I have done a number of scans of 35mm and m/f frames, using a Nikon
Coolscan and an Epson 4990. On the Nikon I've used their scanning
software, on the Epson SilverFast.
Each image has been scanned twice. First 2000 dpi jpg; second 4000 dpi
tiff. Apart from that all other settings were the same.
I am puzzled because in every case on enlargement the tiffs look
markedly inferior to the jpgs which are sharper. I had expected the
opposite to be the case.
Can anyone throw light on why this might be, and more importantly
suggest a solution? All suggestions gratefully received.
I agree, the TIFs should be better, four times more pixels, and no lossy
compression.
"1Scan" <jeff.underwood@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d016b8ef-6d0d-42c8-96fa-00fe92c00576@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I have done a number of scans of 35mm and m/f frames, using a Nikon
> Coolscan and an Epson 4990. On the Nikon I've used their scanning
> software, on the Epson SilverFast.
>
> Each image has been scanned twice. First 2000 dpi jpg; second 4000 dpi
> tiff. Apart from that all other settings were the same.
>
> I am puzzled because in every case on enlargement the tiffs look
> markedly inferior to the jpgs which are sharper. I had expected the
> opposite to be the case.
>
> Can anyone throw light on why this might be, and more importantly
> suggest a solution? All suggestions gratefully received.
>
> Jeff Underwood
Tiff vs. JPEG has nothing to do with resolution (number of pixels).
NOTHING. Nor, necessarily, with sharpness as long as you don't get
carried away in the degree of compression in the JPEG format. The
compression in JPEG does NOT reduce the number of pixels.
Chuck Tribolet wrote:
> Which Coolscan? What scan options?
>
> I agree, the TIFs should be better, four times more pixels, and no lossy
> compression.
>
>
>
> "1Scan" <jeff.underwood@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d016b8ef-6d0d-42c8-96fa-00fe92c00576@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> I have done a number of scans of 35mm and m/f frames, using a Nikon
>> Coolscan and an Epson 4990. On the Nikon I've used their scanning
>> software, on the Epson SilverFast.
>>
>> Each image has been scanned twice. First 2000 dpi jpg; second 4000 dpi
>> tiff. Apart from that all other settings were the same.
>>
>> I am puzzled because in every case on enlargement the tiffs look
>> markedly inferior to the jpgs which are sharper. I had expected the
>> opposite to be the case.
>>
>> Can anyone throw light on why this might be, and more importantly
>> suggest a solution? All suggestions gratefully received.
>>
>> Jeff Underwood
>
>
On May 23, 9:39*am, 1Scan <jeff.underw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have done a number of scans of 35mm and m/f frames, using a Nikon
> Coolscan and an Epson 4990. On the Nikon I've used their scanning
> software, on the Epson SilverFast.
>
> Each image has been scanned twice. First 2000 dpi jpg; second 4000 dpi
> tiff. Apart from that all other settings were the same.
>
> I am puzzled because in every case on enlargement the tiffs look
> markedly inferior to the jpgs which are sharper. I had expected the
> opposite to be the case.
>
> Can anyone throw light on why this might be, and more importantly
> suggest a solution? All suggestions gratefully received.
>
> Jeff Underwood
An image scanned at 2000 ppi will look sharper then on scanned at 4000
ppi, when viewed at 100%.
Try resizing the 4000 ppi scan to 50%, to match the 2000 ppi scan and
see how it compares.
As Barry said there really should not be a differents in sharpness
between a tiff and jpeg, unless you use a lot of compression on the
jpeg.
1Scan wrote:
> I have done a number of scans of 35mm and m/f frames, using a Nikon
> Coolscan and an Epson 4990. On the Nikon I've used their scanning
> software, on the Epson SilverFast.
>
> Each image has been scanned twice. First 2000 dpi jpg; second 4000 dpi
> tiff. Apart from that all other settings were the same.
>
> I am puzzled because in every case on enlargement the tiffs look
> markedly inferior to the jpgs which are sharper. I had expected the
> opposite to be the case.
>
> Can anyone throw light on why this might be, and more importantly
> suggest a solution? All suggestions gratefully received.
>
> Jeff Underwood
The jpegs are probably sharpened by the scanning software, whereas the
tiffs are not.
Sharpening the tiffs in Photoshop will produce as good or better than
the jpegs.
This goes to the heart of questions I had for a long time and had
hoped been solved. But I'm not sure. I am scanning/achiving family
slides with a Nikon Coolscan for my children and their children's
children. I'm not concerned how they look today but in a 100 years
with the technology of that time.
My approach (supported by the opinions of others) has been to scan at
the greatest resolution technology provides, and this has been 4000
dpi and 16 bit color. Of course, this generates 100MB image files,
but that's just the cost of this approach.
As much as possible, I avoid "over-processing" the image by not using
algorithms for sharpening and noise reduction. All I do is balance
faded colors, use dust removal, and crop the image on the philosophy
that it's better to give future generations the raw product to enhance
with their technology.
I wonder though. I too am disappointed at those high res images.
They're just not as sharp as I had hoped, and definitely not as sharp
as the 35mm slide projected on an 8 by 5 screen. Yes, I could sharpen
the image, be that introduces artifacts that could defeat the
algorithms of future genertations.
Perhaps I'm getting all the resolution there is. It's a lot of work
for something that's not a good as I would have liked.
Anyone have thoughts on the subect?
Mike
On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:06:37 +1200, Colin_D <nospam@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>1Scan wrote:
>> I have done a number of scans of 35mm and m/f frames, using a Nikon
>> Coolscan and an Epson 4990. On the Nikon I've used their scanning
>> software, on the Epson SilverFast.
>>
>> Each image has been scanned twice. First 2000 dpi jpg; second 4000 dpi
>> tiff. Apart from that all other settings were the same.
>>
>> I am puzzled because in every case on enlargement the tiffs look
>> markedly inferior to the jpgs which are sharper. I had expected the
>> opposite to be the case.
>>
>> Can anyone throw light on why this might be, and more importantly
>> suggest a solution? All suggestions gratefully received.
>>
>> Jeff Underwood
>
>The jpegs are probably sharpened by the scanning software, whereas the
>tiffs are not.
>
>Sharpening the tiffs in Photoshop will produce as good or better than
>the jpegs.
>
>Colin D.
>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
On Fri, 30 May 2008 05:33:21 -0500, Mike Fox <mikefox@Junoo.com>
wrote:
>This goes to the heart of questions I had for a long time and had
>hoped been solved. But I'm not sure. I am scanning/achiving family
>slides with a Nikon Coolscan for my children and their children's
>children. I'm not concerned how they look today but in a 100 years
>with the technology of that time.
>
>My approach (supported by the opinions of others) has been to scan at
>the greatest resolution technology provides, and this has been 4000
>dpi and 16 bit color. Of course, this generates 100MB image files,
>but that's just the cost of this approach.
>
>As much as possible, I avoid "over-processing" the image by not using
>algorithms for sharpening and noise reduction. All I do is balance
>faded colors, use dust removal, and crop the image on the philosophy
>that it's better to give future generations the raw product to enhance
>with their technology.
>
>I wonder though. I too am disappointed at those high res images.
>They're just not as sharp as I had hoped, and definitely not as sharp
>as the 35mm slide projected on an 8 by 5 screen. Yes, I could sharpen
>the image, be that introduces artifacts that could defeat the
>algorithms of future genertations.
>
>Perhaps I'm getting all the resolution there is. It's a lot of work
>for something that's not a good as I would have liked.
>
>Anyone have thoughts on the subect?
>
>Mike
>
Everyone has an opinion, here's mine. (Actually, I have two.)
1. I've seen very few 35mm slides or negatives that are good enough
for a 4000 dpi scan. Certainly no "hand-held" 35mm images, as most of
mine are.
2. If your scans are really not as sharp as a projected image, then
you are really doing something wrong, or your equipment is really
******* up. Try scanning your "best" slide on someone else's scanner,
or better yet, have someone else scan it for you, just as a
comparison.
> I wonder though. I too am disappointed at those high res images.
> They're just not as sharp as I had hoped, and definitely not as sharp
> as the 35mm slide projected on an 8 by 5 screen. Yes, I could sharpen
> the image, be that introduces artifacts that could defeat the
> algorithms of future genertations.
>
> Perhaps I'm getting all the resolution there is. It's a lot of work
> for something that's not a good as I would have liked.
>
> Anyone have thoughts on the subect?
>
> Mike
You're likely getting all the film has to offer, as others have noted.
That's not to say that future technology might not be able to improve on
hi-res image appearance, so your approach of capturing all you can now
seems like a good one for you so long as large storage is not a problem.
What you might do as an interim step is to create smaller jpeg files to
pair with your larger tiffs -- the smaller file reduced by a factor of
four or more -- then sharpen, color-adjust and otherwise edit images to
look good today. Your large tiff remains unaltered for the future.
On May 30, 11:53 am, Bob Shomler <w...@shomler.com> wrote:
> > I wonder though. I too am disappointed at those high res images.
> > They're just not as sharp as I had hoped, and definitely not as sharp
> > as the 35mm slide projected on an 8 by 5 screen. Yes, I could sharpen
> > the image, be that introduces artifacts that could defeat the
> > algorithms of future genertations.
>
> > Perhaps I'm getting all the resolution there is. It's a lot of work
> > for something that's not a good as I would have liked.
>
> > Anyone have thoughts on the subect?
>
> > Mike
>
> You're likely getting all the film has to offer, as others have noted.
> That's not to say that future technology might not be able to improve on
> hi-res image appearance, so your approach of capturing all you can now
> seems like a good one for you so long as large storage is not a problem.
>
> What you might do as an interim step is to create smaller jpeg files to
> pair with your larger tiffs -- the smaller file reduced by a factor of
> four or more -- then sharpen, color-adjust and otherwise edit images to
> look good today. Your large tiff remains unaltered for the future.
Note that some photo editing programs, such as Adobe Photoshop
Lightroom and Apple's Aperture edit nondestructively. That is, they
save the original plus an instruction set from which they can recreate
your edits when you view or print the images from within the program.
(This is similar to the image and metadata from a camera's RAW file.)
They can also save a copy with edits incorproated as a JPEG, TIFF, etc.
On Fri, 30 May 2008 09:11:16 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
<invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 May 2008 05:33:21 -0500, Mike Fox <mikefox@Junoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>This goes to the heart of questions I had for a long time and had
>>hoped been solved. But I'm not sure. I am scanning/achiving family
>>slides with a Nikon Coolscan for my children and their children's
>>children. I'm not concerned how they look today but in a 100 years
>>with the technology of that time.
>>
>>My approach (supported by the opinions of others) has been to scan at
>>the greatest resolution technology provides, and this has been 4000
>>dpi and 16 bit color. Of course, this generates 100MB image files,
>>but that's just the cost of this approach.
>>
>>As much as possible, I avoid "over-processing" the image by not using
>>algorithms for sharpening and noise reduction. All I do is balance
>>faded colors, use dust removal, and crop the image on the philosophy
>>that it's better to give future generations the raw product to enhance
>>with their technology.
>>
>>I wonder though. I too am disappointed at those high res images.
>>They're just not as sharp as I had hoped, and definitely not as sharp
>>as the 35mm slide projected on an 8 by 5 screen. Yes, I could sharpen
>>the image, be that introduces artifacts that could defeat the
>>algorithms of future genertations.
>>
>>Perhaps I'm getting all the resolution there is. It's a lot of work
>>for something that's not a good as I would have liked.
>>
>>Anyone have thoughts on the subect?
>>
>>Mike
>>
>Everyone has an opinion, here's mine. (Actually, I have two.)
>
>1. I've seen very few 35mm slides or negatives that are good enough
>for a 4000 dpi scan. Certainly no "hand-held" 35mm images, as most of
>mine are.
>2. If your scans are really not as sharp as a projected image, then
>you are really doing something wrong, or your equipment is really
>******* up. Try scanning your "best" slide on someone else's scanner,
>or better yet, have someone else scan it for you, just as a
>comparison.
All good suggestions which I plan on following before I proceed.
Sharpness in Tiff Scans 
Linear Mode
