.

[Blackbird]

Those results are very good! I love that dragster pic.

Thanks HDC! I think it was money well spent considering just how many slides and negatives we have. That dragster, Tudor Rose, was arguably the first UK slingshot rail that would give the Americans a run for their money. When the U.S team came over on their occasional visits, Tudor Rose was really competitive and running together on the same surface was a good leveller as the UK strips at that time were basically old airfield runways.

Here's a couple more scans. The orange Escort was our first car in NZ in '75. I still have to clean up a few blemishes in the sky. They only show at large magnifications. The other is the grid at Brands Hatch. Pretty sure that it was 1971, the year before we got married. My wife's folks lived a short drive from the circuit so it was the ideal place to stay over. My idea of a hot date to get her interested in bikes :killingme

[pritch]

Thanks, that's all good info.

[Blackbird]

Thanks, that's all good info.

You're welcome Ron! I did look at this one too: https://plustek.com/oeu/products/film-and-photo-scanners/opticfilm-8100/ . However, by the time I imported one, it would be around $1000 all up and didn't really want to pay that much.

Incidentally, the only (slight) downside of the Epson is that the software can occasionally cause a freeze. I'd actually read about this when doing research. It's not a big deal at all and KB's Viking01 was kind enough to suggest a quick work-around which completely solved the problem.

[Naki Rat]

I picked up a second hand Epson scanner from a photo lab (in Whangarei from memory) a few years back. I had a swag of old photos, negs and slides which I worked my way through and 'digitised'. From my experience if the original neg or slide was taken on high ASA film (e.g. 400) which a few of mine were then the only advantage in increasing the DPI of the scan was to make visible the inherent graininess of the film used.

Nice pic's by the way :yes:

[Blackbird]

I picked up a second hand Epson scanner from a photo lab (in Whangarei from memory) a few years back. I had a swag of old photos, negs and slides which I worked my way through and 'digitised'. From my experience if the original neg or slide was taken on high ASA film (e.g. 400) which a few of mine were then the only advantage in increasing the DPI of the scan was to make visible the inherent graininess of the film used.

Nice pic's by the way :yes:

Thanks for the tip, NR! The slides I've scanned so far are all common or garden Kodachrome, plus a few Agfa (which incidentally, have deteriorated more than the Kodak ones). However, the ones I haven't found yet of the Isle of Man TT and the Transatlantic Match Races were all shot on Ektachrome High Speed which I think was 400 ASA. When they turn up, I'll have an experiment with them so thanks again for that.

Glad you liked the photos. Have attached attached another which was taken at Mallory Park. I only scanned it at 300 dpi as it was one of the first I played with. The bikes are both factory Tridents, either 1970 or 71. No 7 is chief tester Percy Tait and I'm pretty sure that No 9 is Paul Smart.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Thanks HDC! I think it was money well spent considering just how many slides and negatives we have. That dragster, Tudor Rose, was arguably the first UK slingshot rail that would give the Americans a run for their money. When the U.S team came over on their occasional visits, Tudor Rose was really competitive and running together on the same surface was a good leveller as the UK strips at that time were basically old airfield runways.

Here's a couple more scans. The orange Escort was our first car in NZ in '75. I still have to clean up a few blemishes in the sky. They only show at large magnifications. The other is the grid at Brands Hatch. Pretty sure that it was 1971, the year before we got married. My wife's folks lived a short drive from the circuit so it was the ideal place to stay over. My idea of a hot date to get her interested in bikes :killingme

While they are a lot faster now and still an incredible spectacle, putting the motors behind the drivers (and going to 1000 ft) they aren't quite the macho hairy chested thing they were. Probably just as well as some of the quickest drivers are women!

Its why i love Funny Cars. When it goes wrong all that stuff is sitting in your lap!

An orange 2 door Mk 1 Escort - now it would be an expensive base for your seam welded "Mexico" project rally car.....

[Blackbird]

While they are a lot faster now and still an incredible spectacle, putting the motors behind the drivers (and going to 1000 ft) they aren't quite the macho hairy chested thing they were. Probably just as well as some of the quickest drivers are women!

Its why i love Funny Cars. When it goes wrong all that stuff is sitting in your lap!

An orange 2 door Mk 1 Escort - now it would be an expensive base for your seam welded "Mexico" project rally car.....

I love funny cars too, especially when there are blower explosions 😁. It's still a spectacle but agree that it's not so raw these days. There isn't the level of innovation that there used to be. Much more formulaic now for both bikes and cars.

Haha - I've got some nice photos of twin cam Mk1 Escorts competing in the RAC rally. They sounded great. One of my mates who helped prepare my drag bike had a Ford Anglia with a Lotus twin cam in it. What made it very special was that he was an engineer with Cosworths so had access to a lot of goodies. That car was a real sleeper. He ended up as technical director of their Indy car programme.

[SaferRides]

Thanks Blackbird. I have many years of slides and photos, plus my father's to go through one day, probably when I retire!

[Blackbird]

Thanks Blackbird. I have many years of slides and photos, plus my father's to go through one day, probably when I retire!

You're welcome SR! I retired at 60 so it's a good fill-in when I can't go riding or fishing. I've got a lot of inherited photos from parents and grandparents too and have no idea when I'm going to tackle them properly! I have scanned a small number of their original prints going back to the 1800's using our Canon printer/scanner and they've come out remarkably well. My personal favourite is attached. It's my maternal grandfather who went by the wonderful name of Wilfred Hyde Worsley Odell. It was taken in 1913, mounted on his regimental horse. He passed away aged 96 so I knew him all the time I was growing up. A remarkably clear photo and quite moving, knowing all he'd been through and survived.

[merv]

Hi Geoff great photos. However I'm a bit baffled about the fact you say you are scanning slides or negatives at 300 - 1200 dpi.

I had a look at the Mallory Park photo details and it says the pixel sizes are 3458 x 2197 as downloaded by me from KB and it says 96 dpi, but that 96 is probably the display resolution on KB.

The 35mm slides I did myself as an example a typical one might be 3201 x 2121 as I trimmed the edges a bit and the properties say, as I did, which was scan at 2400 dpi. Lately I've gone up to 3200 dpi as computer power and storage have improved.

The full 35mm is 1.378 inches which times 2400 dpi is 3,307.

So I'm trying to figure out how your scanner is producing a high pixel count at those resolutions, as that is more like what you would get if you scanned from photo prints?

[Blackbird]

Hi Merv, in short, don't know as I select the dpi from the drop down menu. Whether full auto mode then over-rides it, I don't know. I'll experiment in the next couple of days or so using full manual control on the same slide at various dpi's. They certainly turn out better than expected.

[merv]

Yeah be interesting to understand that. I've used the Professional Mode from the start but never used less than 2400 dpi on slides and more recently 3200 dpi when I did negatives.

If you right click on a file and then click Properties then Details it shows the pixel size and the dpi resolution scanned at in the Image block of information.

[Naki Rat]

You're welcome SR! I retired at 60 so it's a good fill-in when I can't go riding or fishing. I've got a lot of inherited photos from parents and grandparents too and have no idea when I'm going to tackle them properly! I have scanned a small number of their original prints going back to the 1800's using our Canon printer/scanner and they've come out remarkably well. My personal favourite is attached. It's my maternal grandfather who went by the wonderful name of Wilfred Hyde Worsley Odell. It was taken in 1913, mounted on his regimental horse. He passed away aged 96 so I knew him all the time I was growing up. A remarkably clear photo and quite moving, knowing all he'd been through and survived.
Quite a few of the photos I scanned were B&W from my late father's stash. Many were pre-WW2 and some substantially older. Among them pictorial proof of a Canadian soldier that hid out in Dad's family's barn in war time Holland (complete with pitchfork injury which he suffered in silence and remained hidden), and a long ago prized bike. I found that even just darkening them and/or increasing contrast improved them heaps.
https://66.media.tumblr.com/d5f849dce3fbec1427faf893933cf8b5/dbb26bba52e5657f-6a/s1280x1920/a055c561ca0d1c5624594a4bf373bb964755cdf7.jpghttps://66.media.tumblr.com/81da50b9ea060b1f06172902400626ee/670e3683947fde8b-7d/s1280x1920/014b4b52fe8453d929febabf3b1a89deeb4506f2.jpg

[Blackbird]

They're just great and it's the stories and memories which go with them that make them so special. :Punk:

[Blackbird]

Hi Merv,

Have done some experimenting this morning. Ideally, I should have done it on the Mallory Park slide but couldn't be arsed to go wading through the boxes to find it!

The photo of the GB 400 (wish I hadn't sold it) is from a negative. Scanned at 300 dpi in full auto mode, it's 1978 x 1121 px with a file size of 365KB. At 800 dpi, it's 4800x3036 px with a file size of 1.9 MB. At 1200 dpi, it's 7196 x 4488 px with a file size of 3.5 MB.

One of the photos from our honeymoon (48 years ago!) was scanned from a 35 mm slide. Scanned at 300 dpi in full auto mode, it's 1201 x 1800 px, file size 218 KB. At 800 dpi, it's 3202 x 4798 px, file size 1.28 MB. At 1200 dpi, it's 4805 x 7198 px , file size 2.8 MB

Cheers,

Geoff

[Naki Rat]

Hi Geoff,

Which DPI version/s are the photos of your bike, and you and your wife? When I click them up to maximum size I'm seeing the grain of the film. Your wife's trousers and your shirt are where it seems fairly obvious. IMO you are best to see how each DPI setting looks and settle on the best viewable 'density' before grain becomes apparent. There's no point in scanning beyond that resolution as you're only going to increase the storage capacity (and scanning time) it swallows up with no gain in quality.

I had quite a few slides taken on 400 ASA film (to save using a flash) which I scanned at relatively low DPI (can't remember details now) for that reason.

[jim.cox]

When I click them up to maximum size I'm seeing the grain of the film.

I doubt that. What you may be seeing is an effect of the jpg compression.

JPG is not loss-less.

You can (usually) set the compression rate when saving a jpg file - 1 to 10 or maybe 1 to 12. This can have quite an effect on the size of the output file while not effecting the dpi. But it shows when you blow up very large.

For the record, I scanned all my slides some years ago with a Nikon Coolscan. It has a native resolution of 2700dpi - so each slide works out at 1944x1296 pixels. I think I used a 6 for the compression - resulting in files at around 135 - 150 kBytes each.

My suggestion is to scan at the very best resolution you can to get the most possible pixels, then play with the apparent dpi to get an acceptable image size, then choose a suitable jpg compression to keep the files manageable without losing too much of the image quality.

In case you were wondering, my scanner was/is VERY slow. It took all evening to scan a single complete film.

[Blackbird]

Hi Geoff,

Which DPI version/s are the photos of your bike, and you and your wife? When I click them up to maximum size I'm seeing the grain of the film. Your wife's trousers and your shirt are where it seems fairly obvious. IMO you are best to see how each DPI setting looks and settle on the best viewable 'density' before grain becomes apparent. There's no point in scanning beyond that resolution as you're only going to increase the storage capacity (and scanning time) it swallows up with no gain in quality.

I had quite a few slides taken on 400 ASA film (to save using a flash) which I scanned at relatively low DPI (can't remember details now) for that reason.

Hi NR,

The bike (negative) and honeymoon (slide) are both the 800 dpi versions for uploading to KB. I have no idea how they get altered from that when they appear on KB. That graininess you refer to also seems to be apparent when parts of the subject matter is in low light and you increase the brightness slightly. The honeymoon shot at sunset is a good example and it also shows up on the GB400 fairing if you try and adjust the brightness by much.

I don't actually play with the image much after scanning other than the occasional blemish removal for entirely pragmatic reasons. With one or two exceptions, they will never be printed and only viewed on a computer screen. I simply don't want to spend any more time than absolutely necessary mucking about with them. Jim Cox hit on one of the reasons in terms of time to scan. I mentioned earlier that at 300 dpi, it's about 45 seconds per slide and 1 minute 45 seconds at 800 dpi. I didn't even bother to time 1200 dpi :( . There are a few which I might get printed and I could spend a bit of time just on them or even give them to a professional printing service.

I still have maybe a couple of thousand images to process. I'm not going to put any more up here unless I find some bike ones which might be of interest, with the exception of the two below. I took the photos at Duxford in the UK back in 1985. TSR2 supersonic low level nuclear bomber holds special significance for our family. My Dad was in charge of wind tunnel testing of the scale models which lead to the final design. The Duxford TSR2 (there's one at Hendon too) was originally stored at the aeronautics department of Cranfield University when I was there. Quite often used to spend my lunch breaks looking at what they had there, including a Me163 Komet. The other aircraft is a Gloster Javelin all weather fighter. That particular aircraft was used for experimenting with the tailplane configuration. Early models only had a fin and there were a few crashes at high angles of attack when the wing masked the fin. Cool stuff!

[pete376403]

re TSR-2: I worked with a guy who was a toolmaker on the TSR-2 project. He told me when the project was canceled (political decision to replace the craft with an inferior US plane) all the jigs and tools that and others had made were cut up for scrap. He said that was the defining moment that made him decide the future England was never going to be anything and to emigrate to NZ.

[Blackbird]

re TSR-2: I worked with a guy who was a toolmaker on the TSR-2 project. He told me when the project was canceled (political decision to replace the craft with an inferior US plane) all the jigs and tools that and others had made were cut up for scrap. He said that was the defining moment that made him decide the future England was never going to be anything and to emigrate to NZ.

IIRC, there was some talk of buying the F-111 but I think that it was missiles taking over that finally sealed its fate. At the time of cancellation, the landing gear hydraulics still gave problems and there was a major problem with the terrain-following radar but both were solvable. Spot on about the jigs and tooling. It was also done with indecent haste.

[Moi]

Geoff,
just a thought, can you save the scans as a TIFF instead of JPEG? If you can it might be worth trying.

Just be aware that a TIFF will require more storage space than a JPEG.

[Blackbird]

Geoff,
just a thought, can you save the scans as a TIFF instead of JPEG? If you can it might be worth trying.

Just be aware that a TIFF will require more storage space than a JPEG.

Mark,
Don't actually know but it comes back to "fitness for purpose" as per my post above. I rarely use anything but jpeg with my digital camera. RAW once in a blue moon!

[Swoop]

The Duxford TSR2 (there's one at Hendon too).
Not at Hendon, but at Cosford.
Looks like how I first saw her in the 80's before the spruce up that was well overdue.

The "replacement" was supposed to be the F-111 (a design concept from Barnes Wallis) but this fell through once the the Americans and that prick Mountbatten had done their damage... The Buccaneer ended up filling the role.

Typical of poor leadership, too many oars in the water and the result of the labour government killing off this project, was the end of independant British combat aircraft.

[husaberg]

Geoff,
just a thought, can you save the scans as a TIFF instead of JPEG? If you can it might be worth trying.

Just be aware that a TIFF will require more storage space than a JPEG.

To get around the KB upload limit i used to scan on High res then do a screenshot of the high res scan.
Also often a zip file or a PDF take up much less room

[Moi]

Mark,
Don't actually know but it comes back to "fitness for purpose" as per my post above. I rarely use anything but jpeg with my digital camera. RAW once in a blue moon!

Geoff,
I was thinking when you scan a negative or slide save the scan as a TIFF rather than as a JPEG. I've been told that a TIFF does not degrade in the way a JPEG can if you want to "adjust" it post scan.

[Blackbird]

Not at Hendon, but at Cosford.
Looks like how I first saw her in the 80's before the spruce up that was well overdue.

The "replacement" was supposed to be the F-111 (a design concept from Barnes Wallis) but this fell through once the the Americans and that prick Mountbatten had done their damage... The Buccaneer ended up filling the role.

Typical of poor leadership, too many oars in the water and the result of the labour government killing off this project, was the end of independant British combat aircraft.

Yep, the F-111 had some problems with the wing deployment mechanism. One actually crashed on Cranfield University airfield on its way to base at Upper Heyford. The wings wouldn't deploy after a high speed run across the North Sea. The crew ejected in their containment module and were fine.

[TheDemonLord]

The TSR2 - such a shame, like the Avro Arrow - great aircraft killed off by policians.

[Blackbird]

The TSR2 - such a shame, like the Avro Arrow - great aircraft killed off by policians.

I read an article about the Arrow quite recently and it was a heck of a good aircraft. It just goes show that you can't trust politicians to do the right thing. Sadly, US business and political influence were, and still are behind a lot of innovative ideas from other countries getting killed off.

[TheDemonLord]

I read an article about the Arrow quite recently and it was a heck of a good aircraft. It just goes show that you can't trust politicians to do the right thing. Sadly, US business and political influence were, and still are behind a lot of innovative ideas from other countries getting killed off.

If Memory serves though, that project had large leaks to the Russians, and there was a fear that if they knew the capabilities of a major frontline fighter, it would weaken the NATO defense.

Still, such a shame.

[Blackbird]

If Memory serves though, that project had large leaks to the Russians, and there was a fear that if they knew the capabilities of a major frontline fighter, it would weaken the NATO defense.

Still, such a shame.

Same for Concorde with the Russians but they got that badly wrong and I think there were also some deliberately misleading leaks later on about materials.

[SPman]

So all the scans I do at minimum 2000 dpi are over the top? Take long enough - about 60 scans an afternoon..that's for slides and negs. I took a couple in TIFF mode and got a huge file - wondered what I' d done. Canon 9000F scanner. I use Vuescan instead of the Canon scanning program which is crap.

[Blackbird]

So all the scans I do at minimum 2000 dpi are over the top? Take long enough - about 60 scans an afternoon..that's for slides and negs. I took a couple in TIFF mode and got a huge file - wondered what I'd done. Canon 9000F scanner. I use Vuescan instead of the Canon scanning program which is crap.

I'm still an amateur at it all but get good results at 800 dpi for full screen viewing. I printed one from a negative on photographic paper,at A4 and it came out surprisingly well. It very much depends on the quality of your original, whether it be a negative, slide or photo. I think most of my slides were taken with an SLR. Yesterday, I found a small black and white photo of me as a 17 year old. It was about 6cm on its longest side and looked in good nick. I scanned it at 1800 dpi and whilst it was ok at postcard size, it really showed surface defects at bigger magnifications.

As virtually all our looking at our old photos will be on a normal computer screen, I'm happy with 800 dpi, partially being pragmatic because of the time it takes, which you mention. Not really interested in even casting them to the TV.

[Blackbird]

The tinkering about with old photos, slides and negatives continues! We have a lot of black and white photos, some going back to the late 1800's. A lot of these photos are quite small and it would be nice to enlarge some to hang on the wall without getting pixellation losses. Ditto if I wanted to crop part of a photo and enlarge it. An acquaintance suggested that I look at a program called Topaz Gigapixel AI so I downloaded a 30 day free trial. Bloody hell, it's impressive.

The original photo of my grandmother was taken in 1949 (ummm... I was 2 :innocent:). It measures approximately 5.5 cm x 8.6 cm. I scanned it at 300 dpi then cropped it to just cover Gran's head and shoulders which had an original size of about 2cm square, then ran it through Gigapixel at a moderate enhancement. You can see the improvement on the side by side screen shot of Gigapixel (left original, right enhanced). At lower levels of magnification, it looks even better. The 1975 colour cropped photo of my wife with our Escort is about 3.5 cm square on the original photo. It was just a cheap camera so quality wasn't flash to begin with but at even moderate enhancement, the improvement is noticeable; particularly the trees in the background. We're limited by what can be reproduced on KB but you get the gist. There's a good video of its capabilities here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2khOr_FqykA . There's also a version for enhancing old videos.


At US$80, it's a really useful tool for cropping and/or enlarging without the losses you'd normally get. I think I'll be buying it when the trial is up.

[SaferRides]

Looks like what they used on CSI. :)

I scanned some old black and white photos recently for my mother's funeral. They looked OK but I'm sure there's more detail in them, so I'll trial Gigapixel.

I also discovered that my smartphone camera did a better job of colour prints with its 64 MP resolution and AI than the scanner. The world is getting fairly crazy...

[Blackbird]

Looks like what they used on CSI. :)

I scanned some old black and white photos recently for my mother's funeral. They looked OK but I'm sure there's more detail in them, so I'll trial Gigapixel.

I also discovered that my smartphone camera did a better job of colour prints with its 64 MP resolution and AI than the scanner. The world is getting fairly crazy...

There's some cool stuff on the market now and the Gigapixel free trial is a great way to check it out. I've just scanned a B&W photo for our local goldmining museum of a group of people taken in the early 1900's. The original is smaller than postcard size and facial detail is poor. After running it through Gigapixel and printing it on A4 inkjet photo paper, facial features are incredibly clear. Good luck with trying it out!

[Viking01]

Looks like what they used on CSI. :)



That brought back memories. Yes, they could do "anything" on CSI .... 8-)

Like:

Tell you that the drop of engine oil - found at the crime scene - belonged to a BMW sedan manufactured between years X and Y
or
Tell you that they had extracted some DNA from a mosquito that had bitten the victim, and could recover the victim's DNA. [ Why they would ever want to do so - when you had the victims body separately available for taking of samples - is besides the point ]

These days, they are even more sophisticated.

They have "security services" that can hack into a remote computer system of any third party and immediately find exactly what data they are looking for .... 8-)

Sorry to intrude on your thread, Blackbird.

[TheDemonLord]

They have "security services" that can hack into a remote computer system of any third party and immediately find exactly what data they are looking for .... 8-)


Oh God - did you ever watch CSI: Cyber? It was some of the most unintentionally funny shit ever.

There was one episode where they made this massive deal about the IP address (and specifically, an IPv4 address) because this could be linked to the Killers Address (Which isn't true in the way they were portraying it)

But even funnier was the fact that the IP address wasn't even a valid IPv4 address (which, due to to each octet being 8 bits long, can't have a number greater than 255) - so each time they showed up the IP: 951.27.9.840 - I had a great laugh.

[Blackbird]

As a final example, there's an alternative AI algorithm on Gigapixel AI for enhancing what they term man-made objects as opposed to the human form. It enhances straighter edges etc. Just tried it for the first time and got pretty remarkable results. I took the photo in 1968 and the dimension of the photo area shown below is about 3 cm square on the original. Left is the original enlarged and right is after Gigapixel has done its thing.

For interest, it's one cylinder of Alf Hagon's JAP-powered V twin drag bike - the first British bike to break the 9 second quarter mile barrier in 1967. It also achieved 207 mph on an RAF runway a couple of years later. Not bad for an unfaired bike at that time :niceone:

[Naki Rat]

As a final example, there's an alternative AI algorithm on Gigapixel AI for enhancing what they term man-made objects as opposed to the human form. It enhances straighter edges etc. Just tried it for the first time and got pretty remarkable results. I took the photo in 1968 and the dimension of the photo area shown below is about 3 cm square on the original. Left is the original enlarged and right is after Gigapixel has done its thing.

For interest, it's one cylinder of Alf Hagon's JAP-powered V twin drag bike - the first British bike to break the 9 second quarter mile barrier in 1967. It also achieved 207 mph on an RAF runway a couple of years later. Not bad for an unfaired bike at that time :niceone:Impressive software capabilities. I suspected that 'hard' items in photos as opposed to things like faces and fabrics worked better as I noticed the buttons in your grandmother's photo were particularly enhanced compared to her face and hair.

Better data for the software to work from I guess. If the smarts of the software are along the lines of what I suspect it will be able to recognise hard lines better than random curves and detail. In one of my previous jobs I processed 3D laser scanning data and the software's ability to 'build' pipework and other engineered items was incredible. Rendering a curved surface such as a yacht hull was far more challenging however as no straight lines or true radii for it to 'get traction' from.

[Blackbird]

Impressive software capabilities. I suspected that 'hard' items in photos as opposed to things like faces and fabrics worked better as I noticed the buttons in your grandmother's photo were particularly enhanced compared to her face and hair.

Better data for the software to work from I guess. If the smarts of the software are along the lines of what I suspect it will be able to recognise hard lines better than random curves and detail. In one of my previous jobs I processed 3D laser scanning data and the software's ability to 'build' pipework and other engineered items was incredible. Rendering a curved surface such as a yacht hull was far more challenging however as no straight lines or true radii for it to 'get traction' from.


That's pretty much right on the money. Since that post, I've played about a bit more and have been getting some good facial recognition results, Obviously the better the original, the better the final result but I recently enlarged a photo from school days where all the pupils were lined up in rows for the photographer. Each pupil's head would have fitted in a 5mm square on the print I have. After scanning it and running it through Gigapixel, each head would have been about 20mm in darned near perfect clarity.

That laser scanning you mention - I've seen renderings on a TV programme where the Paris catacombs were laser scanned and turned into 3D images. The level of detail is unbelievable. Must take a lot of computing power to process.

[Naki Rat]

......
That laser scanning you mention - I've seen renderings on a TV programme where the Paris catacombs were laser scanned and turned into 3D images. The level of detail is unbelievable. Must take a lot of computing power to process.Processing laser scan files definitely puts the computer to the test. Dealing with many millions of x,y,z coordinated points to start with but then recognising their positional relationship with one another to digitally model pipework, flat planes, RSJ beams, etc is very impressive to see being processed.

For architectural or topographical subject matter a scan density of 20-50mm (horizonally and vertically) is sufficient but to gain data sufficiently dense to accurately model engineering projects can require 2-5mm 'resolution'. For the likes of a 75m long (tall) refinery tower I scanned which had 80+ connection flanges on it the file size was well into GB territory, which was then used to generate 3D AutoCAD modelling that confirmed all flanges were within +/- 2mm manufacturing tolerances including bolt hole orientation. It is really impressive technology!

This video gives an idea of what is involved in gaining and processing 3D scan data:
https://youtu.be/3AiVGlDWCmU

[nadroj]

After making copies using a Canon 80D with bellows & lense using natural light, then converting to positives in software, I found with the sheer number of slides & negatives I wanted to scan I needed lockdown to be 2 years. I ended up purchasing a Wolverine F2D Saturn scanner, a stand alone unit that I connected to a 50" flat screen & saved them onto a SD card. Although the quality is not as high I was able to identify which pics were worth reproducing in higher resolution with the camera & bellows. The Wolverine also scanned a greater variety of negative sizes. Very easy to use & good for the majority of negatives. The most important trick is to number the negatives to match the image numbers.

[Blackbird]

After making copies using a Canon 80D with bellows & lense using natural light, then converting to positives in software, I found with the sheer number of slides & negatives I wanted to scan I needed lockdown to be 2 years. I ended up purchasing a Wolverine F2D Saturn scanner, a stand alone unit that I connected to a 50" flat screen & saved them onto a SD card. Although the quality is not as high I was able to identify which pics were worth reproducing in higher resolution with the camera & bellows. The Wolverine also scanned a greater variety of negative sizes. Very easy to use & good for the majority of negatives. The most important trick is to number the negatives to match the image numbers.

Good stuff! It's a never-ending job, isn't it? At least it being winter has helped a bit. I ended up scanning quite a few poorer quality slides because the content still held good memories. Post-processing software helped in some instances to improve them. I still have slides from the 1969 Isle of Man TT and the 1970 Transatlantic Match Racing series to find. Really looking forward to those coming to lightt!

[merv]

Well you've convinced me Geoff, I'm busy trying out Gigapixel AI myself because in our early days of digital cameras we were silly enough to think 640x480 photos were okay because that was our PC screen resolution back then, so to be able to enhance them to a good viewing size for today is a very useful thing.

[Blackbird]

Well you've convinced me Geoff, I'm busy trying out Gigapixel AI myself because in our early days of digital cameras we were silly enough to think 640x480 photos were okay because that was our PC screen resolution back then, so to be able to enhance them to a good viewing size for today is a very useful thing.

Enjoy having a play Merv! I'm in the same boat as you with a bunch of small images . Some were a bit ho-hum but in the main, I was really impressed with what can be achieved.

[merv]

Geoff, logging in to the free trial, after I loaded it the top message says '0 days left in trial'. I thought it would say 30 days.

It is working so far all the same but will it die tomorrow? I see the price is listed at $99.99 USD. Did you find a discount voucher for it at $80USD?

I've found it seems to work well but even with the face refinement setting on it can't seem to cope with small faces in amongst a grander scene, but sure sharpens up everything else.

[Blackbird]

Geoff, logging in to the free trial, after I loaded it the top message says '0 days left in trial'. I thought it would say 30 days.

It is working so far all the same but will it die tomorrow? I see the price is listed at $99.99 USD. Did you find a discount voucher for it at $80USD?

I've found it seems to work well but even with the face refinement setting on it can't seem to cope with small faces in amongst a grander scene, but sure sharpens up everything else.

Merv,
Mine said the full 30 days and I used about 20 of them before purchase. When I bought it, the price simply said $80. Dont know whether that was a special deal or not. With smaller faces, I've had sucesses as well as failures and don't know the reasons. It might be something to do with the composition and light balance of the individual photos. Have a crack at turning facial recognition on and off too, and the other options, come to that. I've also done a bit of post processing on some photos before I use Megapixel.