There should be that option in your scanner software.Originally Posted by tenderobject
And yes, I always output to TIFF, save it as RGB file. If I need to make a JPEG, I will save that as sRGB, with a resolution of 100 dpi.
I have not heard of the M. Sampling option, perhaps it's only Microtek software?
As Ari says, always save the scan as a 16-bit-per-channel TIF or better. Jpegs are lossy, whereas Tifs are not. So, Scan into a tif. Archive that file. I have a folder, which I back up, called "Original Scans". When I want to work on the file. I open one from the "Original Scans" folder. I then immediately rename that file and save it in a "Working File" folder. Edit the file. Save. You now have a full res 16-bpc image. That's your master file. You make print files, web files (100 dpi, 8-bit-per-channel, sRGB jpegs)...from the master file. Make sure to back up the master file, because if you lose it, all of your work is gone, except for the "original scan" file.
My guess is the the M. Sampling option reads the negative multiple times and then averages the value. This can help with noise. Note, though, that there are two types. The first scans the whole negative, and then scans the whole thing again. It can do this many times. This will lower noise, but consumer flatbeds aren't precise enough the the multiple scans always line up. So this type can lead to a loss of detail. The second type of multi-scanning reads one scan line of the negative multiple times before moving on. Since there is no movement between the multiple exposures, image registration won't be a problem. This type of multi-sampling is much better than the first, with the only negative being increased scan time.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Peter, excellent idea! Thank you very much. I would try to do this next time i scan my negs. This would be a good start for a new workflow!
By the way, my software scanner have up to 16 line sof M. Sampling. I'm not sure what type of multi-sampling my scanner does.
Would it be safe to use this? 2,4,8,16 settings. Maybe using this for my master file would help?
Thanks again guys!
Regarding multiple sampling, the best way to answer this is to run a test. Make a scan, it doesn't have to be a huge area, but it's good if it has a full range of tones. Don't use multi-sampling. Now repeat using 2x, multi-sampling, then 4x, then 8x...... Make sure you know which scan is which. Compare the the image with no multisampling to the one down at 16x at 100% on screen. Is there a sharpness difference? Now compare the grain rendition in the densest part of the negative. Do the ones with multi-sampling look cleaner? If you lose sharpness, or you don't gain less noise, then it's not worth doing multi-sampling, at least with film of that max density. If it's less noisy with no loss of sharpness, then it might be worth doing. Compare the ones at various levels. Doing this you should be able to make an informed decision regarding sharpness, noise and scan time.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Thank you Peter. I will try some testing this week and will try to post it here.
Depending upon your printer and your printer driver you can print at resolutions higher than 360 and there is a real detail increase. I print my images at 720 ppi.
720ppi? How big is the print? How big is the output size of your scanned 8x10 negative? Thanks!
There are all sorts of resolutions....how many samples-per-inch in the scan, how many of the smallest dots that the printer can make (this is what you get with the 1440 or 2880 dpi statement), and what is the maximum resolution file that your printer will use without re-sizing. Most Epson printers won't resize a file at 720 dpi. With some Canon and HP printers, it's 600 dpi. Let's call the resolution that a printer driver won't re-sample the image the printer's native resolution. (That's not the same thing as the smallest drop the printer will print. Points on the image are usually made with many printer dots.) I have an Epson 7600 printer. It prints best with a file at the final output size and at 720 dpi. This assumes that the file really has info at that level. Moving down to 480 dpi shows a tiny loss. Down to 300 a much bigger loss... (Note that color prints can often get away with lower dpi images than grayscale. Also, digital cameras can get away with a little less and still look pretty good.) So, if you have a scanner, and a system that can handle the hi res files, you can maximize quality for an Epson printer by ending up with a 720dpi file at print size. But if your file doesn't really contain that much image data, i.e. if your scanner cannot pull enough info from the film, then your simply having your scanner software interpolate the image instead of the print driver. Which is better might be worth testing. What is important, though, is that you understand what's going on, and you can keep all of the various resolution figures straight. Leave it to marketing folks to make things as confusing as possible.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
The whole problem with that method is that it requires you to determine your maximum enlargement before you do the scan.
Perhaps your crystal ball is better than mine, but I've often enlarged images to a much greater degree than I anticipated.
I do agree with the earlier statement in that article: "It's easiest if we scan at the highest resolution we'll ever need."
That's particularly important if you plan to archive the real image and use the digital rendition as your primary source.
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks