Tom's Hardware: Topic scan at 300ppi or 4000ppi?
Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions.
Sign up now! Its free!
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Once one knows the final dimensions of the picture (say, A3+), which is
better:-
1) scan at 4000ppi, process in Photoshop (adjustments, etc.), then
reduce to say 300ppi and A3+ size for printing (and saving?). This will
clearly produce an initially very large file, which does cause problems
in handling, in particular when the amount of ram is not excessive.
or
2) scan from the outset at 300ppi and A3+ size, which will produce a
smaller file, much easier to process in PS?
I know the subject has been discussed in the past ad nauseam, however, a
brief revival of the debate would be very helpful (at least for me...
:-)).
--
nobody
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <15FG1HMlsP5BFwDb@jwhite.demon.co.uk>, nobody@jwhite.demon.co.uk
says...
> Once one knows the final dimensions of the picture (say, A3+), which is
> better:-
>
> 1) scan at 4000ppi, process in Photoshop (adjustments, etc.), then
> reduce to say 300ppi and A3+ size for printing (and saving?). This will
> clearly produce an initially very large file, which does cause problems
> in handling, in particular when the amount of ram is not excessive.
>
> or
>
> 2) scan from the outset at 300ppi and A3+ size, which will produce a
> smaller file, much easier to process in PS?
>
> I know the subject has been discussed in the past ad nauseam, however, a
> brief revival of the debate would be very helpful (at least for me...
> :-)).
>
I would do it both ways and see what the results look like once commited to
paper, then use whatever works best.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Sorry for the top posting.
For starters, there's no such thing as scanning at 300 ppi. I guess what you
are talking about is scanning at the max resolution of the scanner and then
downsampling vs. scanning at a resolution that corresponds to 300 times the
print size in inches.
OK, you want an A3+ print. At 300 ppi. That's (13 x 300) x (19 x 300) pixels
= 3900 x 5700 pixels.
You have to have 3900 x 5700 pixels in your image.
(That's 22.23 MP; medium format digital back, not dSLR, territory<g>.)
What size film are you using? I use 645. That's 1.6 x 2.2 inches. To get
5700 pixels from 2.2 inches I need to scan at (or downsample to) 5700/2.2 =
2600 ppi.
Presumably, you are using 35mm. That's .94 x 1.41 inches. To get 3900 pixels
from 0.94 inches of film, you need 3900/0.94 = 4150 ppi. What that means is
that to print at 300 ppi, you'll have to upsample a 4000 dpi scan.
Of course, 13x19 from 35mm is a 14x enlargement, so that's going to be more
than a tad soft _whatever technology you use for going from film to print_.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
"Nobody Nowhere" <nobody@jwhite.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:15FG1HMlsP5BFwDb@jwhite.demon.co.uk...
> Once one knows the final dimensions of the picture (say, A3+), which is
> better:-
>
> 1) scan at 4000ppi, process in Photoshop (adjustments, etc.), then
> reduce to say 300ppi and A3+ size for printing (and saving?). This will
> clearly produce an initially very large file, which does cause problems
> in handling, in particular when the amount of ram is not excessive.
>
> or
>
> 2) scan from the outset at 300ppi and A3+ size, which will produce a
> smaller file, much easier to process in PS?
>
> I know the subject has been discussed in the past ad nauseam, however, a
> brief revival of the debate would be very helpful (at least for me...
> :-)).
> --
> nobody
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In message <cs32ve$clo$1@nnrp.gol.com>, David J. Littleboy
<davidjl@gol.com> writes
>Sorry for the top posting.
Why? I don't get it. Are you saying sorry for the previous poster?
>
>For starters, there's no such thing as scanning at 300 ppi. I guess what you
>are talking about is scanning at the max resolution of the scanner and then
>downsampling vs. scanning at a resolution that corresponds to 300 times the
>print size in inches.
>
I might have got my semantics wrong. The software for the Imacon
scanner (Precision II) gives one the choice of choosing "DPI" (not
"PPI" ), which, presumably means, the scanner will scan at full
resolution, but with say 300dpi "in mind" ?), for an A3+ image. By
contrast, the Nikon 8000 scanner gives one the choice of choosing say
300 "PPI" for set image dimensions. As far as I can tell, the Nikon
does not give one a choice for DPI. Or is this a case of loose
terminology, which has been the subject of so many complaints? Be it as
it may, it seems to me that the Nikon 8000 does (or can do) the
calculation below for me.
>OK, you want an A3+ print. At 300 ppi. That's (13 x 300) x (19 x 300) pixels
>= 3900 x 5700 pixels.
>
>You have to have 3900 x 5700 pixels in your image.
>
>(That's 22.23 MP; medium format digital back, not dSLR, territory<g>.)
>
>What size film are you using? I use 645. That's 1.6 x 2.2 inches. To get
>5700 pixels from 2.2 inches I need to scan at (or downsample to) 5700/2.2 =
>2600 ppi.
I am using 6 x 6 and soon shall be using 4 x 5 ( I cannot resist the
temptation of using an old fashioned LF camera, made of wood...).
When you say "you need to scan at or downsample" etc. I take it that
these alternatives are equivalent in terms of image quality, or results.
In other words, scanning at 2600 from the outset (for the given
dimensions) yields results which qualitatively are as good as scanning
at 4000ppi and then downsampling to 2600 ppi. Is my understanding
correct?
>
>Presumably, you are using 35mm.
Not me. I like larger formats.
>That's .94 x 1.41 inches. To get 3900 pixels
>from 0.94 inches of film, you need 3900/0.94 = 4150 ppi. What that means is
>that to print at 300 ppi, you'll have to upsample a 4000 dpi scan.
>
>Of course, 13x19 from 35mm is a 14x enlargement, so that's going to be more
>than a tad soft _whatever technology you use for going from film to print_.
Thanks David.
nobody
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Nobody Nowhere" <nobody@jwhite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> writes
> >Sorry for the top posting.
>
> Why? I don't get it. Are you saying sorry for the previous poster?
In general, I object to top posting.
> >For starters, there's no such thing as scanning at 300 ppi. I guess what
you
> >are talking about is scanning at the max resolution of the scanner and
then
> >downsampling vs. scanning at a resolution that corresponds to 300 times
the
> >print size in inches.
> >
>
> I might have got my semantics wrong. The software for the Imacon
> scanner (Precision II) gives one the choice of choosing "DPI" (not
> "PPI" ), which, presumably means, the scanner will scan at full
> resolution, but with say 300dpi "in mind" ?), for an A3+ image. By
> contrast, the Nikon 8000 scanner gives one the choice of choosing say
> 300 "PPI" for set image dimensions. As far as I can tell, the Nikon
> does not give one a choice for DPI. Or is this a case of loose
> terminology, which has been the subject of so many complaints?
Loose terminology, I think. Except when talking about inkjet printer head
technology, most of the time ppi = dpi. I prefer dpi to ppi (just personal
preference), but I prefer not arguing about it to dpi<g>.
I think what's going on here is that these programs are allowing you to tell
yourself how big you are planning to print. IMHO, the _only_ thing that is
significant at scan time is the dpi on the film. The scan results in pixels,
which you will then distribute over paper and web pages in various cropped
and downsampled and resampled forms.
But whatever you do, you want to get as much information from the film at
scan time as possible. You will change your mind as to how large you want to
print. If one has the CD-R/RW or DVD-R/RW space, it's nice to archive big
scans.
It seems that in professional printing, the workflow always has a target
print size from the start, and they expect to rescan if needs change.
Basically, the layout is decided and then the photographer called. For art
photography and amateurs, we see what we've got and then decide what to do
with it.
> Be it as
> it may, it seems to me that the Nikon 8000 does (or can do) the
> calculation below for me.
The Nikon 8000 will scan at 4000 dpi on the film or 2000 dpi. Nothing in
between. I ignore print resolution settings.
> >What size film are you using? I use 645. That's 1.6 x 2.2 inches. To get
> >5700 pixels from 2.2 inches I need to scan at (or downsample to) 5700/2.2
=
> >2600 ppi.
>
> I am using 6 x 6 and soon shall be using 4 x 5 ( I cannot resist the
> temptation of using an old fashioned LF camera, made of wood...).
I'm afraid I may get to that point, to. I just got back some 645 Reala I
shot out in the countryside over New Years, and noticed I really want a lot
more than 645. Greed. A horrible vice.
> When you say "you need to scan at or downsample" etc. I take it that
> these alternatives are equivalent in terms of image quality, or results.
IMHO, the right thing is scanning at the max res of the scanner and
downsampling.
IMHO, one can downsample fairly early in the process.
> In other words, scanning at 2600 from the outset (for the given
> dimensions) yields results which qualitatively are as good as scanning
> at 4000ppi and then downsampling to 2600 ppi. Is my understanding
> correct?
I think that's true for drum scanners with variable spot sizes, but CCD
scanners are less flexible, so it's largely a moot point. You don't have a
choice with the Nikon 8000. (Or, more accurately, I tried to find a way to
scan at arbitrary resolutions, and could only persuade it to scan at 2000
dpi. Truth in advertising: I think that scanning at 4000 dpi and
downsampling to 2000 results in better 2000 dpi scans, but the difference is
pretty small. For 645, I usually downsample to 2400 or 2800 dpi, since I
don't believe in enlargements over 8x.)
> >Presumably, you are using 35mm.
>
> Not me. I like larger formats.
Agreed.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In message <cs3enh$fo3$1@nnrp.gol.com>, David J. Littleboy
<davidjl@gol.com> writes
>
>
>The Nikon 8000 will scan at 4000 dpi on the film or 2000 dpi. Nothing in
>between. I ignore print resolution settings.
I wasn't aware of this. Presumably, what you have in mind is true
optical resolution?
>>
>> I am using 6 x 6 and soon shall be using 4 x 5 ( I cannot resist the
>> temptation of using an old fashioned LF camera, made of wood...).
>
>I'm afraid I may get to that point, to. I just got back some 645 Reala I
>shot out in the countryside over New Years, and noticed I really want a lot
>more than 645. Greed. A horrible vice.
No. This is called standards and good taste. A most wonderful quality.
(A good 2nd hand LF field camera, with, say, a Schneider lens, would
cost less than a good dSLR, with a good lens). (Although it would not
make tea for you, and do everything else... :-)).
>
>
>IMHO, the right thing is scanning at the max res of the scanner and
>downsampling.
>
>IMHO, one can downsample fairly early in the process.
>I think that's true for drum scanners with variable spot sizes, but CCD
>scanners are less flexible, so it's largely a moot point. You don't have a
>choice with the Nikon 8000. (Or, more accurately, I tried to find a way to
>scan at arbitrary resolutions, and could only persuade it to scan at 2000
>dpi. Truth in advertising: I think that scanning at 4000 dpi and
>downsampling to 2000 results in better 2000 dpi scans, but the difference is
>pretty small. For 645, I usually downsample to 2400 or 2800 dpi, since I
>don't believe in enlargements over 8x.)
Thanks again. I shall need to find out how the above applies in the
case of an Imacon Precision II. (Incidentally, the Imacon Precision II
is a CCD scanner, isn't it?).
>
>
nobody
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Nobody Nowhere" <nobody@jwhite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Thanks again. I shall need to find out how the above applies in the
> case of an Imacon Precision II. (Incidentally, the Imacon Precision II
> is a CCD scanner, isn't it?).
Good question<g>. They're in a price range that's out of mine so I haven't
looked closely. Do any of them do ICE?
I'd love to see scans from the same frame from both an Imacon and the Nikon
(hint hint).
I assume you've seen Rafe's magic page of sample scans?
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
Having some more Imacon samples there would be real nice (hint hint).
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
>From: Nobody Nowhere nobody@jwhite.demon.co.uk
>Once one knows the final dimensions of the picture (say, A3+), which is
>better:-
>
>1) scan at 4000ppi, process in Photoshop (adjustments, etc.), then
>reduce to say 300ppi and A3+ size for printing (and saving?). This will
>clearly produce an initially very large file, which does cause problems
>in handling, in particular when the amount of ram is not excessive.
>
>or
>
>2) scan from the outset at 300ppi and A3+ size, which will produce a
>smaller file, much easier to process in PS?
As the wise man said in his post, try it both ways and see which looks best.
Generally you will always be scanning at the highest rez anyway (4,000 dpi in
this case) and the scanner software will do the downsampling internally. Do
you think you can do a better job of downsampling in Photoshop with Bicubic
sharper than the scanner software does? Most people feel they can do better
with Photoshop.
The other consideration is that later you might want to print larger and if
you've worked at full rez you are set but if you downsampled early then you
either have to repeat all your work or else you upsample, which won't give you
results as good as the other method.
Also, how did you arrive at 300 ppi? While some printers are optimized for
this number (LightJet laser for example) many of the desktop inkjets do better
at 360 ppi and since you are scanning medium format film (I think I've got the
right guy) at 4,000 dpi there's no reason not to shoot for 360 ppi if you have
it natively.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Nobody Nowhere wrote:
> In message <cs32ve$clo$1@nnrp.gol.com>, David J. Littleboy
> <davidjl@gol.com> writes
>
>> Sorry for the top posting.
>
>
> Why? I don't get it. Are you saying sorry for the previous poster?
>
>>
>> For starters, there's no such thing as scanning at 300 ppi. I guess
>> what you
>> are talking about is scanning at the max resolution of the scanner and
>> then
>> downsampling vs. scanning at a resolution that corresponds to 300
>> times the
>> print size in inches.
>>
>
> I might have got my semantics wrong. The software for the Imacon
> scanner (Precision II) gives one the choice of choosing "DPI" (not
> "PPI" ), which, presumably means, the scanner will scan at full
> resolution, but with say 300dpi "in mind" ?), for an A3+ image. By
> contrast, the Nikon 8000 scanner gives one the choice of choosing say
> 300 "PPI" for set image dimensions. As far as I can tell, the Nikon
> does not give one a choice for DPI. Or is this a case of loose
> terminology, which has been the subject of so many complaints? Be it as
> it may, it seems to me that the Nikon 8000 does (or can do) the
> calculation below for me.
The Nikon Coolscan II allows variable scanning resolution. I can't
remember if it is referred to as "dpi" or "ppi" but in any case it is
refering to the number of pixels output from the scanning process per
inch of the media being scanned.
It makes no reference to what you might do with the image later on.
Adey
>
>> OK, you want an A3+ print. At 300 ppi. That's (13 x 300) x (19 x 300)
>> pixels
>> = 3900 x 5700 pixels.
>>
>> You have to have 3900 x 5700 pixels in your image.
>>
>> (That's 22.23 MP; medium format digital back, not dSLR, territory<g>.)
>>
>> What size film are you using? I use 645. That's 1.6 x 2.2 inches. To get
>> 5700 pixels from 2.2 inches I need to scan at (or downsample to)
>> 5700/2.2 =
>> 2600 ppi.
>
>
> I am using 6 x 6 and soon shall be using 4 x 5 ( I cannot resist the
> temptation of using an old fashioned LF camera, made of wood...).
>
> When you say "you need to scan at or downsample" etc. I take it that
> these alternatives are equivalent in terms of image quality, or results.
>
> In other words, scanning at 2600 from the outset (for the given
> dimensions) yields results which qualitatively are as good as scanning
> at 4000ppi and then downsampling to 2600 ppi. Is my understanding correct?
>
>>
>> Presumably, you are using 35mm.
>
>
> Not me. I like larger formats.
>
>> That's .94 x 1.41 inches. To get 3900 pixels
>> from 0.94 inches of film, you need 3900/0.94 = 4150 ppi. What that
>> means is
>> that to print at 300 ppi, you'll have to upsample a 4000 dpi scan.
>>
>> Of course, 13x19 from 35mm is a 14x enlargement, so that's going to be
>> more
>> than a tad soft _whatever technology you use for going from film to
>> print_.
>
>
> Thanks David.
> nobody
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In message <20050112112332.06108.00000079@mb-m05.aol.com>, Bill Hilton
<bhilton665@aol.comedy> writes
>>From: Nobody Nowhere nobody@jwhite.demon.co.uk
>
>As the wise man said in his post, try it both ways and see which looks best.
>
>Generally you will always be scanning at the highest rez anyway (4,000 dpi in
>this case) and the scanner software will do the downsampling internally. Do
>you think you can do a better job of downsampling in Photoshop with Bicubic
>sharper than the scanner software does? Most people feel they can do better
>with Photoshop.
>
>The other consideration is that later you might want to print larger and if
>you've worked at full rez you are set but if you downsampled early then you
>either have to repeat all your work or else you upsample, which won't give you
>results as good as the other method.
>
>Also, how did you arrive at 300 ppi? While some printers are optimized for
>this number (LightJet laser for example) many of the desktop inkjets do better
>at 360 ppi and since you are scanning medium format film (I think I've got the
>right guy) at 4,000 dpi there's no reason not to shoot for 360 ppi if you have
>it natively.
Thanks Bill, but there is a complication: I was playing on e-bay, and to
my amazement ended up being the highest bidder on an Imacon Precision II
scanner, for a price which is only a few hundred $s higher than that of
a Canon 20D! I was convinced that somebody would outbid me, but ended
up being the winner! I now own a Nikon 8000 (as you know) and the
Precision II. The Precision is not connected at this stage (so I cannot
tell whether the low price might be due to problems with it, but let's
hope it is all right. I assume that what you said above refers to my
Nikon 8000, but would you have any views on the Precision II? The
resolution of the Imacon is only 3200. Presumably, it would do the
downsampling internally, as you said above.
For printer I am using a Canon i9950, which goes only to A3+, as you
know. I was under the impression that 300ppi/dpi is the right figure,
but you say 360. Presumably, you arrived at this figure following
research, and I shall give it a try. Any more comments on the Precision
II you might have would be very welcome.
--
nobody
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Nobody Nowhere wrote:
> Once one knows the final dimensions of the picture (say, A3+), which is
> better:-
>
> 1) scan at 4000ppi, process in Photoshop (adjustments, etc.), then
> reduce to say 300ppi and A3+ size for printing (and saving?). This will
> clearly produce an initially very large file, which does cause problems
> in handling, in particular when the amount of ram is not excessive.
>
> or
>
> 2) scan from the outset at 300ppi and A3+ size, which will produce a
> smaller file, much easier to process in PS?
>
> I know the subject has been discussed in the past ad nauseam, however, a
> brief revival of the debate would be very helpful (at least for me...
> :-)).
If you scan a photo print at more than 300 dpi, you will not extract any more detail in the photo, but you will see tiny
imperfections in the emulsion. It is a total waste. And for most photos, I don't see any improvement at more than 200 dpi.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In message <cs3ii0$hl4$1@nnrp.gol.com>, David J. Littleboy
<davidjl@gol.com> writes
>
>"Nobody Nowhere" <nobody@jwhite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks again. I shall need to find out how the above applies in the
>> case of an Imacon Precision II. (Incidentally, the Imacon Precision II
>> is a CCD scanner, isn't it?).
>
>Good question<g>. They're in a price range that's out of mine so I haven't
>looked closely. Do any of them do ICE?
You might have seen my response to Bill. I was bidding
on e-bay for this scanner, just for fun, ie. with no real intention to
buy. I therefore stopped at a figure which I knew was below the
reserve price, convinced that other bidders would outbid me. However,
to my amazement, I found myself the winner, God knows how or why! And
committed as well, however, at a price which was very cheap for an
Imacon. So now I own a nikon 8000 and an Imacon Precision II. I have
not yet connected the Imacon to the computer, I am still waiting for a
cable and focusing device, and at this stage cannot tell whether I got a
real bargain (which I secretly hope) or a problem.
Precision II is no longer mentioned on Imacon websites (it is a few
years old) , and the support for it seems to be lukewarm.
To answer your question about ICE, there is software available, however,
what I would like to find out is whether ICE should be used only when
strictly necessary (because it seems to affect resolution a little).
>
>I'd love to see scans from the same frame from both an Imacon and the Nikon
>(hint hint).
Of course, as soon as I get the Precision II operational, and have a
chance to use it, I shall post the results.
>
>I assume you've seen Rafe's magic page of sample scans?
Thanks David, I have seen his website, but there seems to be nothing
there about an Imacon, let alone Precision II.
I can tell you however that the Imacon software philosophy seems
different from that of Nikon. Most if not all processing can be done at
the scanner level, at the raw data stage, amongst others because the
preview is at full resolution. (I have already played a little with the
software at a shop, which, unless I am wrong, is the same for all
Imacons). If you are curious, try the following website, in particular
the video tutorials there:
http://www.photoworkshop.com/regis [...] img03.html
>
>
>Having some more Imacon samples there would be real nice (hint hint).
Of course, as soon as I get operational. One of the things that appeal
to me is that I can now scan 4 x 5 (admittedly, the true optical
resolution for LF is only 1800 ppi).
nobody
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:34:24 -0500, Marvin <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net>
wrote:
>If you scan a photo print at more than 300 dpi, you will not extract any more detail in the photo, but you will see tiny
>imperfections in the emulsion.
Can you sight any sources that support that? I'd be interested in
perusing them.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Nobody Nowhere" <nobody@jwhite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Of course, as soon as I get operational. One of the things that appeal
> to me is that I can now scan 4 x 5 (admittedly, the true optical
> resolution for LF is only 1800 ppi).
Don't knock 1800 ppi: I had some 1800 ppi Kodak ProPhotoCD scans made of
some 645 slides: they were really really lovely. Far far better per-pixel
image quality than I've ever seen from higher-res scans (although the Nikon
8000 does get slightly more detail off the film). But a good 1800 dpi from
4x5 would be truly amazing and wonderful.
Of course, that assumes your Imacon flies. I hope it does: I'd love to see
those scans. (Or at least crops.)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In message <cs4hpe$q6b$1@nnrp.gol.com>, David J. Littleboy
<davidjl@gol.com> writes
>
>
>
>Of course, that assumes your Imacon flies. I hope it does: I'd love to see
>those scans. (Or at least crops.)
>
>
>
Sure, consider it done! I should be able to make the beast operational,
soon, even if there were a few problems. And thanks for the
reassurances. I am still "peasant" enough (digital photography wise)
to think that more pixels are better, although I accept that "not all
pixels have been created equal"...
--
nobody
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In message <2chbu09o85ombbu7nkfgn7bpb4af3f3eft@4ax.com>, secheese
<sec@nbnet.nb.ca> writes
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:34:24 -0500, Marvin <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net>
>wrote:
>
>>If you scan a photo print at more than 300 dpi, you will not extract
>>any more detail in the photo, but you will see tiny
>>imperfections in the emulsion.
>
>Can you sight any sources that support that? I'd be interested in
>perusing them.
He talks only about scanning prints, whilst the OP refers only to
scanning film.
>
--
nobody
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Nobody Nowhere wrote:
> In message <2chbu09o85ombbu7nkfgn7bpb4af3f3eft@4ax.com>, secheese
> <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> writes
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:34:24 -0500, Marvin <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If you scan a photo print at more than 300 dpi, you will not extract
>>> any more detail in the photo, but you will see tiny
>>> imperfections in the emulsion.
>>
>>
>> Can you sight any sources that support that? I'd be interested in
>> perusing them.
>
>
> He talks only about scanning prints, whilst the OP refers only to
> scanning film.
>
>>
>
Prints contain MUCH less information than the negatives/slides.
Scanning a print at over 300dpi is a waste of time and disk space.
Scanning a good, fine grain, negative at 4000dpi would give excellent
results, and BIG files.
For more detailed information, and examples:
www.scantips.com
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Digital Camera > Digital Camera General > scan at 300ppi or 4000ppi?
There are 637 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
Sponsored links
Ad
Related Content
- pixels per inch calculator
- which dpi is better
- coolscan ii
- nikon coolscan ii xp
- photography 4 x 6
- how print one picture on 2 pages
- imacon precision ii resolution
- what is dpi scan photos
- dpi scanning
- medium format digital backs
- general object
- nikon coolscan ii software
- scan 4 x 6 print
- driver nikon coolscan ii
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
- 05:23 jsc won the Overclocking badge
- 01:00 rolli59 won the Spy badge
- 01:00 sponger 117 won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 ujaansona won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 jerryc won the Freshman badge
- 03:17 BadTrip won the CPUs badge
- 01:00 kidaquarius won the Freshman badge
- 02:04 OvrClkr won the Graphics badge
- 01:00 BadGirl won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 pathasse won the Uniformed badge