Epson Perfection 4180 will not allow to create scans larger than 1GB

Hi,
I have an Epson Perfection 4180.
When I try to scan:
8x10 photo print
At 4800 DPI - 48 bit color
To an uncompressed jpg
I get an error about file size is too large.
I'm running XP Pro with 80 GB free hard drive space.
The software will only allow me to scan an 8x10 at 1200 DPI ONLY.
Basically the software will not allow me to create scans above 1GB.

This was discussed here before "EPSON Scan wouldn't make large files
(>1000 MB)" but the thread did not have a solution (that I could
understand).

Is there a solution to this problem? I would like to take advantage
of the full optical resolution of the printer.

Will a third party software work with this scanner and allow me to
scan at full resolution (any suggestions please)?

Thank you,
The Analyst

Realize that you are trying to scan a 24 bit color original printed at no
better than 360 dpi with 48 bit color at 1200 dpi.

Whether you are scanning a wet-process print or an inkjet print that is the
reality of print resolution.

Why on earth would you want to do this?

Your computer will inevitably freeze on a file of this size: neither Windows
or especially Macs can handle it. Your video card and monitor cannot
reproduce 48 bit color and truncate the gamut. Likewise no printing process
can accomodate the 48 bit gamut and will arbitrarily truncate the color
gamut. Finally, your eye cannot see 48 bit color depth anyway.

Do the right thing.

"VL" <stress_analyst@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:55b932ca.0409130635.7b8ec7a7@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> I have an Epson Perfection 4180.
> When I try to scan:
> 8x10 photo print
> At 4800 DPI - 48 bit color
> To an uncompressed jpg
> I get an error about file size is too large.
> I'm running XP Pro with 80 GB free hard drive space.
> The software will only allow me to scan an 8x10 at 1200 DPI ONLY.
> Basically the software will not allow me to create scans above 1GB.
>
> This was discussed here before "EPSON Scan wouldn't make large files
> (>1000 MB)" but the thread did not have a solution (that I could
> understand).
>
> Is there a solution to this problem? I would like to take advantage
> of the full optical resolution of the printer.
>
> Will a third party software work with this scanner and allow me to
> scan at full resolution (any suggestions please)?
>
> Thank you,
> The Analyst

You said 8X10 "print" not negative right? You only need to scan 8X10s at 300
DPI, 24 bit color.

In article <55b932ca.0409130635.7b8ec7a7@posting.google.com>,
stress_analyst@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>Hi,
>I have an Epson Perfection 4180.
>When I try to scan:
>8x10 photo print
>At 4800 DPI - 48 bit color
>To an uncompressed jpg
>I get an error about file size is too large.
>I'm running XP Pro with 80 GB free hard drive space.
>The software will only allow me to scan an 8x10 at 1200 DPI ONLY.
>Basically the software will not allow me to create scans above 1GB.

Hard to imagine why you need a gigabyte image. Perhaps if you were
scanning 4x5 inch sheet film and intending to create billboards, but
in which case, you would likely use a different scanning technique.

Like everyone has said, if the goal is to reprint it at 8x10 inches in
size, then just scan it at 300 dpi. It will be fine.

The purpose of high resolution is for enlargement (for example, 35 mm
film is only about 1.4x0.9 inches - scan at 2400 dpi, print at 300 dpi,
for 8x enlargement). 8x10 prints have already been enlarged.

The JPG file format can only accept 24 bits, not 48 bits.

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

"Alan Smithee" <AlanSmithee@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<PAi1d.397172$M95.383943@pd7tw1no>...

> You said 8X10 "print" not negative right? You only need to scan 8X10s at 300
> DPI, 24 bit color.

Hi,
I kinda understand that…(please note that I'm new to scanning and my
purpose is to scan for reproduction family pictures, no negatives
available, that I don't own).
But the software doesn't even let me scan a 4x6 picture in more than
1200 dpi.
I know this is overkill for a one to one scan but I would like to
scale the 4x6 picture to an 8x10 or higher. I thought that more than
1200 dpi will be better for that job ???
Otherwise, why buy a 4800 dpi photo scanner and not a 1200 dpi one?
Thanks,
The Analyst

On 13 Sep 2004 13:00:06 -0700, stress_analyst@yahoo.com (VL) wrote:

<snip>
>Otherwise, why buy a 4800 dpi photo scanner and not a 1200 dpi one?
>Thanks,
>The Analyst

Answer: If you're only going to scan prints, then the only reason is
because you listen to sales talk.

Higher resolution scans are needed for scanning special things, like
objects, engravings, negatives, where the information in the original
is "more" than 1200 ppi. If you just want to enlarge prints, then
scanning at 1200 and printing at 300 gives you 4x enlargement....
probably more than most people would find acceptable.

So, just why DID you buy that 4800 ppi scanner?

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Start off by working through the wonderful tutorials at www.scantips.com .
Once you learn the basics, you will be able to answer most of the questions
you have asked so far in this thread.

Doug
--
Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format
film:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfish.../mainintro.html

Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com> wrote in message news:<kMCdnei85cAKVtjcRVn-tQ@august.net>...
> In article <55b932ca.0409130635.7b8ec7a7@posting.google.com>,
> stress_analyst@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >
> >Hi,
> >I have an Epson Perfection 4180.
> >When I try to scan:
> >8x10 photo print
> >At 4800 DPI - 48 bit color
> >To an uncompressed jpg
> >I get an error about file size is too large.
> >I'm running XP Pro with 80 GB free hard drive space.
> >The software will only allow me to scan an 8x10 at 1200 DPI ONLY.
> >Basically the software will not allow me to create scans above 1GB.
>
> Hard to imagine why you need a gigabyte image. Perhaps if you were
> scanning 4x5 inch sheet film and intending to create billboards, but
> in which case, you would likely use a different scanning technique.
>
> Like everyone has said, if the goal is to reprint it at 8x10 inches in
> size, then just scan it at 300 dpi. It will be fine.
>
> The purpose of high resolution is for enlargement (for example, 35 mm
> film is only about 1.4x0.9 inches - scan at 2400 dpi, print at 300 dpi,
> for 8x enlargement). 8x10 prints have already been enlarged.
>
> The JPG file format can only accept 24 bits, not 48 bits.

There are limitations on most equipment, an A4 flatbed scanner will
nbot scan 10 x 8 at 4800 dpi, (this is not advisable because you will
not be able to manipulate or print this very easily).
The limitations will be in the ammount of data that can be collected
and transferred from the CCD cells to the collectors where it will be
measured.
There is a limit of 64Kb per scan line of data.
An 8" scan line at 48 bit colour =

8 x [48/8 (bit to byte conversion)] x 4800 = 230Kb per line! Which is
over 1GB per inch of image!!!

As indicated above, there is no point in scanning at such resolutions
as there is no benefit to be gained. The scanners are designed for the
market and to be affordable.
The only reason to scan at high DPI is to maintain an output DPI of
360 or similar when enlarging. The printer you will need to achieve
that on your 10" x 8" scan will be best matched to a drum scanner at
considerably more investment than the P4870.

"VL" <stress_analyst@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:55b932ca.0409131200.413b68a@posting.google.com...
> "Alan Smithee" <AlanSmithee@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:<PAi1d.397172$M95.383943@pd7tw1no>...
>
> > You said 8X10 "print" not negative right? You only need to scan 8X10s at
300
> > DPI, 24 bit color.
>
> Hi,
> I kinda understand that.(please note that I'm new to scanning and my
> purpose is to scan for reproduction family pictures, no negatives
> available, that I don't own).
> But the software doesn't even let me scan a 4x6 picture in more than
> 1200 dpi.
> I know this is overkill for a one to one scan but I would like to
> scale the 4x6 picture to an 8x10 or higher. I thought that more than
> 1200 dpi will be better for that job ???
> Otherwise, why buy a 4800 dpi photo scanner and not a 1200 dpi one?
> Thanks,
> The Analyst

"Purists" will tell you not to scale a 4X6 up to 8X10. Yes in a perfect
world we'd all have access to the original negative but such as the world is
this is not always the case. Just so you know, scanning the original at a
higher resolution will give you a "file" which prints bigger, but, you will
not see the details any clearer. It's a math equation. Also, a big factor to
consider is how far away the picture will be viewed from. If you're blowing
up the 4X6s to hang on a living room wall where the average person will be
say 6-10 feet away and not 10 inches away from they're nose in a photo
album, they're probably not going to notice one way or the other. Another
trick you can try rather than adding resolution in the scanner is to print
with lower resolution which basically give you the same effect, a file which
"prints" bigger. At 6-10 feet away it means you could probably print in the
180 DPI range on the printer or even less. Let your eyes be the judge. For
example think of a bill board which is 20'X30' and viewed from 100' away in
a car, through a windshield, in the smog. You can print this billboard using
measurements that calc. pixels the size of golfballs per foot rather than
pixel per inch. People didn't criticize Roy Lichtenstein for not using
"enough" DPI...OK well some did...;^)

In article <YOG1d.10953$%S.4652@pd7tw2no>, Alan Smithee
<AlanSmithee@nowhere.com> writes
>
>"Purists" will tell you not to scale a 4X6 up to 8X10. Yes in a perfect
>world we'd all have access to the original negative but such as the world is
>this is not always the case. Just so you know, scanning the original at a
>higher resolution will give you a "file" which prints bigger, but, you will
>not see the details any clearer. It's a math equation. Also, a big factor to
>consider is how far away the picture will be viewed from. If you're blowing
>up the 4X6s to hang on a living room wall where the average person will be
>say 6-10 feet away and not 10 inches away from they're nose in a photo
>album, they're probably not going to notice one way or the other.
>
Another "trick" you can use to fool the viewer into thinking that the
low resolution image has more content is to add fine grain. For some
reason when we see grain in the image we just think we are looking at
the ultimate original content. I don't know if this is a phenomena that
has developed in the media frenzy of the 20th Century or not - it would
be interesting to get some jungle tribe that has never been exposed to
such media to conduct side by side comparisons with. Either way, if you
have normal western viewers, adding grain to an otherwise soft image
seems to make it appear less soft.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)