Re: filmscanners: Size differences, JPEG
Larry wrote: The only way you might experience the differences you are referring to is if you are scanning to a jpeg output which creates an imprecise workflow and inconsistent results. That's exactly what I did (it's the way HP Precision Scan works), and it explains what I'm seeing. I bow to the master. :-) Those who haven't seen Larry's compression comparison page at http://imagecompress.com/comparison.htm it's an interesting (and useful) read. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
filmscanners: Size differences, JPEG
Here's a question for Lawrence and others who might have 1200ppi flatbed HP scanners (or similar): Have you noticed that JPEGed flatbed image files are considerably smaller than the same pictures scanned with your filmscanner? I've noticed that scans scanned from prints with HP PrecisionScan and JPEG-compressed about 30% are about 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the same picture with the same parameters, scanned from a neg with other programs. It's only a curious anamoly, but it's hard to figure out just what's going on--recent and previous discussions about losing data have made me wonder about it, and I wonder if other people are seeing similar results. I realize that the 6300's 1200ppi will produce about 44% less data than my Acer's 2700ppi--on a linear count, that is. But with both pictures going to the same size, at the same resolution, at about the same rate of compression, I'd think the difference would be less. The lost data doesn't seem to be significant at *normal* monitor resolutions--little more than the difference one observes from one imaging program to another. Perhaps my off-line flatbed has just given me too much time to worry, and I should be spending more time with a fishing rod in my hands. :-) Best regards--Lynn Allen --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Size differences, JPEG
Keep in mind that 1200x1200 is about 80% fewer pixels than 2700x2700. Also, since you mentioned that you are describing jpg file size, that the different applications may be using differing levels of jpg compression. Pat - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 8:23 AM Subject: filmscanners: Size differences, JPEG Here's a question for Lawrence and others who might have 1200ppi flatbed HP scanners (or similar): Have you noticed that JPEGed flatbed image files are considerably smaller than the same pictures scanned with your filmscanner? I've noticed that scans scanned from prints with HP PrecisionScan and JPEG-compressed about 30% are about 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the same picture with the same parameters, scanned from a neg with other programs. It's only a curious anamoly, but it's hard to figure out just what's going on--recent and previous discussions about losing data have made me wonder about it, and I wonder if other people are seeing similar results. I realize that the 6300's 1200ppi will produce about 44% less data than my Acer's 2700ppi--on a linear count, that is. But with both pictures going to the same size, at the same resolution, at about the same rate of compression, I'd think the difference would be less. The lost data doesn't seem to be significant at *normal* monitor resolutions--little more than the difference one observes from one imaging program to another. Perhaps my off-line flatbed has just given me too much time to worry, and I should be spending more time with a fishing rod in my hands. :-) Best regards--Lynn Allen --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: Size differences, JPEG
writes ... Have you noticed that JPEGed flatbed image files are considerably smaller than the same pictures scanned with your filmscanner? ... This could be due to a couple of factors. If there is any tendency for the flatbed to produce a softer image it will compress to a smaller JPEG. Also, film scanners will tend to enhance the film grain, which would be absent in a high resolution print produced with analog methods. The enhanced grain would also increase the JPEG file size. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Size differences, JPEG
It is my understanding that flatbeds generally do not pick up the detail that a filmscanner does at the identical resolution. Since there is less detail there are more areas of 'sameness' which, I assume, uses less space for the JPEG algorithm to describe, whether compressed or uncompressed. Make sense? I don't know but this sounds logical. Maris - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 10:23 AM Subject: filmscanners: Size differences, JPEG | Here's a question for Lawrence and others who might have 1200ppi flatbed HP | scanners (or similar): | | Have you noticed that JPEGed flatbed image files are considerably smaller | than the same pictures scanned with your filmscanner? | | I've noticed that scans scanned from prints with HP PrecisionScan and | JPEG-compressed about 30% are about 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the same picture | with the same parameters, scanned from a neg with other programs. It's only | a curious anamoly, but it's hard to figure out just what's going on--recent | and previous discussions about losing data have made me wonder about it, | and I wonder if other people are seeing similar results. | | I realize that the 6300's 1200ppi will produce about 44% less data than my | Acer's 2700ppi--on a linear count, that is. But with both pictures going | to the same size, at the same resolution, at about the same rate of | compression, I'd think the difference would be less. | | The lost data doesn't seem to be significant at *normal* monitor | resolutions--little more than the difference one observes from one imaging | program to another. Perhaps my off-line flatbed has just given me too | much time to worry, and I should be spending more time with a fishing rod in | my hands. :-) | | Best regards--Lynn Allen | | | --- | FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com | Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com | | |
