Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Film Scanning=taxing??

Last response: in Systems
Share
May 18, 2007 12:15:40 AM

why when scanning in film or pictures at high resolution (2000+dpi) does it add over 600mb ram and 50% cpu usage? Is there a way to make it be a little less obtrusive?

Also, it takes an incredibly long time to scan in a 4 picture length of film. Is it necessary to scan at such high resolutions, or would scanning the prints at 300-600dpi be a better choice for archiving?

Thanks

More about : film scanning taxing

May 18, 2007 12:51:33 AM

Firstly OS?

Secondly try a program like Regtweaker www.registrytweaker.net (freeware). Then complain again if you cant fix it using regtweaker, has an easy layout so you should have no problems finding any keys that would help.

Anyway Regards YAY
May 18, 2007 1:10:25 AM

OS: XPpro

I think everything on my pc is optimized.

Thanks
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 18, 2007 1:55:32 AM

Scanning in pics is one thing, scanning in film (35mm) is another ball game all together. I scan in all my pics at the absolute highest resolution I can get away with. then write them to a DVD for storage. Film, however, requires a constant light source as a background, edge detectors, color monitoring and correction as different grades of film stock will produce a vastly different color range for the same subject. And then the hard part, you need a lcd detector that is calibrated to the true color spectrum using reference colors.

In a previous life, I worked for a digital photo company in development and engineering. Traveled the country upgrading and installing high end one hour photo machines. The machine we came up with was over 250K per machine just to scan film in and produce digital prints in less than 10 minutes per print from scan to finished product. Computer had dual processors, 2 to 8 gigs of ram and a Raid array of 4 hard drives. I'm talking about 6 years ago!!!

Just my 2 cents.
May 18, 2007 2:01:32 AM

Scanning in pics is one thing, scanning in film (35mm) is another ball game all together. I scan in all my pics at the absolute highest resolution I can get away with. then write them to a DVD for storage. Film, however, requires a constant light source as a background, edge detectors, color monitoring and correction as different grades of film stock will produce a vastly different color range for the same subject. And then the hard part, you need a lcd detector that is calibrated to the true color spectrum using reference colors.

In a previous life, I worked for a digital photo company in development and engineering. Traveled the country upgrading and installing high end one hour photo machines. The machine we came up with was over 250K per machine just to scan film in and produce digital prints in less than 10 minutes per print from scan to finished product. Computer had dual processors, 2 to 8 gigs of ram and a Raid array of 4 hard drives. I'm talking about 6 years ago!!!

Just my 2 cents.
May 18, 2007 2:27:02 AM

Currently it takes me a little over an hour to scan in 8 pictures from film, so your 10 minutes per picture makes me feel a little better. However, I have 10 boxes of pictures each filled with over 1000 pictures to scan in so this is beginning to seem rather impractical. How would scanning in the prints compare quality wise in the long run? How long does film last? What dpi yields the best quality from your average printed pictures from a major store, such as Target or Costco? I was thinking around 500, but I really don't know.

Would a dedicated film scanner require less of my pc while scanning faster?

Thanks
May 18, 2007 2:58:07 AM

Any Wallyworld, Riteaid, Costco, Target, with a one hour photo machine and film scanner can scan all your film in and put it on DVD for around 10cents per picture at it's max resolution of about 2000DPI. A 2000 DPI scan will give you a good enough picture for a 8 1/2 x 11 picture when printed with no visible grain. If you choose to print them on photo paper, the cost, if memory serves me correctly, is about 20 to 25 cents per print.

35MM film is good for about 15 years just laying around the house in a shoebox and will experience about .5 to .75% loss of clarity per year after that. For it to last any longer, it must be stored in a humidity and temperature controlled environment. (68f /50RH), THen it will last about 30 to 40 years with minimal degradation.

Just to scan in a negative from film to the DVD/CD only took/takes about 20 seconds per scan. The other 9 minutes or so was for the actual development of the photo on paper. Hope this helps!!!!
!