Scan time looooong on EPSON Perfection 3200 PHOTO

[Silence Seeker]

I am trying to archive my family photos 35mm negatives on my brand new
EPSON Perfection 3200 PHOTO. It is connected to a pretty fast computer
(P4 3.12GHz / 1GB RM) via a USB 2.0 cable (480Mbps).

I am scanning them for a target size of 12"x8" (1200 dpi), as can be
seen in the following snapshot:

http://silenceseeker.50megs.com/photo.html

I selected 10 images and clicked the 'Scan' button. All went well and
at the end I found 10 beautiful images. However, that took 80 (!)
minutes. That's an average of 8 minutes per image...

Is this normal?

If so (i.e. neither the scanner nor some other hardware is defective)
are there ways to speed up the scanning *without* compromising on
image quality?

Thanks,
Sam

 

[lazy monkey]

How big are your reaultant scan? I guess about 500m per photo which will
take a while to transfer to your pc.

 

[-]

I am scanning them for a target size of 12"x8" (1200 dpi), as can be

seen in the following snapshot:

I think this is why your scans are taking so long. You might be confusing
scanning resolution, printing resolution and output resolution. If you are
trying to scan in one step to obtain a file ready for printing, you really
don't need over 300-360 dpi if you are scanning to your final print
resolution size. Sound confusing? Time to go through the tutorials at
www.scantips.com

Doug

 

[CSM1]

I am trying to archive my family photos 35mm negatives on my brand new
EPSON Perfection 3200 PHOTO. It is connected to a pretty fast computer
(P4 3.12GHz / 1GB RM) via a USB 2.0 cable (480Mbps).

I am scanning them for a target size of 12"x8" (1200 dpi), as can be
seen in the following snapshot:

http://silenceseeker.50megs.com/photo.html

I selected 10 images and clicked the 'Scan' button. All went well and
at the end I found 10 beautiful images. However, that took 80 (!)
minutes. That's an average of 8 minutes per image...

Is this normal?

If so (i.e. neither the scanner nor some other hardware is defective)
are there ways to speed up the scanning *without* compromising on
image quality?

Thanks,
Sam

Try changing the Destination Resolution to 300 dpi instead of 1200 dpi and
try one to see if the output image is about 2400 X 3600 pixels at 300 dpi.
The most resolution a print can have is about 300 dpi.

It looks like you are asking the scanner to do 4 times the work needed.

I tried it with my Minolta Scan Dual 4 with input resolution of 3200 dpi and
output 300 dpi 12 X 8 inches. The image was 3600 X 2400 pixels and the print
was 12 X 8 inches at 300 dpi. It took less than 30 Seconds for my scanner to
scan the 35mm Slide.

If you scanned a 35mm slide at 3200 ppi then the image should be about 3024
X 4480 pixels. Any more would make the scanner interpolate which takes a
long time.

To learn about scanning:
http://www.scantips.com/

 

[Silence Seeker]

I think this is why your scans are taking so long. You might be confusing
scanning resolution, printing resolution and output resolution. If you are
trying to scan in one step to obtain a file ready for printing, you really
don't need over 300-360 dpi if you are scanning to your final print
resolution size. Sound confusing? Time to go through the tutorials at
www.scantips.com

I did read several sections in www.scantips.com, but it didn't prevent
me from confusing between the scanning resolution and destination
resolution. Thank you Doug for pointing my attention to this
funamental concept.

Unfortunately, I am still confused:

I understand what scanning resolution is, but what is the difference
between "printing resolution" and "output resolution"?

I am not trying to scan a file ready for immediate printing as much as
for *future* printing. I don't currently own a printer I would
consider adequate for photo printing. My understanding from reading
www.scantips.com is that the main reason for limiting scanning
resolution (except for limited storage space and the desire to reduce
scan time) is the limits of *current* printing technlogy. That is, if
you had a 30,000 dpi printer (for under $100... ), wouldn't you scan
at that resolution, if output quality was the most important factor?

Or did I misunderstand this issue and really there isn't a *visible*
(or perceived) difference between 360dpi printing and a 36,000dpi
printing?

Could you please explain?

Thanks,
Sam

 

[Mac McDougald]

I did read several sections in www.scantips.com, but it didn't prevent
me from confusing between the scanning resolution and destination
resolution. Thank you Doug for pointing my attention to this
funamental concept.

Unfortunately, I am still confused:

I understand what scanning resolution is, but what is the difference
between "printing resolution" and "output resolution"?

I am not trying to scan a file ready for immediate printing as much as
for *future* printing. I don't currently own a printer I would
consider adequate for photo printing. My understanding from reading
www.scantips.com is that the main reason for limiting scanning
resolution (except for limited storage space and the desire to reduce
scan time) is the limits of *current* printing technlogy. That is, if
you had a 30,000 dpi printer (for under $100... ), wouldn't you scan
at that resolution, if output quality was the most important factor?

Or did I misunderstand this issue and really there isn't a *visible*
(or perceived) difference between 360dpi printing and a 36,000dpi
printing?

Could you please explain?

Thanks,
Sam

I don't want to get long winded here, but print resoluton (DPI) and image
resolution (PPI) are not the same thing, and never coincide 1:1 except
sometimes in the case of line mode.

Your scanner is 3200 optical. That's all it can do, without " making up"
pixels. And that means at actual image size of the original.
So a 35mm slide or neg is 36x24mm @ 3200ppi = 4534 x 3024 pixels.
That's all the useful info you can get from that scanner.
And the 3200ppi from that flatbed actually is not as good a 3200 as same
rez from a dedicated film scanner, will not resolve the same number of
line pairs, etc (but that's another matter).

Even if you want to try upsampling (interpolating, "making up pixels",
higher than this, you're just as well to do it, and faster, using an
image editor rather than doing it with the scanner interface.

Suffice it to say that above 300ppi AT ACTUAL OUTPUT size, you are
unlikely to see any quality gains from most inkjet printers.

Your 4534x3200 pixels will give you up to a 15inch wide print at 300ppi.

Mac (got longer winded than I intended) McDougald

 

[ggull]

Try changing the Destination Resolution to 300 dpi instead of 1200 dpi and
try one to see if the output image is about 2400 X 3600 pixels at 300 dpi.
The most resolution a print can have is about 300 dpi.

It looks like you are asking the scanner to do 4 times the work needed.

Isn't that 16 times the work? at least in the sense of 4x4 times the number
of pixels.

 

[J. A. Mc.]

I don't want to get long winded here, but print resoluton (DPI) and image
resolution (PPI) are not the same thing, and never coincide 1:1 except
sometimes in the case of line mode.

Your scanner is 3200 optical. That's all it can do, without " making up"
pixels. And that means at actual image size of the original.
So a 35mm slide or neg is 36x24mm @ 3200ppi = 4534 x 3024 pixels.
That's all the useful info you can get from that scanner.
And the 3200ppi from that flatbed actually is not as good a 3200 as same
rez from a dedicated film scanner, will not resolve the same number of
line pairs, etc (but that's another matter).

Even if you want to try upsampling (interpolating, "making up pixels",
higher than this, you're just as well to do it, and faster, using an
image editor rather than doing it with the scanner interface.

Suffice it to say that above 300ppi AT ACTUAL OUTPUT size, you are
unlikely to see any quality gains from most inkjet printers.

.... in -today's- technology.

Your 4534x3200 pixels will give you up to a 15inch wide print at 300ppi.

For some future protection, I scan at full optical resolution -OR- 2x the
max desired print size ... whichever is SMALLER.

 

[CSM1]

Isn't that 16 times the work? at least in the sense of 4x4 times the number
of pixels.

..
Yes, in terms of Megapixels.

8 inch @ 300 dpi = 2400 pixels
12 inch @ 300 dpi = 3600 pixels
2400 X 3600 = 8.64 megapixels

8 inch @ 1200 dpi = 9600 pixels
12 inch @ 1200 dpi = 14400 pixels
9600 X 14400 = 138.24 Megapixels

138.24MP / 8.64MP = 16 times the size.

1200dpi / 300dpi = 4
It is 4 times the resolution.

 

[Silence Seeker]

Suffice it to say that above 300ppi AT ACTUAL OUTPUT size, you are
unlikely to see any quality gains from most inkjet printers.

In existing print technology, right?

If I had a printer that can print in the same "resolution" as the old
fashioned photographs, I could definitely see quality gains.

Your 4534x3200 pixels will give you up to a 15inch wide print at 300ppi.

Since I am scanning those negatives for *archival* purposes, I don't
really have a target print size in mind. So, I guess the safest bet is
to scan at maximum optical resolution (3200 dpi), original size. If I
ever print those, I will use the software to scale the image to the
desired print size.

And the 3200ppi from that flatbed actually is not as good a 3200 as same
rez from a dedicated film scanner, will not resolve the same number of

I understand that a dedicated film scanner is really better than a
flatbed scanner for archiving those 35mm negatives. But if I keep
looking for the absolute best (which is always temporary/momentary),
the cost quickly climbs to thousands of dollars (instead of the $270
the EPSON 3200 cost me). I don't just want to archive my old negatives
(family photos, nothing fancy) using the "absolute best technology" -
I want to archive my old negatives using the "best technology for a
given budget" (labor in this case is not included in the equation).

So, for the given hardware (EPSON Pefection 3200 PHOTO), I am merely
trying to maximize the results by at least learning to use it smartly.

Thank you all for replying to my posts and answering my questions. You
really helped me clarify a few confusing issues.

I am sure I will have more questions in the future...

Thanks,
Sam