scanner settings for 35mm film?

[Louise]

Epson 2400 with film holder. P4, 3.2 with 2 gig of ram and 75 gig free
on hard drive.

Using Epson software - twain.

I would like to scan a 35mm negative at the highest resolution and color
depth possible so that when I work with it in Photoshop, I can get the
best possible quality.

My work will often involve extensive cropping and therefore, the final
photo will be only a small portion of the entire negative.

The Epson software gives me the option to scan as high as 48 bit and to
at a resolution of 12800. But when I try to actually scan at this high
end, my computer freezes although it "should" have enough power.

I seem to need to go down to 24 bit and either 4800 or 2400 resolution
for it to successfully save a scan.

Why can't I use the higher settings?

And, what would be reasonable settings to use to achieve good quality?
Do I need to scan at such a high bit rate and resolution?

TIA

Louise

 

[Ken Weitzel]

Epson 2400 with film holder. P4, 3.2 with 2 gig of ram and 75 gig free
on hard drive.

Using Epson software - twain.

I would like to scan a 35mm negative at the highest resolution and color
depth possible so that when I work with it in Photoshop, I can get the
best possible quality.

My work will often involve extensive cropping and therefore, the final
photo will be only a small portion of the entire negative.

The Epson software gives me the option to scan as high as 48 bit and to
at a resolution of 12800. But when I try to actually scan at this high
end, my computer freezes although it "should" have enough power.

I seem to need to go down to 24 bit and either 4800 or 2400 resolution
for it to successfully save a scan.

Why can't I use the higher settings?

And, what would be reasonable settings to use to achieve good quality?
Do I need to scan at such a high bit rate and resolution?

TIA

Louise

Hi Louise...

You may - just may - have the power, but I hope you have
lots of time

If you manage to do it, each picture would be pretty close
to 1.5 gig's.

No matter, for the best quality scans you're gonna get,
stick with the maximum *optical* scan rate of the scanner,
(in your case I believe that's 2400). And stick with 24
bit - you won't be able to see on your monitor or print
48 bit stuff.

If you want better, you'll have to use a dedicated film
scanner.

Ken

 

[false_dmitrii]

Epson 2400 with film holder. P4, 3.2 with 2 gig of ram and 75 gig free
on hard drive.

The Epson software gives me the option to scan as high as 48 bit and to
at a resolution of 12800. But when I try to actually scan at this high
end, my computer freezes although it "should" have enough power.

No way is your scanner capable of anywhere near true 12800ppi
resolution. Its maximum sensor resolution is 4800, and that's only in
one direction. At any setting above 2400, it's using software
interpolation to fill in missing data. See the recent "filmscanner vs
high-res flatbed" thread for some discussion of this.

Even the best prosumer scanners range from "only" 4000 to 5400 ppi
optical resolution, which is near the limit of useful resolution for
all but the sharpest shots.

I seem to need to go down to 24 bit and either 4800 or 2400 resolution
for it to successfully save a scan.

Why can't I use the higher settings?

I'm not even going to try the math. A 5400ppi x 48bit image from my
scanner is around 240MB. Your 12800ppi image would require more than
double that. And that's just the image size--the software might need 2
or 3 times the memory to handle its calculations, especially if it
isn't highly optimized for such work. Crossing the 2GB "threshold" is
a common cause of problems in some software, even these days. There
might be more to the problem, but the sheer file size could be enough
by itself to bring down even a modern desktop under the right
circumstances. I've seen similar complaints here about Epson Scan
running out of allocated memory before completing a max-res, max-size
scan on the Perfection 4870.

But 2GB RAM should be far more than you need to save a 48bit scan at
more reasonable sizes. Make sure you have the latest version of Epson
Scan. Try running it as a stand-alone program with nothing else going
on in the background. If it still locks up at 2400ppi x 48bit,
something's going wrong.

And, what would be reasonable settings to use to achieve good quality?
Do I need to scan at such a high bit rate and resolution?

2400 for full resolution both ways, 4800 to max it out in one direction
and interpolate the other. 48bit color if you want maximum editing
flexibility and have an editor that can handle it (you can always
convert to 24bit as needed). Otherwise, make major color and contrast
adjustments when scanning and save as 24bit.

Even 2400ppi should get you somewhere around 11x7 inches when printing
at 300ppi. That's usually enough to be useful even when cropping
heavily. If you need much more, and you're sure your photos have the
detail, you'll need to upgrade to a better scanner.

false_dmitrii

 

[false_dmitrii]

Louise wrote:

I'm not even going to try the math. A 5400ppi x 48bit image from my
scanner is around 240MB. Your 12800ppi image would require more than
double that. And that's just the image size--the software might need 2
or 3 times the memory to handle its calculations, especially if it
isn't highly optimized for such work. Crossing the 2GB "threshold" is

<snip>

Whoops, what was I thinking? Ken is right. At 12800ppi, you're
getting up near 1.5GB before any other processing occurs. Try that on
a 1GB RAM Windows system and you'll have a nice percussion track to
listen to for the next hour.

false_dmitrii

 

[Hecate]

Epson 2400 with film holder. P4, 3.2 with 2 gig of ram and 75 gig free
on hard drive.

Using Epson software - twain.

I would like to scan a 35mm negative at the highest resolution and color
depth possible so that when I work with it in Photoshop, I can get the
best possible quality.

My work will often involve extensive cropping and therefore, the final
photo will be only a small portion of the entire negative.

The Epson software gives me the option to scan as high as 48 bit and to
at a resolution of 12800. But when I try to actually scan at this high
end, my computer freezes although it "should" have enough power.

That resolution is interpolation. I.e the scanner is "guessing" and
putting in extra pixels where *it* thinks they should go. There is no
way that you will get the quality you want with this scanner.

I seem to need to go down to 24 bit and either 4800 or 2400 resolution
for it to successfully save a scan.

Why can't I use the higher settings?

And, what would be reasonable settings to use to achieve good quality?
Do I need to scan at such a high bit rate and resolution?

What you need, Louise, is a film scanner which does at least a *real*
4000 dpi. With the scanner you have, you'll be lucky to get a 6x4
print without using the whole slide.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Louise]

No way is your scanner capable of anywhere near true 12800ppi
resolution. Its maximum sensor resolution is 4800, and that's only in
one direction. At any setting above 2400, it's using software
interpolation to fill in missing data. See the recent "filmscanner vs
high-res flatbed" thread for some discussion of this.

Even the best prosumer scanners range from "only" 4000 to 5400 ppi
optical resolution, which is near the limit of useful resolution for
all but the sharpest shots.


I'm not even going to try the math. A 5400ppi x 48bit image from my
scanner is around 240MB. Your 12800ppi image would require more than
double that. And that's just the image size--the software might need 2
or 3 times the memory to handle its calculations, especially if it
isn't highly optimized for such work. Crossing the 2GB "threshold" is
a common cause of problems in some software, even these days. There
might be more to the problem, but the sheer file size could be enough
by itself to bring down even a modern desktop under the right
circumstances. I've seen similar complaints here about Epson Scan
running out of allocated memory before completing a max-res, max-size
scan on the Perfection 4870.

But 2GB RAM should be far more than you need to save a 48bit scan at
more reasonable sizes. Make sure you have the latest version of Epson
Scan. Try running it as a stand-alone program with nothing else going
on in the background. If it still locks up at 2400ppi x 48bit,
something's going wrong.


2400 for full resolution both ways, 4800 to max it out in one direction
and interpolate the other. 48bit color if you want maximum editing
flexibility and have an editor that can handle it (you can always
convert to 24bit as needed). Otherwise, make major color and contrast

By shutting down most other running programs, I am able to do 48 bit by
4800 ppi.

However, am I really enhancing my photos if I go to 4800 ppi since that
does mean interpolation in one direction?

I'll be using Photoshop 7.

Thanks again.

Louise

 

[Louise]

That resolution is interpolation. I.e the scanner is "guessing" and
putting in extra pixels where *it* thinks they should go. There is no
way that you will get the quality you want with this scanner.

What you need, Louise, is a film scanner which does at least a *real*
4000 dpi. With the scanner you have, you'll be lucky to get a 6x4
print without using the whole slide.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Thanks a lot for your help.

Money is a little short right now and I'm trying to get these files
together for a Photoshop course I'm taking. I also expect to print some
of them - especially after I work with them in Photoshop

So, within the constraints of my scanner capability, would you recommend
using 2400 ppi - or, should I go to 4800 ppi which means interpolation
in one direction?

I can do 48 bit and I'll be using PHotoshop 7 - is there any reason not
to do 48 bit?

Thanks again.

Louise

 

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

Thanks a lot for your help.

Money is a little short right now and I'm trying to get these files
together for a Photoshop course I'm taking. I also expect to print some
of them - especially after I work with them in Photoshop

So, within the constraints of my scanner capability, would you recommend
using 2400 ppi - or, should I go to 4800 ppi which means interpolation
in one direction?

I can do 48 bit and I'll be using PHotoshop 7 - is there any reason not
to do 48 bit?

Thanks again.

Louise

Louise,

My epson scanner is 3200 PPI, and although I seldom use it for 35mm, I
have tried it and find that it's quite useless to go to any higher
(than the native) resolution. My thinking is that at 2400 you'll get
everything out of the film that the scanner can deliver. As someone
said earlier, if you need higher than that, you really need to get a
good film scanner. And I wouldn't recommend going to 48 bit either. I
think if you run a few tests, you will find that there isn't really
very much difference for most images. And using hte lower scan res and
lower (24 bit) bit depth will speed things up considerably.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

 

[Peter D]

That resolution is interpolation. I.e the scanner is "guessing" and
putting in extra pixels where *it* thinks they should go. There is no
way that you will get the quality you want with this scanner.

What you need, Louise, is a film scanner which does at least a *real*
4000 dpi. With the scanner you have, you'll be lucky to get a 6x4
print without using the whole slide.

6x4?? Even sticking to the optical res of 2400, he'll do better than that.

OP: Don't bother with 48 bit. 24 bit is plenty. Unless you can make a good
case for it, don't bother goign above the optical res for the scanner
(2400). That should deliver a manageable file that you can tweak and play
with in PS. Save it in a non-lossy format and use PS to enhance the res and
the subsequent interpolation if you really need it.

You could also take a quick scan in 2400 and another in (interpolated in one
direction) 4800, crop the portion in each and compare. If the scanner
interpolated one is better, then use 4800.
HTH

 

[Hecate]

Thanks a lot for your help.

Money is a little short right now and I'm trying to get these files
together for a Photoshop course I'm taking. I also expect to print some
of them - especially after I work with them in Photoshop

So, within the constraints of my scanner capability, would you recommend
using 2400 ppi - or, should I go to 4800 ppi which means interpolation
in one direction?

Don't go higher than the native resolution of the scanner. Avoid any
resolution which requires interpolation. So, if your scanner is 2400
x 4800, use that. Don't go any higher.

I can do 48 bit and I'll be using PHotoshop 7 - is there any reason not
to do 48 bit?

None that I can think of - as long as you're going to do all your
adjustment layer work and so forth with the 16 bit file that will
result.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...