# Picture CD's, Walmart and Kodak, how many MP are the picture



## GerryDavid (Jun 1, 2004)

I like to use film camera's, but I dont like the time it takes to scan the prints.  I know I should be scanning the negatives but my scanner isnt meant to do that, and I dont have the $$$$ to put out for a negative scanner at this time.  *On a side note, how mujch is a descent negative scanner?*

So what I was thinking of doing is to go to walmart and get them to develop my negatives but instead of printing prints, most of which I dont care for anywase, and have them put them on cd.  The walmart in town scannes the prints to put on a kodak cd, but they scan the negative to put on a walmart cd.  Im pretty sure I can send the film out to a kodak developer from walmart *they got 2 displays on the side for film to be mailed out, even though they probably do it in store*.

But I want highly scanned images.  I just put in my kodak picture cd from 2000 *used a disposable camera and on the package was a coupon for a free picture cd, so I thought why not* and the images are only 1.5mp.

*So my question here is how many mp are the pictures on a walmart picture cd and how many on the kodak picture cd, assuming they have improved the kodak one since 2000.*

I remember hearinng about that there was 2 levels of kodak picture cd, consumer and pro, and the pro has 3 file sizes.

I phoned walmart but the girl had no clue what I was talking about.

*So my 2ndary question would be if you had to choose between a Kodak picture cd and a walmart picture cd, which would you go for?  Or are they both not that great and you prefer to scan your own negatives?  Its my understanding that walmarts, etc use really expensive scanners that would outdo any home negative scanner.*


----------



## GerryDavid (Jun 1, 2004)

Well im still looking the info up online and I came accross some Kodak sites.  It seems the consumer version is something like 1.5mp, but theres 6 levels of resolution.

Comparison of Kodak Picture CD and Kodak Photo CD Disks
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/tib/pdf/tib4164.pdf

It seems that what I want is the Kodak Photo CD which goes up to 2048X3072, and if available, the pro version which goes up to 4096X6144.  And im glad to see these are not saved as jpg, but as Image Pac, what ever that is, hehe.

So now to try to find out what the Walmart one is, which is the one I wasnt able to find online the other day.  :0)


----------



## Rainman (Jun 2, 2004)

I just read a very complimentary review of the Minolta Dimage negative scanner which said it only cost about $300.

As to the WM CD question, why not just drop off a roll of film and order one?  Not much of a gamble.  I was talking to a guy at a WM photo counter a month or two ago.  He said he just orders processing and a CD, no prints, which costs little.  He works there, of course, but seemed pretty knowledgable and a camera buff.  I have never had film processed at WM just because there is not one that close to me.  Several friends do, and the prints are as good as anyone's short of a real lab.


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 2, 2004)

I believe that Wal-mart uses the Fuji Frontier machine...as do quite a lot of labs.  Sure they may not have well paid, experience operators who can take the time to give you really good prints...but theoretically the digital files directly from the machine should be good.

I stopped using Wal-mart because I found that my negatives were getting scratched quite often.  With the amount of use that their machine gets...it probably needs cleaning & maintenance far more often than it actually gets.  Not to mention that I get much better prints from the lab I take my film to.


----------



## GerryDavid (Jun 2, 2004)

Rainman said:
			
		

> As to the WM CD question, why not just drop off a roll of film and order one?  Not much of a gamble.



Well im not working right now so if I can save $4 and not get the cd and go for the prints or vice versa, thats $4 saved.  :0)  I took the roll over and she didnt really know what the resolutioin/mp was, and I did get the cd.  It turns out their 1544X1024,which is good for those that just want to view the picture on the pc, nothing more.  So i wont be getting the cd later on.



			
				Rainman said:
			
		

> I was talking to a guy at a WM photo counter a month or two ago.  He said he just orders processing and a CD, no prints, which costs little.  He works there, of course, but seemed pretty knowledgable and a camera buff.  I have never had film processed at WM just because there is not one that close to me.  Several friends do, and the prints are as good as anyone's short of a real lab.



Since he works there, perhaps he tweeks the machine to give the 3000X4000 resolution?  Im not sure if management would have a problem if he did that after store hours.  Then itll be worth while to get the CD.

The $300 scanner sounds good but Id rather just put the $300 towards a digital slr.  :0)  Should buy a 1 or 2 gb memory card, hehe.


----------



## Canon Fan (Jun 2, 2004)

I opted for the photo CD once and only once from wal-mart. When I got the prints back I compared them to what I saw on the montior and was shocked. From what I understand is that the mini-lab scans the negatives, right? Well these sure don't look like it! They were about 1.5mp scans and looked like they were scanned from the prints. I mean the amount of paper looking texture/noise in these things is just disgusting. Anyway for the heck of it I scanned one of the prints on my super cheapo flatbed at 300dpi and it looks 150% better than what came on the CD. At least I have a nice drink coaster to set my soda on now. I'll see if I can dig up an example for you.


----------



## GerryDavid (Jun 3, 2004)

The walmart in town appearantly scan the negative for the walmart cd and they scan the prints for the kodak cd.  I do find theres more detail in thier neg scans than what is on the print though.  But my one picture of the clouds is very grainy, but then again I did use $1 roll of film from the dollar store.  :0).


----------



## Canon Fan (Jun 5, 2004)

Here is the "Negative" scan of the film image that I got from walmart. This was shot on Kodak Royal Gold 200 film and has not been resized at all from the orig. scan. I did crop it so it would fit on the screen better though. Just look at that grain! What quality! I'd skip the disc personally and buy a scanner for your home instead.


----------



## Victor (Jun 6, 2004)

I agree with Canon Fan.  I use to get the cd, but got tired of all of the grain and poor quality.  At $4 a pop (here anyway) it makes a lot more sense to get a good scanner.  I got one and the difference is outstanding.


----------



## GerryDavid (Jun 7, 2004)

Canon Fan said:
			
		

> Here is the "Negative" scan of the film image that I got from walmart. This was shot on Kodak Royal Gold 200 film and has not been resized at all from the orig. scan. I did crop it so it would fit on the screen better though. Just look at that grain! What quality! I'd skip the disc personally and buy a scanner for your home instead.



I have three scanners, *got one at a yard sale last week for $1 Canadian*, havent tested to see if that one works yet.  I was considering a photo cd just to save time, so I dont have to scan the pictures myself which takes a while.  :0)  I was thinking instead of payiing $3 for prints, pay $4 for the cd and save the effort.  I dont usually like the prints anywase, so I would prob just edit the pictures and get them printed that way.  :0).

but I konw what you mean about the grain.  The grain isnt bad on every scanned negative, but on some it really is.  :0).


----------



## Rainman (Jun 8, 2004)

Hmm.  Well, I just got my first Kodak CD ever, and the images looked pretty decent.  jpg files of 225-240 kbytes.


----------



## telex95 (Jun 9, 2004)

I'm pretty sure my 90$ canon scanner can do a better job than that photo posted above.  My advise is -- don't go to walmart for photo finishing.  I had a bad experience the last time I went, the photos didn't turn out well.


----------



## telex95 (Jun 9, 2004)

I'm pretty sure my 90$ canon scanner can do a better job than that photo posted above.  My advise is -- don't go to walmart for photo finishing.  I had a bad experience the last time I went, the photos didn't turn out well.


----------



## Canon Fan (Jun 9, 2004)

Here is an example of a file I scanned, from the print on a very cheap (I think 52$ US) scanner at a measly 300dpi. This img has been scaled down but there were no visible paper/grain artifacts in the orig.


----------



## GerryDavid (Jun 9, 2004)

Isnt the problem with normal flatbed scanners the fact they only go up to around 600 or 1200 dpi for the low end ones?  And a negative should be scanned at something like 3000 dpi?  So the software just enlarges it?


----------



## Canon Fan (Jun 9, 2004)

I am not sure about all of that but it sounds right. I know that good scanners are upwards of 4000dpi now but are very costly. My el-cheapo did come with negative/positive scanning ability although I have not worked with it very much. Seemed to do fine just scanning the print for me. The big problem I could see with scanning a bunch of pics via the negatives is that it would be very time consuming. First you must (with my model anyway) mount the neg in a holder being careful to get it straight, then scan it (only 1 at a time) then move on to the next. However I can scan multiple prints at the same time arranged so they fit onto the scan area and crop them apart into seperate files using the included software all at the same time. A more expensive film only scanner would give you the same flexibilty in time savings but would be more brutal to your pocketbook.


----------

