[filmscanners] Re: Re:A scanner question

["Preston Earle" <PEarle@triad.rr.com>]

"HPA" <tom@historicphotoarchive.com> wrote: "I scan postcards to print
as Super B size 13x19.  The main thing to be sure is that you are
scanning in 48 bit.  This is a big deal.

"I scan at 1800dpi, which is too high, but it is better to err on high.
the scan will fit on a cd, so it is not excessive to my opinion.  I
store one photo per CD, to make filing easier.  While one image is
printing, i can retrieve the CD for the next one, or refile the last
one, without occupying the computer looking up index or storage
locations."
----------------------------

The world can be divided into three groups: (1) People who believe
16-bit data is better than 8-bit data in color photographic scans. (2)
People who know it isn't and try to educate the folks in Group 1. (3)
People who know it isn't and have given up on the folks in Group 1. I
vacillate between Groups 2 and 3.

If you're scanning 4"x6" postcards at 1800dpi, you are getting
7200x10,800pixel scans. Bigger is *not* better. When printed at 13x19
(inch?), prints will be softer than if resized (and sharpened) first to,
say, 3900x5700pixels. Your 16bpc files are probably about 450MB each.
8bpc 3900x5700pixel files would be about 64MB as TIFFs and perhaps 10%
of that as high-quality JPEG or JPEG2000 files. At 7MB per image, you
could keep thousands of images on your hard drive (and archived to your
second hard drive<G>) and not have to worry about CD shuffling,
longevity, or other worrisome CD details. Can you tell the difference in
a 7MB JPEG and a 450MB TIFF printed on your printer?

Preston Earle
PEarle@triad.rr.com

(moving back over to Group 3)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body