Scan Slides - Epson V500 Recommended Dpi and Bit settings

It would be helpful to me and hopefully others to know what settings
you have settled on, reconciling the trade offs between detail, scan
time, and storage. Epson V500 or similar. I know that for ultimate
quality, use the highest settings -- for Epson V500 those are 6400
dpi, 48 bit and ICE -- if I zoom on a detail enough in PhotoShop I can
tell you on my monitor which scan was 3200 dpi and which was 6400 dpi,
but I haven't experimented yet with different color depths. What would
be helpful is to know what you use for a given end result, such as
print size or viewing on a TV. If we get enough responses, this will
be a very useful thread to help people use only the highest setting
necessary for a given end result, where anything higher is not
perceptible for a particular end use. If you have also scanned
negatives (color or B&W), that information will be helpful, too.
Thanks.

Neil

In article <887c7394-008a-4e18-aeef-ab9c8562e1c1
@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, nhmiller@aol.com says...
> It would be helpful to me and hopefully others to know what settings
> you have settled on, reconciling the trade offs between detail, scan
> time, and storage. Epson V500 or similar. I know that for ultimate
> quality, use the highest settings -- for Epson V500 those are 6400
> dpi, 48 bit and ICE -- if I zoom on a detail enough in PhotoShop I can
> tell you on my monitor which scan was 3200 dpi and which was 6400 dpi,
> but I haven't experimented yet with different color depths. What would
> be helpful is to know what you use for a given end result, such as
> print size or viewing on a TV. If we get enough responses, this will
> be a very useful thread to help people use only the highest setting
> necessary for a given end result, where anything higher is not
> perceptible for a particular end use. If you have also scanned
> negatives (color or B&W), that information will be helpful, too.
> Thanks.
>
> Neil

1st advice: forget 48 bit, at least for storage.
There are some editing functions that are technically better done at 48
bit, but not many, and you are unlikely to see any difference even
there. Science proves there is a difference, human eyes prove the
opposite.

But certainly, to archive images at 48 bit is overkill.
IMNSHO, even scanning/editing at 48 bit isn't worth it either.

MM

I would not necessarily recommend using the maximum settings.

On a 35mm slide or negative, 2,900 dpi gives a 10 megapixel image that
will take up about 50MB per image if saved as an uncompressed TIFF file.
At that point, grain is visible (depending on the film type), and for
the majority of images shot on the majority of cameras/lenses, by the
majority of photographers on the majority of films, you won't capture
anything of value by going to a higher resolution, but if you do go to
6,400 dpi, you could increase the file size by perhaps a factor of more
than four. Since we started at 50MB, do you really want a 200MB file?
[scan time would also increase dramatically]

What I'd say, in most cases, is to shoot for a resolution in this range,
but one that is no higher than the maximum native optical resolution of
the scanner, or an integral sub-multiple if the scanner's resolution is
higher. I'm not sure what the V500 specs are, but this might well be
either 2,400 or 3,200 dpi.


Neil wrote:
> It would be helpful to me and hopefully others to know what settings
> you have settled on, reconciling the trade offs between detail, scan
> time, and storage. Epson V500 or similar. I know that for ultimate
> quality, use the highest settings -- for Epson V500 those are 6400
> dpi, 48 bit and ICE -- if I zoom on a detail enough in PhotoShop I can
> tell you on my monitor which scan was 3200 dpi and which was 6400 dpi,
> but I haven't experimented yet with different color depths. What would
> be helpful is to know what you use for a given end result, such as
> print size or viewing on a TV. If we get enough responses, this will
> be a very useful thread to help people use only the highest setting
> necessary for a given end result, where anything higher is not
> perceptible for a particular end use. If you have also scanned
> negatives (color or B&W), that information will be helpful, too.
> Thanks.
>
> Neil

In article <47b79054$0$30690$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com says...
> .... Since we started at 50MB, do you really want a 200MB file?
> [scan time would also increase dramatically]

Or as 48 bit, a 400MB file?

MM

On Feb 16, 5:39�pm, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> saved as an uncompressed TIFF file

Is tif pretty much the standard for saving slide and negative scans,
and reflective color scans? I was using bmp, then switched to psd
(PhotoShop's default format). Before embarking on a major scanning
project of slides and negatives, I'm trying to get the benefit of what
others have found works best. Thanks.

Neil

In article <a83d56fe-edd5-43c7-8523-
1d3a7bbce81e@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, nhmiller@aol.com says...
> On Feb 16, 5:39ï¿=3Fpm, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > saved as an uncompressed TIFF file
>
> Is tif pretty much the standard for saving slide and negative scans,
> and reflective color scans? I was using bmp, then switched to psd
> (PhotoShop's default format). Before embarking on a major scanning
> project of slides and negatives, I'm trying to get the benefit of what
> others have found works best. Thanks.
>
> Neil

TIFF has been industry standard for a long time.
You can use compressed version of TIFF (called LZW) to make files
somewhat smaller (it is not lossy). The file compresses at different
capacities depending on actual pixel color content. Photoshop and most
mainstream image programs can read/write the LZW compressed version
TIFF.

PSD is fine, but can have ocassional problems between versions of
Photoshop and/or other image programs, depending on what you have done
to and saved with the .psd file (note the "compatibility" option within
Photoshop when saving the file). PSD will often be somewhat smaller than
uncompressed TIFF version depending on pixel makeup of image.

Note that if layers are used/saved, both PSD and TIFF will jump
significantly in size.

BMP is "okay" for most purposes, but is not much used anymore as an
industry standard. I'll let someone more knowledgeable re .bmp comment.

MM

On Feb 17, 10:49 am, MoiMoi <moi...@example.com> wrote:

> TIFF has been industry standard for a long time.
> You can use compressed version of TIFF (called LZW) to make files
> somewhat smaller (it is not lossy). The file compresses at different
> capacities depending on actual pixel color content. Photoshop and most
> mainstream image programs can read/write the LZW compressed version
> TIFF.

Preliminary conclusions -- everyone please keep posting your opinions
--

This is for initial scan and archiving to disc. I've been reading in
PhotoShop's Help on the subject, several other posts, and done some
experimental saving. First, it looks like tif is the best format (of
the non-lossy formats, it is judged to be the long term format for
future applications), and for its compression in PhotoShop, LZW beats
out ZIP (other choices are None and Jpg [lossy])-- the tif/zip file
would not place in PageMaker or open in Windows Picture and Fax
Viewer. Also 3200 dpi, 24 bit, ICE, as no one thinks there is a
perceptible advantage to higher settings. If the slide I used is
average, the following will be close to reality for a slide collection
-- The initial slide scan is 33 mg. The tifLZW is 14.5 mg, putting 324
scans on a 4.7gig DVD, probably closer to 300 to leave room for the
directory files.

For a slide show through a DVD player and TV, JPG appears to be the
most compatible, but I don't have much on that end use, yet.

Thanks.
Neil

[terry t]

On Feb 16, 2:39 pm, Neil <nhmil...@aol.com> wrote:
> It would be helpful to me and hopefully others to know what settings
> you have settled on, reconciling the trade offs between detail, scan
> time, and storage. Epson V500 or similar. I know that for ultimate
> quality, use the highest settings -- for Epson V500 those are 6400
> dpi, 48 bit and ICE -- if I zoom on a detail enough in PhotoShop I can
> tell you on my monitor which scan was 3200 dpi and which was 6400 dpi,
> but I haven't experimented yet with different color depths. What would
> be helpful is to know what you use for a given end result, such as
> print size or viewing on a TV. If we get enough responses, this will
> be a very useful thread to help people use only the highest setting
> necessary for a given end result, where anything higher is not
> perceptible for a particular end use. If you have also scanned
> negatives (color or B&W), that information will be helpful, too.
> Thanks.
>
> Neil

Here is a site with a lot of information:
http://www.scantips.com/

Either TIFF or JPEG. Purists won't save in JPEG, but that is, after all
the standard format of just about every digital camera. For
non-professional use, there is nothing wrong with JPEG at about 300k to
500k per megapixel. Yes, in theory, there is some loss due to
compression, as a practical matter, at these sizes or higher, no one
will ever see any difference.


Neil wrote:
> On Feb 16, 5:39�pm, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> saved as an uncompressed TIFF file
>
> Is tif pretty much the standard for saving slide and negative scans,
> and reflective color scans? I was using bmp, then switched to psd
> (PhotoShop's default format). Before embarking on a major scanning
> project of slides and negatives, I'm trying to get the benefit of what
> others have found works best. Thanks.
>
> Neil

On Feb 16, 11:39�am, Neil <nhmil...@aol.com> wrote:
> It would be helpful to me and hopefully others to know what settings
> you have settled on, reconciling the trade offs between detail, scan
> time, and storage. Epson V500 or similar. I know that for ultimate
> quality, use the highest settings -- for Epson V500 those are 6400
> dpi, 48 bit and ICE -- if I zoom on a detail enough in PhotoShop I can
> tell you on my monitor which scan was 3200 dpi and which was 6400 dpi,
> but I haven't experimented yet with different color depths. What would
> be helpful is to know what you use for a given end result, such as
> print size or viewing on a TV. If we get enough responses, this will
> be a very useful thread to help people use only the highest setting
> necessary for a given end result, where anything higher is not
> perceptible for a particular end use. If you have also scanned
> negatives (color or B&W), that information will be helpful, too.
> Thanks.
>
> Neil

Here's some posts that came to me by email:

I just try to scan at a high enough resolution that I could print the
size that I end up with at 300dpi.

I always save my most important pictures/scanned slides in the .tiff
format. Opening a .jpg file, saving it, closing and opening again, etc
is analogous to making a xerox copy and then a copy of the copy and
then a copy of the copy of the copy...the quality greatly deteriorates
with each save. This does not happen with the .tiff format. To save
time, I often scan in .jpg format, edit in digital image photo
software and save the edited .jpg file in the .tiff format to retain
the highest quality possible. If the slide is especially precious to
me, I scan in .tiff.

Here's a link to the Proshow Gold slideshow software I use. It's much
more sophisticated and professional than the slideshow programs that
come as part of photo editing software and you can do really arty and
creative things with it. Once you get used to the scanner, you might
want to consider downloading the program for a trial period. It's
reasonably priced, too.

http://www.photodex.com/products/proshowgold