On Aug 19, 10:15*am, "Phil Ardussi" <nospample...@wpa.net> wrote:
> OK, here goes:
>
> I do scanning of photos and color negatives for our local historical
> society. They have a good deal of material that needs to be scanned into
> digital format for preservation purposes.
>
> My scanner is an Epson V500 and gives me lots of options. I consider the
> most important settings to be the file format (.jpg, tif, etc.), dpi, and
> final size of image. I have heard that 300 dpi is the desired output but the
> varying sizes mean that for negatives, the setting should be 2400 dpi, for
> 4x6's it should be 600 dpi, and 8x10's it should be 300 dpi.
>
> Looking at that, am I on the right track in my thinking? What is the
> suggested file format for archiving? What should be the image size/dpi
> setting?
>
> Thanks.
You have very good scanning advise here, now about storage and
archiving. Just getting the images on a hard disk is just the first
step. Next is cataloging the images, Picassa to iPhoto to
PhotoMechanic all are good programs. Jpeg or TIFF are as close to
universal formats as you can have, I prefer TIFF because it is
lossless but a low commpression jpeg has a lot going for it.
Then backing up and long term storage. A good solution is to backup to
an external hard drive, then also make DVD backups and store off site.
The harddrive and DVDs won't last forever both have to be replaced
periodically. On my archive at work I keep DVDs and earlier CDs in a
fireproof, dropproof file cabinet, this is in a climate controlled
building. CDs have been lasting 10 years, we have used DVDs for six
and check them periodically. Now to reality, your negatives and prints
are probably your most stable archive, if they are yellowing then by
all means digitize them, but if the images are clean they will last a
long time. You have to remember to keep up with your digital storage
options, you can't just scan then leave the the images.
Just some things to think about
I took a rather large .tif, was able to get Photoshop to open it, gulp,
changed one pixel, and saved it as a .jpg. I then opened both files side by
side and zoomed it. I tired old eyes could see no difference. A friend of
mine said that there were probably some occasional anomalies, but that they
would not be noticed. So much for .tif, which means I like your suggestion
<--- practical and logical.
Phil
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:17c6a$48ae9dd5$7963@news.teranews.com...
> The LS-5000 is 4,000 dpi. The problem with that in my mind is that it's
> ridiculously too high and gives a huge file size. If you want to go
> lower, but do not want "interpolated pixels" (which are generally felt to
> degrade quality), you have to drop back to 2,000 dpi (every other pixel),
> which is too low. That's why I feel that in some ways, the older and
> lower resolution products were actually better.
>
> Personally I save in JPEG. Purists don't like it, but if you don't try to
> over-compress, and if you are not looking for poster-size prints, no one
> can tell the difference between JPEG and TIFF, but the files are almost
> 90% smaller. JPEG is, after all, the format that most digital cameras
> save their files in (acknowledging that higher-end cameras and DSLRs have
> the option, in many cases, to save either in "TIFF" or "RAW" mode).
>
>
> Phil Ardussi wrote:
>> Thanks, Barry.
>>
>> I happen to have the Nikon LS-5000 Coolscan. What dpi and file format
>> would you suggest for most film? I find using the Epson V500 software
>> scanning two film strips at a time easier to use than Nikon, although,
>> without a doubt, it is, for me, a professional level piece of equipment.
>>
>> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:c0379$48acd34b$10613@news.teranews.com...
>>> Although there is no "average photo" and there is without doubt a wide
>>> range of image qualities, I think that 2,700 dpi is actually "just about
>>> right" for the average 35mm film image. I base this on a LOT of
>>> experience with film scanners (I am very active in selling and servicing
>>> Nikon film scanners).
>>>
>>> FWIW, 2,700 dpi was the resolution of the Nikon LS-1000 (mid to late
>>> 1990's), LS-2000 (1999-2002) and LS-30 (a "dumbed down" version of the
>>> LS-2000, aka Coolscan III). 2,700 dpi gives a 10 megapixel image.
>>>
>>> Nikons later products (LS-4000, LS-5000 (there was no LS-3000) and LS-50
>>> went to 4,000 dpi, which is between 22 and 25 megapixels. In my view,
>>> THAT is more than exists in all but very rare 35mm images. [The LS-40
>>> (aka Coolscan IV), a dumbed down version of the LS-4000 was 2,900 dpi].
>>>
>>>
>>> DevilsPGD wrote:
>>>> In message <91fa1$48ab9e23$9827@news.teranews.com> Barry Watzman
>>>> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For larger film I'd use a lower resolution. I think you want to think
>>>>> about how much detail you want, in megapixels. Sure, you could use
>>>>> that size for a 4x6 image, and you would get a ridiculous number of
>>>>> megapixels and a ridiculous file size. It all depends on what you are
>>>>> trying to achieve.
>>>> You also have to consider the amount of useful data in the original
>>>> image. There likely isn't 2700dpi worth of resolution in your average
>>>> photo.
>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>
>>
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
BTW, I do a lot of videoing and so need lots of offline archival storage. I
have six 500GB external drives, mostly full. I use a disk cataloging program
to keep track of where stuff is.
Thanks everyone for their excellent help.
Phil
"tomm42" <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:d54089a9-6e0e-44b0-a72c-c26999ed6113@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 19, 10:15 am, "Phil Ardussi" <nospample...@wpa.net> wrote:
> OK, here goes:
>
> I do scanning of photos and color negatives for our local historical
> society. They have a good deal of material that needs to be scanned into
> digital format for preservation purposes.
>
> My scanner is an Epson V500 and gives me lots of options. I consider the
> most important settings to be the file format (.jpg, tif, etc.), dpi, and
> final size of image. I have heard that 300 dpi is the desired output but
> the
> varying sizes mean that for negatives, the setting should be 2400 dpi, for
> 4x6's it should be 600 dpi, and 8x10's it should be 300 dpi.
>
> Looking at that, am I on the right track in my thinking? What is the
> suggested file format for archiving? What should be the image size/dpi
> setting?
>
> Thanks.
You have very good scanning advise here, now about storage and
archiving. Just getting the images on a hard disk is just the first
step. Next is cataloging the images, Picassa to iPhoto to
PhotoMechanic all are good programs. Jpeg or TIFF are as close to
universal formats as you can have, I prefer TIFF because it is
lossless but a low commpression jpeg has a lot going for it.
Then backing up and long term storage. A good solution is to backup to
an external hard drive, then also make DVD backups and store off site.
The harddrive and DVDs won't last forever both have to be replaced
periodically. On my archive at work I keep DVDs and earlier CDs in a
fireproof, dropproof file cabinet, this is in a climate controlled
building. CDs have been lasting 10 years, we have used DVDs for six
and check them periodically. Now to reality, your negatives and prints
are probably your most stable archive, if they are yellowing then by
all means digitize them, but if the images are clean they will last a
long time. You have to remember to keep up with your digital storage
options, you can't just scan then leave the the images.
Just some things to think about
Can I suggest an additional option for long-term storage, and that is to use
a program like QuickPAR to create a set of files that can then be used to
re-create a damaged file. The overhead is low (10% ought to cover all but a
total loss of data). And re-burning every 2-3 years, or moving to larger
storage formats and keeping the 'old' media, helps keep the files 'fresh'.
In message <0qguk.1108$676.239@newsfe01.iad> "Peter D" <please@.sk>
wrote:
>Can I suggest an additional option for long-term storage, and that is to use
>a program like QuickPAR to create a set of files that can then be used to
>re-create a damaged file. The overhead is low (10% ought to cover all but a
>total loss of data). And re-burning every 2-3 years, or moving to larger
>storage formats and keeping the 'old' media, helps keep the files 'fresh'.
You might want to take a look at QuickPAR, it can do what you've
described, with as much or little overhead (and as much or little
corresponding redundancy) as you desire.
In article <dAAqk.43624$yn5.17530@newsfe08.iad>, Phil Ardussi
<nospamplease@wpa.net> writes
>OK, here goes:
>
>I do scanning of photos and color negatives for our local historical
>society. They have a good deal of material that needs to be scanned into
>digital format for preservation purposes.
>
>My scanner is an Epson V500 and gives me lots of options. I consider the
>most important settings to be the file format (.jpg, tif, etc.), dpi, and
>final size of image. I have heard that 300 dpi is the desired output but the
>varying sizes mean that for negatives, the setting should be 2400 dpi, for
>4x6's it should be 600 dpi, and 8x10's it should be 300 dpi.
>
>Looking at that, am I on the right track in my thinking?
>
The only suggestion I would make would be to reconsider the resolution
for your negatives, depending on how particular you want to be and the
equipment available to you. Negatives will contain more intrinsic
information than any of the other image sources available and it is a
reasonable assumption that the scanner itself will limit just how much
of that information you can capture. Also, remember that the scanner's
quoted resolution is just its sample density, the smallest step between
image pixels, and it may not be able to optically resolve 1/2400th of an
inch, possible as little as half of that in practice, depending on the
scanner.
Outputting at 300ppi (note these are pixels per inch, not dots per inch)
will only permit an 8x enlargement of a true 2400ppi scan, which is an
8x12" print from a full 35mm image, or smaller from a cropped area. With
less optical resolution you could find your largest practical sharp
print size from your archived scan is as small as 6x4".
So I advise you just scan at the native scan resolution (ie. the highest
non-interpolated resolution available) for your scanner. Storage is
cheap and you don't want to have to do this again, even if you get the
chance to.
>What is the
>suggested file format for archiving? What should be the image size/dpi
>setting?
Recommended file format it "tif" because it is an open format that
supports lossless compression. Image size and dpi settings are
irrelevant since these can be overridden at print time. The dpi setting
is simply a single number embedded in the stored file and some software
reads it as a recommended or initial setting for output. Most software
just ignores it and all software can override it. The image size is
then just the number of total pixels horizontally and vertically
multiplied by the "dpi" figure. What does matter is the total number of
pixels in the image, but if you scan at the recommended resolutions that
should be as good as you can get it.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
The group has given me a lot to think about. The suggestions will impact my
SOP.
Thanks.
"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
newsYDEPJEsuVvIFw2P@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
> In article <dAAqk.43624$yn5.17530@newsfe08.iad>, Phil Ardussi
> <nospamplease@wpa.net> writes
>>OK, here goes:
>>
>>I do scanning of photos and color negatives for our local historical
>>society. They have a good deal of material that needs to be scanned into
>>digital format for preservation purposes.
>>
>>My scanner is an Epson V500 and gives me lots of options. I consider the
>>most important settings to be the file format (.jpg, tif, etc.), dpi, and
>>final size of image. I have heard that 300 dpi is the desired output but
>>the
>>varying sizes mean that for negatives, the setting should be 2400 dpi, for
>>4x6's it should be 600 dpi, and 8x10's it should be 300 dpi.
>>
>>Looking at that, am I on the right track in my thinking?
>>
> The only suggestion I would make would be to reconsider the resolution for
> your negatives, depending on how particular you want to be and the
> equipment available to you. Negatives will contain more intrinsic
> information than any of the other image sources available and it is a
> reasonable assumption that the scanner itself will limit just how much of
> that information you can capture. Also, remember that the scanner's
> quoted resolution is just its sample density, the smallest step between
> image pixels, and it may not be able to optically resolve 1/2400th of an
> inch, possible as little as half of that in practice, depending on the
> scanner.
>
> Outputting at 300ppi (note these are pixels per inch, not dots per inch)
> will only permit an 8x enlargement of a true 2400ppi scan, which is an
> 8x12" print from a full 35mm image, or smaller from a cropped area. With
> less optical resolution you could find your largest practical sharp print
> size from your archived scan is as small as 6x4".
>
> So I advise you just scan at the native scan resolution (ie. the highest
> non-interpolated resolution available) for your scanner. Storage is cheap
> and you don't want to have to do this again, even if you get the chance
> to.
>
>>What is the
>>suggested file format for archiving? What should be the image size/dpi
>>setting?
>
> Recommended file format it "tif" because it is an open format that
> supports lossless compression. Image size and dpi settings are irrelevant
> since these can be overridden at print time. The dpi setting is simply a
> single number embedded in the stored file and some software reads it as a
> recommended or initial setting for output. Most software just ignores it
> and all software can override it. The image size is then just the number
> of total pixels horizontally and vertically multiplied by the "dpi"
> figure. What does matter is the total number of pixels in the image, but
> if you scan at the recommended resolutions that should be as good as you
> can get it.
> --
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
> replying)
Re: Archival Scanning 
YDEPJEsuVvIFw2P@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
Linear Mode
