Scanning Resolution
thankyou
help. I’m sort of up against time on this project, so, excuse me if
this question has an easy answer that I have not thought through.
I have a $50 HP Scanner, I want to scan photo prints (3x5, 4x6) to
enlarge (possibly crop) up to maybe 24 x 18.
The only thing I know about scanning is, if you set the dpi higher it
takes more time to scan and the file size is larger (sort of joking
here).
What resolution do you suggest? Can I get some help with the math
again?
If I’m trying for a 24 x18 print at 300 dpi then the pixel size
“should” be, 7200 x 5400.
If the above is correct, how does the 7200 x 5400 translate to my
scanning a 3x5 or 4x6?
thankyou
Simple Solutions Dot Org
wrote:
Simple solution. Scan the images until you see film-grain in the images.
Scanning at any higher resolution than that is empty data. Since these are
prints they've already lost much of the resolution that was contained in
the original film/negatives. Higher-resolution scanning is most likely
totally unnecessary. You can't add back in detail that was lost in the
first place and then hope that it will show up in your larger prints made
from them. You will probably be able to get acceptable prints no larger
than about 2x's the original sizes. Much of course will depend on the
content. If the content is jaw-droppingly astounding then you will be able
to enlarge them greatly and nobody will notice their soft details. But even
then, they will probably have to be viewed from a more comfortable distance
so the softness and lost details aren't too apparent, especially at the
sizes that you are hoping to obtain from them. I don't know of many
photographers who permanently sacrificed their jaw-droppingly astounding
photos to only 3x5 and 4x6 prints (unless for quick proofs, then safely
stored the negatives), so I doubt you will be able to increase the print
size of them by very much.
Don Stauffer
>
> If I�m trying for a 24 x18 print at 300 dpi then the pixel size
> �should� be, 7200 x 5400.
>
> If the above is correct, how does the 7200 x 5400 translate to my
> scanning a 3x5 or 4x6?
Divide 7200 by 5, and 5400 by 3 for the 3x5 print. Do a similar
exercise for the 4 x 6.
thankyou
What are my options for scanning the negatives? What results can I
expect?
Thanks again, Jon
Marvin
> If anyone has a suggestion on scanner resolutions I�d appreciate the
> help. I�m sort of up against time on this project, so, excuse me if
> this question has an easy answer that I have not thought through.
>
> I have a $50 HP Scanner, I want to scan photo prints (3x5, 4x6) to
> enlarge (possibly crop) up to maybe 24 x 18.
>
> The only thing I know about scanning is, if you set the dpi higher it
> takes more time to scan and the file size is larger (sort of joking
> here).
>
> What resolution do you suggest? Can I get some help with the math
> again?
>
> �should� be, 7200 x 5400.
>
> If the above is correct, how does the 7200 x 5400 translate to my
> scanning a 3x5 or 4x6?
HP suggests scanning photos at 250 ppi. Depending on the
quality of the print being scanned, I sometimes scan at 300
ppi. A higher dpi setting doesn't collect more information
from the print, and it can pick up small imperfections.
John Navas
<yv6%l.187$NF6...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>:
>thankyou wrote:
>> If anyone has a suggestion on scanner resolutions I�d appreciate the
>> help. I�m sort of up against time on this project, so, excuse me if
>> this question has an easy answer that I have not thought through.
>>
>> I have a $50 HP Scanner, I want to scan photo prints (3x5, 4x6) to
>> enlarge (possibly crop) up to maybe 24 x 18.
>>
>> The only thing I know about scanning is, if you set the dpi higher it
>> takes more time to scan and the file size is larger (sort of joking
>> here).
>>
>> What resolution do you suggest? Can I get some help with the math
>> again?
>>
>> If I�m trying for a 24 x18 print at 300 dpi then the pixel size
>> �should� be, 7200 x 5400.
>>
>> If the above is correct, how does the 7200 x 5400 translate to my
>> scanning a 3x5 or 4x6?
>
>HP suggests scanning photos at 250 ppi. Depending on the
>quality of the print being scanned, I sometimes scan at 300
>ppi. A higher dpi setting doesn't collect more information
>from the print, and it can pick up small imperfections.
Correct.
For larger prints, given the low resolution source, it's helpful to then
upscale scans before printing in advanced software like Genuine Fractals
to 200-300 PPI for the desired print size.
Then I usually print a section of the resulting image file at the same
resolution on 4x6 or 8x10 paper to be sure I'm satisfied with the result
before spending money on a large print.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
thankyou
Would a negative scaner from Costco work?
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11472903&whse=BC&topnav=&browse=&lang=en-US&s=1
Thanks, Jon
John Navas
wrote in
<58c305a7-a93f-4c6f...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>:
>Would this be a good option?
>
>Would a negative scaner from Costco work?
>http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11472903&whse=BC&topnav=&browse=&lang=en-US&s=1
It will work, and be much better than scanning prints, but you tend to
get what you pay for, and results won't be as good as:
<http://www.abesofmaine.com/item.do?item=NKLS5000&id=NKLS5000&l=PRICEGRABB>
or a good used CoolScan IV, which go for about $400 or so on eBay.
thankyou
Why is the Nikon Coolscan 5000 rated "only" 4000 dpi true optical
resolution and the Costco at 7200 dpi x 3600 dpi?
Thanks again John.
thankyou
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11472903&whse=BC&top...
Would I be able to get a file large enough to enlarge a print up to 24
x 18?
Thanks again,
Jon
Claudio Bonavolta
Because some low-end manufacturers are *very* optimistic with their specs.
Claudio Bonavolta
http://www.bonavolta.ch
Marvin
Most scanners and printer-scanner combos come equipped to
scan negatives, including touch-up software. And the
prices are about the same, or even less.
Marvin
never be better than in the original. You seem to have a
poster in mind. Posters aren't meant to be viewed close-up,
so the resolution doesn't have to be great.
John Navas
wrote in
<8fa983b8-134d-4665...@q37g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>:
>Why is the Nikon Coolscan 5000 rated "only" 4000 dpi true optical
>resolution and the Costco at 7200 dpi x 3600 dpi?
Because there's much more to scanned image quality than resolution
claims by the hardware manufacturer, like optical quality and
distortion, definition, and Dmax.
<http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scantek.htm>
John Navas
wrote in
<8a835156-5081-4300...@l34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>:
Possibly, depending on how fussy you are. You'd have to try it to be
sure, but of course you can always return it to Costco. As a check, pay
to have the same slide or negative drum scanned.
PDM
> Simple solution. Scan the images until you see film-grain in the images.
> Scanning at any higher resolution than that is empty data. Since these are
He's scanning photo's not neg's or transparancies. So how can he see film
grain?
PDM
PatM
If you are against a timeline, make tomorrow "Take-your-pictures-to-
work Day" and use the photocopier. Mine scans at 50 pages per
minute. You can do a lot, quickly, at that speed.
John McWilliams
Maybe he can see it in the print, maybe not. But it's there, even if it
doesn't start showing to the naked eye until it's enlarged.
--
john mcwilliams
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"PDM" <pdcm99[deletethisbit]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a3fd24a$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...