I know so little about this, that I hope my question makes sense.
How big is the file of a 4x5 B&W negative scanned on a mid-priced flatbed scanner (such as Epson 4990)?
I know so little about this, that I hope my question makes sense.
How big is the file of a 4x5 B&W negative scanned on a mid-priced flatbed scanner (such as Epson 4990)?
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
At 2100 dpi, 16 bit grayscale, 4x5 negatives on an Epson 4990, my TIFF files are 130mb, give or take.
Last edited by venchka; 29-Dec-2008 at 22:25.
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the North Carolina rainforest.
Wayne's Blog
FlickrMyBookFaceTwitSpacei
Just do the calculation: DPI squared times area times bytes/pixel: (2100x2100)x(4x5)x(16/8) gives about 176Mb for an uncompressed TIF file. A little less since the image area is a little less than 4x5".
Thanks, Guys -- I had no idea. I'm afraid that my old PC would choke to death trying to handle that size file.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
There's no rule that says you have to always scan at the maximum ppi the scanner is capable of resolving (about 2100 ppi for the 4990). Depending on the desired dpi in the print (assuming you're scanning to make a print as opposed to just posting on the web) and the desired size of the print, you may be able to scan at considerably less than the scanner's maximum. Or you could always scan at a lesser ppi and resample to get the desired dpi in the print. See the thread below titled "what bit depth to at" for more information.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
What are the specs on your "old PC"? Sure it's a nice idea to scan at max res and 16-bit, but this extra data will just drag you down once you start adding adjustment layers with masks. I have done a few scans at 16-bit and generated drive-grinding, 1GB files, but I don't think it was really that necessary. Decide what size print you want and stick with that. If the slowness is going to cripple your creative work on the file then what's the point?
Someone suggested scanning a huge hero shot, saving it off and working on a reduced-size working copy which is a great idea, although could cause a some regret depending on how much work you put into the reduced copy. It could likely being a case of that old raw monster just sitting around unused for a long time.
I should add that I use an ancient Gateway Pentium 4 machine, Windows XP Home, 512mb ram and Adobe Lightroom. Lightroom has a silly 10k pixel on the long side file limit. The files do require a bit of loading time, but it's not terrible. For 6x7 negatives, I use 2400dpi on the same Epson 4990. Those files are 60something mb. My other machine is a Dell dual Xeon with 4gb of ram. Things work a little better on that machine. I don't print very big. I'm not hyper-critical. Working with MF and 4x5 negatives provide all the quality I need.
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the North Carolina rainforest.
Wayne's Blog
FlickrMyBookFaceTwitSpacei
"what bit to at?" My proofing wasn't very good. Should be "what bit to scan at" in case anyone cares.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
People generally determine scanning resolution based on either final print size, or on archive size. Print size is what you want it to be, archiving is usually at the highest practical resolution that one can scan and save the file.
If what you want is to determine file size based on final print size this can be done in Photoshop easily. Go to the File>New and a box will pop up that will allow you to enter size, resolution, and mode. When you do, the box will tell you the file size. The attached screen shoot shows file size for a final size of 16X20", 16 bit grayscale. Change the final print size, resolution or mode and the file size will change.
Sandy King
Bookmarks