In what format should I store my scanned film negatives?

RB
Posted By
Rene_Beckers
Dec 2, 2003
Views
432
Replies
10
Status
Closed
Hi,

I recently bought a filmscanner that produces BMP-files with following dimensions: 3766×1520 pixels, 1,394×0,96 inch, 2700 pix/inch, 28,659 Mb.

I’ve scanned my old filmnegatives and would like to store them and be able to print them. The files that my digital camera produces are JPG with a file-size ranging from 1,4-1,8Mb and this is how I would like my negatives too.

Question: What steps do I have to make in order to reduce filesize and keep as much quality as possible?

I suppose I’m not the only one that is scanning his old negatives so I hope there is someone out htere who can help me.

Rene Beckers
the Netherlands
Related Tags
film format negative scan storage

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

BH
Beth_Haney
Dec 2, 2003
Your original scans can be safely archived in JPEG format, using the highest quality and lowest compression settings. You’ll want to make sure any editing is done in a lossless format like TIFF or PSD, though, to minimize loss of image data.
EW
Ed_Wurster
Dec 2, 2003
wrote…
I’ve scanned my old filmnegatives and would like to store them and be able
to print them. The files that my digital camera produces are JPG with a file-size ranging from 1,4-1,8Mb and this is how I would like my negatives too.
Question: What steps do I have to make in order to reduce filesize and
keep as much quality as possible?
I suppose I’m not the only one that is scanning his old negatives so I
hope there is someone out htere who can help me.

I would save as TIF and select LZW compression.

Ed
BB
Bert_Bigelow
Dec 2, 2003
Rene,
If you take Ed’s advice, you won’t lose any image data. LZW compression is lossless. However, the TIFF files are still quite large. Highest quality JPEG will result in a much smaller file, but there will be a slight degradation of the image. It’s not noticeable to my old eyes, but you may not find it acceptable. It’s hard to give you definitive advice without knowing what you plan to do with the images. If you want to make 8×10 (or larger) prints, then TIFF is probably the way to go. If your primary usage is monitor viewing or small snapshot prints, then I don’t think you will lose anything by going to JPEG.
There are many people in the forum who are doing the same thing you are doing. I am working on a family photo archive. I have scanned about 2500 35mm slides and negs so far.
Bert
BB
Bert_Bigelow
Dec 2, 2003
Rene,
Most film scanners offer TIFF and JPEG options. What kind of scanner to you have that offers BMP? I assume that it is 24-bit BMP. The BMP specification defines smaller bit depths of 1, 4, 8 etc. Most people scan directly to a TIFF or JPEG file.
EW
Ed_Wurster
Dec 2, 2003
wrote…

There are many people in the forum who are doing the same thing you are
doing. I am working on a family photo archive. I have scanned about 2500 35mm slides and negs so far.

What scanner are you using tp do this?

Ed
RB
Rene_Beckers
Dec 2, 2003
Bert & Ed,

i’am using a Primefilm2700 scanner made by PacificImage Electronics <http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf2700.php> The software that runs this scanner has only one type of output and thats BMP. Since the scanner uses 36bit/pixel i assume that the bitmap is 24bit. Is there anyway I can check this?

I’am still not sure what way to go. If I convert to JPG wouldn’t I be losing a lot of information since the photo surface is still small? Should I enlage the BMP and then compress using JPG or doesn’t size matter in this case.

Rene
BH
Beth_Haney
Dec 2, 2003
Rene, you will lose a small amount of information by converting to JPEG, but at the resolution you’ve given, it won’t ever be noticeable if you simply do one conversion and save. Changing the physical size won’t matter one way or the other either, because you’d just be rearranging pixels. What you want to avoid is working and resaving while in the JPEG format, especially numerous times.

The documentation with your scanner should give you the information about bits. Elements can’t handle anything over 8, so whether it’s 8, 16, or 24 is somewhat moot for this software.
EW
Ed_Wurster
Dec 2, 2003
wrote…

I’am still not sure what way to go. If I convert to JPG wouldn’t I be
losing a lot of information since the photo surface is still small? Should I enlage the BMP and then compress using JPG or doesn’t size matter in this case.

The scanner records up to 2700 x 2700 pixels (from your link.)

Make one scan and save it in a few formats to see the results.

I would try TIF with LZW compression, and compare that to a few JPG alternatives, like MAX, HIGH, etc.

You can look at these files side by side and make comparisons yourself. Look at small areas of detail.

TIF is lossless. JPG is lossy, but the loss may not matter to you.

BMP produces very large files, much like uncompressed TIF.

Ed
BB
Bert_Bigelow
Dec 3, 2003
Ed,
My film scanner is a Minolta Dimage Dual Scan II. Max resolution is 2820 ppi. I use VueScan software to automate my batch scans. I highly recommend it.
Bert
RB
Rene_Beckers
Dec 3, 2003
Bert, Beth and Ed,

thanks for all the tips. I will test all the suggestions you’ve given me. See what works best for me.

Rene Beckers
the Netherlands

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections