[filmscanners] Re: VueScan file size

["Rob Geraghty" <robg@wordweb.com>]

"Thomas Maugham" <TMaugham@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I just scanned a negative and got the following information from
>VueScan: "5576 x 3669 pixels 4000 dpi 1.39 x 0.917 inch 92.1 mb".  The
>size of the file on my hard drive is 119.885kb or about 119.9 mb.  Why
>the discrepancy between what VueScan says the file size is versus the
>size on the hard drive?

On my PC, an image reported by PSP as 26.5MB, is on the disk 26.56MB in
NTFS.  The size difference you describe is very large by comparison.
There's always a difference between the "real" size of a file and the size
on the drive due to the slack space in the clusters that make up the drive
sectors.  If you have a large drive (more than 32GB) formatted as one
partition with an inefficient file system like FAT32, you may end up with
cluster sizes of 32KB.  So a file which was 1KB would take up 32KB because
that's the smallest space that the drive format can address.  This "slack
space" can cause a difference between the actual size and the size on disk,
but I can't see it making the 28MB difference you have, unless the drive is
really badly fragmented.  To keep slack space down, it's better to use a
format that's designed for large drives such as NTFS.

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/partFAT32-c.html

Is the file size still 120MB after it is written on a CDR?  I think there
must be some other explanation why the size in Vuescan is reported as being
so significantly differently.  The only suggestions I can think of are that
you are resizing the file to a larger output size, or the file you're saving
is a raw file which includes a fourth infra red channel.  My LS30 scans as
RGB are about 27MB but are 33MB as RGBI.

Rob


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