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?
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:15:42 -0400, "Phil Ardussi"
<nospamplease@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.
>
Rather than a fixed rule like you've mentioned (for negatives, the
setting should be 2400 dpi, for 4x6's it should be 600 dpi, and 8x10's
it should be 300 dpi.) I prefer a two-part consideration. First... how
much information is "in" your original. Second, How much data do I
need to save.
The first question means consider the source. If it's a negative,
whether 35mm or 8 x 10, there is a lot more information "in" that
source document than any general rule can predict. However, you may
not need, or want, to retain all that information. (If it's an 8 x 10
negative of a newspaper article, for example, probably even less than
300 dpi on output is sufficient.) But keep in mind that the more data
you retain, the more space it takes on a computer. This means that
tiff images, generally used for archiving because they are "lossless"
take much more computer disc space than jpeg images, which lose
information (how much depends on how much compression is used).
If computer resources are not an issue, and the only consideration is
preserving as much as possible, the save everything as tiff, and scan
at a resolution to get "everything" that is available.... this
normally means prints at up to 600 ppi, and negatives at the maximum
optical resolution of the scanner.
It depends on the size of the media being scanned. For 35mm negatives,
I would say that 2,700 dpi at the negative is a good resolution ... that
will give about a 10 megapixel image (something like 3,800 x 2500
pixels, APPROXIMATELY). That more or less captures all that there
really is to capture in most 35mm images.
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.
As to file format, while TIFF is lossless and JPEG is lossy, if you are
reasonable with the compression of JPEG images, allowing at least say a
quarter megabyte file size for each megapixel, no one will ever know the
difference between JPEG and TIFF, but the files will be about 90% smaller.
Phil Ardussi 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.
>
>
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
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.
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 **
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$9827@news.teranews.com> Barry Watzman
>> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For larger film I'd use a lower resolution. I think you want to think
>>> about how much detail you want, in megapixels. Sure, you could use that
>>> size for a 4x6 image, and you would get a ridiculous number of
>>> megapixels and a ridiculous file size. It all depends on what you are
>>> trying to achieve.
>>
>> You also have to consider the amount of useful data in the original
>> image. There likely isn't 2700dpi worth of resolution in your average
>> photo.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
I meant the LS-5000 is a professional-level piece of equipment.
Sorry, it's too late at night.
"Phil Ardussi" <nospamplease@wpa.net> wrote in message
news:PS4rk.168$_s1.153@newsfe07.iad...
> 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 **
>
>
Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> It depends on the size of the media being scanned. For 35mm negatives,
> I would say that 2,700 dpi at the negative is a good resolution ... that
> will give about a 10 megapixel image (something like 3,800 x 2500
> pixels, APPROXIMATELY). That more or less captures all that there
> really is to capture in most 35mm images.
>
Agreed, I scan my 35mm slides at 3200dpi but that's just because
that's a "sweet point" for the scanner. Choose a resolution that is
2400dpi or better and which is a multiple (or the oppisite, if you see
what I mean) of the scanner's native resolution.
[snip]
>
> As to file format, while TIFF is lossless and JPEG is lossy, if you are
> reasonable with the compression of JPEG images, allowing at least say a
> quarter megabyte file size for each megapixel, no one will ever know the
> difference between JPEG and TIFF, but the files will be about 90% smaller.
>
Agreed also, I store my 35mm scans as JPEG images of about two or
three megabytes. As long as you don't repeatedly process these images
and re-save them then you don't get any further loss of information.
Just make sure that if you *do* do any further processing of the image
that you keep the original JPEG and work on a copy, never save back
over the original.
Which brings up another subject ... I use Picasa for simple editing and it
automatically creates a folder called "original" and dumps the original
files there when you save the edited file.
<tinnews@isbd.co.uk> wrote in message
news:48ad2256$0$629$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> It depends on the size of the media being scanned. For 35mm negatives,
>> I would say that 2,700 dpi at the negative is a good resolution ... that
>> will give about a 10 megapixel image (something like 3,800 x 2500
>> pixels, APPROXIMATELY). That more or less captures all that there
>> really is to capture in most 35mm images.
>>
> Agreed, I scan my 35mm slides at 3200dpi but that's just because
> that's a "sweet point" for the scanner. Choose a resolution that is
> 2400dpi or better and which is a multiple (or the oppisite, if you see
> what I mean) of the scanner's native resolution.
>
> [snip]
>>
>> As to file format, while TIFF is lossless and JPEG is lossy, if you are
>> reasonable with the compression of JPEG images, allowing at least say a
>> quarter megabyte file size for each megapixel, no one will ever know the
>> difference between JPEG and TIFF, but the files will be about 90%
>> smaller.
>>
> Agreed also, I store my 35mm scans as JPEG images of about two or
> three megabytes. As long as you don't repeatedly process these images
> and re-save them then you don't get any further loss of information.
> Just make sure that if you *do* do any further processing of the image
> that you keep the original JPEG and work on a copy, never save back
> over the original.
>
> --
> Chris Green
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 **
Archival Scanning 
Linear Mode
