One thousand MB in a GB.
Apprx 83 of your 12MB images per GB x 4.7 = 390 or so per DVD.
Huge job…any reason for scanning them all at once, and especially from just the machine prints?
Mac
Hi Mac
Thanks for the math. Approx 390 per DVD sounds good to me. I agree, this is a huge job and will take some time. Fortunately I have lots of time on my hands and have no deadline to finish this project.
You asked why scanning prints instead of negatives. Well, I do not have an expensive film scanner. I do have a HP scanjet 8200. I experimented using the included negative adapter. Scanning the prints actually came out looking much better.
I plan on scanning at 300DPI and in TIFF. I know the files are large, but I have a 160GB hard drive and lots of empty DVD’s. I want to preserve these photos for the grandkids to view, edit & print in the future.
Thanks for your help Mac,
Jeff
Jeff if you’re scanning for the purpose of archiving and passing along to grandkids, you might want to consider scanning at a higher resolution as long as you’re going to all that work anyway. I’ve found as I’ve scanned old photos that there have been a few I wanted to crop and then still be able to get a 4 X 6 print. Just a thought from someone who’s already done a whole bunch of this! 🙂
Hi Beth
Thanks for the imput. Actually the scanner defaults pictures at 200 DPI and I am bumping it up to 300 DPI. The next size up is 600 DPI. I can’t imagine what that file size would be. Do you think 300 DPI is enough?
Thanks,
Jeff
Yeah, that scanner isn’t going to give good results from film.
Ideally, you want to get around 300ppi for actual output size.
You said you got a 12MB file.
Actually, 4×6 @ 300ppi is only about 6MB in TIFF format. So you are either scanning at 4×6 size at higher than 300 or are scanning at a larger size than the original at whatever ppi.
There is generally no more than 300ppi of information (at same size) in a photographic print, and perhaps no more than 220ppi in a machine print. But if you plan on ever outputting to larger print size, then you want more than 4×6 at 300ppi.
If you scan 6×4 at 600ppi you could get a 12×8 print at 300ppi, but you’re looking at 25MB TIFF file now.
You might consider scanning at 600 and saving as highest quality JPEG though. That 25MB file becomes 5MB or less, and from 4×6 machine prints, will have indistinguishable quality from TIFF. You’ll just need to be careful not to make multiple JPEG to JPEG saves if you later work with the images, as that can significantly degrade the image.
Mac
Usually you cannot get any improvement by scanning a print higher than 300 ppi. If you want higher resolution, you need to scan from the negative. You said film scanners were "expensive." I have a Minolta Dual Scan II that cost me $250. The newer models of this scanner are about the same price. Mine will scan a negative at 2820 ppi. I think the newer ones are even higher. With this resolution, you can make high quality 8x10s or larger…if the negative is of good quality. The image files, saved in TIFF with LZW compression are about 20MB. If you really want to archive high quality images, you need to scan the negatives…if you have them.
Bert
Hi Mac
I double checked the settings on my scanner. I am scanning at same size of original at 300DPI. I tried 3 different 4X6 photos and got an average size of 11.8MB for TIFF. I do not know why I am getting near double your estimate of a 6MB file.
I opened one of the picutres in Elements and received an error message stating that, "This document is in an unsupported color depth. Convert to default color depth?" Could this be the cause of my file size being double your estimate?
Thanks,
Jeff
I opened one of the picutres in Elements and received an error message stating that, "This document is in an unsupported color depth. Convert to default color depth?" Could this be the cause of my file size being double your estimate?
Yes, that is indeed the reason your files are so large. You are scanning with 16-bit color depth. Somewhere in your scanner software there will be an option to reduce this to 8-bit depth which is the level supported by PSE.
Bert
You might want to scan at 1200 dpi. This would give a file size ~8x where you are now. The reason for this resolution is that you can do just about anything with the image then as far as cropping and reasonable enlargment. This also fits close to the recommended resolution when scanning 35mm negatives (> 4800 dpi). A negative is about 1×1.5 (1/4 the size of the prints).
Yes, it takes more time and space to scan and store the files, but you will not regret it later when you no longer have access to the photos.
Rich
RIch,
I haven’t had much luck improving image quality by scanning at resolution higher than 300 ppi from prints. That seems to be about the max resolution of most printed images, and scanning higher doesn’t get you any more detail.
At least that’s been my experience…your mileage may differ… Bert
Hi Bert
OK my HP8200 scanjet has the following settings for color.
1 Millions of colors (24 bit)
2 256 of colors ( 8 bit)
3 256 web pallete
If I use the 8 bit setting I get a file size of 2.08MB
If I use the 24 bit setting I get a file size of 11.8MB
I guess I do not know what the "bit" is all about. You mentioned Elements uses 8 bit. What if down the road I switch to the advanced CS Photoshop. Does that support 24 bit?
Thanks again 🙂
Yes, CS actually supports up to 48 bit. However, most of us "common" folk are hard pressed to see the difference in our run of the mill photos. I do have CS and have done some 48 bit scans on my Epson 3200 Photo scanner. For what I’ve been playing with so far, I found the extra bit depth didn’t justify the added system resources required. Depending on the kinds of photos you’re scanning (some of the people on the forum, like Bert, were extremely talented 35mm photographers and now want to digitize their old slides), you might never need anything above 8 bit anyway. Analyze what you’ve got and what you envision doing with the images. If you have a number of photos that you’re exceptionally proud of and feel you’ll want to do something very special with them, you may want to invest in a little better scanner before you tackle this big project. Scanning 3,500 of anything is a big job, so some more research might be in order before you get too far! 🙂
2 256 of colors ( 8 bit)
You don’t want that.
3 256 web pallete
or that.
24 bit is generally referred to as 8 bits per channel.
48 bit is 16 bit per channel.
A "normal" image is 24 bit.
a 4×6 at 300ppi in 24 bit is about 6MB saved in TIFF or PSD.
a 4×6 at 300ppi in 48 bit will be double that.
Elements cannot open 48 bit files, converts to 24.
There is no reason to scan in 48 bit from flat copy. None.
scantips.com for a thorough newbie scanning guide.
best,
Mac
I agree, if you don’t plan on any enlargement. If you think you might want to enlarge later, get as much resolution as the photo can provide. Of course, if the print is grainy, or of low quality, then higher resolution doesn’t buy anything.
Rich
wrote in message
RIch,
I haven’t had much luck improving image quality by scanning at resolution
higher than 300 ppi from prints. That seems to be about the max resolution of most printed images, and scanning higher doesn’t get you any more detail.
At least that’s been my experience…your mileage may differ… Bert
