good drive deal ... (was: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg)
For those with a Fry's Electronics nearby, I found an in-store special on a Seagate 500G external drive yesterday that seems a decent deal: 7200rpm drive with a 16Mbyte cache in a nicely designed, quiet fan cooled enclosure (comes with a stand for vertical standalone use or can be stacked with others horizontally), includes two FireWire ports and a USB 2.0 port. $240 complete. At that price, it's cheaper than any of the 500G bare drives and a decent enclosure that I've found locally, is competitive with buying online but less hassle. I bought one, formatted it and loaded it up with 240G of data last night. Formatted capacity (Mac OS X Extended & Journaled) came out to 466G. It performed quickly and flawlessly. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 20, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > I'm surprised to hear that your 1800GB of drive space isn't a RAID > array, do you run them as independent drives or as on contiguous > partition? I've been running RAID arrays for years and during my last > server upgrade I added a new RAID controller that will allow my 1TB > RAID 5 array to be expanded to just over 5TB. A good RAID solution not > only provides greater data protection but also scalability. Next upgrade I'll go to RAID. I've been using discrete external drives for years and just got used to doing it that way. > > I also burn DVDs (and previously CDs) as archive/backups and I've not > yet found an unreadable disc either. I'd be very surprised if there is > not some free or very inexpensive solution available to automate the > PhotoCD to TIFF conversion process. As I said, I can do it with Photoshop. It's just a matter of finding the time. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On 20/10/06, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't gone that route yet, but know many photographers using RAID > setups. I'm still just copying everything to two drives. Works fine > at my current volume. I'm surprised to hear that your 1800GB of drive space isn't a RAID array, do you run them as independent drives or as on contiguous partition? I've been running RAID arrays for years and during my last server upgrade I added a new RAID controller that will allow my 1TB RAID 5 array to be expanded to just over 5TB. A good RAID solution not only provides greater data protection but also scalability. > Like you, I have yet to have a CD or DVD become unreadable. My > oldest ones date from about 1993 and still read just fine. I > archived a lot of images, though, on Kodak PhotoCD, and I understand > that the file format they used won't be supported much longer. So at > some point I have to open all of those hundreds of files and save > them as TIFF. I don't look forward to that. I also burn DVDs (and previously CDs) as archive/backups and I've not yet found an unreadable disc either. I'd be very surprised if there is not some free or very inexpensive solution available to automate the PhotoCD to TIFF conversion process. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 20, 2006, at 8:56 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Look around, you might be able to find some software > That can batch process those photoCD files for you. I'd imagine that Photoshop could batch process the files. I just haven't gotten a round tuit yet. Got an extra one you can spare? Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On 20/10/06, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK. So what's the actual file size of one of my Genuine Fractals > files? I know how much space the file takes up on my hard drive. > But when I open one of these files I get a dialog window asking me > what size I want to open it to. If I choose to open it as a 22 MB > file or if I choose to open it as a 550mMB file, which is the "real" > file size? The answer, of course, is neither. The actual file size > is how much space the file occupies on my hard drive. GF coded files are a special case of compression and user interactive decompression, the real size is still completely dependent on the pixel dimensions and bit depth of the original source bitmap. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Look around, you might be able to find some software That can batch process those photoCD files for you. joc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Shell Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 8:40 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg On Oct 20, 2006, at 8:10 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Hard drive RAID arrangement seems to be the safest > Way to go. I haven't gone that route yet, but know many photographers using RAID setups. I'm still just copying everything to two drives. Works fine at my current volume. > > Just using individual HDDs aint. I have had three > HDDs fail on me in last 20 yrs, I have (yet) to > Have a single CD or DVD become unreadable during that time ( I do > Data verify when I burn them). I've had three hard drives fail in ten years. One was the internal drive in a Mac that was destroyed by a worm. One was a semi-failure of an external drive. Turned out the controller in the housing was what went and just moving the drive to a replacement housing (less than $ 30) solved the problem. Third drive just stopped working. Like you, I have yet to have a CD or DVD become unreadable. My oldest ones date from about 1993 and still read just fine. I archived a lot of images, though, on Kodak PhotoCD, and I understand that the file format they used won't be supported much longer. So at some point I have to open all of those hundreds of files and save them as TIFF. I don't look forward to that. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 20, 2006, at 8:10 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Hard drive RAID arrangement seems to be the safest > Way to go. I haven't gone that route yet, but know many photographers using RAID setups. I'm still just copying everything to two drives. Works fine at my current volume. > > Just using individual HDDs aint. I have had three > HDDs fail on me in last 20 yrs, I have (yet) to > Have a single CD or DVD become unreadable during that time ( I do > Data verify when I burn them). I've had three hard drives fail in ten years. One was the internal drive in a Mac that was destroyed by a worm. One was a semi-failure of an external drive. Turned out the controller in the housing was what went and just moving the drive to a replacement housing (less than $ 30) solved the problem. Third drive just stopped working. Like you, I have yet to have a CD or DVD become unreadable. My oldest ones date from about 1993 and still read just fine. I archived a lot of images, though, on Kodak PhotoCD, and I understand that the file format they used won't be supported much longer. So at some point I have to open all of those hundreds of files and save them as TIFF. I don't look forward to that. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Hard drive RAID arrangement seems to be the safest Way to go. Just using individual HDDs aint. I have had three HDDs fail on me in last 20 yrs, I have (yet) to Have a single CD or DVD become unreadable during that time ( I do Data verify when I burn them). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Shell Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:37 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg On Oct 19, 2006, at 10:16 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Depending on the compression algorithms/format, original file size and > Compression levels the time to compress/save and uncompress/open > Can be noticed (at least on my machine ). > > You asked/wondered why anyone would not use compression and I told > You why. That's all. For me, I prefer the speed to saving space. > For archival stuff I put on DVDs. Sounds like you prefer to keep > Everything on the HDDs. To each his own and for different reasons. Agreed. After all the conflicting studies on CD and DVD longevity, many pro photographers have chosen to use multiple hard drives instead. Of course everything is mirrored onto more than one hard drive. Some even do the backup weekly and keep the mirror hard drive (s) in a separate location. I know one person who keeps the backup in a bank safe deposit box, but that seems a bit extreme to me. Personally, I suspect hard drives will become extinct in the near future as flash memory keeps getting cheaper. I have already read that computer makers are working on a new generation of laptops that will use flash memory instead of hard drives. No moving parts should make flash memory outlast hard drives by a long span. I still do back things up onto CD and DVD, but that's just one more level of security. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
It's not what I say, Bob. It's what logic dictates. The only relevant file size is that which determines the resolution, bit depth and size of the print. Your compressed size is only interesting in terms of how many files you can store on your media. Even with those Genuine Fractal files, the size that you open it to is the relevant size in regard to ouput. And since we were discussing the file size necessary for printing, that is the only number that matters. On Oct 20, 2006, at 6:30 AM, Bob Shell wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> What your common sense says is incommunicable. Compressed size isn't >> file size if you're trying to tell someone what size file you require >> to make a print. It's only relevant to your hard drive requirements. >> The size of the file when it's open in PhotoShop is file size. If you >> compressed it as a jpeg, it would be yet a different size. There's no >> standard when compression sizes are cited. Working file size is the >> only reference that is meaningful. > > OK, whatever you say, boss. > > Bob > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 19, 2006, at 11:13 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > The problem is the the compressed file size is irrelevant to what size > print you can make from it, as it varies by image rather than > solely by > resolution and colour depth. Uncompressed file size is directly > relevant > to what you can do with the file, so it's a far more useful measure > for > anything beyond how many images you can fit on a disk. My god! A logical argument! What's this doing here? Yes, Adam, I see your point. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 19, 2006, at 10:27 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > But Bob, the compressed size is not the actual file size, it's > essentially > just the size of the package into which the file itself has been > placed and > stored. I have a very large down comforter that is placed in a > storage bag > during the summer months. This compresses the comforter and allows > for > easier, more convenient storage. However, when the comforter is > removed > from the storage bag it returns to it's original large size. If > someone > asks me the size of the comforter I give them the actual > dimensions, not > the compressed size that's in the storage bag. > > I heartily agree with Paul ... your common sense seems to have > caused a > gross misunderstanding in this thread, and you are mistaken about what > constitutes the actual file size. OK. So what's the actual file size of one of my Genuine Fractals files? I know how much space the file takes up on my hard drive. But when I open one of these files I get a dialog window asking me what size I want to open it to. If I choose to open it as a 22 MB file or if I choose to open it as a 550mMB file, which is the "real" file size? The answer, of course, is neither. The actual file size is how much space the file occupies on my hard drive. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 19, 2006, at 10:16 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Depending on the compression algorithms/format, original file size and > Compression levels the time to compress/save and uncompress/open > Can be noticed (at least on my machine ). > > You asked/wondered why anyone would not use compression and I told > You why. That's all. For me, I prefer the speed to saving space. > For archival stuff I put on DVDs. Sounds like you prefer to keep > Everything on the HDDs. To each his own and for different reasons. Agreed. After all the conflicting studies on CD and DVD longevity, many pro photographers have chosen to use multiple hard drives instead. Of course everything is mirrored onto more than one hard drive. Some even do the backup weekly and keep the mirror hard drive (s) in a separate location. I know one person who keeps the backup in a bank safe deposit box, but that seems a bit extreme to me. Personally, I suspect hard drives will become extinct in the near future as flash memory keeps getting cheaper. I have already read that computer makers are working on a new generation of laptops that will use flash memory instead of hard drives. No moving parts should make flash memory outlast hard drives by a long span. I still do back things up onto CD and DVD, but that's just one more level of security. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > What your common sense says is incommunicable. Compressed size isn't > file size if you're trying to tell someone what size file you require > to make a print. It's only relevant to your hard drive requirements. > The size of the file when it's open in PhotoShop is file size. If you > compressed it as a jpeg, it would be yet a different size. There's no > standard when compression sizes are cited. Working file size is the > only reference that is meaningful. OK, whatever you say, boss. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
you're confusing the sock drawer with the socks. -- Cheers, Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff > Sent: 20 October 2006 03:28 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg > > But Bob, the compressed size is not the actual file size, > it's essentially > just the size of the package into which the file itself has > been placed and > stored. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:44:21PM -0400, Bob Shell wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:00 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > Compressing and uncompressing is SLOWER > > Than using uncompressed files. > > Actually, that used to be a consideration back in the old days of > slow chips. With today's machines the difference is not even > detectable. Oh, it's detectable - very detectable. Writing to secondary media (such as a CF card) is slow, slow, slow - I/O is the major bottleneck in modern computer systems. You can afford a whole lot of CPU cycles if the payback is reduced I/O time. JCO is just plain wrong on this (not that you'll ever get him to admit it). There's been an interesting thread on this topic on dpreview; a guy there who has written lossless JPEG compression routines estimates that just putting compression in the firmware on the K10D would more than pay for itself in I/O time savings, even using pretty conservative estimates for compression ratios. And if there were a hardware assist in the PRIME chip ... Not to mention the increase in the number of images you could get per GB of memory card, reduced upload time, etc. I'm sure we'll see compressed DNG available on the K10D fairly soon, once the rush to get firmware version 1.0 ready is over. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
True. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:54 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg Of course not. But they're far more meaningful than a compressed storage size. On Oct 19, 2006, at 10:21 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Even working file sizes arent really that meaningful in terms of > Absolute image quality because Of up-rez processing, bayer > interpolations, 8 bit vs 16 bit gray/color channel scales etc. In > other > words, not all "X" megabyte size opened files are created equal! > jco > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Paul Stenquist > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:55 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg > > What your common sense says is incommunicable. Compressed size isn't > file size if you're trying to tell someone what size file you require > to make a print. It's only relevant to your hard drive requirements. > The size of the file when it's open in PhotoShop is file size. If you > compressed it as a jpeg, it would be yet a different size. There's no > standard when compression sizes are cited. Working file size is the > only reference that is meaningful. > Paul > On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:45 PM, Bob Shell wrote: > >> >> On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:30 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> How one stores files is beside the point. However, when speaking of >>> what file size is required for a 13 x 19 print, common sense >>> dictates >>> that one would cite the actual, uncompressed size of the file. The >>> compressed size is totally irrelevant. >> >> Sorry, but my common sense says file size is actual file size. >> >> Bob >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Bob Shell wrote: > On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:30 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> How one stores files is beside the point. However, when speaking of >> what file size is required for a 13 x 19 print, common sense dictates >> that one would cite the actual, uncompressed size of the file. The >> compressed size is totally irrelevant. > > Sorry, but my common sense says file size is actual file size. > > Bob > The problem is the the compressed file size is irrelevant to what size print you can make from it, as it varies by image rather than solely by resolution and colour depth. Uncompressed file size is directly relevant to what you can do with the file, so it's a far more useful measure for anything beyond how many images you can fit on a disk. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Of course not. But they're far more meaningful than a compressed storage size. On Oct 19, 2006, at 10:21 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Even working file sizes arent really that meaningful in terms of > Absolute image quality because Of up-rez processing, bayer > interpolations, 8 bit vs 16 bit gray/color channel scales etc. In > other > words, not all "X" megabyte size opened files are created equal! > jco > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Paul Stenquist > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:55 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg > > What your common sense says is incommunicable. Compressed size isn't > file size if you're trying to tell someone what size file you require > to make a print. It's only relevant to your hard drive requirements. > The size of the file when it's open in PhotoShop is file size. If you > compressed it as a jpeg, it would be yet a different size. There's no > standard when compression sizes are cited. Working file size is the > only reference that is meaningful. > Paul > On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:45 PM, Bob Shell wrote: > >> >> On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:30 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> How one stores files is beside the point. However, when speaking of >>> what file size is required for a 13 x 19 print, common sense >>> dictates >>> that one would cite the actual, uncompressed size of the file. The >>> compressed size is totally irrelevant. >> >> Sorry, but my common sense says file size is actual file size. >> >> Bob >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
But Bob, the compressed size is not the actual file size, it's essentially just the size of the package into which the file itself has been placed and stored. I have a very large down comforter that is placed in a storage bag during the summer months. This compresses the comforter and allows for easier, more convenient storage. However, when the comforter is removed from the storage bag it returns to it's original large size. If someone asks me the size of the comforter I give them the actual dimensions, not the compressed size that's in the storage bag. I heartily agree with Paul ... your common sense seems to have caused a gross misunderstanding in this thread, and you are mistaken about what constitutes the actual file size. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bob Shell > On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:30 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > How one stores files is beside the point. However, when speaking of > > what file size is required for a 13 x 19 print, common sense dictates > > that one would cite the actual, uncompressed size of the file. The > > compressed size is totally irrelevant. > > Sorry, but my common sense says file size is actual file size. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Even working file sizes arent really that meaningful in terms of Absolute image quality because Of up-rez processing, bayer interpolations, 8 bit vs 16 bit gray/color channel scales etc. In other words, not all "X" megabyte size opened files are created equal! jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:55 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg What your common sense says is incommunicable. Compressed size isn't file size if you're trying to tell someone what size file you require to make a print. It's only relevant to your hard drive requirements. The size of the file when it's open in PhotoShop is file size. If you compressed it as a jpeg, it would be yet a different size. There's no standard when compression sizes are cited. Working file size is the only reference that is meaningful. Paul On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:45 PM, Bob Shell wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:30 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> How one stores files is beside the point. However, when speaking of >> what file size is required for a 13 x 19 print, common sense dictates >> that one would cite the actual, uncompressed size of the file. The >> compressed size is totally irrelevant. > > Sorry, but my common sense says file size is actual file size. > > Bob > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Depending on the compression algorithms/format, original file size and Compression levels the time to compress/save and uncompress/open Can be noticed (at least on my machine ). You asked/wondered why anyone would not use compression and I told You why. That's all. For me, I prefer the speed to saving space. For archival stuff I put on DVDs. Sounds like you prefer to keep Everything on the HDDs. To each his own and for different reasons. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Shell Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:44 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:00 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Compressing and uncompressing is SLOWER > Than using uncompressed files. Actually, that used to be a consideration back in the old days of slow chips. With today's machines the difference is not even detectable. > With 250GB hard drives costing under $100 > Why bother with slow compression?? (That's what I say, I > Now have about 560GB of HDD on my PC, the 1 Terabyte > Threshold will be reached soon no doubt). I'm a professional photographer. I have over 1800 GB of HD storage right now, and I'm going to need to add more soon. Regardless of whether drive space is relatively cheap or not, I want to make optimum use of it. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
What your common sense says is incommunicable. Compressed size isn't file size if you're trying to tell someone what size file you require to make a print. It's only relevant to your hard drive requirements. The size of the file when it's open in PhotoShop is file size. If you compressed it as a jpeg, it would be yet a different size. There's no standard when compression sizes are cited. Working file size is the only reference that is meaningful. Paul On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:45 PM, Bob Shell wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:30 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> How one stores files is beside the point. However, when speaking of >> what file size is required for a 13 x 19 print, common sense dictates >> that one would cite the actual, uncompressed size of the file. The >> compressed size is totally irrelevant. > > Sorry, but my common sense says file size is actual file size. > > Bob > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:30 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > How one stores files is beside the point. However, when speaking of > what file size is required for a 13 x 19 print, common sense dictates > that one would cite the actual, uncompressed size of the file. The > compressed size is totally irrelevant. Sorry, but my common sense says file size is actual file size. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:00 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Compressing and uncompressing is SLOWER > Than using uncompressed files. Actually, that used to be a consideration back in the old days of slow chips. With today's machines the difference is not even detectable. > With 250GB hard drives costing under $100 > Why bother with slow compression?? (That's what I say, I > Now have about 560GB of HDD on my PC, the 1 Terabyte > Threshold will be reached soon no doubt). I'm a professional photographer. I have over 1800 GB of HD storage right now, and I'm going to need to add more soon. Regardless of whether drive space is relatively cheap or not, I want to make optimum use of it. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
That may be true on a local level in Australia. It certainly wasn't the case in LA and New York. Paul On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:11 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 20/10/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've had publishers ask for a file with reference only to DPI. One >> was the New York Times photo editor who requested a 150 DPI file. I >> figured the largest they would run it would be four column width, so >> I gave them an 8 inch wide shot at 150 dpi. They ran it four column >> width. Oh, and they use PCs by the way. My long-term observation is >> that most PC users are appliance operators. Many Mac users are >> graphics professionals who understand image sizing. And I've been in >> the publishing/advertising business since long before computers were >> used for page layout. > >> From my publishing experience (which started early 90's when >> computers > began to be implemented in larger facilities using VP and later QE) > I've found quite the opposite. Page layout people especially if they > were only working with positional images had no idea what to ask of > the client WRT file specs, in fact most seemed not even to be aware of > the underlying image format until just a few years ago. PC users have > been painfully aware of all file types until they started dumbing down > the OS and hiding file extensions by default. > > In any case I believe what you say but I'm pretty sure that I've done > more PS/Mac support work across more businesses than yourself as I > serviced the local print/pre-press/design industry at many levels for > quite a few years. > > -- > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On 20/10/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had publishers ask for a file with reference only to DPI. One > was the New York Times photo editor who requested a 150 DPI file. I > figured the largest they would run it would be four column width, so > I gave them an 8 inch wide shot at 150 dpi. They ran it four column > width. Oh, and they use PCs by the way. My long-term observation is > that most PC users are appliance operators. Many Mac users are > graphics professionals who understand image sizing. And I've been in > the publishing/advertising business since long before computers were > used for page layout. >From my publishing experience (which started early 90's when computers began to be implemented in larger facilities using VP and later QE) I've found quite the opposite. Page layout people especially if they were only working with positional images had no idea what to ask of the client WRT file specs, in fact most seemed not even to be aware of the underlying image format until just a few years ago. PC users have been painfully aware of all file types until they started dumbing down the OS and hiding file extensions by default. In any case I believe what you say but I'm pretty sure that I've done more PS/Mac support work across more businesses than yourself as I serviced the local print/pre-press/design industry at many levels for quite a few years. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
I've had publishers ask for a file with reference only to DPI. One was the New York Times photo editor who requested a 150 DPI file. I figured the largest they would run it would be four column width, so I gave them an 8 inch wide shot at 150 dpi. They ran it four column width. Oh, and they use PCs by the way. My long-term observation is that most PC users are appliance operators. Many Mac users are graphics professionals who understand image sizing. And I've been in the publishing/advertising business since long before computers were used for page layout. Paul On Oct 19, 2006, at 7:48 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 20/10/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm aware of this. I just meant there's nothing intrinsic in the >> image >> data that relates to a physical size. This is what trips up a lot of >> people. I've had editors of publications ask for files with no >> information other than "oh, 300 DPI should do". > > Unfortunately like any profession, being in-the-industry doesn't > preclude anyone from being an idiot :-( > > The other unfortunate thing is that I've noticed is that this trait > seems to be mainly Mac user centric (just a long term observation > guys). > > -- > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On 20/10/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm aware of this. I just meant there's nothing intrinsic in the image > data that relates to a physical size. This is what trips up a lot of > people. I've had editors of publications ask for files with no > information other than "oh, 300 DPI should do". Unfortunately like any profession, being in-the-industry doesn't preclude anyone from being an idiot :-( The other unfortunate thing is that I've noticed is that this trait seems to be mainly Mac user centric (just a long term observation guys). -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Digital Image Studio wrote: >On 20/10/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But once you have a digital file, DPI makes no sense because there are >> no "inches" to a digital file. > >This I don't agree with, most image formats have provisions for >scaling information, just because most people don't generally use or >understand it doesn't mean it makes no sense. If the true scan >resolution is embedded in the file you can manage scaling between >images in order to ensure uniformity, correct scaling is very >important in the print industry. I'm aware of this. I just meant there's nothing intrinsic in the image data that relates to a physical size. This is what trips up a lot of people. I've had editors of publications ask for files with no information other than "oh, 300 DPI should do". -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On 20/10/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brendan MacRae wrote: > In the case of a scanner you're pretty safe using either term, DPI or > PPI: A scanner looks at one tiny area (a dot) on the physical medium > and generates one digital picture element (pixel) from it. So at this > particular boundary between the digital and analog realms, one dot = > one pixel, hence PPI and DPI are equivalent. All my scanners literature states dpi "6400dpi film scanning", "Optical resolution 5400 dpi" and "4,000 dpi true optical resolution", and like you suggest PPI and DPI are generally considered interchangeable at the sampling point. > But once you have a digital file, DPI makes no sense because there are > no "inches" to a digital file. This I don't agree with, most image formats have provisions for scaling information, just because most people don't generally use or understand it doesn't mean it makes no sense. If the true scan resolution is embedded in the file you can manage scaling between images in order to ensure uniformity, correct scaling is very important in the print industry. > And at the final digital/analog boundary, the printer, DPI and PPI are > still not equivalent because inkjet printers make "dots" in separate, > individual colors and at DPI resolutions (1440 DPI - 2880 DPI) far > beyond what's sensible for PPI output res of a digital file. Yes this is the point of confusion for those new to digital work flow. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Mark, very well stated. Thanks. -Brendan --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brendan MacRae wrote: > > >Whether or not people are wrong in equating dots > and > >pixels the terms are often used interchangeably > since > >monitor resolution is measured (or used to be > anyway) > >in "dot pitch." Hence part of the confusion between > >dpi and ppi. > > > >My scanner also measures pixels per inch but even > the > >side of the box reads "4000 DPI." So, perhaps some > of > >criticism for the confusing nomenclature should be > >leveled at Nikon (and others). After all, it's a > >scanner not a printer, right? > > In the case of a scanner you're pretty safe using > either term, DPI or > PPI: A scanner looks at one tiny area (a dot) on the > physical medium > and generates one digital picture element (pixel) > from it. So at this > particular boundary between the digital and analog > realms, one dot = > one pixel, hence PPI and DPI are equivalent. > > But once you have a digital file, DPI makes no sense > because there are > no "inches" to a digital file. > > And at the final digital/analog boundary, the > printer, DPI and PPI are > still not equivalent because inkjet printers make > "dots" in separate, > individual colors and at DPI resolutions (1440 DPI - > 2880 DPI) far > beyond what's sensible for PPI output res of a > digital file. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Brendan MacRae wrote: >Whether or not people are wrong in equating dots and >pixels the terms are often used interchangeably since >monitor resolution is measured (or used to be anyway) >in "dot pitch." Hence part of the confusion between >dpi and ppi. > >My scanner also measures pixels per inch but even the >side of the box reads "4000 DPI." So, perhaps some of >criticism for the confusing nomenclature should be >leveled at Nikon (and others). After all, it's a >scanner not a printer, right? In the case of a scanner you're pretty safe using either term, DPI or PPI: A scanner looks at one tiny area (a dot) on the physical medium and generates one digital picture element (pixel) from it. So at this particular boundary between the digital and analog realms, one dot = one pixel, hence PPI and DPI are equivalent. But once you have a digital file, DPI makes no sense because there are no "inches" to a digital file. And at the final digital/analog boundary, the printer, DPI and PPI are still not equivalent because inkjet printers make "dots" in separate, individual colors and at DPI resolutions (1440 DPI - 2880 DPI) far beyond what's sensible for PPI output res of a digital file. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
How one stores files is beside the point. However, when speaking of what file size is required for a 13 x 19 print, common sense dictates that one would cite the actual, uncompressed size of the file. The compressed size is totally irrelevant. Paul On Oct 19, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Bob Shell wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:50 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> x 2 >> >> That's a pretty broad and baseless assumption, Bob. And as Paul >> pointed >> out, once he understood what you meant, the file is actually a lot >> larger >> than you made it out to be. > > The file size is how much space it takes up on my storage disk. In > the case I referenced, 15.6 MB is the actual file size. I also have > a bunch of images stored as Genuine Fractals files, and the file size > is how much space the file takes up, not whatever arbitrary size I > decide to open it as. > > Why on earth would anyone store uncompressed TIFF files? LZW > compression is lossless, so you're just wasting disk space if you > don't use it. > > It took me a while to think of this as the missing point in our > communication, since it seems just plain silly to store TIFF files > any other way. > > Bob > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I've got a mate telling me a high res drum scan of a 6x7 neg would only be > 10MB in > TIFF format. Surely it would be in the hundreds of MB neighbourhood > wouldn't it? The TIFF files from scans from 6X4,5 format on the Nikon 9000ED scanner are 320Mb. Pål -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Compressing and uncompressing is SLOWER Than using uncompressed files. With 250GB hard drives costing under $100 Why bother with slow compression?? (That's what I say, I Now have about 560GB of HDD on my PC, the 1 Terabyte Threshold will be reached soon no doubt). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Shell Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:22 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:50 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > x 2 > > That's a pretty broad and baseless assumption, Bob. And as Paul > pointed > out, once he understood what you meant, the file is actually a lot > larger > than you made it out to be. The file size is how much space it takes up on my storage disk. In the case I referenced, 15.6 MB is the actual file size. I also have a bunch of images stored as Genuine Fractals files, and the file size is how much space the file takes up, not whatever arbitrary size I decide to open it as. Why on earth would anyone store uncompressed TIFF files? LZW compression is lossless, so you're just wasting disk space if you don't use it. It took me a while to think of this as the missing point in our communication, since it seems just plain silly to store TIFF files any other way. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 19, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote: > Whether or not people are wrong in equating dots and > pixels the terms are often used interchangeably since > monitor resolution is measured (or used to be anyway) > in "dot pitch." Hence part of the confusion between > dpi and ppi. > > My scanner also measures pixels per inch but even the > side of the box reads "4000 DPI." So, perhaps some of > criticism for the confusing nomenclature should be > leveled at Nikon (and others). After all, it's a > scanner not a printer, right? Just for curiosity I fired up my Epson Scan driver to see what it says. Under "Resolution" it has a place to fill in the desired number and is labeled "DPI" . I couldn't load SilverFast AI right now because my film scanner isn't connected to my computer, so I don't know if it also uses dpi. I halfway remember that it does. I do think the term has become generic, even if sometimes incorrect. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:50 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > x 2 > > That's a pretty broad and baseless assumption, Bob. And as Paul > pointed > out, once he understood what you meant, the file is actually a lot > larger > than you made it out to be. The file size is how much space it takes up on my storage disk. In the case I referenced, 15.6 MB is the actual file size. I also have a bunch of images stored as Genuine Fractals files, and the file size is how much space the file takes up, not whatever arbitrary size I decide to open it as. Why on earth would anyone store uncompressed TIFF files? LZW compression is lossless, so you're just wasting disk space if you don't use it. It took me a while to think of this as the missing point in our communication, since it seems just plain silly to store TIFF files any other way. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Whether or not people are wrong in equating dots and pixels the terms are often used interchangeably since monitor resolution is measured (or used to be anyway) in "dot pitch." Hence part of the confusion between dpi and ppi. My scanner also measures pixels per inch but even the side of the box reads "4000 DPI." So, perhaps some of criticism for the confusing nomenclature should be leveled at Nikon (and others). After all, it's a scanner not a printer, right? -Brendan --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most people are wrong, and I wonder if, in fact, > "most" people use the > terms interchangeably. Perhaps many do. A pixel is > not a dot. I don't > know where your Nikon is billed as a 4000dpi > scanner. Mine shows pixels > per inch right in the palette menu. > > I do believe that those who are going to communicate > technical and > important data should use the correct terminology, > especially when they > know the correct terminology, lest there be > confusion and > misunderstanding. BTW, I don't believe the two are > "analogous." > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Brendan MacRae > > > Well, yes, that's true but the two are alangous: 1 > > pixel = 1 dot, ergo, DPI=PPI. That's why my Nikon > > scanner is billed as a "4000 dpi" scanner. > > > > But, yes, technically the setting when scanning is > > Pixels per Inch, not Dots per Inch. However, most > > people use them interchangeably. > > > > -Brendan > > > > --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Bzzzt! Wrong. You get pixels per inch from a > > > scanned file, not dots per > > > inch. That's PPI not DPI. DPI is used when > > > printing. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Both my Epson and Minolta scanners are rated in DPI. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Not my Nikon. It's clearly stated in the palette menu that the output is > pixels per inch. What scanners are _rated_ as DPI? > > http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/palette.jpg > > Shel > > > > >>[Original Message] >>From: Adam Maas > > >>Scanners are rated in DPI, not PPI. D==P in this case. >> >>-Adam >> >> >>Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> >>>Bzzzt! Wrong. You get pixels per inch from a scanned file, not dots > > per > >>>inch. That's PPI not DPI. DPI is used when printing. > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Not my Nikon. It's clearly stated in the palette menu that the output is pixels per inch. What scanners are _rated_ as DPI? http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/palette.jpg Shel > [Original Message] > From: Adam Maas > Scanners are rated in DPI, not PPI. D==P in this case. > > -Adam > > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Bzzzt! Wrong. You get pixels per inch from a scanned file, not dots per > > inch. That's PPI not DPI. DPI is used when printing. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Most people are wrong, and I wonder if, in fact, "most" people use the terms interchangeably. Perhaps many do. A pixel is not a dot. I don't know where your Nikon is billed as a 4000dpi scanner. Mine shows pixels per inch right in the palette menu. I do believe that those who are going to communicate technical and important data should use the correct terminology, especially when they know the correct terminology, lest there be confusion and misunderstanding. BTW, I don't believe the two are "analogous." Shel > [Original Message] > From: Brendan MacRae > Well, yes, that's true but the two are alangous: 1 > pixel = 1 dot, ergo, DPI=PPI. That's why my Nikon > scanner is billed as a "4000 dpi" scanner. > > But, yes, technically the setting when scanning is > Pixels per Inch, not Dots per Inch. However, most > people use them interchangeably. > > -Brendan > > --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bzzzt! Wrong. You get pixels per inch from a > > scanned file, not dots per > > inch. That's PPI not DPI. DPI is used when > > printing. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Well, yes, that's true but the two are alangous: 1 pixel = 1 dot, ergo, DPI=PPI. That's why my Nikon scanner is billed as a "4000 dpi" scanner. But, yes, technically the setting when scanning is Pixels per Inch, not Dots per Inch. However, most people use them interchangeably. -Brendan --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bzzzt! Wrong. You get pixels per inch from a > scanned file, not dots per > inch. That's PPI not DPI. DPI is used when > printing. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Brendan MacRae > > > Depends on on dpi. > > > > I can get 550M sized file sizes at 4000dpi from a > 6x7 > > scan. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Shel, Scanners are rated in DPI, not PPI. D==P in this case. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Bzzzt! Wrong. You get pixels per inch from a scanned file, not dots per > inch. That's PPI not DPI. DPI is used when printing. > > Shel > > > > >>[Original Message] >>From: Brendan MacRae > > >>Depends on on dpi. >> >>I can get 550M sized file sizes at 4000dpi from a 6x7 >>scan. > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
x 2 That's a pretty broad and baseless assumption, Bob. And as Paul pointed out, once he understood what you meant, the file is actually a lot larger than you made it out to be. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > That explains it. It's a compressed file. Open, it's a 60+ meg file. > -- Original message -- > From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Then you must be opening it with the RAW converter, which is > > > interpolating it up. How big does PhotoShop say it is once it's > > > open? Should be around 60 meg if it's 13 x19, 8 bit at 300 dpi. > > > > Nope. I'm just using the File>Open menu line. I only use the RAW > > converter when opening RAW files. > > > > I always use LZW compression when I save TIFF files. That's probably > > the reason my files are smaller than you think they should be. I > > always assume that anyone saving TIFF does that since it is lossless > > and there is no point in using up more disk space than necessary. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Bzzzt! Wrong. You get pixels per inch from a scanned file, not dots per inch. That's PPI not DPI. DPI is used when printing. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Brendan MacRae > Depends on on dpi. > > I can get 550M sized file sizes at 4000dpi from a 6x7 > scan. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Well, Paul, maybe I missed something along the way, such as how this thread went from scanning a 6x7 negative to working with RAW files. I know threads morph and discussions wander, I just didn't see any messages to show the transition. Therefore my comment, as it's not possible to scan a negative and then open it in a RAW converter. I agree that his numbers don't add up. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Date: 10/19/2006 8:40:01 AM > Subject: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg > > The RAW converter has everything to do with the subject at hand. > It's impossible to get a 13 x 19, 300 dpi image from a 15 meg file > without interpolation. When you open a digital file in the RAW > converter, you have the option of interpolating to a larger size. Thus, > I asked Bob if that's what he was doing. Otherwise, his numbers don't > add up. No apples and oranges. Just common sense. > > -- Original message -- > From: "Shel Belinkoff" > > What's this RAW converter got to do with the subject. The discussion was > > about the file size for a scanned 6x7 negative. This isn't a fruit stand > > where we're comparing apples and oranges. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
That explains it. It's a compressed file. Open, it's a 60+ meg file. Paul -- Original message -- From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Oct 19, 2006, at 10:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Then you must be opening it with the RAW converter, which is > > interpolating it up. How big does PhotoShop say it is once it's > > open? Should be around 60 meg if it's 13 x19, 8 bit at 300 dpi. > > Nope. I'm just using the File>Open menu line. I only use the RAW > converter when opening RAW files. > > I always use LZW compression when I save TIFF files. That's probably > the reason my files are smaller than you think they should be. I > always assume that anyone saving TIFF does that since it is lossless > and there is no point in using up more disk space than necessary. > > Bob > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 19, 2006, at 10:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Then you must be opening it with the RAW converter, which is > interpolating it up. How big does PhotoShop say it is once it's > open? Should be around 60 meg if it's 13 x19, 8 bit at 300 dpi. Nope. I'm just using the File>Open menu line. I only use the RAW converter when opening RAW files. I always use LZW compression when I save TIFF files. That's probably the reason my files are smaller than you think they should be. I always assume that anyone saving TIFF does that since it is lossless and there is no point in using up more disk space than necessary. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
The RAW converter has everything to do with the subject at hand. It's impossible to get a 13 x 19, 300 dpi image from a 15 meg file without interpolation. When you open a digital file in the RAW converter, you have the option of interpolating to a larger size. Thus, I asked Bob if that's what he was doing. Otherwise, his numbers don't add up. No apples and oranges. Just common sense. -- Original message -- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > What's this RAW converter got to do with the subject. The discussion was > about the file size for a scanned 6x7 negative. This isn't a fruit stand > where we're comparing apples and oranges. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Then you must be opening it with the RAW converter, > > which is interpolating it up. How big does PhotoShop > > say it is once it's open? Should be around 60 meg if it's > > 13 x19, 8 bit at 300 dpi. > > > > From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I'm printing primarily on an Epson 2200. One of my 15.6 MB files > > > opens in Photoshop as 13 X 19 inches at 300 dpi. I just opened one > > > to verify. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Depends on on dpi. I can get 550M sized file sizes at 4000dpi from a 6x7 scan. -Brendan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've got a mate telling me a high res drum scan of a > 6x7 neg would only be 10MB in > TIFF format. Surely it would be in the hundreds of > MB neighbourhood wouldn't it? > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
What's this RAW converter got to do with the subject. The discussion was about the file size for a scanned 6x7 negative. This isn't a fruit stand where we're comparing apples and oranges. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Then you must be opening it with the RAW converter, > which is interpolating it up. How big does PhotoShop > say it is once it's open? Should be around 60 meg if it's > 13 x19, 8 bit at 300 dpi. > From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I'm printing primarily on an Epson 2200. One of my 15.6 MB files > > opens in Photoshop as 13 X 19 inches at 300 dpi. I just opened one > > to verify. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Then you must be opening it with the RAW converter, which is interpolating it up. How big does PhotoShop say it is once it's open? Should be around 60 meg if it's 13 x19, 8 bit at 300 dpi. Paul -- Original message -- From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm printing primarily on an Epson 2200. One of my 15.6 MB files > opens in Photoshop as 13 X 19 inches at 300 dpi. I just opened one > to verify. > > Bob > > On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I assume then that you're not printing on inkjet or that you > > interpolate the file up before printing.. A 15 meg file would yield > > only about 90 dpi on 13 x 19. Ideal dpi for most inkjet printers is > > around 300 dpi. If I print a 13 x19 from a 15 meg file on my Epson > > 2200, I can count almost count dots. > > -- Original message -- > > From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> FWIW, I print my 13 X 19 gallery prints from TIFF files that average > >> about 15 MB for color and about 6 MB for grayscale. > >> > >> Bob > >> > >> On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Bob Shell wrote: > >> > >>> No, 20 X 24 is not a mural, but you certainly can print 20 X 24 from > >>> a 70 MB TIFF file. You can print that size from considerably > >>> smaller > >>> files, for that matter. > >>> > >>> Bob > >>> > >>> On Oct 19, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >>> > Would 20x24 be considered a mural? > > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Bob Shell > > > I was just giving an average size of the 6 X 7 scans commonly used > > for repro. You can make the file size much bigger, but it has no > > real practical value unless you're printing murals. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> PDML@pdml.net > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
I'm printing primarily on an Epson 2200. One of my 15.6 MB files opens in Photoshop as 13 X 19 inches at 300 dpi. I just opened one to verify. Bob On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I assume then that you're not printing on inkjet or that you > interpolate the file up before printing.. A 15 meg file would yield > only about 90 dpi on 13 x 19. Ideal dpi for most inkjet printers is > around 300 dpi. If I print a 13 x19 from a 15 meg file on my Epson > 2200, I can count almost count dots. > -- Original message -- > From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> FWIW, I print my 13 X 19 gallery prints from TIFF files that average >> about 15 MB for color and about 6 MB for grayscale. >> >> Bob >> >> On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Bob Shell wrote: >> >>> No, 20 X 24 is not a mural, but you certainly can print 20 X 24 from >>> a 70 MB TIFF file. You can print that size from considerably >>> smaller >>> files, for that matter. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> On Oct 19, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: >>> Would 20x24 be considered a mural? Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bob Shell > I was just giving an average size of the 6 X 7 scans commonly used > for repro. You can make the file size much bigger, but it has no > real practical value unless you're printing murals. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
I assume then that you're not printing on inkjet or that you interpolate the file up before printing.. A 15 meg file would yield only about 90 dpi on 13 x 19. Ideal dpi for most inkjet printers is around 300 dpi. If I print a 13 x19 from a 15 meg file on my Epson 2200, I can count almost count dots. -- Original message -- From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > FWIW, I print my 13 X 19 gallery prints from TIFF files that average > about 15 MB for color and about 6 MB for grayscale. > > Bob > > On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Bob Shell wrote: > > > No, 20 X 24 is not a mural, but you certainly can print 20 X 24 from > > a 70 MB TIFF file. You can print that size from considerably smaller > > files, for that matter. > > > > Bob > > > > On Oct 19, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > >> Would 20x24 be considered a mural? > >> > >> > >> Shel > >> > >> > >> > >>> [Original Message] > >>> From: Bob Shell > >> > >>> I was just giving an average size of the 6 X 7 scans commonly used > >>> for repro. You can make the file size much bigger, but it has no > >>> real practical value unless you're printing murals. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
FWIW, I print my 13 X 19 gallery prints from TIFF files that average about 15 MB for color and about 6 MB for grayscale. Bob On Oct 19, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Bob Shell wrote: > No, 20 X 24 is not a mural, but you certainly can print 20 X 24 from > a 70 MB TIFF file. You can print that size from considerably smaller > files, for that matter. > > Bob > > On Oct 19, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> Would 20x24 be considered a mural? >> >> >> Shel >> >> >> >>> [Original Message] >>> From: Bob Shell >> >>> I was just giving an average size of the 6 X 7 scans commonly used >>> for repro. You can make the file size much bigger, but it has no >>> real practical value unless you're printing murals. >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
No, 20 X 24 is not a mural, but you certainly can print 20 X 24 from a 70 MB TIFF file. You can print that size from considerably smaller files, for that matter. Bob On Oct 19, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Would 20x24 be considered a mural? > > > Shel > > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Bob Shell > >> I was just giving an average size of the 6 X 7 scans commonly used >> for repro. You can make the file size much bigger, but it has no >> real practical value unless you're printing murals. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I've got a mate telling me a high res drum scan of a 6x7 neg would only be 10MB in >TIFF format. Surely it would be in the hundreds of MB neighbourhood wouldn't it? Depends on the scanning resolution. If you're an Imacon Flextight at 3200 dpi (its max resolution) you'll get an image of around 61 megapixels from a 67 neg or slide. You can work out the file sizes from there by multiplying by either 24 (8-bit color) or 48 (16-bit color). Of course, one could easily scan at a lower resolution for reasonably sized prints. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Would 20x24 be considered a mural? Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bob Shell > I was just giving an average size of the 6 X 7 scans commonly used > for repro. You can make the file size much bigger, but it has no > real practical value unless you're printing murals. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 19, 2006, at 7:32 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I think you're way off, Bob. I get a bit more than twice that size > from a > 16-bit scan of a color 35mm negative, and about 40-50mb from a 16- > bit scan > of a B&W negative, both @ 4000ppi You must be basing your scan on > a lower > ppi or perhaps an 8-bit scan, or both. I was just giving an average size of the 6 X 7 scans commonly used for repro. You can make the file size much bigger, but it has no real practical value unless you're printing murals. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On 19/10/06, J and K Messervy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks mate. I've set my mate straight. :) It's very easy to illustrate if need be, see the PS open dialogue following: http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/67_new_dialogue.gif -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Thanks mate. I've set my mate straight. :) - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:41 PM Subject: RE: File size of scanned 6x7 neg > Your mate is grossly mistaken.. Rob Studdert has given you some more > realistic figures. Just to put those figures in perspective, I've some > 8-bit scans of B&W 35mm done @ 4000ppi that are more than twice that size. > I suppose one must define what "high res" is Here's a chart that > provides the size for various film sizes and resolutions: > http://www.colorfolio.com/resolutions.htm > > Shel > > > >> [Original Message] > >> I've got a mate telling me a high res drum scan of a 6x7 neg would only > be 10MB in >> TIFF format. Surely it would be in the hundreds of MB neighbourhood > wouldn't it? > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
Your mate is grossly mistaken.. Rob Studdert has given you some more realistic figures. Just to put those figures in perspective, I've some 8-bit scans of B&W 35mm done @ 4000ppi that are more than twice that size. I suppose one must define what "high res" is Here's a chart that provides the size for various film sizes and resolutions: http://www.colorfolio.com/resolutions.htm Shel > [Original Message] > I've got a mate telling me a high res drum scan of a 6x7 neg would only be 10MB in > TIFF format. Surely it would be in the hundreds of MB neighbourhood wouldn't it? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
I think you're way off, Bob. I get a bit more than twice that size from a 16-bit scan of a color 35mm negative, and about 40-50mb from a 16-bit scan of a B&W negative, both @ 4000ppi You must be basing your scan on a lower ppi or perhaps an 8-bit scan, or both. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bob Shell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I've got a mate telling me a high res drum scan of a 6x7 neg would > > only be 10MB in > > TIFF format. Surely it would be in the hundreds of MB > > neighbourhood wouldn't it? > > About 70 MB. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On Oct 19, 2006, at 1:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've got a mate telling me a high res drum scan of a 6x7 neg would > only be 10MB in > TIFF format. Surely it would be in the hundreds of MB > neighbourhood wouldn't it? About 70 MB. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
On 19/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've got a mate telling me a high res drum scan of a 6x7 neg would only be > 10MB in > TIFF format. Surely it would be in the hundreds of MB neighbourhood wouldn't > it? It's easy enough to work out, the official frame size for the P67 is 55mm x 70mm so if scanned at 4000dpi (Nikon LS-8000-9000) it would be 55*4000/25.4 x 70*4000/25.4 = 95,480,191 pixels. So file size for an 8 bit file would be 3* 95,480,191 = 286,440,573 bytes or 273 MB for an uncompressed tiff 6400dpi (Epson V700) it would be 55*6400/25.4 x 70*6400/25.4 = 244,429,289 pixels. So file size for an 16 bit file would be 6* 244,429,289 = 1,466,575,733 bytes or 1.36 GB MB for an uncompressed tiff So unless the drum scan is pretty lame I guess he's incorrect. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've got a mate telling me a high res drum scan of a 6x7 neg would only be > 10MB in > TIFF format. Surely it would be in the hundreds of MB neighbourhood wouldn't > it? > > Yes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
