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 w
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 R
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 yo
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?
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 cho
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
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 us
: [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 f
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 s
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
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
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
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
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 scann
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
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 compr
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
>> compresse
nt: 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
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
-
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 tr
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
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
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 irrele
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
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
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
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
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 DP
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
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
> part
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 "
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
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
- 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
ssage-
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 basel
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 sca
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
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 r
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
>
>
>
>
>>[Orig
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
>
>
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 comm
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
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
>
>
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
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 M
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 R
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
> >
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 l
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
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?
>
>
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 convert
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 print
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 u
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 d
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 c
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
[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) yo
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
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
> p
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
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 mist
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 s
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]
> Fro
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.ne
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
[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
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
67 matches
Mail list logo
