If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon Coolscan V ED JPG Compression Quality / or TIFF
I recently acquired this scanner to digitize my 35mm and APS collection
of negatives. At 4000dpi with JPG compression set to highest quality my files were averaging 38MB per neg. I then read on some NGs that the best format was TIFF since it is lossless. While I agree with that statement I honestly could not see a difference in quality on my Samsung 1200NF 22" AG monitor. I decided to scan a neg and save it both as a JPG (highest quality) and TIFF. The JPG again was approximately 38MB while the TIFF was approximately 68MB; a big difference but understandable since the TIFF was not compressed. However, I then opened the JPG in Photoshop CS and saved it under a different filename as a JPG (highest quality,12); with NO changes. The new file size was 16MB. My issue then is I will eventually edit these files and resave them in Photoshop CS. When doing so, the TIFF will be the same size and quality while the JPG will be signicantly smaller and possibly not of the same quality as the Coolscan JPG and definitely not the same as a TIFF. My question then is: 1. If capacity is somewhat of an issue and none of the negs are professional, will the JPG quality of the NIKON Coolscan save be a high enough quality for future editing as long as I do not resave to the same file? And, will the Photoshop CS JPG as good as a Coolscan JPG? 2. Why is the JPG compression of Photoshop CS so much more than Nikon's Coolscan software? 3. Should I forget JPG all together and just use TIFF? 50 rolls with 24 exposures will result in 84GB TIFFs or 43GB JPGs. I have a server which stores my data and I guess I could always add more drives. It would then be a matter of backing-up the data which I do daily to tape. Thank you |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
My solution would be to use a DVD writer - you'd have enough room on 2
DVD-Rs for 130 TIFF files at a cost of less than £1, or roughly $1. Backing up to tape is much slower and more costly. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I would only save in a lossless format and backup to external hard
drives that are offline and stored in a safe location. I would not trust tape nor optical media for primary backup of important/master files, but *maybe* as 2nd level backup would be OK. Personally, I backup to 3 different external hard drives that are kept offline and in different locations. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
If you cannot tell the difference, then there is no point in wasting
storage. I have been scanning at 4000 dpi but saving the output as 2000 dpi JPG. In case of something that are truly outstanding, then I rescan and save as 48bit TIFF. wrote in message oups.com... I recently acquired this scanner to digitize my 35mm and APS collection of negatives. At 4000dpi with JPG compression set to highest quality my files were averaging 38MB per neg. I then read on some NGs that the best format was TIFF since it is lossless. While I agree with that statement I honestly could not see a difference in quality on my Samsung 1200NF 22" AG monitor. I decided to scan a neg and save it both as a JPG (highest quality) and TIFF. The JPG again was approximately 38MB while the TIFF was approximately 68MB; a big difference but understandable since the TIFF was not compressed. However, I then opened the JPG in Photoshop CS and saved it under a different filename as a JPG (highest quality,12); with NO changes. The new file size was 16MB. My issue then is I will eventually edit these files and resave them in Photoshop CS. When doing so, the TIFF will be the same size and quality while the JPG will be signicantly smaller and possibly not of the same quality as the Coolscan JPG and definitely not the same as a TIFF. My question then is: 1. If capacity is somewhat of an issue and none of the negs are professional, will the JPG quality of the NIKON Coolscan save be a high enough quality for future editing as long as I do not resave to the same file? And, will the Photoshop CS JPG as good as a Coolscan JPG? 2. Why is the JPG compression of Photoshop CS so much more than Nikon's Coolscan software? 3. Should I forget JPG all together and just use TIFF? 50 rolls with 24 exposures will result in 84GB TIFFs or 43GB JPGs. I have a server which stores my data and I guess I could always add more drives. It would then be a matter of backing-up the data which I do daily to tape. Thank you |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Steph,
Yes, I considered DVD and have a DVD writer which I use to archive and store offsite. One thing I failed to mention is that I use Photoshop Album for organization and a DLink DSM320 media server for quick viewing of pics and playing of MP3s. I realized after getting my first digital camera that to enjoy all of the pictures I had to print them or view via a computer. The media server allows me to create quick slide shows for the family/friends and display them with music on my TV. After all is said, the files would have to be readily available. Nevertheless, I definitely archive to external media (DVD). The tape solution is simply my IT administrative side coming through. The tape solution is a DLT robot which is automated with daily backups, 3 months retention, lossless compression, and allows quick recovery. The DVD backup would require repetative manual execution to achieve the same level of retention period. Jason Steph wrote: My solution would be to use a DVD writer - you'd have enough room on 2 DVD-Rs for 130 TIFF files at a cost of less than =A31, or roughly $1. Backing=20 up to tape is much slower and more costly. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Exactly... the tape solution is a 2nd level backup that is performed
automatically on a daily basis. I archive to CD or DVD. I guess I would consider my external hard drive to be my server. The drives are mirrored so if one fails I still have the other. Along with tape and DVD as backups I think I am covered. If storage was not an issue I guess TIFF would be the only way to go. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I am ready to send the email but can not confirm your address.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Controlling compression with (Nikon) digital cameras. | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | January 1st 05 04:11 AM |
NIKON USA--TERRIBLE SERVICE EXPERIENCE. | Aguilabrava | 35mm Photo Equipment | 134 | December 17th 04 05:00 AM |
Elitechrome 100 Slide Scanning with Coolscan V ED | Oliver Kunze | 35mm Photo Equipment | 23 | June 21st 04 12:07 AM |
Nikon 8000 demo unit vs. Nikon 8000 refurb vs. Nikon 9000 | JR | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 2 | April 10th 04 05:40 PM |
Nikon Coolscan 8000ED reliability | KenS | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 8 | March 28th 04 03:47 AM |