Epson Perf 4870 output????

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven Foster Murray
  • Start date Start date
S

Steven Foster Murray

Hi... Great group... always a big help!

When I scan photos (say 3"x4") at 4800 dpi the output .tiff file is
extremely large and
unwieldy. Why would anyone need to scan at that or higher dpi???

What is the best dpi scan setting for the 4870 when the target output device
is an
Epson 2200 printer. 1200 dpi???

Thank in advance.... Steven Foster Murray
 
Hi... Great group... always a big help!

When I scan photos (say 3"x4") at 4800 dpi the output .tiff file is
extremely large and
unwieldy. Why would anyone need to scan at that or higher dpi???

What is the best dpi scan setting for the 4870 when the target output device
is an
Epson 2200 printer. 1200 dpi???

Thank in advance.... Steven Foster Murray
Click to expand...

It depends on the output size... if you want to print at same size,
then scan at 300 ppi. If you want to print at 2x size (linear) then
scan at 600 ppi.
 
Steven Foster Murray said:
Hi... Great group... always a big help!

When I scan photos (say 3"x4") at 4800 dpi the output .tiff file is
extremely large and
unwieldy. Why would anyone need to scan at that or higher dpi???

What is the best dpi scan setting for the 4870 when the target output device
is an
Epson 2200 printer. 1200 dpi???

Thank in advance.... Steven Foster Murray
Click to expand...

For flat stuff, you almost never need more than 600 DPI.
Here is a scanning/printing calculator.
http://www.scantips.com/calc.html

For tips on scanning and printing.
http://www.scantips.com/
[/QUOTE]
 
Let me put in a belated two cents here. The question of scanning
density is almost always framed in terms of the intended output. In my
case, I do not have any immediate intended output. I simply want to
scan old negatives and slides for archival purposes. Most important, I
want to be able to crop them in the future which requires a higher
initial resolution.

I have set as my goal, obtaining digital images of the slides and
negatives which are comparable to the output of my Nikon D70. It seems
to me, that scanning at 2400 dpi with a target size equal to the
"original" document size gives me this quality resolution. Any comments?

The TIF files are about 13 MB. I could get smaller files by scanning to
JPEG. Does anyone have any thoughts about scanning at higher resolution
to a compressed JPEG file vs. scanning at a lower resolution to an
uncompressed TIF file? It seems to me that if scanning to JPEG files,
it would be could do make the files read-only to avoid degradation from
re-compressions, but I don't know of an easy way to do this.

Oh yes, I am using the Epson Perf 4870 Photo scanner.
For flat stuff, you almost never need more than 600 DPI.
Here is a scanning/printing calculator.
http://www.scantips.com/calc.html

For tips on scanning and printing.
http://www.scantips.com/
Click to expand...


--
Cheers! OliverS
When replying personally, remove "_nospam_"

"When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of
the human race." HG Wells
 
A few comments....

Let me put in a belated two cents here. The question of scanning
density is almost always framed in terms of the intended output. In my
case, I do not have any immediate intended output. I simply want to
scan old negatives and slides for archival purposes. Most important, I
want to be able to crop them in the future which requires a higher
initial resolution.

I have set as my goal, obtaining digital images of the slides and
negatives which are comparable to the output of my Nikon D70. It seems
to me, that scanning at 2400 dpi with a target size equal to the
"original" document size gives me this quality resolution. Any comments?
Click to expand...

When scanning to archives, the resolution is a trade off against file
size. It's up to each individual to decide how much of each he is
willing to accept, or needs.If you have to space and time, then go
with the max res of the scanner
The TIF files are about 13 MB. I could get smaller files by scanning to
JPEG. Does anyone have any thoughts about scanning at higher resolution
to a compressed JPEG file vs. scanning at a lower resolution to an
uncompressed TIF file? It seems to me that if scanning to JPEG files,
it would be could do make the files read-only to avoid degradation from
re-compressions, but I don't know of an easy way to do this.
Click to expand...

I always go with loseless file storage for archives. I would accept
low loss jpeg compression for archive only after all adjusting had
been done to the image. But how do I know "all" adjusting has been
done? So I stick with tif or Photoshop psd file types.

The degradation you refer to only occurs when you edit the file.....
so the only time jpeg is OK for archives is when it's the original
file output of your digital camera..... But once you do any
corrections, color adjustments or cropping or anything, then it's back
to a lossless file type.
Oh yes, I am using the Epson Perf 4870 Photo scanner.
Click to expand...

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
 
My original post indicated that my target output device is an
Epson 2200 printer. But, my long term plan is also to do
archival work with reflective material using the 4870 and
35mm/medium format film with a Nikon 8000ED.

Every opinion that I've heard seems to indicate we should
work at the maximum (not-interpolated) scan rate or if that
is too high, then a multiple of the rate.

4780 max is 4800dpi... with creates a huge file for a 4x6 print;
1200dpi seems to provide good results with manageable file sizes.

The 8000ED max is 4000dpi. A 6x4.5cm neg @ 14bit depth
at original size creates a scan file of about 350MB. Photoshop
almost chokes.

In all cases I use tif file format as jpeg is a compressed, lossy
format. Get the most from the scan and work it down later.

Hey... I'm still trying to find that sweet spot!

SFM
 
Let me put in a belated two cents here. The question of scanning
density is almost always framed in terms of the intended output. In my
case, I do not have any immediate intended output. I simply want to
scan old negatives and slides for archival purposes. Most important, I
want to be able to crop them in the future which requires a higher
initial resolution.

I have set as my goal, obtaining digital images of the slides and
negatives which are comparable to the output of my Nikon D70. It seems
to me, that scanning at 2400 dpi with a target size equal to the
"original" document size gives me this quality resolution. Any comments?

The TIF files are about 13 MB. I could get smaller files by scanning to
JPEG. Does anyone have any thoughts about scanning at higher resolution
to a compressed JPEG file vs. scanning at a lower resolution to an
uncompressed TIF file? It seems to me that if scanning to JPEG files,
it would be could do make the files read-only to avoid degradation from
re-compressions, but I don't know of an easy way to do this.

Oh yes, I am using the Epson Perf 4870 Photo scanner.
Click to expand...


The 2400 dpi (for 35 mm film) sounds right if the goal is to match the
image size of the D70's 3008x2000 pixel image. This uncropped size will
print 8x10 inches at 250 dpi, if that is a goal. Or it will crop a lot
and still print 6x4 inches at high quality. We should of course always
do a few and experiment, including printed tests, to refine and
understand the process and needs, before we do too much work. This will
answer the questions.

File size tradeoffs of more scan resolution vs JPG are separate issues,
not at all the same issue.

More resolution adds detail for the purpose of printing larger.
Only you can say if that is a realistic goal.
JPG files add JPG artifacts which degrade whatever size you have.

You could choose more resolution with JPG to have a similar file size,
but you must decide the appropriate image size for the goal in any case.
To be able to sit around and admire file size is not the purpose for the
image, is it? :-) File storage space is real cheap today. JPG is
optional, and a different issue than image size.

Modest JPG compression (a rather high JPG Quality setting) is not really
so bad, esp if the image will never be edited again, but it is always
JPG. But you said future cropping, which sounds like another save again.
Seems better to start with a TIF file if the image quality is important.
At least until all work on the image is complete. And at least for the
most important images.
 
Thanks for all of the comments.


--
Cheers! OliverS
When replying personally, remove "_nospam_"

"When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of
the human race." HG Wells
 
Steven Foster Murray said:
When I scan photos (say 3"x4") at 4800 dpi the output .tiff file is
extremely large and unwieldy. Why would anyone need to scan at that
or higher dpi???
Click to expand...

Depends on the size and resolution of your output.

If you want to make an 8x12 print at 600dpi, then you're talking about
4800 pixels across the page. That many pixels across the 24mm height
of a 35mm negative requires a scan of 5080dpi. (Which is probably why
high-end film scanners sport 5000dpi resolutions.)

Of course, you scanning at a resolution beyond the grain of your film
is usually pointless. IIRC, typical 35mm film won't see improvement
beyond about 3200dpi.
What is the best dpi scan setting for the 4870 when the target
output device is an Epson 2200 printer. 1200 dpi???
Click to expand...

Depends on the size of your output and the size of your input.

If you are scanning a print and plan on making printouts at the same
size, then scanning at your printer's resolution is probably
sufficient.

If you plan on printing at a size larger than your original, then
you'll want more resolution.

-- David
 
OliverS said:
Let me put in a belated two cents here. The question of scanning
density is almost always framed in terms of the intended output. In
my case, I do not have any immediate intended output. I simply want
to scan old negatives and slides for archival purposes. Most
important, I want to be able to crop them in the future which
requires a higher initial resolution.
Click to expand...

If your goal is to capture as much as possible from the film so that
you never have to scan it again, then you want to scan at a resolution
at least as high as the grain on the film. Probably at or above
3200dpi.

And you won't want to use a lossy compression scheme. You can use a
compressed file format, but it should use a lossless codec. This
will, of course, result in very large file sizes, but that's what
happens when you make a high resolution scan with a lossless
compression scheme.
The TIF files are about 13 MB. I could get smaller files by
scanning to JPEG. Does anyone have any thoughts about scanning at
higher resolution to a compressed JPEG file vs. scanning at a lower
resolution to an uncompressed TIF file? It seems to me that if
scanning to JPEG files, it would be could do make the files
read-only to avoid degradation from re-compressions, but I don't
know of an easy way to do this.
Click to expand...

My gut feeling would tell me to prefer the lower resolution and
lossless compression, but I don't have enough personal experience to
say for sure. Try both on some test scans and see which you think
produces better results (compare them both on-screen and on-paper.)

-- David
 
Excelent point and I think the one that answers the question the best.

My use for TIFF is as follows. I'm scanning historical film (1920s -
present day). I scan them in TIFF because the photo stays accurate in
this file format. Once it's scanned I usually make backups in JPG for
distrabution and to play with. All my TIFF goes onto some sort of
long lasting backup in quantities of two. In case one gets lost what
ever I have the other.

Have fun and good luck.
 
Back
Top