scan at 300ppi or 4000ppi?

Sorry for the top posting.

For starters, there's no such thing as scanning at 300 ppi. I guess what you
are talking about is scanning at the max resolution of the scanner and then
downsampling vs. scanning at a resolution that corresponds to 300 times the
print size in inches.

OK, you want an A3+ print. At 300 ppi. That's (13 x 300) x (19 x 300) pixels
= 3900 x 5700 pixels.

You have to have 3900 x 5700 pixels in your image.

(That's 22.23 MP; medium format digital back, not dSLR, territoryg.)

What size film are you using? I use 645. That's 1.6 x 2.2 inches. To get
5700 pixels from 2.2 inches I need to scan at (or downsample to) 5700/2.2 =
2600 ppi.

Presumably, you are using 35mm. That's .94 x 1.41 inches. To get 3900 pixels
from 0.94 inches of film, you need 3900/0.94 = 4150 ppi. What that means is
that to print at 300 ppi, you'll have to upsample a 4000 dpi scan.

Of course, 13x19 from 35mm is a 14x enlargement, so that's going to be more
than a tad soft _whatever technology you use for going from film to print_.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Nobody Nowhere" wrote in message
...
Once one knows the final dimensions of the picture (say, A3+), which is
better:-

1) scan at 4000ppi, process in Photoshop (adjustments, etc.), then
reduce to say 300ppi and A3+ size for printing (and saving?). This will
clearly produce an initially very large file, which does cause problems
in handling, in particular when the amount of ram is not excessive.

or

2) scan from the outset at 300ppi and A3+ size, which will produce a
smaller file, much easier to process in PS?

I know the subject has been discussed in the past ad nauseam, however, a
brief revival of the debate would be very helpful (at least for me...
:-)).
--
nobody

Sorry for the top posting.

For starters, there's no such thing as scanning at 300 ppi. I guess what you
are talking about is scanning at the max resolution of the scanner and then
downsampling vs. scanning at a resolution that corresponds to 300 times the
print size in inches.

OK, you want an A3+ print. At 300 ppi. That's (13 x 300) x (19 x 300) pixels
= 3900 x 5700 pixels.

You have to have 3900 x 5700 pixels in your image.

(That's 22.23 MP; medium format digital back, not dSLR, territoryg.)

What size film are you using? I use 645. That's 1.6 x 2.2 inches. To get
5700 pixels from 2.2 inches I need to scan at (or downsample to) 5700/2.2 =
2600 ppi.

Presumably, you are using 35mm. That's .94 x 1.41 inches. To get 3900 pixels
from 0.94 inches of film, you need 3900/0.94 = 4150 ppi. What that means is
that to print at 300 ppi, you'll have to upsample a 4000 dpi scan.

Of course, 13x19 from 35mm is a 14x enlargement, so that's going to be more
than a tad soft _whatever technology you use for going from film to print_.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Nobody Nowhere" wrote in message
...
Once one knows the final dimensions of the picture (say, A3+), which is
better:-

1) scan at 4000ppi, process in Photoshop (adjustments, etc.), then
reduce to say 300ppi and A3+ size for printing (and saving?). This will
clearly produce an initially very large file, which does cause problems
in handling, in particular when the amount of ram is not excessive.

or

2) scan from the outset at 300ppi and A3+ size, which will produce a
smaller file, much easier to process in PS?

I know the subject has been discussed in the past ad nauseam, however, a
brief revival of the debate would be very helpful (at least for me...
:-)).
--
nobody

In message , David J. Littleboy
writes
Sorry for the top posting.

Why? I don't get it. Are you saying sorry for the previous poster?

For starters, there's no such thing as scanning at 300 ppi. I guess what you
are talking about is scanning at the max resolution of the scanner and then
downsampling vs. scanning at a resolution that corresponds to 300 times the
print size in inches.


I might have got my semantics wrong. The software for the Imacon
scanner (Precision II) gives one the choice of choosing "DPI" (not
"PPI"), which, presumably means, the scanner will scan at full
resolution, but with say 300dpi "in mind" ?), for an A3+ image. By
contrast, the Nikon 8000 scanner gives one the choice of choosing say
300 "PPI" for set image dimensions. As far as I can tell, the Nikon
does not give one a choice for DPI. Or is this a case of loose
terminology, which has been the subject of so many complaints? Be it as
it may, it seems to me that the Nikon 8000 does (or can do) the
calculation below for me.

OK, you want an A3+ print. At 300 ppi. That's (13 x 300) x (19 x 300) pixels
= 3900 x 5700 pixels.

You have to have 3900 x 5700 pixels in your image.

(That's 22.23 MP; medium format digital back, not dSLR, territoryg.)

What size film are you using? I use 645. That's 1.6 x 2.2 inches. To get
5700 pixels from 2.2 inches I need to scan at (or downsample to) 5700/2.2 =
2600 ppi.

I am using 6 x 6 and soon shall be using 4 x 5 ( I cannot resist the
temptation of using an old fashioned LF camera, made of wood...).

When you say "you need to scan at or downsample" etc. I take it that
these alternatives are equivalent in terms of image quality, or results.

In other words, scanning at 2600 from the outset (for the given
dimensions) yields results which qualitatively are as good as scanning
at 4000ppi and then downsampling to 2600 ppi. Is my understanding
correct?

Presumably, you are using 35mm.

Not me. I like larger formats.

That's .94 x 1.41 inches. To get 3900 pixels
from 0.94 inches of film, you need 3900/0.94 = 4150 ppi. What that means is
that to print at 300 ppi, you'll have to upsample a 4000 dpi scan.

Of course, 13x19 from 35mm is a 14x enlargement, so that's going to be more
than a tad soft _whatever technology you use for going from film to print_.

Thanks David.
nobody

In message , David J. Littleboy
writes
Sorry for the top posting.

Why? I don't get it. Are you saying sorry for the previous poster?

For starters, there's no such thing as scanning at 300 ppi. I guess what you
are talking about is scanning at the max resolution of the scanner and then
downsampling vs. scanning at a resolution that corresponds to 300 times the
print size in inches.


I might have got my semantics wrong. The software for the Imacon
scanner (Precision II) gives one the choice of choosing "DPI" (not
"PPI"), which, presumably means, the scanner will scan at full
resolution, but with say 300dpi "in mind" ?), for an A3+ image. By
contrast, the Nikon 8000 scanner gives one the choice of choosing say
300 "PPI" for set image dimensions. As far as I can tell, the Nikon
does not give one a choice for DPI. Or is this a case of loose
terminology, which has been the subject of so many complaints? Be it as
it may, it seems to me that the Nikon 8000 does (or can do) the
calculation below for me.

OK, you want an A3+ print. At 300 ppi. That's (13 x 300) x (19 x 300) pixels
= 3900 x 5700 pixels.

You have to have 3900 x 5700 pixels in your image.

(That's 22.23 MP; medium format digital back, not dSLR, territoryg.)

What size film are you using? I use 645. That's 1.6 x 2.2 inches. To get
5700 pixels from 2.2 inches I need to scan at (or downsample to) 5700/2.2 =
2600 ppi.

I am using 6 x 6 and soon shall be using 4 x 5 ( I cannot resist the
temptation of using an old fashioned LF camera, made of wood...).

When you say "you need to scan at or downsample" etc. I take it that
these alternatives are equivalent in terms of image quality, or results.

In other words, scanning at 2600 from the outset (for the given
dimensions) yields results which qualitatively are as good as scanning
at 4000ppi and then downsampling to 2600 ppi. Is my understanding
correct?

Presumably, you are using 35mm.

Not me. I like larger formats.

That's .94 x 1.41 inches. To get 3900 pixels
from 0.94 inches of film, you need 3900/0.94 = 4150 ppi. What that means is
that to print at 300 ppi, you'll have to upsample a 4000 dpi scan.

Of course, 13x19 from 35mm is a 14x enlargement, so that's going to be more
than a tad soft _whatever technology you use for going from film to print_.

Thanks David.
nobody

In message , David J. Littleboy
writes



The Nikon 8000 will scan at 4000 dpi on the film or 2000 dpi. Nothing in
between. I ignore print resolution settings.

I wasn't aware of this. Presumably, what you have in mind is true
optical resolution?


I am using 6 x 6 and soon shall be using 4 x 5 ( I cannot resist the
temptation of using an old fashioned LF camera, made of wood...).

I'm afraid I may get to that point, to. I just got back some 645 Reala I
shot out in the countryside over New Years, and noticed I really want a lot
more than 645. Greed. A horrible vice.

No. This is called standards and good taste. A most wonderful quality.
(A good 2nd hand LF field camera, with, say, a Schneider lens, would
cost less than a good dSLR, with a good lens). (Although it would not
make tea for you, and do everything else... :-)).


IMHO, the right thing is scanning at the max res of the scanner and
downsampling.

IMHO, one can downsample fairly early in the process.

I think that's true for drum scanners with variable spot sizes, but CCD
scanners are less flexible, so it's largely a moot point. You don't have a
choice with the Nikon 8000. (Or, more accurately, I tried to find a way to
scan at arbitrary resolutions, and could only persuade it to scan at 2000
dpi. Truth in advertising: I think that scanning at 4000 dpi and
downsampling to 2000 results in better 2000 dpi scans, but the difference is
pretty small. For 645, I usually downsample to 2400 or 2800 dpi, since I
don't believe in enlargements over 8x.)

Thanks again. I shall need to find out how the above applies in the
case of an Imacon Precision II. (Incidentally, the Imacon Precision II
is a CCD scanner, isn't it?).



nobody

"Nobody Nowhere" wrote:

Thanks again. I shall need to find out how the above applies in the
case of an Imacon Precision II. (Incidentally, the Imacon Precision II
is a CCD scanner, isn't it?).

Good questiong. They're in a price range that's out of mine so I haven't
looked closely. Do any of them do ICE?

I'd love to see scans from the same frame from both an Imacon and the Nikon
(hint hint).

I assume you've seen Rafe's magic page of sample scans?

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Having some more Imacon samples there would be real nice (hint hint).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Nobody Nowhere" wrote:

Thanks again. I shall need to find out how the above applies in the
case of an Imacon Precision II. (Incidentally, the Imacon Precision II
is a CCD scanner, isn't it?).

Good questiong. They're in a price range that's out of mine so I haven't
looked closely. Do any of them do ICE?

I'd love to see scans from the same frame from both an Imacon and the Nikon
(hint hint).

I assume you've seen Rafe's magic page of sample scans?

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Having some more Imacon samples there would be real nice (hint hint).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

From: Nobody Nowhere

Once one knows the final dimensions of the picture (say, A3+), which is
better:-

1) scan at 4000ppi, process in Photoshop (adjustments, etc.), then
reduce to say 300ppi and A3+ size for printing (and saving?). This will
clearly produce an initially very large file, which does cause problems
in handling, in particular when the amount of ram is not excessive.

or

2) scan from the outset at 300ppi and A3+ size, which will produce a
smaller file, much easier to process in PS?

As the wise man said in his post, try it both ways and see which looks best.

Generally you will always be scanning at the highest rez anyway (4,000 dpi in
this case) and the scanner software will do the downsampling internally. Do
you think you can do a better job of downsampling in Photoshop with Bicubic
sharper than the scanner software does? Most people feel they can do better
with Photoshop.

The other consideration is that later you might want to print larger and if
you've worked at full rez you are set but if you downsampled early then you
either have to repeat all your work or else you upsample, which won't give you
results as good as the other method.

Also, how did you arrive at 300 ppi? While some printers are optimized for
this number (LightJet laser for example) many of the desktop inkjets do better
at 360 ppi and since you are scanning medium format film (I think I've got the
right guy) at 4,000 dpi there's no reason not to shoot for 360 ppi if you have
it natively.

In message , Bill Hilton
writes
From: Nobody Nowhere

As the wise man said in his post, try it both ways and see which looks best.

Generally you will always be scanning at the highest rez anyway (4,000 dpi in
this case) and the scanner software will do the downsampling internally. Do
you think you can do a better job of downsampling in Photoshop with Bicubic
sharper than the scanner software does? Most people feel they can do better
with Photoshop.

The other consideration is that later you might want to print larger and if
you've worked at full rez you are set but if you downsampled early then you
either have to repeat all your work or else you upsample, which won't give you
results as good as the other method.

Also, how did you arrive at 300 ppi? While some printers are optimized for
this number (LightJet laser for example) many of the desktop inkjets do better
at 360 ppi and since you are scanning medium format film (I think I've got the
right guy) at 4,000 dpi there's no reason not to shoot for 360 ppi if you have
it natively.

Thanks Bill, but there is a complication: I was playing on e-bay, and to
my amazement ended up being the highest bidder on an Imacon Precision II
scanner, for a price which is only a few hundred $s higher than that of
a Canon 20D! I was convinced that somebody would outbid me, but ended
up being the winner! I now own a Nikon 8000 (as you know) and the
Precision II. The Precision is not connected at this stage (so I cannot
tell whether the low price might be due to problems with it, but let's
hope it is all right. I assume that what you said above refers to my
Nikon 8000, but would you have any views on the Precision II? The
resolution of the Imacon is only 3200. Presumably, it would do the
downsampling internally, as you said above.

For printer I am using a Canon i9950, which goes only to A3+, as you
know. I was under the impression that 300ppi/dpi is the right figure,
but you say 360. Presumably, you arrived at this figure following
research, and I shall give it a try. Any more comments on the Precision
II you might have would be very welcome.

--
nobody

In message , David J. Littleboy
writes

"Nobody Nowhere" wrote:

Thanks again. I shall need to find out how the above applies in the
case of an Imacon Precision II. (Incidentally, the Imacon Precision II
is a CCD scanner, isn't it?).

Good questiong. They're in a price range that's out of mine so I haven't
looked closely. Do any of them do ICE?

You might have seen my response to Bill. I was bidding
on e-bay for this scanner, just for fun, ie. with no real intention to
buy. I therefore stopped at a figure which I knew was below the
reserve price, convinced that other bidders would outbid me. However,
to my amazement, I found myself the winner, God knows how or why! And
committed as well, however, at a price which was very cheap for an
Imacon. So now I own a nikon 8000 and an Imacon Precision II. I have
not yet connected the Imacon to the computer, I am still waiting for a
cable and focusing device, and at this stage cannot tell whether I got a
real bargain (which I secretly hope) or a problem.

Precision II is no longer mentioned on Imacon websites (it is a few
years old) , and the support for it seems to be lukewarm.

To answer your question about ICE, there is software available, however,
what I would like to find out is whether ICE should be used only when
strictly necessary (because it seems to affect resolution a little).


I'd love to see scans from the same frame from both an Imacon and the Nikon
(hint hint).

Of course, as soon as I get the Precision II operational, and have a
chance to use it, I shall post the results.

I assume you've seen Rafe's magic page of sample scans?

Thanks David, I have seen his website, but there seems to be nothing
there about an Imacon, let alone Precision II.

I can tell you however that the Imacon software philosophy seems
different from that of Nikon. Most if not all processing can be done at
the scanner level, at the raw data stage, amongst others because the
preview is at full resolution. (I have already played a little with the
software at a shop, which, unless I am wrong, is the same for all
Imacons). If you are curious, try the following website, in particular
the video tutorials the

http://www.photoworkshop.com/registe...tal_img03.html


Having some more Imacon samples there would be real nice (hint hint).

Of course, as soon as I get operational. One of the things that appeal
to me is that I can now scan 4 x 5 (admittedly, the true optical
resolution for LF is only 1800 ppi).

nobody