silverfast scanning

[walterb]

I know this subject has been discussed many times, but I am an old guy trying to learn with this new technology. I am useing an epson 4990 with silverfast AI 6.4 then on to photoshop. I am scanning tri x 4x5 with settings in silverfast as follows:
scan type 48 bit color, output size 16 x 12.7. If I set the dpi which I assume is the same as ppi at 300 I get a file size of 104.75 mbytes, at 600 dpi file size is 419.02 mbytes, at 1200 file size is 1676 mbytes. I have tried the 1200 setting and the computer told me I didn't have enough RAM. I have 2 gig of ram. I have read on previous threads of scanning at 2400 ppi. Totally confused. Any help would be appreciated.

Walterb

[ostreet]

It's all an issue of scaling. Silverfast conveniently does the math for you so you don't have to worry about it. If your final output size is 16x12.7 you'll want to choose a dpi that you would like to print at. 300 is generally considered to be the sweet spot, but in my experience anywhere from 180 to 360 is fine depending on the application and printer. Anything beyond that is overkill and a waste of your time and computer's resources.

Let's do some quick math. We'll assume nice round numbers here to make it easy. Say you want to scan your 4x5 to make an 8x10 print. We know that 300dpi is our goal. So we could scan this neg in a couple different ways. 1) Tell Silverfast you want an 8x10 (output size) @ 300dpi. You'll get a file that is 2400x3000 pixels (8x300=2400, 10x300=3000). 2) Leave your output size at 100% but set your dpi to 600. You'll get a file that is 2400x3000 pixels (4x600=2400, 5x600=3000). The same as before. Open said file in photoshop and change the Image Size to 8x10 @ 300dpi. The file does not change...it is still 2400x3000 pixels. If you're still confused try looking here (http://scantips.com/) for a more in depth explanation.

[ostreet]

A couple more things...

When people recommend scanning @ 2400dpi what they mean is to leave the scaling alone (default 100% or ouptut size the same as the input size) and resize in PS as needed. The philosophy here is to scan once at the highest resolution that your particular scanner is capable of and you won't have to scan again later if you decide you want a larger print at some later date. Not bad advice if you have the computer horsepower for it, but leave your scaling to 100%. Of course, if you're scanning 48bit color, your going to have a hard time handling that file cause it will be huge.

My advice, since you are new, just stick to scanning for your final desired print size at 300dpi and be happy. You may have to rescan a few negs down the road, but the practice could actually be good for you. For what it's worth, if you're printing much beyond 16x20, you'll probably not want to use your scans from your 4990 anyway. If you are printing large, invest in a professional scan...you'll be much happier.

Eric

[Joanna Carter]

I know this subject has been discussed many times, but I am an old guy trying to learn with this new technology. I am useing an epson 4990 with silverfast AI 6.4 then on to photoshop. I am scanning tri x 4x5 with settings in silverfast as follows:
scan type 48 bit color, output size 16 x 12.7. If I set the dpi which I assume is the same as ppi at 300 I get a file size of 104.75 mbytes, at 600 dpi file size is 419.02 mbytes, at 1200 file size is 1676 mbytes. I have tried the 1200 setting and the computer told me I didn't have enough RAM. I have 2 gig of ram. I have read on previous threads of scanning at 2400 ppi. Totally confused. Any help would be appreciated.

1. Are you using Windows or a Mac?

2. If you are using Windows, which version?

3. How much spare disk space do you have?

[Brian Ellis]

Why are you scanning b&w film as color? Some years ago that used to be recommended by some people but IMHO it was of questionable value even back then with 4x5 and in any event has been rendered unnecessary by later technology. Forget the color, scan it as 16 bit b&w and right off the bat you'll have a huge reduction in file size. You're also pushing what IMHO are the limits of quality prints from 4990 scans at your print size. I'd scale back a little at first, maybe to roughly 11x14, then work your way up if necessary.

[Doug Fisher]

Are you by chance using the ICE feature? If so, try turning it off and you might find it then allows you to make the scan. Just a thought because the same issue shows up with medium format scans at high resolutions when ICE is turned on. Turning ICE off often makes the issue go away.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[walterb]

joanna

I have windows xp with about 280 gbytes of free space.

walter b

[walterb]

A couple more things...

When people recommend scanning @ 2400dpi what they mean is to leave the scaling alone (default 100% or ouptut size the same as the input size) and resize in PS as needed. The philosophy here is to scan once at the highest resolution that your particular scanner is capable of and you won't have to scan again later if you decide you want a larger print at some later date. Not bad advice if you have the computer horsepower for it, but leave your scaling to 100%. Of course, if you're scanning 48bit color, your going to have a hard time handling that file cause it will be huge.

My advice, since you are new, just stick to scanning for your final desired print size at 300dpi and be happy. You may have to rescan a few negs down the road, but the practice could actually be good for you. For what it's worth, if you're printing much beyond 16x20, you'll probably not want to use your scans from your 4990 anyway. If you are printing large, invest in a professional scan...you'll be much happier.

Eric

Thanks, Now I understand I appreciate your help
Walter

[walterb]

1. Are you using Windows or a Mac?

2. If you are using Windows, which version?

3. How much spare disk space do you have?

I am using windows xp with about 280 g bytes of spare space wit most of this on an external hard drive.

walter

[walterb]

Why are you scanning b&w film as color? Some years ago that used to be recommended by some people but IMHO it was of questionable value even back then with 4x5 and in any event has been rendered unnecessary by later technology. Forget the color, scan it as 16 bit b&w and right off the bat you'll have a huge reduction in file size. You're also pushing what IMHO are the limits of quality prints from 4990 scans at your print size. I'd scale back a little at first, maybe to roughly 11x14, then work your way up if necessary.

I was under the impression scanning in color was the way to go. I will scale back to
b&w and reduce the file size.

Thanks for the helpful info.

walter

[Scott Kathe]

I was under the impression scanning in color was the way to go. I will scale back to
b&w and reduce the file size.

Thanks for the helpful info.

walter

Walter,

The only reason to scan in color is that usually one of the channels, the green channel on my Epson 4990, is sharper than the other channels. So I scan in color then throw out the red and blue channels and only work with the green channel. The green channel is just slightly sharper and I haven't done a print comparison comparing the green channel from an RGB scan to a print from a grayscale scan. I think Brian is probably right and it doesn't make that much of a difference but that being said I'm trying to squeeze everything I can out of my scans so I do the little bit of extra work.

Scott

[trink408]

I have a similar setup to you.

Win XP Pro machine
4 gig of ram (windows will only address 3 gigs of it thanks to service pack 2...)
multiple hard drives and swap file is on seperate drive from photoshop programs
Epson 4990 scanner
Silverfast AI.

I scan 4x5 at 2400dpi without any scaling, and make my adjustments in photoshop. I don't use digital ice, and the computer handles it pretty well. I prefer scanning in color and using photoshop to make the conversions. I spot check the original scan and save it. From there I can use this master file to make files for whatever size print I need.

[Kuzano]

I am using windows xp with about 280 g bytes of spare space wit most of this on an external hard drive.walter

Don't use the external drive as a work drive. By that, I mean, scan your files onto the main hard drive, and when you are working in Photoshop (if you use photoshop) don't work directly on files that are in the external drive. Transfer a file you are working on into the C: drive and work there. Use the external for storage and also NOT as the scratch drive. Either designate the C: drive as a scratch drive or have another drive installed inside the computer on the faster interfaces. The transfer rates on the USB interface are not fast enough for photoshop to be efficient and for the work from the scanner to load into. I have had two clients who are photographers damage external hard drives by working on the files directly through the USB. Since changing to internal drives, no problems. They both only store files on the externals now.

I thought I would mention this since you mentioned the external drive. Also, scanning takes long enough as it is without including the pokey USB link into the equations. Scan to a destination on the C: drive, or other internal drive.

Also, On Trinks post, may I presume that you mean one or more of the multiple drives are inside the computer on the high speed interfaces, and that the work space (or scratch file) is on one of those drives inside the computer??

[trink408]

Also, On Trinks post, may I presume that you mean one or more of the multiple drives are inside the computer on the high speed interfaces, and that the work space (or scratch file) is on one of those drives inside the computer??

That would be correct. I have 3 internal hard drives, and one large external hard drive for backup purposes. I have photoshop installed on local c:, and the scratch file is on e: which is another internal Sata drive.

[Robert Brummitt]

Can someone answer this or me?
When I use my 4990 with Siverfast SE through Photoshop. When the scan is almost done or is done, I'm kicked out of PS and the scan doesn't get finished.
Its very frustrating for me.