Archive resolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie
  • Start date Start date
E

Eddie

Hi All,

been doing some test work with my V700. Have found HEAPS of negatives I forgot I need to archive. (bugger!) Question: what resolution?

Am trying to ignore the highest potential true optical res, (4800) but concentrate upon output size. Realistically I think that A4 would be max print size, so, seems that 3200 dpi would suffice, as print reso is max at 300. Is this correct? (48 bit scan Tiff file)

Eddie

PS. Noons et al. I wonder if either the 750 will appear in Oz, or, if the fluid mount sys will be available for the 700 and maybe a non-reflective glass

Eddie
 
Eddie said:
Hi All,

been doing some test work with my V700. Have found HEAPS of negatives I
forgot I need to archive. (bugger!) Question: what resolution?

Am trying to ignore the highest potential true optical res, (4800) but
concentrate upon output size. Realistically I think that A4 would be
max print size, so, seems that 3200 dpi would suffice, as print reso is
max at 300. Is this correct? (48 bit scan Tiff file)

Eddie

PS. Noons et al. I wonder if either the 750 will appear in Oz, or, if
the fluid mount sys will be available for the 700 and maybe a
non-reflective glass
Click to expand...

Hi Eddie...

You're right - for today! :)

However, who knows what the future will bring. Wasn't all that
long ago that we ooh'ed and aah'ed over 320 x 240 images on our
monitors. Wasn't all that long ago that we thought that Polaroid
instant images were absolutely astonishing. :)

So, who could possibly know what your kids and grandkids and
great-grandkids will want to do with your images? Storage is
so cheap it's virtually free, so save the very best for them
that you can.

They can always "downgrade" later if it's their wish, but sure
can't "upgrade"

Just the thoughts of an old retired guy in about the middle of
scanning/storing thousands and thousands of old slides/negs.

Take care.

Ken
 
Ken Weitzel said:
Hi Eddie...

You're right - for today! :)

However, who knows what the future will bring. Wasn't all that
long ago that we ooh'ed and aah'ed over 320 x 240 images on our
monitors. Wasn't all that long ago that we thought that Polaroid
instant images were absolutely astonishing. :)

So, who could possibly know what your kids and grandkids and
great-grandkids will want to do with your images? Storage is
so cheap it's virtually free, so save the very best for them
that you can.

They can always "downgrade" later if it's their wish, but sure
can't "upgrade"

Just the thoughts of an old retired guy in about the middle of
scanning/storing thousands and thousands of old slides/negs.

Take care.

Ken
Click to expand...

Ken,

Ta for that. Good thinking, and I did consider that. I did some test scans
on 35mm negs at 4800 and saved as TIFF and got a whoping 163,000kb which,
unless my maths are as bad as I know they are, would be 163Mb. That would
give only some 27 or so pics on one DVD! But, heck, you still might be
right!

And, young Ken, you're showing your age. I suppose, like me, you remember 9"
b/w tv screens on 405 lines. And, my first camera, a Brownie 127 (I suppose
politically incorrect to use that term now!) and I still have a couple of
pics from it unfaded! And I rember the novelty of colour. And I remember
drooling over Rollieflex Twins Lens Reflex cameras, and like you I'm sure,
we know what SLR REALLY means. In today's world they use a term that few
people actually understand. And...and....and...

Cheers

Eddie
 
Eddie said:
Hi All,

been doing some test work with my V700. Have found HEAPS of negatives I forgot I need to archive. (bugger!) Question: what resolution?

Am trying to ignore the highest potential true optical res, (4800) but concentrate upon output size. Realistically I think that A4 would be max print size, so, seems that 3200 dpi would suffice, as print reso is max at 300. Is this correct? (48 bit scan Tiff file)

Eddie

PS. Noons et al. I wonder if either the 750 will appear in Oz, or, if the fluid mount sys will be available for the 700 and maybe a non-reflective glass
Click to expand...

I'd run it at 2400ppi. This is a good combination of speed and
resolution. A scan without digital ice is less than a minute. If you
want more res, test it to see if you get more useful data or a better
scan. The 3200ppi scan took just a minute (no digital ice). The files
created with a 3200ppi scan were almost twice the size of the 2400ppi
scans, in 48bit 37meg vs 71meg. One of the things I like about the
V700 is its scan speed, just set up 12 slides and it is done in under
15 minutes. Scans aren't too bad either. Not sure if the liquid scan
would be as much help as fuss (this isn't a drum scanner). But the
coated glass would be nice, wonder if you can replace the V700 glass.

Tom
 
tomm42 said:
I'd run it at 2400ppi. This is a good combination of speed and
resolution. A scan without digital ice is less than a minute. If you
want more res, test it to see if you get more useful data or a better
scan. The 3200ppi scan took just a minute (no digital ice). The files
created with a 3200ppi scan were almost twice the size of the 2400ppi
scans, in 48bit 37meg vs 71meg. One of the things I like about the
V700 is its scan speed, just set up 12 slides and it is done in under
15 minutes. Scans aren't too bad either. Not sure if the liquid scan
would be as much help as fuss (this isn't a drum scanner). But the
coated glass would be nice, wonder if you can replace the V700 glass.

Tom
Click to expand...
Re Glass, Tom, yes, I wonder too. Looking at test scans the 3200 scans
didn't seem to have any more data at 4800 than 3200. Maybe the latter is
good for scanning sections of a negative. However, I think that slides, yet
to test, will have more detail as the film speed is so much slower (and thus
smaller grain, more detail) and I think more inherent data than negative.
But hey, compared to my old Epson 1650 Photo, heaps more detail. And time?
Mmmm, old scanner took 5 mins for each. As you say, less than a min for
normal at 3200 ppi. Grain reduction, necessary at high res, slows a bit, and
digital ice slows a lot. I use Helican noise filter to rid any hardness from
sharpening or contrast and it works a treat. I think 48000 at 48 bits is
unnecessary for what little extra one might gain on negs. But may be requied
for slides. Will test later.

I have my V700 connected via Firewire, but really, don't think it is any
real measurable dif in speed to USB2.

I think the liquid would help in reducing deep scratch marks. As a trial, I
used some clear glass to put my neg direct on the scanner glass and compared
to using the holder. Seems no dif, thus the scanner has an appropriate depth
of field.

Wonder what 'wedge' Noons uses for testing.


Eddie
 
Hi All,

been doing some test work with my V700. Have found HEAPS of negatives I forgot I need to archive. (bugger!) Question: what resolution?

Am trying to ignore the highest potential true optical res, (4800) but concentrate upon output size. Realistically I think that A4 would be max print size, so, seems that 3200 dpi would suffice, as print reso is max at 300. Is this correct? (48 bit scan Tiff file)

Eddie

PS. Noons et al. I wonder if either the 750 will appear in Oz, or, if the fluid mount sys will be available for the 700 and maybe a non-reflective glass
Click to expand...

Archive means different things to different people. To me there is
archiving and there is long term storage of a processed image.
For archiving I always save it at the maximum optical resolution
(4,000 dpi on my LS5000) as I may want to work on it later.
Finished/processed images I save at what ever resolution I was using.

I view archiving as saving the image in the best possible form for
manipulation later on. Any culling of poor quality images should be
done before archiving, but that one blurry image may be the only one
in existence of some unknown relative some one might be looking for
later on. OTOH the images being archived may have nothing at all to do
with family history.

I don't know if this will be of any help at this stage but ...
possibly.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 
Archive means different things to different people. To me there is
archiving and there is long term storage of a processed image.
For archiving I always save it at the maximum optical resolution
(4,000 dpi on my LS5000) as I may want to work on it later.
Finished/processed images I save at what ever resolution I was using.

I view archiving as saving the image in the best possible form for
manipulation later on. Any culling of poor quality images should be
done before archiving, but that one blurry image may be the only one
in existence of some unknown relative some one might be looking for
later on. OTOH the images being archived may have nothing at all to do
with family history.

I don't know if this will be of any help at this stage but ...
possibly.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Click to expand...

Roger,
I think 3200ppi is about the max effective scan on the V700, nominally
it goes up to 4800ppi but I'm not sure if the extra ppi gives any more
data. The res you use is dependent on what you will use the images
for. If I recieved all the slides my father shot over 35 years of
family gatherings and trips. I might only use 1800ppi or so, and share
them with my brother. Don't think anything would reproduced over 4x6.
But the nice thing about scanning is if that rare photo showed up that
we would want on our wall you can use your max res. Editing is what
matters.

Tom
 
tomm42 said:
The res you use is dependent on what you will use the images
for.
Click to expand...


That depends. If you are scanning for archival purposes, then you would
want to preserve the maximum information contained on the film. I would go
with the greatest bit depth, a non-lossy format like TIF, and maximum
resolution. That means file sizes in excess of 100 meg. That is a big size
today, but I'll just bet that in another decade it will be quite common.

There is also a school of thought (which I don't happen to agree with) that
says to scan for what you require right now--not for your future needs.
This presumes that you will always have the original negs or transparencies
available should you want to scan for better resolution in the future. It
also assumes that the photo dyes will not fade or change otherwise in the
future. And it also presumes that you don't mind going through the process
of re-scanning the films at some future time.

I go for the max, because I want the assurance that I have excellent scans
now, rather than risk having the films deteriorate or become lost in the
future. My scanner goes up to 3600 ppi, and 16-bit, making for 103 meg image
files. It takes a DVD to store one roll of film images. Bummer, but I
don't like the alternative.
 
Eddie said:
Ta for that. Good thinking, and I did consider that. I did some test scans
on 35mm negs at 4800 and saved as TIFF and got a whoping 163,000kb which,
unless my maths are as bad as I know they are, would be 163Mb. That would
give only some 27 or so pics on one DVD! But, heck, you still might be
right!
Click to expand...

Is that without any TIFF compression?
 
tomm42 said:
Roger,
I think 3200ppi is about the max effective scan on the V700, nominally
it goes up to 4800ppi but I'm not sure if the extra ppi gives any more
data. The res you use is dependent on what you will use the images
for. If I recieved all the slides my father shot over 35 years of
family gatherings and trips. I might only use 1800ppi or so, and share
them with my brother. Don't think anything would reproduced over 4x6.
But the nice thing about scanning is if that rare photo showed up that
we would want on our wall you can use your max res. Editing is what
matters.

Tom
Click to expand...
Tom,

I agree that 3200 is about it or negatives, probably any scanner. But for
slides, which have smaller halide crystals and thus more potential detail,
4800 might bring that out. My thoughts are for archiving which is saving
uncompressed as well as I can regardless of picture. Who knows what might be
of interest in a few years?



Eddie
 
jeremy said:
That depends. If you are scanning for archival purposes, then you would
want to preserve the maximum information contained on the film. I would
go with the greatest bit depth, a non-lossy format like TIF, and maximum
resolution. That means file sizes in excess of 100 meg. That is a big
size today, but I'll just bet that in another decade it will be quite
common.

There is also a school of thought (which I don't happen to agree with)
that says to scan for what you require right now--not for your future
needs. This presumes that you will always have the original negs or
transparencies available should you want to scan for better resolution in
the future. It also assumes that the photo dyes will not fade or change
otherwise in the future. And it also presumes that you don't mind going
through the process of re-scanning the films at some future time.

I go for the max, because I want the assurance that I have excellent scans
now, rather than risk having the films deteriorate or become lost in the
future. My scanner goes up to 3600 ppi, and 16-bit, making for 103 meg
image files. It takes a DVD to store one roll of film images. Bummer,
but I don't like the alternative.
Click to expand...
Tend to agree. Blue Ray will help, but at huge cost. Double layer DVD's are
more expensive than two single layer, so.......now, how many do I need.Irony
is, that storing 1 DVD for 1 roll of film probably takes up more space!

Eddie
 
Eddie said:
Tend to agree. Blue Ray will help, but at huge cost. Double layer DVD's
are more expensive than two single layer, so.......now, how many do I
need.Irony is, that storing 1 DVD for 1 roll of film probably takes up
more space!
Click to expand...


DVD-Rs are fairly cheap right now. Fortunately we still have our original
film as backup, although there is the risk of deterioration over the long
term. We need someone to come up with a long term solution to archival
storage--and that would probably involve a third party (like the Government)
that would maintain the image files over the long term, rather than our just
burning them to whatever medium is currently in vogue and hoping that they
can be read a century or more from now.

We are, as a nation, creating billions of digital images, and it is doubtful
that our descendents will be willing to care for them into the future. That
is the real problem with all of this. My 3 grown kids couldn't give a hoot
about my phototographs. None of them have married, and I have no
grandchildren to possibly take an interest in them. Aside from my donating
some of my architectural photos of historical interest to the county
historical society, the prospects of my images lasting into the future seem
dim. I'll bet that millions of photographers are in similar situations.
 
jeremy said:
DVD-Rs are fairly cheap right now. Fortunately we still have our original
film as backup, although there is the risk of deterioration over the long
term. We need someone to come up with a long term solution to archival
storage--and that would probably involve a third party (like the
Government) that would maintain the image files over the long term, rather
than our just burning them to whatever medium is currently in vogue and
hoping that they can be read a century or more from now.

We are, as a nation, creating billions of digital images, and it is
doubtful that our descendents will be willing to care for them into the
future. That is the real problem with all of this. My 3 grown kids
couldn't give a hoot about my phototographs. None of them have married,
and I have no grandchildren to possibly take an interest in them. Aside
from my donating some of my architectural photos of historical interest to
the county historical society, the prospects of my images lasting into the
future seem dim. I'll bet that millions of photographers are in similar
situations.
Click to expand...
You'd win your bet!

Eddie
 
jeremy said:
We are, as a nation, creating billions of digital images, and it is doubtful
that our descendents will be willing to care for them into the future. That
is the real problem with all of this. My 3 grown kids couldn't give a hoot
about my phototographs. None of them have married, and I have no
grandchildren to possibly take an interest in them. Aside from my donating
some of my architectural photos of historical interest to the county
historical society, the prospects of my images lasting into the future seem
dim. I'll bet that millions of photographers are in similar situations.
Click to expand...
Do we really need to preserve all these images? Surely (as always)
99% of them are ephemeral. If we preserved them all we'd very soon
disappear in a sea of [non]-information.

I have *some* photographs (mainly of old churches which are quite
likely to have changed or disappeared now) which I would like to
preserve. I'm aiming to archive them myself and will also probably
donate the originals to TPTB in the Church of England. I think that
will suffice, they're not *that* valuable to posterity.
 
Do we really need to preserve all these images? Surely (as always)
99% of them are ephemeral. If we preserved them all we'd very soon
disappear in a sea of [non]-information.
Click to expand...

I would argue that we DO want to preserve them--which is why we took them in
the first place. We cannot predict what value they will have to future
generations that want to see how we lived.

I keep thinking of Matthew Brady's shots of Civil War soldiers lying dead
after battles. It was the first time that we were able to see the effects
of war. His work was a turning point in how we recorded history.
 
Do we really need to preserve all these images? Surely (as always)
99% of them are ephemeral. If we preserved them all we'd very soon
disappear in a sea of [non]-information.
Click to expand...

But is it for us to decide which ones shouldn't be preserved?
 
Have any idea how much compression helps?
Click to expand...

Actually, whole point of this type of archiving is not to lose any data at
all, so compression is out of the question. Though I am aware that there was
a non-lossy .jpg compression format. But Tiff stores all the relevant data
so that to me is the best way to go.

Compressed files at 4800ppi x 48 bit are much, much smaller

Eddie
 
Do we really need to preserve all these images? Surely (as always)
99% of them are ephemeral. If we preserved them all we'd very soon
disappear in a sea of [non]-information.
Click to expand...

But is it for us to decide which ones shouldn't be preserved?
Click to expand...

Agree. My wife just found 6 rolls of b/w I took in the '60's. Much maybe
rubbish but some....? I know that there are train pics which for some will
be interesting.


Will give the V700 a good run tonight!

Eddie
 
Back
Top