B
Bruceh
What resolution should I scan for archiving photo prints? I have
8x10's down to 3x3's. My scanner is 3200 dpi, 48-bit.
TIA
8x10's down to 3x3's. My scanner is 3200 dpi, 48-bit.
TIA
D
degrub
Read
www.scantips.com
www.scantips.com
M
Mac McDougald
Whatever will give you 300ppi at the largest output size you ever expect
to need should be more than ample.
So if you have an 8x10 and never expect to go larger than 8x10, a scan at
300ppi/100% size will be fine. Your smaller origs will have to be scanned
at higher rez if you also want them to be able to span larger output
sizes than their orig. sizes.
Wayne Fulton's site, as always, will help.
Has a nifty resolution calculator there also.
scantips.com
Mac
to need should be more than ample.
So if you have an 8x10 and never expect to go larger than 8x10, a scan at
300ppi/100% size will be fine. Your smaller origs will have to be scanned
at higher rez if you also want them to be able to span larger output
sizes than their orig. sizes.
Wayne Fulton's site, as always, will help.
Has a nifty resolution calculator there also.
scantips.com
Mac
M
Mike Fox
I have struggled with this problem and asked this question for years
and received advice that covered the gamut from 70 dpi to 3000 dpi.
As usual, it depends on what you're going to use the images for. For
me the crux of the issue was that I was archiving for 100's of years
in the future (I hope), and there's no way to predict what technology
will allow or require.
Because of this, I took the advice to scan at the highest dpi I could
afford. Fortunately, hard dirve costs are way down and I bought two
120GB drives for $110 each 6 months ago. I'm in the process of
scanning the best of the pictures for 1000s of 35mm slides and am
scanning them at the max dpi that my HP PhotoSmart permits--2400 ppi.
This gives an image file of about 3200 by 2200 pixels and 20 MB. This
may be a lot of over-kill, but so be it.
And remember, you can never do better than the orginals, so protect
them. My archives are for insurance and distribution to all my
children.
Mike
and received advice that covered the gamut from 70 dpi to 3000 dpi.
As usual, it depends on what you're going to use the images for. For
me the crux of the issue was that I was archiving for 100's of years
in the future (I hope), and there's no way to predict what technology
will allow or require.
Because of this, I took the advice to scan at the highest dpi I could
afford. Fortunately, hard dirve costs are way down and I bought two
120GB drives for $110 each 6 months ago. I'm in the process of
scanning the best of the pictures for 1000s of 35mm slides and am
scanning them at the max dpi that my HP PhotoSmart permits--2400 ppi.
This gives an image file of about 3200 by 2200 pixels and 20 MB. This
may be a lot of over-kill, but so be it.
And remember, you can never do better than the orginals, so protect
them. My archives are for insurance and distribution to all my
children.
Mike
W
Wayne Fulton
I hope no one advised you to scan 35 mm film at 70 dpi <g> Film is
small, and the purpose of high resolution is to enlarge it. How large
do you need it to be?
The dpi question is very much like asking "how long should a rope be",
such answer depending if you are washing windows on skyscrapers, or just
need a handle for a wooden bucket. One size does not fit all needs. <g>
The right idea is very simple. You simply scan at whatever resolution
needed to create the image size needed to satisfy the goal that you
perceive to need. One does need a goal to have direction.
For showing images on a video screen, today that image size would not
likely be over 1024x768 pixels (if that) because no more than about 25%
of our computer screens are even a little larger than that now. Hard to
say what the future might bring for video, but to me, it doesnt seem
likely to exceed 1920x1080 pixel HDTV size for many years, simply due to
the need for defined standards.
To print on paper, then you decide what size you want to print, and you
try to provide about 300 pixels per inch at that size. So to print 8x10
inches would need 2400x3000 pixels. To print 6x4 inches would need
1800x1200 pixels (still much larger than video size). This is very
straight forward. Printers surely will become better in the future, but
human eyes probably wont, and these prints will look the same then as
they do now. It is like archiving photo prints from 75 years ago, they
still look very acceptable regarding detail, we dont need them done
over, which likely couldnt help anyway.
Your 2400 dpi scans of 35 mm film will allow printing 8x10 inches at
about 280 dpi (full frame, uncropped). If printing these images at 8x10
inches in the future is the goal, then you're doing the right thing.
However, we often like to crop, so a little more size would be good too,
but certainly it is in the ballpark, assuming you can get good 2400 dpi
scans (this is very questionable on a flatbed). However if perhaps you
wont ever print them at 8x10 inches size, then it's likely larger than
you will ever need (and frankly, most people cant imagine ever printing
all their old slides at 8x10 inch size). However, except for storage
requirements, too large is much better regarding surprises than is too
small. (lots of howevers <g>)
B
Bruceh
Thanks all for the replies.
re Mike: WRT slides/negatives, I agree that one should use the highest
resolution and it isn't overkill. For those negatives I have without prints
I will be doing that.
re: degrub & Mac: thanks for the link. I'll experiment with the 300ppi
in mind.
What's the opinion on scanning at 48-bit vs. 24-bit? The archiving is
for future generations, so I'm looking at 50+ years, not just 5-10 years.
Thanks!
re Mike: WRT slides/negatives, I agree that one should use the highest
resolution and it isn't overkill. For those negatives I have without prints
I will be doing that.
re: degrub & Mac: thanks for the link. I'll experiment with the 300ppi
in mind.
What's the opinion on scanning at 48-bit vs. 24-bit? The archiving is
for future generations, so I'm looking at 50+ years, not just 5-10 years.
Thanks!
M
Mac McDougald
Remember, that's a ballpark figure for final output size ppi, not
necessarily the ppi at which you'll actually need to scan.
Mac
D
degrub
48 bit only if you are going to do corrections in PS or equal.
Otherwise, you can correct in the scan software and save in 24 bit.
THere are many people that scan images in 48 bit with just the white and
black points set and embed a profile in the tiff file for their archive
image. The only apparent advantage of 48 bit is if you have to make
large corrections in PS and want to avoid possible posterization. The
eye had a very hard time distinguishing otherwise.
Frank
Otherwise, you can correct in the scan software and save in 24 bit.
THere are many people that scan images in 48 bit with just the white and
black points set and embed a profile in the tiff file for their archive
image. The only apparent advantage of 48 bit is if you have to make
large corrections in PS and want to avoid possible posterization. The
eye had a very hard time distinguishing otherwise.
Frank
B
Bruceh
I will be using PS (I'm a novice) for color corrections and
dust/scratch removals. Does PS do a better job with 48 bits?
I'm thinking that since this is for long term archiving, it would
be nice to have 48 bits, but does it matter in 50 years?
bruceh
dust/scratch removals. Does PS do a better job with 48 bits?
I'm thinking that since this is for long term archiving, it would
be nice to have 48 bits, but does it matter in 50 years?
bruceh
D
degrub
"Does PS do a better job with 48 bits?" In general yes. If you are
comparing PS to the std scanning software shipped with most scanners,
IMHO definitely. PS versus high end scanning software - maybe. There are
some things that PS is better at or PS is unique in its abilities.
Plug-ins provide tools that you might not get elsewhere.
One issue you will have to deal with over the next X years will be
converting to new media types and formats periodically. i buy high
quality media (Mitsui gold) for archiving purposes, even though i
suspect i will have to move the images to other media within the next 5
years just to keep up. SO factor that in.
comparing PS to the std scanning software shipped with most scanners,
IMHO definitely. PS versus high end scanning software - maybe. There are
some things that PS is better at or PS is unique in its abilities.
Plug-ins provide tools that you might not get elsewhere.
One issue you will have to deal with over the next X years will be
converting to new media types and formats periodically. i buy high
quality media (Mitsui gold) for archiving purposes, even though i
suspect i will have to move the images to other media within the next 5
years just to keep up. SO factor that in.
B
Bruceh
"Does PS do a better job with 48 bits?" In general yes. If you are
Do you consider VueScan 'high end'? That is my scanning software
and in most cases I the colors will come out OK. But when I have
a faded photo, I'll have to adjust with PS.
Yes. I'm always amazed that people buy the cheapest media not
realizing the quality difference. I try to get Taiyo Yuden CD-R
(typically Fujifilm). I have on order a Plextor DVD +- R/RW drive.
I have to find sources for media. I've looked around for a decent,
reliable source for Mitsui but have never found any. Any suggestions?
TIA
bruceh
Do you consider VueScan 'high end'? That is my scanning software
and in most cases I the colors will come out OK. But when I have
a faded photo, I'll have to adjust with PS.
Yes. I'm always amazed that people buy the cheapest media not
realizing the quality difference. I try to get Taiyo Yuden CD-R
(typically Fujifilm). I have on order a Plextor DVD +- R/RW drive.
I have to find sources for media. I've looked around for a decent,
reliable source for Mitsui but have never found any. Any suggestions?
TIA
bruceh
M
Mike Fox
Hi Wayne
First, thanks for all the contributions you have made to the scanning
community over the years. You have answered my questions on the
Internet several times over the years. I bought your book on scanning
several years ago, and it's a valuable resource.
Second, after reading your comments on resolution for about the tenth
time in those years, they are starting to make sense in their total.
Mike
First, thanks for all the contributions you have made to the scanning
community over the years. You have answered my questions on the
Internet several times over the years. I bought your book on scanning
several years ago, and it's a valuable resource.
Second, after reading your comments on resolution for about the tenth
time in those years, they are starting to make sense in their total.
Mike
J
Jon Bell
VueScan is excellent at getting the maximum amount of information that a
scanner can provide for a given slide or negative. In order to get really
good results in the final output, one must usually manipulate that image
to suit requirements of the output medium (print, computer monitor, etc.).
Different media have different characteristics, and no output medium (as
far as I know) the complete brightness and color range of a well-scanned
image, as is.
VueScan is not intended to be full-fcatured image editing software (as I
understand it). It does have features for adjusting levels, brightness,
color balance, etc, but I consider those to be useful mainly for getting
an image into the right "ballpark" for further tweaking in Photoshop or
whatever. (I usually don't have to tweak the color balance, though;
VueScan does a very good job with that.)
The only time I use VueScan's final output "as is" is when I'm producing
sample JPEGs (100-200KB) to archive along with the raw scans (60MB), so I
can easily see what I've got. Whenever I actually want to print something
or put it up on the Web, I always go to the raw file, "scan" it with
VueScan, then do most of my adjustments in Photoshop LE.
J
Jon Bell
I consider VueScan to be "high end" scanning software, but not "high end"
image-editing software.
VueScan is excellent at getting the maximum amount of information that a
scanner can provide for a given slide or negative. In order to get really
good results in the final output, one must usually manipulate that image
to suit requirements of the output medium (print, computer monitor, etc.).
Different media have different characteristics, and no output medium (as
far as I know) can match the complete brightness and color range of a
well-scanned image, as is.
VueScan is not intended to be full-featured image editing software (as I
understand it). It does have features for adjusting levels, brightness,
color balance, etc, but I consider those to be useful mainly for getting
an image into the right "ballpark" for further tweaking in Photoshop or
whatever. (I usually don't have to tweak the color balance, though;
VueScan does a very good job with that.)
The only time I use VueScan's final output "as is" is when I'm producing
sample JPEGs (100-200KB) to archive along with the raw scans (60MB), so I
can easily see what I've got. Whenever I actually want to print something
or put it up on the Web, I always go to the raw file, "scan" it with
VueScan, then do most of my adjustments in Photoshop LE.
M
Mike Fox
Wayne
I'm having a problem with the black area of scans. They're mottled
with splotches and scan lines. Could I send an image file showing
the problem to you to see if you have any suggestions?
Email me with permission at (e-mail address removed) if I can and I'll
reply the file back to you.
Mike
I'm having a problem with the black area of scans. They're mottled
with splotches and scan lines. Could I send an image file showing
the problem to you to see if you have any suggestions?
Email me with permission at (e-mail address removed) if I can and I'll
reply the file back to you.
Mike
D
degrub
Try publishing perfection.
http://www.publishingperfection.com/defaultNE.asp?keyword=&mfgid=&sku=
Vuescan works well. i use it as well as Silverfast and NikonScan.
Frank
http://www.publishingperfection.com/defaultNE.asp?keyword=&mfgid=&sku=
Vuescan works well. i use it as well as Silverfast and NikonScan.
Frank
G
ggull
Bruceh said:
This is really a comment, or maybe a meta-comment, on degrub's post, and is
not a technical issue but one of how you're going to actually perform the
archive, sort of a very extended "workflow" issue.
In two respects you might want to archive the full 48-bit images (maybe even
raw scan files), even if you are scanning with "high end" software:
(1) You have mentioned you are a novice. It's very likely that a year, or
five or ten or fifty years, from now you will want to make different
corrections than your taste or technical proficiency would lead you to do
now.
(2) Even if you have confidence that you could do all the twiddling now in a
fashion that will satisfy you forever, and only need to save 24-bit files,
this is not an automatic process. Depending on how many originals you have,
and what your time frame for doing the archiving is, it might make more
sense to "scan and save" now and play with later at your leisure or as need
arises. Or let your heirs and assignees do so.
This is, of course, assuming that there really is an advantage to 48 over 24
bits
Check out even the past few months of postings here (google groups if it's
not on your server), and there will be wildly differing opinions.