Am I getting it right?

[blighty]

Well, I've been having great fun scanning in my library of slides with my Coolscan V ED. Trouble is, being new to this kind of thing and initially unable to find the information I was after, I went ahead and scanned a shedload of trannies. To limit confusion on my part, I decided to set a few parameters. I set resolution to 4000ppi and also set the file size to 40mb. My logic dictated this would give me the best combination of quality and speed of scanning. So far, to my unseasoned eye, the scans are fantastic.
Something niggles me though. Because I set res. to 4000ppi and because I set file size to 40mb, the output size reads about 57%. If I set output size to 100%, the scan returns a file size close to 140mb!! Should you always scan at 100% output size? I know you shoud scan according to anticipated use, but for the time being I'm not sure what I'll be using them for. Anyway, whatever you're answers/suggestions, please treat this ageing film duffer gently. Regards, Blighty.

[ctscanner]

Blighty,

Even if you are setting your scans to yield maximum resolution with that particular scanner, you are throwing away image information on the back end by using a percentage adjustment. My personal thoughts are that I would rather store the image with all the information available from the scan, and then, once I know what I am going to do with it, then make the appropriate sizing adjustments.

The rationale is a very simple one; you can't restore the information that you lose by reducing the file size with a percentage adjustment, except by rescanning. But you can save the full scan, and do 'File Save As' copies of any down-sized images you might wish to make - rather it be for printing, or sharing your images on an on-line forum.

Best luck with your scanning,

George

[blighty]

Hiya George,
I understand your rationale for scanning at 100%. I didn't set out to scan at sub 60%, it just happened that way because of the other parameters I imposed. Thanks for your reply. B.

[pellicle]

Hi Blighty

I am not entirely certain that I grasp the question, but I will say that NikonScan does make comprehension more troublesome in my opinion. The problem arises because some people seem to be uncomfortable with a number in pixels. I suspect in some attempt to make the interface look better to people who feel comfortable with vague and confusing nomenclature like dpi at some % output on some measurement they have created this monstrosity.

Consequentially I normally select my scan area (the 35mm frame) and verify that the scan size is something like 5500 pixels wide by 4000 pixels high. This is because that for the 1.4 inches wide the 35mm frame is that if I'm scanning at the scanners native 4000dpi I'll get about 5500 pixels wide ... right?

The rest are just meaningless numbers until you are calculating your print size, so they can simply be ignored.

Note that in photoshop you can change the dpi without effecting the image, simply uncheck resample image and all it does is move metadata numbers around in the image file.

hope that helps

[blighty]

Hi Pellicle,
I think I grasp what you mean when you scan for a pixel dimension (is that the correct term?) of 5.5k by 4k. You're right, although I absolutely love my Coolscan, the Nikonscan 4 software is a little confusing. This is not aided by my being thick as pigshit when it comes to bytes, bits, pixels etc etc. Many thanks, regards, B.

[ctscanner]

Blighty,

I never had much luck with Nikonscan after I installed my own Coolscan V ED recently. I went back to using either Vuescan or Lasersoft, and IMO opinion, both are good to work with.

Vuescan also has an interesting feature that allows you to buy a Professional version that guarantees you life updates. Lasersoft requires a specific package for the specific machine and offers periodic updates.

If you have the time and inclination. the www.scantips.com site has a wealth of information on scanning (bytes, bits, pixels, etc). There used to be a manual available on the site; "A Few Scanning Tips" put together by the sites originator; Wayne Fulton. It's worth the price if it is still available.

George
George

[pellicle]

Evenin

... the Nikonscan 4 software is a little confusing. This is not aided by my being thick as ...

a mate and I often use the expression (regarding ourselves) "dumb as dogshit" or "dense as a box of hammers" but I get your drift

I find that once one has a setting you like that saving that setting works wonders. It seem to then default to that ... which works wonders for me as my Neg scan is normally within a bees-dick of this setup

[blighty]

... which works wonders for me as my Neg scan is normally within a bees-dick of this setup

I prefer the metric midges dick myself!

[pellicle]

Blighty

I prefer the metric midges dick myself!

I understand, and would point out respectfully that the European bee is now quite well spread in the world, while midge stock is largely endemic ... its true that the metric standard ISO French midge dick is well entrenched within the scientific community (although NASA would have done well to ensure their software contractors on the Ranger project were adhereing to this ... but I digress), however it does lead to confusion when dealing with people from Queensland however as the Fraser Island midge is surprisingly more robust in this area than the Sandy Flat species more common on the mainland.

I understand that the Canadians have some variation as well, not to mention the problems this causes with the Francophones ...

:eek:

[nsouto]

it does lead to confusion when dealing with people from Queensland however as the Fraser Island midge is surprisingly more robust in this area than the Sandy Flat species more common on the mainland.

Hah! The South West Rocks sand fly eats Fraser Island midges for breakfast!
(I've been on the receiving end while camping there, back in the 80s. Still recovering...)