Ok, I am considering buying the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED. I am trying to
figure out how to calculate the size of a TIFF image based on the
scanning resolution. It looks like at 4000 dpi, it will scan a 35mm neg
( 36mm x 24mm) at 5669 x 3780. So do you simply multiply those two
numbers together and then multiply that product by 3?

5669x3780x3= 62.78 Megs

is that correct?

In article <QOUlc.2497$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> Ok, I am considering buying the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED. I am trying to
> figure out how to calculate the size of a TIFF image based on the
> scanning resolution. It looks like at 4000 dpi, it will scan a 35mm neg
> ( 36mm x 24mm) at 5669 x 3780. So do you simply multiply those two
> numbers together and then multiply that product by 3?
>
> 5669x3780x3= 62.78 Megs
>
> is that correct?

Not sure if that's exactly the formula or not, but Photoshop estimates
61.4, so it must be pretty close at worst

Mac

On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:29:04 GMT, Nony Buz staggered into the Black Sun
and said:
> figure out how to calculate the size of a TIFF image based on the
> scanning resolution. It looks like at 4000 dpi, it will scan a 35mm
> neg ( 36mm x 24mm) at 5669 x 3780. So do you simply multiply those
> two numbers together and then multiply that product by 3?
>
> 5669x3780x3= 62.78 Megs

5669 pixels wide * 3780 pixels high * 3 bytes/pixel = 64,286,460 bytes
64,286,460 bytes / 1024 = 62,779.7 Kb
62,779.7 Kb / 1024 = 61.3 Mb

....plus a few hundred bytes for the TIFF directory. That's for an
*uncompressed* TIFF. You can reduce this some if you use LZW
compression, but don't expect miracles from that; the compressed images
will be 30-50M in many cases. Whatever software you use may allow you
to use JPEG compression within the TIFF. This is not a good idea
because JPEG is lossy and lots of software won't handle a JPEGged TIFF
at all. If you want to use JPEG, just save the image as a straight
JPEG. I'd suggest keeping the original scanned image around in an open,
lossless format like PNG or LZW TIFF, just because you might want to
work with the image later on.

--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Frustration is annoying, but the *real* disasters in life begin when you
get exactly what you want.
Hire me! http://crow202.dyndns.org/~mhgraham/resume/

"Nony Buz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:QOUlc.2497$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Ok, I am considering buying the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED. I am
> trying to figure out how to calculate the size of a TIFF image based
> on the scanning resolution. It looks like at 4000 dpi, it will scan a
> 35mm neg ( 36mm x 24mm) at 5669 x 3780. So do you simply
> multiply those two numbers together and then multiply that product
> by 3?
>
> 5669x3780x3= 62.78 Megs
>
> is that correct?

Yes, plus file header overhead, assuming uncompressed RGB 8-bit/channel
data. A program like VueScan allows to also save the IR channel data.
16-b/ch data will produce a file roughly twice that size, and it will
compress less (or even increase file size).

Bart

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...

>> 5669x3780x3= 62.78 Megs
>>
>> is that correct?
>
>Not sure if that's exactly the formula or not, but Photoshop estimates
>61.4, so it must be pretty close at worst


The confusion is just that there are 1000x1000 = 1,000,000 bytes in a
million bytes, and 1024x1024 = 1,048,576 bytes in a megabyte.. about 5%
more bytes in a megabyte, so about 5% fewer megabytes. Just divide bytes
by 1.049 to get MB.

The 62.78 number only used one 1024 divisor, instead of two, so it would
have been exactly correct if it had said KB, to be 62,780 KB.

I feel a good rant coming on <g>

I dont know why we all still must use this powers of 2 megabyte concept for
file size or for size in memory. There is nothing related to powers of 2
about file sizes, or about the product of 5669x3780 pixels. Powers of 2
were significant back when a 1K memory chip cost $1000, significant that it
necessarily had 1024 bytes in it. Every one counted big time then, about
one dollar each byte, in 1970 dollars. Memory chips must in fact be built
in capacities of multiples of 2, because each added address line doubles
the previous memory total, in powers of 2. But that is only about the chip
itself however, and not about what we store in it. We can store 5 bytes in
it for example and 5 is not a powers of 2 number.

Other than the memory chip itself, it is really not useful to continue this
anymore - instead it is outright inconvenient to have to do this silly
calculation to convert the actual real file size or real memory size from
millions to megabytes, just so we can say MB in the conventional sense,
just so that we are no longer exactly sure what it means. <g>

The prefix mega does literally mean million in the dictionary, and in all
other uses. It is only memory chips that changes it to 1024x1024.

Digital cameras mean millions when they say megapixels.

Hard disks mean millions when they say megabytes.

We even hear some comments (which dont quite get it) criticize hard disk
specs that use decimal millions instead of using powers of 2 megabytes like
memory chips do (all the disks do this, but nevertheless the claim is that
all are supposedly wrong). This is claimed to be false marketing hype just
to inflate the "real" number by 5% so it "sounds better". That notion
seems dumb and funny to me, because the "real" count is decimal units of 1
(file sizes too, same thing).

Million is what the word mega means, and we humans count in decimal, and
that is the actual correct size of the disk or file or image. We wouldnt
even realize the problem existed if it were not that our software divides
it by 1024 or 1024x1024 just for the one purpose to show it to us. <g>
This overt extra step is unnecessary and inconvenient and confusing.

We ought to do disk file sizes and image memory sizes as decimal, and
probably would if Microsoft didnt keep promoting it as K units for files,
and photo editors promote it as MB for images.

The Windows Explorer shows file size in K (units of 1024 bytes) but the DOS
Prompt DIR shows the size of the SAME file in units of 1 byte (decimal),
which of course is the exact size it is. It is silly that we continue
converting to 1,048,576 byte megabytes for file size or image size.

But unfortunately, that is the bothersome convention we chose, back when
only a few programmers knew about it. Today it is very mainstream however,
and it seems the time to fix it..

--
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"

My rant should have also mentioned that the IEC international organization
has the new units for power of 2 prefixes:

2^10 kibi Ki kilobinary: (2^10)^1 kilo: (10^3)^1
2^20 mebi Mi megabinary: (2^10)^2 mega: (10^3)^2
2^30 gibi Gi gigabinary: (2^10)^3 giga: (10^3)^3
2^40 tebi Ti terabinary: (2^10)^4 tera: (10^3)^4

We should use those terms, if that is what we mean.

--
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"

On Wed, 05 May 2004 at 02:24 GMT, Wayne Fulton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> My rant should have also mentioned that the IEC international organization
> has the new units for power of 2 prefixes:
>
> 2^10 kibi Ki kilobinary: (2^10)^1 kilo: (10^3)^1
> 2^20 mebi Mi megabinary: (2^10)^2 mega: (10^3)^2
> 2^30 gibi Gi gigabinary: (2^10)^3 giga: (10^3)^3
> 2^40 tebi Ti terabinary: (2^10)^4 tera: (10^3)^4
>
> We should use those terms, if that is what we mean.

Wayne,

First off, thank you for your rant, I found it VERY educational. I find
it said that I have been a professional programmer for over eight years
and I never knew any of your rant! I will not be making the mistake
again!

So as to make sure I understand the chart above, a Ki would be what
folks are currently calling a Kilobyte, yes? And my file size would be
61.308345794677734375 Mi?

Thanks for the long over due education!

"Wayne Fulton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:tKqdnQfsVNwW1QXdRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
SNIP
> I feel a good rant coming on <g>

Yes, and it will do little to eradicate the confusion ;-(
We can only hope.

SNIP
> The prefix mega does literally mean million in the dictionary, and in all
> other uses. It is only memory chips that changes it to 1024x1024.
>
> Digital cameras mean millions when they say megapixels.
>
> Hard disks mean millions when they say megabytes.

Hard disks are organized and addressed in sectors and clusters that are
multiples of byte sizes (512/1024/2048 etc.) so there is some sense in
considering that. 1000 bytes will occupy at least 1024 bytes (but only for
the last sector of a file, AKA slack). So for large files, the difference is
almost non-existent, and bytes are accurately measured by 1000's.

SNIP
> The Windows Explorer shows file size in K (units of 1024 bytes) but the
DOS
> Prompt DIR shows the size of the SAME file in units of 1 byte (decimal),
> which of course is the exact size it is. It is silly that we continue
> converting to 1,048,576 byte megabytes for file size or image size.

Again, it has to do with the heritage of sector addressing, but I agree if
we talk about mega pixels, we mean decimal thousands (most people do have
more than 8 fingers, so it seems 'handy' to stick to multiples of 10).

> But unfortunately, that is the bothersome convention we chose, back when
> only a few programmers knew about it. Today it is very mainstream however,
> and it seems the time to fix it..

I'm not hopeful, but I do agree.

Bart

"Wayne Fulton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> The confusion is just that there are 1000x1000 = 1,000,000 bytes in a
> million bytes, and 1024x1024 = 1,048,576 bytes in a megabyte.. about 5%
> more bytes in a megabyte, so about 5% fewer megabytes. Just divide bytes
> by 1.049 to get MB.
>
> The 62.78 number only used one 1024 divisor, instead of two, so it would
> have been exactly correct if it had said KB, to be 62,780 KB.
>
> I feel a good rant coming on <g>

Rants. I love rants.

> I dont know why we all still must use this powers of 2 megabyte concept
for
> file size or for size in memory. There is nothing related to powers of 2
> about file sizes, or about the product of 5669x3780 pixels. Powers of 2
> were significant back when a 1K memory chip cost $1000, significant that
> it necessarily had 1024 bytes in it.

No, your rant is misplaced. Computers work on powers of 2 since the space
they can address ends up being a power of 2. Memory and disks and computery
things come in powers of 2. It makes sense. Always has, always will. File
sizes are things that go in memory and on disks, and should be counted in
powers of two.

If you have to deal with disks and address spaces and computery things,
"mega" is going to mean 2^10.

What doesn't make sense is talking about digital images in terms of file
size. Digital images should be counted in pixels, and one should never
ever talk about the file size as being a measure of a digital image size.

If you have to deal with real-world phenomenon, that come in sizes that we
measure in intuitive units, "mega" should mean 10^6.

Talking about images in terms of bytes is insane. Bytes have _nothing_
whatsoever to do with the image. An image consists of pixels. It doesn't
matter how those pixels are represented and stored as long as the
representation has enough bits for the _information_ contained in the image,
and the storage succeeds in storing those bits. The vast majority of scans
are so soft and noisy that you can store the image as either a 16-bit image,
an 8-bit image, or a 1:10 compressed 8-bit jpeg with absolutely no loss in
_information_. The file size is irrelevant. The pixel count isn't.

> The prefix mega does literally mean million in the dictionary, and in all
> other uses. It is only memory chips that changes it to 1024x1024.

Yes. Well, address spaces, anything computery.

> Digital cameras mean millions when they say megapixels.

Yes.

> Hard disks mean millions when they say megabytes.

Maybe. Usually unformatted megabytes are smaller than even 10^6 flavor
megabytes<g>.

> But unfortunately, that is the bothersome convention we chose, back when
> only a few programmers knew about it. Today it is very mainstream however,
> and it seems the time to fix it..

There's nothing to fix as long as you use the right notation for the thing
you are talking about. Using the wrong terminology is the problem.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article <iW3mc.6189$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...

>Wayne,
>
>First off, thank you for your rant, I found it VERY educational. I find
>it said that I have been a professional programmer for over eight years
>and I never knew any of your rant! I will not be making the mistake
>again!
>
>So as to make sure I understand the chart above, a Ki would be what
>folks are currently calling a Kilobyte, yes? And my file size would be
>61.308345794677734375 Mi?
>
>Thanks for the long over due education!


I certainly wasnt fussing at you Nony, I was just ranting, in a rather futile
way. It was about what ought to be, instead of about what is. The fact and
problem is that everyone else thinks it is correct as is, so if you change
now, everyone else will think you are wrong. <g> I was just lamenting that
sad state of affairs.

Yes, the new KI term is meant to replace the K term, in those uses that are
appropriate for the powers of 2 unit (since kilo really means 1000 in all
other uses). I dont think any one is using it yet. There can be no progress
in correction until the powers that be, Microsoft, Adobe, and such, also adopt
it. Hopefully, maybe 10 years??
See http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html for more.

--
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"