Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Jack Phipps wrote: . The attached file has several very fine lines at certain angles. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction I didn't find the attachment with your post, am I the only one? Art
RE: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:49:24 -0400 Norman Unsworth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: FWIW, I just hit your site at http://www.halftone.co.uk , no problem. Yes, thanks, it appears to have been a transient DNS problem which only affected people going through the root nameservers, and has now been fixed by propagation. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
I did not receive it either. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Jack Phipps wrote: . The attached file has several very fine lines at certain angles. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction I didn't find the attachment with your post, am I the only one? Art
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
This is what Jack sent to me - except I've used LZW compression. I've never seen it manage compression ratios 20:1 -although its not surprising when you see the image. Steve - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 5:05 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again Jack Phipps wrote: . The attached file has several very fine lines at certain angles. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction I didn't find the attachment with your post, am I the only one? Art resizetest2b.tif
RE: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Thanks Steve. I've sent it three times to the list. I guess it was too large. To bad I didn't think of LZW. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: Steve Greenbank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 11:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again This is what Jack sent to me - except I've used LZW compression. I've never seen it manage compression ratios 20:1 -although its not surprising when you see the image. Steve - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 5:05 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again Jack Phipps wrote: . The attached file has several very fine lines at certain angles. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction I didn't find the attachment with your post, am I the only one? Art
RE: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
This is the other email I promised that goes along with the previous email about scanning and printing resolutions. The attached file has several very fine lines at certain angles. Each line should print the same size. When the image improperly resized (and resampled) you will notice a small difference between the lines. On my Epson 9000 it happens when you resize to 300, 240, and almost any odd size (like 304). It doesn't happen when you resize to 45, 90, 180 (the current size), 360 or 720. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction
RE: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
-Original Message- From: Rick Decker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ... Any advice is much appreciated. ... Okay, you asked for it. This is a posting to a Live Picture news group by our Chief Scientist Al Edgar. It is quite off topic in that it relates to resolutions needed for printing but on topic if you are trying to determine a scanning resolution. So if you are not interested in resolution, please delete now. A lot of it relates to the Epson 9000 printer we use. It is quite similar to other Epson printers and many of the ideas and tests can be used on other printers as well. I will include a resolution target we use to test printers that he mentions in a separate email. I think many of the issues mentioned here may be the same for all Epson printer (i.e., the Epson 9000 prints at 1440 by 720 but only accepts a maximum of 360 dpi, anything larger is resized) but I recommend you test it out for yourself. Also, as Al states the Epson prints 254 254 254 as white when printing at 1440 by 720, but prints some in at 720 by 720. The rip Al refers to is the Epson printer driver residing on our Apple, not the external rip you can purchase separately. When I'm deciding on a scanning resolution, I decide what size I will be printing, let's say 11 by 16. So I scan a 24 mm by 36 mm negative at 4000 ppi which yields 3780 by 5669 pixels (about 68 MB at 8 bits). At 360 dpi I end up with a 10.5 by 15.75 inch print. If I really need 11 by 16 I'll resize and crop in an image editor to 3960 by 5760 and print, otherwise I put a border around it and don't resize. If I need 22 by 32 I consider two approaches. If I'm in a hurry, I just resize it for 180 dpi and print. If I have time and disk space, I resize it in an image editor to 7920 by 11520 (about 274 MB). It is hard to tell the difference in the final print (between 180 and 360 upsized). If you send the Epson anything besides a multiple of 360 (45, 90, 180, 360, 720) like 240 or 300 you will be able to tell subtle differences when Epson resizes (see explanation below). I hope this helps! Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction This from Al-- All of my HP and Epson printer drivers resize by nearest neighbor, which means they make square pixels. The problem is that as the printer native resolution is approached, the pixels become randomly sized. For example, if the native resolution is 300 and you print an image at 200 dpi, some of the image rows will print 2 native pixels wide, and some will print 1. This happens both horizontally and vertically, so some image pixels will count up to 4 times as much as others in proportion to their area. If you navigate images in Photoshop, you are acquainted with the problems of nearest neighbor resize (Live Picture users are so lucky). Notice that an image viewed in Photoshop at 67% or 33% is the same graininess as the same image viewed at 100% or 50% despite being smaller, and in addition to the excess grain, aliasing makes edges wobble and some detail disappear. This is what happens to images you print that are not at the printer native resolution. It is caused by image pixels being printed with randomly varying areas, or weights, caused by nearest neighbor resize. The excess grain arises from non-uniform averaging over an area by your eye. There is an endearing characteristic of the Epson 9000 that I just discovered. The Epson rip is unable to handle an image pixel three native pixels wide. If your image is 240 dpi, the Epson rip will print alternate rows 1/360 inch and 1/180 inch, degrading an image by giving a 4:1 weighting of pixels on alternating rows and columns. It is as though the native printer resolution is only 360 dpi, although it can handle 720 as a special case. However it doesn't handle 120 dpi very well either, which is 3/360. To confirm this, or test your printer, generate single pixel wide un-aliased lines at varying angles close to 0 and 90 degrees, and print this at test dpi settings. With the Epson 9000 the lines appear to have constant thickness only at 720, 360, 180, and 90 dpi. At 200 or 240, for example, the lines vary widely in thickness, like a Photoshop image viewed at 67% magnification. If any of you need a test image, e-mail me off forum. Live Picture users are so lucky because they can build an image at 360 dpi for an Epson printer, next week 300 dpi for an HP printer, and next month 180 dpi for an Epson printer and a print size three times larger, and all will print with equal weighting of the underlying image pixels because Live Picture resizes in a way that preserves pixel weighting. What dpi is best? I carefully generated images with full detail at various resolutions. For the Epson 9000, I saw no difference between 720 and 360, a very slight degradation at 180, and very much loss at 90. How does this interact with Live Picture? If you ask for a build at 180 dpi and the underlying image is 240 dpi, Live Picture will pick the closest pyramid level, which is 120 dpi, half the image
RE: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Tony, FWIW, I just hit your site at http://www.halftone.co.uk , no problem. Norman Unsworth -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Berman Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 1:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again Tony, He's right. When I click on a link to your site it gets redirected to: http://www1.cix.co.uk/ Larry By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up and, instead, got sent to www.nextra.co.uk and got a lot of pop up ads. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
I had the same problem with being diverted to nextra. I thought it had something to do with Tim being bundled out of Wimbledon. Kevin (in the Colonies) - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 3:02 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again Tony, that's a good point about Photoshop, and other software, viewing image dimension only in pixels, with the other sizing information being nothing more than auxiliary instructions for use in displaying or printing the image. By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up and, instead, got sent to www.nextra.co.uk and got a lot of pop up ads. Don't know if it's by accident or design, but I consider it improper behavior. In a message dated 7/8/2001 2:21:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, as does Photoshop. To quote myself ;) 'it will save you endless confusion to realise than scans don't really have any dimension apart from pixels.' I won't plug my page a third time, but I didn't do it to say it all again here ;-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Rafe, thanks for your excellent response. I'm not exactly a newbie at scanning and Photoshop, but I obviously still have a lot to learn. Thanks for providing the definitions of "resize" and "resample." In the past, when I would resize in Photoshop, I always left the "Resample" box checked. I would first memorize how many pixels the image had, then I would enter the document size I wanted for my print, then I would change the resolution until I ended up with exactly the original number of pixels. In other words, I was resizing to get the print size I needed, but I was using some extra effort to keep the pixel count the same because I didn't want to resample and destroy any image information. But now, I know that all I have to do is uncheck the "Resample" box and Photoshop won't let the pixel count change. Then I can enter what ever print size I want and Photoshop automatically changes the resolution to keep the pixel count constant. Absolutely amazing! And what a time saver for me. Also, good information on using 1600 ppi for the 1640 scanner, rather than 3200 ppi. I have a Microtek ScanMaster 5 flatbed that also has asymmetrical resolution. I should run some tests to see if it makes any difference with my scanner if I use the lower resolution value when scanning. In a message dated 7/8/2001 4:09:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Roger, there were a couple of points in your recent post to Rick Decker that I'd like to comment on. My experience with the 1640 SU is that there is absolutely no advantage to setting 3200 dpi resolution (as compared to 1600.) There are a number of scanners out there with "assymetrical" resolutions, and it's usually a shell game. Ditto for printer resolutions. The number that matters is the lower one. The higher number is simply for ad copy. "Looks good on the side of the box" -- as the marketing guys say. The other is the matter of resizing/resampling the image in Photoshop. You (and Rick) should understand the difference. In Photoshop's Image-Image Size dialog, there's a check-box labeled "Resample Image." If you CHECK this box, PS will either "create" or throw away pixels according to the resolution, height, and width that you ask for, and the resolution, height and width of the existing image. If you UN-CHECK this box, PS will neither create nor destroy pixels; it merely changes and internal tag, somewhere in the image file, that determines the physical size of the printed image. If you scanned a 35 mm frame on the 1640SU, you get a file that's 1600 x 2400 pixels (let's use round numbers here.) If you set target size at 100% in the scanner driver (I'm working from memory here) it will arrive in Photoshop sized at 1" x 1.5". If you print it that way, you'll get a 1" x 1.5" print. So you want to resize or resample. Which to choose? Fortunately in Photoshop, it doesn't matter much -- Photoshop does a good job resampling. But just bear in mind -- with "Resampling" an entirely new image is created, pixel by pixel. With "Resize" the original pixels in the image remain untouched. (So "Resize" happens almost instantaneously, whereas "Resample" takes some time, maybe 15-30 seconds on this image, on a reasonably fast machine.) A "Resize" of this 1600 x 2400 image might yield, for example: -- an image 2" x 3" at 800 dpi -- an image 4" x 6" at 400 dpi -- an image 8" x 12" at 200 dpi and so on. "Resize" is probably more of a purist's approach. There's no possibility of degrading the image in any way. "Resample" will either create new pixels (by interpolation) or throw them away (by averaging and decimation.) With "Resample" an entirely new image is created for you. Finally... bear in mind that the scanner's rated dpi has almost nothing to do with sharpness. I can prove to you easily that the 1640's so-called "1600 dpi" yields an image much less sharp than a Polaroid SprintScan Plus working at 1350 dpi -- half its rated resolution. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Thanks Rob...it confirms my worst fears...but I have done two 11x16 prints from slides albeith bw and one looks real good and the other more than adequate...although maybe I should look to the skills of the photographer (me) for the success of the print. Heh Heh!!! Rob Geraghty wrote: Rick Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 3 parameters on my 1640SU scanner - Source Size , Target Size and DPI. The manual tells me to Increase Resolution as I increase Target Size. Anyone else have an Epson flatbed who can comment? Scanner manufacturers seem to make things needlessly complicated with settings like this. I can't remember what the maximum real ppi of the 1640 is, Rick, but essentially you want to scan so you're getting that maximum. You don't want to exceed it or you're just getting interpolated data, and you don't want to scan at less or you're not making the most of the scanner's resolution. OK, I just checked the Epson site. The 1640 is 1600ppi. If you scan a 1 inch square off a frame of film, you'll get 1600x1600 pixels. Print that at 300dpi and the image will be 5.3 x 5.3. If you use the 3200ppi mode of the scanner one dimension is interpolated, but that would give you twice the print size without resampling. In my past experience there's little improvement in data once you get to the smaller of the ppi limits of a flatbed (1600ppi in this case). Hope that's some help! Rob
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Rick, I'm not familiar with your scanner, but I'm going to pretend that I know what I'm talking about. So fasten your seat belt; this may be a bumpy ride. Another post indicated, if I read it correctly, that your scanner has a maximum optical resolution of 3200 ppi in one direction and 1600 ppi in another. As others have stated, it's almost always best to scan at the maximum optical resolution of the scanner. You can always throw away extra pixels later if you don't need them. So, in your case, it looks you should scan at 3200 ppi. The scanner is going to "pad" one scan axis (the one that can only scan at 1600 ppi optically) with some extra pixels by making an educated guess (interpolating) at what they should be, but at least you'll get all of the data out of the 3200 ppi axis. My guess is that, of the 3 scanner parameters you need to set, "DPI" is the one that should be set to 3200. So that leaves the "Source Size" and "Target Size" parameters. I'd set both to the size of the film being scanned, such as 1x1.5 inches for a 35 mm slide. With most scanners I'm familiar with, when you get ready to scan something, you first do a "prescan" and then adjust the sides of a crop box so that it includes only that part that you want to scan. After you've set the crop lines, then you do the actual scan and only that part that you selected with the crop lines gets scanned. In the process of setting the crop lines, I suspect that the "Source Size" will be automatically set for you. You have a fourth parameter you alluded to, that being "Scale." Set it to 100 per cent. I suspect that when you do that, it will cause the "Target Size" to automatically be set the value of the "Source Size." As I said before, I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not familiar with your scanner, so none of what I'm telling you may be accurate. But a lot of scanners work the way I've explained and there is a lot of interaction between the three or four parameters. If your scanner doesn't allow for a prescan, then you'll have to set "Source Size" yourself. Set it just big enough so that all of your film gets scanned. In this case, you might very well have a larger than normal file because you had to scan in a lot of useless area around the film. It's not a problem. Simply use Photoshop (or whatever equivalent software you are using) to crop off the unnecessary stuff, and the file size will drop to a manageable size. So, in summary, scan at the highest optical resolution of your scanner (3200 ppi), set Source Size and Target Size equal to the film size being scanned, and set Scale to 100 per cent. Then, if you look at the image in Photoshop, you'll see that it is about 1x1.5 inches (for a 35 mm film scan) and has a resolution of 3200 ppi and has a pixel size of about 3200x4800 pixels. Do whatever you want to in Photoshop, then save a copy to your hard drive. Then, use Photoshop to resize the image before printing to, say 8x12 inches, and, at the same time, change the Photoshop resolution to one-eighth (because you increasing the size by a factor of eight) of its original 3200 ppi resolution, or 400 ppi. So now Photoshop has an image that's 8x12 inches, 400 ppi resolution, and still 3200x4800 pixels. (You haven't created, or thrown away, any pixels by resizing, which is usually a Good Thing.) As I mentioned in a previous post, you want to sent the printer at least 300 ppi data, so 400 ppi is more than enough for an 8x12. Boy, I hope I'm guessing correctly as to how your scanner works and that this is going to be of some help to you. Remember, you can always try different combinations of settings and look at the output from your printer to see what works and what doesn't. One final comment. Your scanner has a maximum resolution of 3200 ppi in only one axis. It's half that in the other. So, if you scan at 3200 ppi, one axis of the image is going to be half as sharp as its 3200 ppi resolution implies. We've said that you want at least 300 ppi to send to the printer, but since your image isn't as sharp along one axis as we've been assuming, you might want to send more than 300 ppi to the printer. How much more? Well, it won't be any more than 600 ppi since that's the value we'd use if both axes had optical resolutions of 1600 and we scanned at 3200. So the correct value is between 300 and 600 ppi. I did some fancy math involving root-mean-square and determine that you should send 474 ppi data to the printer when (and only when) you scan at 3200 ppi where one axis has a resolution of half that. This means that, for a 8x12 inch print from a 1x1.5 inch piece of film, the 400 ppi that we have available falls short of the 474 ppi that we would like to have. Don't worry about it. I doubt it'll make all that much difference. But it does indicate that an 8x12 from 35 mm film is a marginal situation for your scanner and you certainly wouldn't want to print anything much larger
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Rick Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Rob...it confirms my worst fears...but I have done two 11x16 prints from slides albeith bw and one looks real good and the other more than adequate...although maybe I should look to the skills of the photographer (me) for the success of the print. Heh Heh!!! If it does the job you want it for, then it's good enough! Rob
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Hi Rick, Actually, the manual is correct. The error you are making is in the size of the file you expect you will be creating. If you are making a scan of a 35mm film frame, you don't need to scan the whole flatbed size, only 1 x 1.5, as you states. This doesn't make a 700+ meg file. The size of the file depends upon a number of things. 1) The size of then source image and the resolution used, two the number of color layers involved (black and white, grayscale, RGB, CMYK) and thirdly the bit depth of each color channel. If you use 8 bits per channel (color) on a RGB scan of one frame it will be approximately 18 megs at 2400 dpi, It will double if you scan at 16 bits per channel. The equation you used is correct, using the 300 dpi input to printer resolution, which is about correct for an inkjet printer. So, other than your assumption about the size of the file, the rest is correct. However, keep in mind that your flatbed has a maximum optical scanning ability (probably 1600 ppi on your scanner). Anything above this is simply interpolated, and provides no additional real information, so scanning beyond the maximum optical value has no advantage. You might as well allow the printer driver print at a somewhat lower dpi to accommodate the limitation of the scanner. Or you might compare what happens by increasing resolution in Photoshop or another software package, via upsampling, and see which gives a more pleasing result. As to if there is a point where these are no diminishing returns, it is higher on some printers than I originally believed, which was based upon the older Epson printers. About a year ago, someone sent me scanned samples from an Epson 1160? printer and it did show minor additional detail when going from 240 to 300 to 360 to 372.7 (which was the size he ended up with without doing any downsampling) to about 400 dpi, at which point the results pretty much plateaued. The differences beyond 300 dpi took some careful scrutinizing to see. The problems with large files are that image manipulation is slowed down, storage space gets used up and the printer spools the file more slowly. Art Rick Decker wrote: Now let's say that I want to take a 35mm slide (1x1.5in) and enlarge it to 8x12...my resolution would be 2400 according to the manua (12/1.5=8...8/1=8...300x8=2400)l. At 1600, I would have a file size of 705 megabytes!! I am sure that this is way beyond the point at which the increase in file size does not result in any more increase in data. It sounds to me like I should leave my resolution at 300 dpi/ppi...even that will give me a file size of 24megabytes which I suspect is larger than I need. For an 11x16 it would be 45 megabytes. Any advice is much appreciated.
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
At 01:56 AM 7/8/01 EDT, Roger Miller wrote: snip Roger, there were a couple of points in your recent post to Rick Decker that I'd like to comment on. My experience with the 1640 SU is that there is absolutely no advantage to setting 3200 dpi resolution (as compared to 1600.) There are a number of scanners out there with assymetrical resolutions, and it's usually a shell game. Ditto for printer resolutions. The number that matters is the lower one. The higher number is simply for ad copy. Looks good on the side of the box -- as the marketing guys say. The other is the matter of resizing/resampling the image in Photoshop. You (and Rick) should understand the difference. In Photoshop's Image-Image Size dialog, there's a check-box labeled Resample Image. If you CHECK this box, PS will either create or throw away pixels according to the resolution, height, and width that you ask for, and the resolution, height and width of the existing image. If you UN-CHECK this box, PS will neither create nor destroy pixels; it merely changes and internal tag, somewhere in the image file, that determines the physical size of the printed image. If you scanned a 35 mm frame on the 1640SU, you get a file that's 1600 x 2400 pixels (let's use round numbers here.) If you set target size at 100% in the scanner driver (I'm working from memory here) it will arrive in Photoshop sized at 1 x 1.5. If you print it that way, you'll get a 1 x 1.5 print. So you want to resize or resample. Which to choose? Fortunately in Photoshop, it doesn't matter much -- Photoshop does a good job resampling. But just bear in mind -- with Resampling an entirely new image is created, pixel by pixel. With Resize the original pixels in the image remain untouched. (So Resize happens almost instantaneously, whereas Resample takes some time, maybe 15-30 seconds on this image, on a reasonably fast machine.) A Resize of this 1600 x 2400 image might yield, for example: -- an image 2 x 3 at 800 dpi -- an image 4 x 6 at 400 dpi -- an image 8 x 12 at 200 dpi and so on. Resize is probably more of a purist's approach. There's no possibility of degrading the image in any way. Resample will either create new pixels (by interpolation) or throw them away (by averaging and decimation.) With Resample an entirely new image is created for you. Finally... bear in mind that the scanner's rated dpi has almost nothing to do with sharpness. I can prove to you easily that the 1640's so-called 1600 dpi yields an image much less sharp than a Polaroid SprintScan Plus working at 1350 dpi -- half its rated resolution. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:32:41 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Anyone else have an Epson flatbed who can comment? Scanner manufacturers seem to make things needlessly complicated with settings like this. Yes, as does Photoshop. To quote myself ;) 'it will save you endless confusion to realise than scans don't really have any dimension apart from pixels.' I won't plug my page a third time, but I didn't do it to say it all again here ;-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 4:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:32:41 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Anyone else have an Epson flatbed who can comment? Scanner manufacturers seem to make things needlessly complicated with settings like this. Yes, as does Photoshop. To quote myself ;) 'it will save you endless confusion to realise than scans don't really have any dimension apart from pixels.' I won't plug my page a third time, but I didn't do it to say it all again here ;-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Tony, that's a good point about Photoshop, and other software, viewing image dimension only in pixels, with the other sizing information being nothing more than auxiliary instructions for use in displaying or printing the image. By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up and, instead, got sent to www.nextra.co.uk and got a lot of pop up ads. Don't know if it's by accident or design, but I consider it improper behavior. In a message dated 7/8/2001 2:21:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, as does Photoshop. To quote myself ;) 'it will save you endless confusion to realise than scans don't really have any dimension apart from pixels.' I won't plug my page a third time, but I didn't do it to say it all again here ;-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Tony, He's right. When I click on a link to your site it gets redirected to: http://www1.cix.co.uk/ Larry By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up and, instead, got sent to www.nextra.co.uk and got a lot of pop up ads. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Rick Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 3 parameters on my 1640SU scanner - Source Size , Target Size and DPI. The manual tells me to Increase Resolution as I increase Target Size. Anyone else have an Epson flatbed who can comment? Scanner manufacturers seem to make things needlessly complicated with settings like this. I can't remember what the maximum real ppi of the 1640 is, Rick, but essentially you want to scan so you're getting that maximum. You don't want to exceed it or you're just getting interpolated data, and you don't want to scan at less or you're not making the most of the scanner's resolution. OK, I just checked the Epson site. The 1640 is 1600ppi. If you scan a 1 inch square off a frame of film, you'll get 1600x1600 pixels. Print that at 300dpi and the image will be 5.3 x 5.3. If you use the 3200ppi mode of the scanner one dimension is interpolated, but that would give you twice the print size without resampling. In my past experience there's little improvement in data once you get to the smaller of the ppi limits of a flatbed (1600ppi in this case). Hope that's some help! Rob
