Scanning question???????????

[ignatiusjk]

Just as a test I scanned a 4x5 neg with a target size of 16x20 and 11x14.I scanned at 300 dpi and made 16x20 size prints and can't tell the difference between them.The file size is naturally much smaller with the 11x14.Should I just scan at the 11x14 size for the smaller file size?

[Ron Marshall]

At the lower scanning resolution, you may already be at the true maximum optical resolution of the scanner.

What scanner are you using?

[Lenny Eiger]

Just as a test I scanned a 4x5 neg with a target size of 16x20 and 11x14.I scanned at 300 dpi and made 16x20 size prints and can't tell the difference between them.The file size is naturally much smaller with the 11x14.Should I just scan at the 11x14 size for the smaller file size?

If you are saying that you scanned at 11x14 and printed to 16x20, then the resulting dpi to the printer would be ((14x300) / 20), or 210 dpi. What you are suggesting is that you can't see a difference when printing at 210 dpi to your printer vs 300.

This doesn't mean you are blind.... 210 dpi is definitely not 300, or 360. It depends a great deal on the image, the printer, inks and paper. The paper is a huge factor. Imagers with lots of buildings tend to do well at low resolutions, the eye sees all the edges, and they don't necessarily have to be tack-sharp. Wide areas of color will show image degradation much more, for example. There are a lot of factors here. However, while I have had a happy client who had me print a 6 foot image from a digital camera down at 95 dpi, I will tell you that certain images will look horrible at 210, there can be halo effects, it can look like you oversharpened it, etc. - and I wouldn't recommend it as a standard procedure.

I scan everything to the max, which means I don't have to scan it again if I want to make it larger. I am assured of everything the image has. If the negative gets lost, or the chrome fades for whatever reason, then I have it all secured. It's a philosophy, there are plenty of other ways to approach it. It does require some computing power, thankfully RAM is pretty cheap.

Hope that helps.

Lenny

[ignatiusjk]

At the lower scanning resolution, you may already be at the true maximum optical resolution of the scanner.

What scanner are you using?

I'm using an Epson V700 scanner.

[ignatiusjk]

One of the reasons I want to scann at 11x14 is because of the smaller file size. I do want to make 16x20's but it is taking a huge part of my memory. So what to do.Rescan at 11x14 @300 or buy more memory.

[Lenny Eiger]

One of the reasons I want to scann at 11x14 is because of the smaller file size. I do want to make 16x20's but it is taking a huge part of my memory. So what to do.Rescan at 11x14 @300 or buy more memory.

I don't know the computer you're using, but RAM is dirt cheap, and so are hard drives. A SATA 1 terabyte hard drive is less than $200 - and you can stick it in your computer... for nothing. That would last you a lot....

Lenny

[Ron Marshall]

One of the reasons I want to scann at 11x14 is because of the smaller file size. I do want to make 16x20's but it is taking a huge part of my memory. So what to do.Rescan at 11x14 @300 or buy more memory.

How much RAM do you currently have installed. I run CS2 with just over 2 gig and most operations are quite fast.

[Doug Fisher]

Sounds like there might be some confusion in regard to scanning input resolution versus printing output resolution. Scan the film at the actual/original film image size at 3200 ppi.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com