Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

computer adequate?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 22, 2005 10:37:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I brought a Toshiba laptop 2 years ago and happily used it until last week
when I also brought a film scanner and connected the two together. I am
generally a patient person, BUT I just can't handle the wait for the
computer to process the scan. The scanner itself scans fine, then
afterwards I have to wait 5 mins (for a 3700dpi scan) for the computer to
finish processing the file. I know it is not the scanner causing the
problem as I used a friends new pc and this processing takes a couple of
seconds.

The laptop is a Toshiba Satellite A10 and it's never caused me any hassle so
I have never had to think about what is inside it. Can someone please tell
me how I can find the relevent specifications of my laptop so that I can
post them here for somebody to advise me on what I need to upgrade?

Cheers

Malcom

More about : computer adequate

May 22, 2005 10:38:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"malcom" <mak76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 6qji6$ra7$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>I brought a Toshiba laptop 2 years ago and happily used it until last week
>when I also brought a film scanner and connected the two together. I am
>generally a patient person, BUT I just can't handle the wait for the
>computer to process the scan. The scanner itself scans fine, then
>afterwards I have to wait 5 mins (for a 3700dpi scan) for the computer to
>finish processing the file. I know it is not the scanner causing the
>problem as I used a friends new pc and this processing takes a couple of
>seconds.
>
> The laptop is a Toshiba Satellite A10 and it's never caused me any hassle
> so I have never had to think about what is inside it. Can someone please
> tell me how I can find the relevent specifications of my laptop so that I
> can post them here for somebody to advise me on what I need to upgrade?

The Toshiba website:

http://www.csd.toshiba.com/cgi-bin/tais/su/su_sc_modSel...

Select the A10 model (the number after A10- ) you have then you'll see a
screen with many options for your model.

--
Tara
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 22, 2005 10:38:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You're scanning 35mm negs at 250ppi? Are you sure about that?
Related resources
May 22, 2005 10:38:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

malcom wrote:
> I brought a Toshiba laptop 2 years ago and happily used it until last week
> when I also brought a film scanner and connected the two together. I am
> generally a patient person, BUT I just can't handle the wait for the
> computer to process the scan. The scanner itself scans fine, then
> afterwards I have to wait 5 mins (for a 3700dpi scan) for the computer to
> finish processing the file. I know it is not the scanner causing the
> problem as I used a friends new pc and this processing takes a couple of
> seconds.
>
> The laptop is a Toshiba Satellite A10 and it's never caused me any hassle so
> I have never had to think about what is inside it. Can someone please tell
> me how I can find the relevent specifications of my laptop so that I can
> post them here for somebody to advise me on what I need to upgrade?
>
> Cheers
>
> Malcom
>

The key parameters you should look for to help us advise you are the CPU speed, the amount
of memory in your computer, and the size of the area on your HD set aside for virtual
memory. You can find all this in Control Panel/System. Under the General tab, look for
the name of the CPU and its speed, and the size of the internal memory. Then click on the
Advanced tab and \oan Settings in the Perfomance box. Note the size of the Virtual memory.

We may then be able to tell you what may be limiting the performace of your laptop. Most
likely, it is the amount of memory. Observe the light on your laptop that shows whether
the hard drive is working. If it is on nearly all the time between the scan and the image
appearing, that is a good indication that you need more memory.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 22, 2005 10:38:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

malcom wrote:
> I brought a Toshiba laptop 2 years ago and happily used it until last week
> when I also brought a film scanner and connected the two together. I am
> generally a patient person, BUT I just can't handle the wait for the
> computer to process the scan. The scanner itself scans fine, then
> afterwards I have to wait 5 mins (for a 3700dpi scan) for the computer to
> finish processing the file. I know it is not the scanner causing the
> problem as I used a friends new pc and this processing takes a couple of
> seconds.
>
> The laptop is a Toshiba Satellite A10 and it's never caused me any hassle so
> I have never had to think about what is inside it. Can someone please tell
> me how I can find the relevent specifications of my laptop so that I can
> post them here for somebody to advise me on what I need to upgrade?
>
> Cheers
>
> Malcom
>
>
First, WHAT are you scanning at 3700dpi? Second, How large is the
original? What is probably happening is that your scan in MUCH to large
to fit in memory, and the program is swapping data to disk. This is
VERY slow.
A 4x6 picture scanned at 3700dpi would make a file of nearly 1 GB! If
you are scanning a medium format negative, then 3700 dpi might be
realistic, depending on the quality of the film, but nothing else short
of an astronomical telescope image would be useful scanned at that
resolution!

For scanning prints, the MAXIMUM scanning DPI is 300dpi for color, and
600dpi for B&W. Scans of 35mm film can practically go to about
2400-2700dpi. Anything more is a waste of time, and storage.

For more scanning information:
www.scantips.com




--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 22, 2005 10:38:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Malcolm, download a little application called Belarc Advisor. It will,
when run, give you a readout of your entire system in great detail.
http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html

For info on choosing scan resolutions for film scanners, check out:
http://www.scantips.com/basics13.html
and
http://www.shortcourses.com/pixels/scanning.htm

Scanning a 35mm neg at 3700ppi would give you a very large file you
probably don't need. A neg scanned at 2400dpi would give an image of
3400x2200 pixels. Printing it at 300dpi would give you an 11 x 7 inch
print, approx. The file would be around 22megabytes.

The highest resolution the scanner is capable of might seem like the
obvious choice, but that is not automatically the case. You need to
select the scan resolution according to the requirements of the end
product, be it print, monitor or whatever.

The 'scantips' site, link above, rewards thorough perusal.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 22, 2005 10:38:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Some interesting misinformation here:
>I'm a professional portrait photographer and teach Photoshop too.
>Try scanning at much lower pixels per inch
If you are teaching this stuff, then you would know that *film*
scanning starts at about 2400 ppi, and goes up to 8000 ppi and even
higher, if you are serious about it. Certainly film scans at 4000 dpi
and higher are very useful if you are planning to print, say, an 11x8
from a 35mm negative/slide. Ideally you should always scan at about
twice the resolution you need, if that is possible.. (O:

>For scanning prints, the MAXIMUM scanning DPI is
>300dpi for color, and 600dpi for B&W.

He did say he was scanning film. And print scans beyond 300 dpi can in
fact be useful, as good quality color prints will resolve a bit higher
than that. High quality black and white print material can certainly
resolve to 1200 and even a little higher. I agree with those numbers
for 'normal' medium quality use, but it's not that cut and dried.


>Scans of 35mm film can practically go to about
>2400-2700dpi. Anything more is a waste of time, and storage.

No it's not. As set out above, serious film scanning *starts* at 2700,
and most folks nowadays use 4000 or 5400 ppi scanners.. Professional
quality drum scanning goes up to 8000 and 12000 ppi even. Velvia film
records up to 80 lp/mm, and to resolve that you definitely need over
4000 dpi. More is required for black and white film. As the OP
clarified, he is cropping and printing, so 3700 ppi is by no means
overkill, and may even be too low... Certainly not a waste of time or
storage in his case, assuming the scanner is capable of it.

Anyway, back to the problem - it's almost certainly the RAM. The A10
is a 256Mb machine i think, and that will be insufficient to deal with
files of the size you are scanning. I would strongly suggest you have
768Mb or 1Gb of RAM for this sort of work, as even 512 will be pushing
it. Also, the Toshiba's are renowned for having a lot of memory
resident software running, so if you can stop some of that, it may help
- but I would suggest you get advice from a 'nerd'..!
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 22, 2005 11:57:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

3700 ? !!! Whew ... why so high ? If I scan, I scan for 250 ppi maximum ...
at the size I need. Why do you need 15 times as many pixels per inch as I do
? I'm a professional portrait photographer and teach Photoshop too. Try
scanning at much lower pixels per inch and your problem should go away.
Craig Flory
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 23, 2005 1:56:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Quite so. Further to that, use your preview/prescan facility to select
the area of the negative you are interested in, so that only that area
is scanned. Think of it as a pre-crop, if you like. This will save you
from building a monster file, most of which you will dump anyhow, but
all of which would have to be processed.
Monster files need monster RAM.
Incidentally, I run photoshop on a (HP) laptop, but I upped the RAM to
1gig to give it room to breathe. RAM is very cheap at present and is a
very cost-effective upgrade, and everything else running on your
Toshiba will benefit as well.
May 23, 2005 2:51:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've been using a macro lens to take photos of bugs then scanning at 3700ppi
so that I can crop and enlarge the part of the image that has the bug in it.


"Peter A." <peter29110@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116797415.764889.324950@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Malcolm, download a little application called Belarc Advisor. It will,
> when run, give you a readout of your entire system in great detail.
> http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html
>
> For info on choosing scan resolutions for film scanners, check out:
> http://www.scantips.com/basics13.html
> and
> http://www.shortcourses.com/pixels/scanning.htm
>
> Scanning a 35mm neg at 3700ppi would give you a very large file you
> probably don't need. A neg scanned at 2400dpi would give an image of
> 3400x2200 pixels. Printing it at 300dpi would give you an 11 x 7 inch
> print, approx. The file would be around 22megabytes.
>
> The highest resolution the scanner is capable of might seem like the
> obvious choice, but that is not automatically the case. You need to
> select the scan resolution according to the requirements of the end
> product, be it print, monitor or whatever.
>
> The 'scantips' site, link above, rewards thorough perusal.
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 23, 2005 4:48:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I don't want to nitpick *too* much, but...

>Any way you look at it, he is scanning too high a resolution
>for the equipment he has.

It sounds to me like he knows exactly what he is doing with regard to
the scanning (if not to the computer requirements). If I was cropping
into macro shots with a view to enlarging them for prints, I would be
wanting 4000 ppi scans.. We don't know what the scanner is, but if it
is anything like a mid-range (yes MID-range) film scanner, it might be
something like the Canon FS-4000. There are many other 4000 ppi film
scanners on the market, they are not particularly expensive, and in
fact many *amateurs* are leaning towards newer models like the 5400 ppi
Minoltas. 3700 is by no means an outlandish figure for film-scanning.
Even scantips page for beginners on film scanning states that most
films can resolve in excess of 3000 dpi, and his list of scanners is
mostly populated by 4000 ppi models.

> The computer doesn't have adequate ram

Indeed, and that was the whole point of the original question - note
the title. he wasn't asking whether he was using the right resolution,
just whether the computer was insufficient. In terms of RAM, it is
struggling, but that is likely his only problem.

> and I doubt, given the laptop he is using, that the scanner has that
>good an optical resolution.

I do not make such assumptions. Many, many film scanners have
resolution greater than that. If you limited the field to flatbed
scaners with film attachments, then maybe that is true, but again I
make no such assumptions.

>Note that I specifically stated these figures were for normal
>prints/film.

Umm, if you did, I can't see where. You only made two references to
filmscanning, and they were:

>If you are scanning a medium format negative, then 3700 dpi
>might be realistic

(interestingly, for a medium-format scanning you can use *less*
resolution, not more, than for a 35mm frame, given a set print size.)

>Scans of 35mm film can practically go to about 2400-2700dpi.
> Anything more is a waste of time, and storage.

I don't see anything there about it being "NOT high quality
professional stuff", and as I said, I don't think a 4000 ppi film scan
is any way restricted to "high quality professionals".


>Believe it or not, most of us don't USE such things

I won't pretend to speak for 'most of us', but I do a lot of 35mm film
scanning, and hang around a lot of photography sites and photographers,
and 4000 ppi (and above) film scanners seem to be quite common. They
are certainly quite affordable, and many photographers went that way
instead of digital, before the newer affordable DSLRs began to appear.

>and if he DID, then I would expect him to KNOW the cause
>of his problems.

Again, I do not assume that someone who understands resolution issues
and how many pixels he needs to do his job, will also be necessarily
familiar with the computer processing requirements that entails.

>Reference the www.scantips.com site
>for specific information on just what is adequate, and what isn't.

Are you satisfied with 'adequate'? I recommend the scantips site also,
but it is getting a little long in the tooth and has not been updated
in some areas. It is also very firmly aimed at beginners, and is not
what I would recommend for someone who was having computer problems..
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 23, 2005 5:58:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote:
> Some interesting misinformation here:
>
>>I'm a professional portrait photographer and teach Photoshop too.
>>Try scanning at much lower pixels per inch
>
> If you are teaching this stuff, then you would know that *film*
> scanning starts at about 2400 ppi, and goes up to 8000 ppi and even
> higher, if you are serious about it. Certainly film scans at 4000 dpi
> and higher are very useful if you are planning to print, say, an 11x8
> from a 35mm negative/slide. Ideally you should always scan at about
> twice the resolution you need, if that is possible.. (O:
>
>
>>For scanning prints, the MAXIMUM scanning DPI is
>>300dpi for color, and 600dpi for B&W.
>
>
> He did say he was scanning film. And print scans beyond 300 dpi can in
> fact be useful, as good quality color prints will resolve a bit higher
> than that. High quality black and white print material can certainly
> resolve to 1200 and even a little higher. I agree with those numbers
> for 'normal' medium quality use, but it's not that cut and dried.
>
>
>
>>Scans of 35mm film can practically go to about
>>2400-2700dpi. Anything more is a waste of time, and storage.
>
>
> No it's not. As set out above, serious film scanning *starts* at 2700,
> and most folks nowadays use 4000 or 5400 ppi scanners.. Professional
> quality drum scanning goes up to 8000 and 12000 ppi even. Velvia film
> records up to 80 lp/mm, and to resolve that you definitely need over
> 4000 dpi. More is required for black and white film. As the OP
> clarified, he is cropping and printing, so 3700 ppi is by no means
> overkill, and may even be too low... Certainly not a waste of time or
> storage in his case, assuming the scanner is capable of it.
>
> Anyway, back to the problem - it's almost certainly the RAM. The A10
> is a 256Mb machine i think, and that will be insufficient to deal with
> files of the size you are scanning. I would strongly suggest you have
> 768Mb or 1Gb of RAM for this sort of work, as even 512 will be pushing
> it. Also, the Toshiba's are renowned for having a lot of memory
> resident software running, so if you can stop some of that, it may help
> - but I would suggest you get advice from a 'nerd'..!
>
Any way you look at it, he is scanning too high a resolution for the
equipment he has. The computer doesn't have adequate ram, and I doubt,
given the laptop he is using, that the scanner has that good an optical
resolution.
Note that I specifically stated these figures were for normal
prints/film. NOT high quality professional stuff. Believe it or not,
most of us don't USE such things, and if he DID, then I would expect him
to KNOW the cause of his problems. Reference the www.scantips.com site
for specific information on just what is adequate, and what isn't.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 23, 2005 10:03:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter A. wrote:

> You're scanning 35mm negs at 250ppi? Are you sure about that?
Passport photos?
--
neil
delete delete to reply
May 23, 2005 10:49:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The laptop is a 256 ram machine, I can increase it to 512 so I will try
that. Cheers.


<chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
news:1116807134.196442.112660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Some interesting misinformation here:
>>I'm a professional portrait photographer and teach Photoshop too.
>>Try scanning at much lower pixels per inch
> If you are teaching this stuff, then you would know that *film*
> scanning starts at about 2400 ppi, and goes up to 8000 ppi and even
> higher, if you are serious about it. Certainly film scans at 4000 dpi
> and higher are very useful if you are planning to print, say, an 11x8
> from a 35mm negative/slide. Ideally you should always scan at about
> twice the resolution you need, if that is possible.. (O:
>
>>For scanning prints, the MAXIMUM scanning DPI is
>>300dpi for color, and 600dpi for B&W.
>
> He did say he was scanning film. And print scans beyond 300 dpi can in
> fact be useful, as good quality color prints will resolve a bit higher
> than that. High quality black and white print material can certainly
> resolve to 1200 and even a little higher. I agree with those numbers
> for 'normal' medium quality use, but it's not that cut and dried.
>
>
>>Scans of 35mm film can practically go to about
>>2400-2700dpi. Anything more is a waste of time, and storage.
>
> No it's not. As set out above, serious film scanning *starts* at 2700,
> and most folks nowadays use 4000 or 5400 ppi scanners.. Professional
> quality drum scanning goes up to 8000 and 12000 ppi even. Velvia film
> records up to 80 lp/mm, and to resolve that you definitely need over
> 4000 dpi. More is required for black and white film. As the OP
> clarified, he is cropping and printing, so 3700 ppi is by no means
> overkill, and may even be too low... Certainly not a waste of time or
> storage in his case, assuming the scanner is capable of it.
>
> Anyway, back to the problem - it's almost certainly the RAM. The A10
> is a 256Mb machine i think, and that will be insufficient to deal with
> files of the size you are scanning. I would strongly suggest you have
> 768Mb or 1Gb of RAM for this sort of work, as even 512 will be pushing
> it. Also, the Toshiba's are renowned for having a lot of memory
> resident software running, so if you can stop some of that, it may help
> - but I would suggest you get advice from a 'nerd'..!
>
May 23, 2005 11:38:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron, you probably have a point about scanning at too high a resolution, and
there is definitely a problem with ram. As for the quality of the scanner,
most people would consider the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 to have good
optical resolution?

One of the reasons I suffer from a certain amount of confusion about digital
photography and computers in general is that I have had several encounters
with "teachers" that really should not be teachers. Think about that...

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Bafke.2811$NL1.2233@fe02.lga...
> chrlz@go.com wrote:
>> Some interesting misinformation here:
>>
>>>I'm a professional portrait photographer and teach Photoshop too.
>>>Try scanning at much lower pixels per inch
>>
>> If you are teaching this stuff, then you would know that *film*
>> scanning starts at about 2400 ppi, and goes up to 8000 ppi and even
>> higher, if you are serious about it. Certainly film scans at 4000 dpi
>> and higher are very useful if you are planning to print, say, an 11x8
>> from a 35mm negative/slide. Ideally you should always scan at about
>> twice the resolution you need, if that is possible.. (O:
>>
>>
>>>For scanning prints, the MAXIMUM scanning DPI is
>>>300dpi for color, and 600dpi for B&W.
>>
>>
>> He did say he was scanning film. And print scans beyond 300 dpi can in
>> fact be useful, as good quality color prints will resolve a bit higher
>> than that. High quality black and white print material can certainly
>> resolve to 1200 and even a little higher. I agree with those numbers
>> for 'normal' medium quality use, but it's not that cut and dried.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Scans of 35mm film can practically go to about
>>>2400-2700dpi. Anything more is a waste of time, and storage.
>>
>>
>> No it's not. As set out above, serious film scanning *starts* at 2700,
>> and most folks nowadays use 4000 or 5400 ppi scanners.. Professional
>> quality drum scanning goes up to 8000 and 12000 ppi even. Velvia film
>> records up to 80 lp/mm, and to resolve that you definitely need over
>> 4000 dpi. More is required for black and white film. As the OP
>> clarified, he is cropping and printing, so 3700 ppi is by no means
>> overkill, and may even be too low... Certainly not a waste of time or
>> storage in his case, assuming the scanner is capable of it.
>>
>> Anyway, back to the problem - it's almost certainly the RAM. The A10
>> is a 256Mb machine i think, and that will be insufficient to deal with
>> files of the size you are scanning. I would strongly suggest you have
>> 768Mb or 1Gb of RAM for this sort of work, as even 512 will be pushing
>> it. Also, the Toshiba's are renowned for having a lot of memory
>> resident software running, so if you can stop some of that, it may help
>> - but I would suggest you get advice from a 'nerd'..!
>>
> Any way you look at it, he is scanning too high a resolution for the
> equipment he has. The computer doesn't have adequate ram, and I doubt,
> given the laptop he is using, that the scanner has that good an optical
> resolution.
> Note that I specifically stated these figures were for normal prints/film.
> NOT high quality professional stuff. Believe it or not, most of us don't
> USE such things, and if he DID, then I would expect him to KNOW the cause
> of his problems. Reference the www.scantips.com site for specific
> information on just what is adequate, and what isn't.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 23, 2005 4:12:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

malcom wrote:
> Ron, you probably have a point about scanning at too high a resolution, and
> there is definitely a problem with ram. As for the quality of the scanner,
> most people would consider the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 to have good
> optical resolution?
>
> One of the reasons I suffer from a certain amount of confusion about digital
> photography and computers in general is that I have had several encounters
> with "teachers" that really should not be teachers. Think about that...
>

The point I was trying to make about scan resolution is that scanning at
more pixels/inch than the source can supply, or than the scanner optical
resolution is a waste of time, and file space.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 23, 2005 4:18:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote:
> I don't want to nitpick *too* much, but...
>
>
>>Any way you look at it, he is scanning too high a resolution
>>for the equipment he has.
>
>
> It sounds to me like he knows exactly what he is doing with regard to
> the scanning (if not to the computer requirements). If I was cropping
> into macro shots with a view to enlarging them for prints, I would be
> wanting 4000 ppi scans.. We don't know what the scanner is, but if it
> is anything like a mid-range (yes MID-range) film scanner, it might be
> something like the Canon FS-4000. There are many other 4000 ppi film
> scanners on the market, they are not particularly expensive, and in
> fact many *amateurs* are leaning towards newer models like the 5400 ppi
> Minoltas. 3700 is by no means an outlandish figure for film-scanning.
> Even scantips page for beginners on film scanning states that most
> films can resolve in excess of 3000 dpi, and his list of scanners is
> mostly populated by 4000 ppi models.
>
>
>>The computer doesn't have adequate ram
>
>
> Indeed, and that was the whole point of the original question - note
> the title. he wasn't asking whether he was using the right resolution,
> just whether the computer was insufficient. In terms of RAM, it is
> struggling, but that is likely his only problem.
>
>
>>and I doubt, given the laptop he is using, that the scanner has that
>>good an optical resolution.
>
>
> I do not make such assumptions. Many, many film scanners have
> resolution greater than that. If you limited the field to flatbed
> scaners with film attachments, then maybe that is true, but again I
> make no such assumptions.
>
>
>>Note that I specifically stated these figures were for normal
>>prints/film.
>
>
> Umm, if you did, I can't see where. You only made two references to
> filmscanning, and they were:
>
>
>>If you are scanning a medium format negative, then 3700 dpi
>>might be realistic
>
>
> (interestingly, for a medium-format scanning you can use *less*
> resolution, not more, than for a 35mm frame, given a set print size.)
>
>
>>Scans of 35mm film can practically go to about 2400-2700dpi.
>>Anything more is a waste of time, and storage.
>
>
> I don't see anything there about it being "NOT high quality
> professional stuff", and as I said, I don't think a 4000 ppi film scan
> is any way restricted to "high quality professionals".
>
>
>
>>Believe it or not, most of us don't USE such things
>
>
> I won't pretend to speak for 'most of us', but I do a lot of 35mm film
> scanning, and hang around a lot of photography sites and photographers,
> and 4000 ppi (and above) film scanners seem to be quite common. They
> are certainly quite affordable, and many photographers went that way
> instead of digital, before the newer affordable DSLRs began to appear.
>
>
>>and if he DID, then I would expect him to KNOW the cause
>>of his problems.
>
>
> Again, I do not assume that someone who understands resolution issues
> and how many pixels he needs to do his job, will also be necessarily
> familiar with the computer processing requirements that entails.
>
>
>>Reference the www.scantips.com site
>>for specific information on just what is adequate, and what isn't.
>
>
> Are you satisfied with 'adequate'? I recommend the scantips site also,
> but it is getting a little long in the tooth and has not been updated
> in some areas. It is also very firmly aimed at beginners, and is not
> what I would recommend for someone who was having computer problems..
>
Sigh.
Ok, the scanner is a gold plated special, and the computer is one with
inadequate ram. Pardon me for assuming that a person with a computer
with inadequate ram for the job might also have a scanner similarly
inadequate.

My point is that many people think that because a scanner has a setting
for 9600ppi, they can scan a Wal-Mart print at that resolution and gain
something. Perhaps all the professionals should mention that fact
before posting questions like that.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 23, 2005 4:28:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes I do scan at 250ppi ...at the size required. If I scan a
negative or print for an output of an 11"x14", at 250 ppi, it is just fine.
If I might crop later I'll scan at a bigger output size. Since my output to
the color lab is also 250 ppi I won't need to make any corrections later. I
am a professional photographer since 1966. I still use film.When I have my
lab develope my film, and make scans which I download off the net, they are
all at 72 ppi ... but in a large size image. I have never had scans from a
pro lab more than 72 ppi.
I will agree totally on all who have said he needs much more RAM. I
have a gigabyte of RAM and soon will add more so I can buy & use the
Photoshop CS2 upgrade adequately. Craig Flory
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 23, 2005 4:28:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Craig Flory wrote:
> Yes I do scan at 250ppi ...at the size required. If I scan a
> negative or print for an output of an 11"x14", at 250 ppi, it is just fine.
> If I might crop later I'll scan at a bigger output size. Since my output to
> the color lab is also 250 ppi I won't need to make any corrections later. I
> am a professional photographer since 1966. I still use film.When I have my
> lab develope my film, and make scans which I download off the net, they are
> all at 72 ppi ... but in a large size image. I have never had scans from a
> pro lab more than 72 ppi.
> I will agree totally on all who have said he needs much more RAM. I
> have a gigabyte of RAM and soon will add more so I can buy & use the
> Photoshop CS2 upgrade adequately. Craig Flory
>
>
Craig,
You will excuse me if I choose NOT to do business with you!
You are SERIOUSLY misinformed about the relative meanings of the various
ways to represent resolution.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 23, 2005 5:30:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I think you are not getting it. I just went into Photoshop CS and
opened a scan from the lab. It is a size of 29.833 inches x 37.375 inches at
72 ppi. Now we may be both talking about the same thing here. A size that
large, at 72 ppi, is equivalent to much larger amount of ppi at a smaller
print size. But all, and I emphasize all, scans from pro labs on pro
scanners are @ 72 ppi. when getting back .jpgs. And that is how they arrive
.... whether over the net or on a CD.
He still needs much more RAM regardless. Craig Flory
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 23, 2005 5:30:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Craig Flory wrote:
> I think you are not getting it. I just went into Photoshop CS and
> opened a scan from the lab. It is a size of 29.833 inches x 37.375 inches at
> 72 ppi. Now we may be both talking about the same thing here. A size that
> large, at 72 ppi, is equivalent to much larger amount of ppi at a smaller
> print size. But all, and I emphasize all, scans from pro labs on pro
> scanners are @ 72 ppi. when getting back .jpgs. And that is how they arrive
> ... whether over the net or on a CD.
> He still needs much more RAM regardless. Craig Flory
>
>
Craig,
That 72dpi refers to the monitor resolution. Multiply it by the size
in inches to get ppi. NOte that only really poor monitors currently are
limited to only 72dpi.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 23, 2005 10:31:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sorry for drfiting off-topic, but in the interest of proper terminology
and understanding....

Craig said:
>But all, and I emphasize all, scans from pro labs on pro
> scanners are @ 72 ppi.

Ron said:
>Craig, That 72dpi refers to the monitor resolution.

Ron is pefectly correct!

Craig, the point we are making is that the dpi figure you are referring
to is simply a TAG on the file. It is NOT the resolution at which it
was scanned. It doesn't affect the contents of the file whatsoever,
you can change it to anything you like, and the file will still contain
EXACTLY the same number of pixels. That tag is simply used to tell the
printing or displaying software at what size to display it. *But it is
only used if nothing else intervenes* (and something usually does!).
That tag means *nothing*, I repeat, absolutely *nothing* about the
resolution that was used to scan the file..

*If* you, or your lab, scanned a frame of 35mm film at 72 dpi, you
would have a completely useless image that was about 100 x 70 pixels.
It would barely make a lousy thumbnail. Even the lowest quality photo
CD's from a one-hour lab are scanned at 1800 ppi from 35mm film. Go
ask them. I work with two film scanners here (neither are expensive),
and they have resolutions of 2700 and 4000 ppi respectively.

Continually repeating the word 'pro', and telling us your long
experience as a professional and that you teach this stuff, does NOT
make you right. This is an area where you have a misunderstanding, and
you need to think it through a little more. Go and look at how a
*real* film scanner works, and note the resolution numbers that you can
set it to.

Let me try to explain in another way:
For any given image file, the only 'real' information in the file is
the number of pixels and the color depth. At the time it is scanned,
it is scanned at a particular resolution, but that resolution is
whatever is necessary (in the OP's case, 3700 dpi) to produce the
number of pixels in the resulting file. Once that is done, the
resolution 'tag' on the file can be changed to anything you like. That
tag *can* then be used (or more commonly ignored or changed) to produce
different display sizes from the same number of pixels. Changing that
tag does not change anything else in the file (- you have to *resample*
for anything to actually happen). The number of pixels stays the same,
and of course nothing can change the original resolution at which it
was scanned. The only way to properly determine at what ppi it was
scanned, is to divide the pixels by the dimension of the source. In
this case, the source is a piece of film 1.5" long, so if the file has
a few thousand pixels in it, then *of course* the scan resolution must
be in the thousands of pixels per inch.

Please wake up and smell the roses, and don't teach this stuff until
you understand it.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 23, 2005 11:44:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d6qji6$ra7$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
"malcom" <mak76@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I brought a Toshiba laptop 2 years ago and happily used it until last week
> when I also brought a film scanner and connected the two together. I am
> generally a patient person, BUT I just can't handle the wait for the
> computer to process the scan. The scanner itself scans fine, then
> afterwards I have to wait 5 mins (for a 3700dpi scan) for the computer to
> finish processing the file. I know it is not the scanner causing the
> problem as I used a friends new pc and this processing takes a couple of
> seconds.
>
> The laptop is a Toshiba Satellite A10 and it's never caused me any hassle so
> I have never had to think about what is inside it. Can someone please tell
> me how I can find the relevent specifications of my laptop so that I can
> post them here for somebody to advise me on what I need to upgrade?
>
Exactly what are you scanning at 3700dpi?

If it's an A4 picture, that would yield around 43253 x 30562 pixels -
about 1321 megapixels.

I'm surprised the computer had the willingness to attempt to process
such a huge file.

Scanning at 3700dpi should only be used for items like 35mm film or
positive images up to a couple of inches square, coins or small parts of
your anatomy.

If you want to try upgrading, I'd suggest at least a 3 or 4 gigahertz
CPU combined with at least 5 gigabytes of RAM with no other programs
hogging any part of this. An external drive of around 1 petabyte or
larger, would also be useful in storing the image.
May 24, 2005 4:15:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"malcom" <mak76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 6rudo$9e5$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> The laptop is a 256 ram machine, I can increase it to 512 so I will try
> that. Cheers.
>
>
>

I have been reading this thread with some interest.

You are scanning film at 3700, and that is not a problem. Most of the flack
you are getting seems to be coming from people who did not notice the word
"Film" in your original post.

You say you will upgrade to 512Mb RAM.

I would advise that is unlikely to help much. It would probably also be a
waste of money, because when you realise you still have a problem, you will
then have to replace both the 256Mb Ram Chips with 512mb Chips. Go straight
to 1 Gb (2 x 512) of Ram now.

RAM has very recently dropped in price, and with some care you should be
able to get it at 50% of what it was just a few weeks ago.

Hope this helps.

Roy G
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 24, 2005 5:31:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Just a note on RAM upgrades... cheap or otherwise, you should ascertain
what level of memory your motherboard can support, as there will be a
limit. You can't just stuff 4gig in there and assume it will work.
I agree that the scantips site is somewhat out of date, and is aimed at
beginners, but it explains the basic principles very well. A firm grasp
of these concepts will save much angst later on. Learn to navigate with
sun and sextant before buying the latest satellite gizmo.
There is, for instance, one professional posting here who does not have
this under his belt as yet. I refer him once more to
http://www.scantips.com/basics13.html
Yes, it's baby talk, so what? You need to get your head round it. If
maths isn't your strong suit, you'll have to work a bit harder at it,
is all. But you need to have the light bulb come on, down here at this
basic level, especially if you're teaching this stuff. You'll be
spreading confusion amongst your students, otherwise.

Malcolm, I hope you're not watching us all squabbling and thinking, "I
wish I never asked" ! Two questions, if you would: what exactly are you
scanning? I'm assuming 35mm colour negative film, correct? And
secondly, to what end? For instance, to produce a high quality 10x8
colour print, or at the opposite extreme, to post to a web gallery?
Post the answers and I'm sure there will be a scramble to do the maths.
The maths will give the probable file size. The file size will dictate
how much 'computing power' is needed to handle things efficiently. A
gig is no way excessive for large image files. You may come to feel, as
I am, that building (or having built for you) a 'custom' desktop tower
with a motherboard that supports a large RAM, with future expansion
capabilities, is the way to go. The cost might be less than you
suppose. In the same manner as serious gamers aquire dedicated
machines. The truth of the matter is, the average consumer machine is
designed for other things; we 'image manipulators' are in a small
minority so this is not likely to change anytime soon. So a more
proactive approach to hardware is called for I think, if you want to
perform complex tasks in a mouse-click.
The problem with laptops is thier inflexibility when it comes to
upgrading, due to the physical limitations of what you can change. Much
easier to lob a desktop motherboard in the bin.
But given that you have enough resources to perform the task, how much
of a rush are we in? I learnt my few humble skills in a traditional
darkroom environment, where dodge and burn meant bits of card and piano
wire, et al. I can do things in photoshop in 15mins that would have
taken all day back then. But if people really need to rotate thier
Megamaxipic through a 90 right in 3 nanoseconds, then a bit of major
wallet damage will be required. *grumpy old git* Personally, I'm quite
happy to wander off and put the kettle on.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 24, 2005 8:06:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Craig Flory" <floryphotog@mindspring.com> writes:
> I think you are not getting it. I just went into Photoshop CS and
>opened a scan from the lab. It is a size of 29.833 inches x 37.375 inches at
>72 ppi. Now we may be both talking about the same thing here. A size that
>large, at 72 ppi, is equivalent to much larger amount of ppi at a smaller
>print size. But all, and I emphasize all, scans from pro labs on pro
>scanners are @ 72 ppi. when getting back .jpgs. And that is how they arrive
>... whether over the net or on a CD.

Actually, they may well arrive from the lab with *no* DPI value
specified at all. That's Photoshop's default DPI that it uses when
there is no value already specified in the file header. The only way
you can tell the difference between a file that comes with 72 DPI
specified and one with no DPI value is to look at the file with some
application that does not supply a default DPI when one is missing.

Dave
May 24, 2005 9:19:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I only asked if my Toshiba was up to the job :-0

But I am learning a bit more about resolution huh?

Right! I have temporary access to Photoshop 6 and a Minolta Dinage Scanner
5400. I know very little about digital photography.
I have hundreds of photos on 35mm film. Some landscape, some insects (taken
with macro) some of castles and people. There are also some really old negs
which are starting to crack. The old negs I just am happy to be able to scan
to print at 6*4 inches, these I am scanning at about 1800dpi. However, the
others are different in that I have very little idea if I will want to print
them at 12*8, smaller, wether I will want to crop and enlarge. I just need
to turn them digital asap. I've tended to press buttons almost at random
and have files (psd format in the region of 6000MB - 30MB.

A few of the scans that I have were printed at my local lab. They are very
friendly and laughed that some of my photo files were so big that they
slowed down their scanners, but added that it does'nt matter that much how I
scan as their machine will alway print at the size they tell it to.


"Peter A." <peter29110@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116923515.387203.313520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Just a note on RAM upgrades... cheap or otherwise, you should ascertain
> what level of memory your motherboard can support, as there will be a
> limit. You can't just stuff 4gig in there and assume it will work.
> I agree that the scantips site is somewhat out of date, and is aimed at
> beginners, but it explains the basic principles very well. A firm grasp
> of these concepts will save much angst later on. Learn to navigate with
> sun and sextant before buying the latest satellite gizmo.
> There is, for instance, one professional posting here who does not have
> this under his belt as yet. I refer him once more to
> http://www.scantips.com/basics13.html
> Yes, it's baby talk, so what? You need to get your head round it. If
> maths isn't your strong suit, you'll have to work a bit harder at it,
> is all. But you need to have the light bulb come on, down here at this
> basic level, especially if you're teaching this stuff. You'll be
> spreading confusion amongst your students, otherwise.
>
> Malcolm, I hope you're not watching us all squabbling and thinking, "I
> wish I never asked" ! Two questions, if you would: what exactly are you
> scanning? I'm assuming 35mm colour negative film, correct? And
> secondly, to what end? For instance, to produce a high quality 10x8
> colour print, or at the opposite extreme, to post to a web gallery?
> Post the answers and I'm sure there will be a scramble to do the maths.
> The maths will give the probable file size. The file size will dictate
> how much 'computing power' is needed to handle things efficiently. A
> gig is no way excessive for large image files. You may come to feel, as
> I am, that building (or having built for you) a 'custom' desktop tower
> with a motherboard that supports a large RAM, with future expansion
> capabilities, is the way to go. The cost might be less than you
> suppose. In the same manner as serious gamers aquire dedicated
> machines. The truth of the matter is, the average consumer machine is
> designed for other things; we 'image manipulators' are in a small
> minority so this is not likely to change anytime soon. So a more
> proactive approach to hardware is called for I think, if you want to
> perform complex tasks in a mouse-click.
> The problem with laptops is thier inflexibility when it comes to
> upgrading, due to the physical limitations of what you can change. Much
> easier to lob a desktop motherboard in the bin.
> But given that you have enough resources to perform the task, how much
> of a rush are we in? I learnt my few humble skills in a traditional
> darkroom environment, where dodge and burn meant bits of card and piano
> wire, et al. I can do things in photoshop in 15mins that would have
> taken all day back then. But if people really need to rotate thier
> Megamaxipic through a 90 right in 3 nanoseconds, then a bit of major
> wallet damage will be required. *grumpy old git* Personally, I'm quite
> happy to wander off and put the kettle on.
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 25, 2005 3:01:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Malcolm said:
>I only asked if my Toshiba was up to the job :-0

Heheh! Well you found out a bit more than you bargained for!

>But I am learning a bit more about resolution huh?

I'm glad you are finding bits of it useful! It can be confusing until
it all clicks, and as Peter suggested, it can be quite daunting until
it does, and especially if you are math-challenged.. I'm not
suggesting you are, but I think some folk might be..

>Right! I have temporary access to Photoshop 6 and a Minolta Dinage Scanner 5400.

Well, you are certainly on the right path, but as pointed out, just a
little short of RAM!

>I know very little about digital photography.

You are in the right place - there are many folk who are very
knowledgable waiting to help.. (whether I am one of them, well, you
will have to decide on the quality of the info you get!)

>I have hundreds of photos on 35mm film.

Sigh, I still have thousands - I have scanned many hundreds, but more
than half are still waiting for their rainy day..

>The old negs I just am happy to be able to scan to print at 6*4 inches, these I am scanning at about 1800dpi.

That's OK. But I would point out that I have often gone back and
rescanned images that I once thought I would only need at low-res..

>However, the others are different in that I have very little idea if I will want to print
>them at 12*8, smaller, wether I will want to crop and enlarge.

Well, 3700 dpi will get *most* of the usable resolution, and will give
you fairly good data for printing up to 12" x 8". If you work on the
basis of 200 *clean* pixels per inch being good enough for pretty high
final print quality, then you have..

12" x 200 = 2400 pixels (along the long edge).

But to *really* get 2400 *clean* pixels off your film (which is ~1.5"
along that same long edge), actually requires about one-and-a-half to
two times the scanning resolution that you would think (look up
'Nyquist', 'scanning resolution', 'line pairs per mm).

So, 2400p/1.5" X 2 = 3200 ppi.

In other words, for a good 12x8, you want 3200 ppi scans at least, and
that doesn't count cropping, and it also doesn't take into account one
other heavily debated factor, that of 'grain aliasing'. I hesitate to
bring it up, but hey, this is turning into an information thread so why
not!

Grain aliasing is sometimes disputed by the theorists, but very rarely
by the folk who actually do the scanning. (O: Basically, the story is
that when you scan a material which has random grain, and the grain
size begins to approach the distance between each individual scan
sensor (ie pixel), the grain sort of 'trips' the sensor one way or the
other. In plainer English, it means that when your resolution is high
enough to *just* begin to see (not actually resolve) the grain, you end
up with grain *effects* appearing, about twice as big as the real
grain! The sad part of this story is that grain aliasing is an issue
generally from about 2500 ppi (high ISO, grainy films, eg 400 or 800
ISO print film) through to about 4000 ppi (low ISO films, like
professional print films, or most slide films). And of course those
resolutions are exactly where most film scanning is done! So
effectively you will see grain effects before you should, and you will
lose clarity because of it. Grain aliasing is often mistaken by
beginners for real grain, which is why some folk will claim that you
don't need high-resolution scans, simply because they can see what they
think is 'grain' on their lower resolution scanners... There's an
interesting article on it here (although site was offline when i just
checked:

http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm

It's just another reason for always wanting higher resolutions for film
scanning... and now I bet you *really* wish you hadn't started all
this!!

>I've tended to press buttons almost at random and have files (psd format in the region of 6000MB - 30MB.

Hmm. I'm not sure about this random button method! Is the Minolta
software really that confusing? With most software, it is a basic
process of a quick preview first, then you can probably draw a crop box
on the area you want, set the resolution you want, and perhaps also the
colour depth (8-bit per channel is ok for normal use, but 16-bit is
more useful if you will be doing a lot of post-processing, eg
especially if the images are under or overexposed). Your Tiff file
sizes should be in the order of 10-100Mb at most I would guess,
definitely NOT 6000Mb. That is 6 Gigabytes, and is an indication that
one of your settings is not just wrong, but waaaaay wrong..!!!! Typo
maybe?

>it does'nt matter that much how I scan as their machine will alway print
>at the size they tell it to.
While there is some truth to that, if your files are way too large (and
6Gb is way too large!), then I think their machine will spit them back
at you, and if they are too small, the qulaity will drop, of course.
Best way is to get it dead right, so if you want a 12 x 8, and the
printers resolution is say 240 dpi, then you will want roughly 3000
along the long edge. As I said, you want to scan at a resolution that
will give you more than that, so let's say you want 4500 pixels off the
1.5" of your film - 4500/1.5 = 3000 ppi resolution. Like I said, for
higher quality, or to allow cropping and/or if you are having
grain/grain-aliasing problems, then 4000 or even 5400 ppi may well be
worth it.

Your call. Aren't you glad you started film-scanning!! (O:
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 25, 2005 10:40:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It would be difficult to better c...@go's concise response (s'ok, I'll
blow the trumpet for you!) but one thing brings me to sound a note of
caution.
You mentioned that you were saving the files in psd format. This may
not be such a good idea, especially if you only have temporary access
to the photoshop software (I'm not quite clear if it's the scanner or
both that are 'temporary'.)
Perhaps you should be saving into another format (before you scan a few
hundred more...) as there are also archival concerns.
This is an area where everybody will doubtless have conflicting
opinions !! However for a taste of the debate you could peruse this
thread:
http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/printthread.php?t=4906

I'm real sorry to have opened another can of worms so soon, you being
fully occupied with resolving resolution, but that's the problem with
the net; it's a whole series of interconnected cans..LOL.

Gentlemen, your opinions on archive formats? Queue up in an orderly
manner, please...
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 25, 2005 2:32:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <anyone4tennis-ABADDF.19444523052005@newssv.kcn.ne.jp>,
anyone4tennis@hotmail.com (Stewy) wrote:

> Scanning at 3700dpi should only be used for items like 35mm film or
> positive images up to a couple of inches square, coins or small parts
> of your anatomy.
I'd have thought it was a given that he was scanning negs at that res.

Iain
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 25, 2005 3:11:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter A. wrote:
> It would be difficult to better c...@go's concise response (s'ok, I'll
> blow the trumpet for you!) but one thing brings me to sound a note of
> caution.
> You mentioned that you were saving the files in psd format. This may
> not be such a good idea, especially if you only have temporary access
> to the photoshop software (I'm not quite clear if it's the scanner or
> both that are 'temporary'.)
> Perhaps you should be saving into another format (before you scan a few
> hundred more...) as there are also archival concerns.
> This is an area where everybody will doubtless have conflicting
> opinions !! However for a taste of the debate you could peruse this
> thread:
> http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/printthread.php?t=4906
>
> I'm real sorry to have opened another can of worms so soon, you being
> fully occupied with resolving resolution, but that's the problem with
> the net; it's a whole series of interconnected cans..LOL.
>
> Gentlemen, your opinions on archive formats? Queue up in an orderly
> manner, please...
>
Uncompressed .TIFF.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 25, 2005 10:06:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Gentlemen, your opinions on archive formats?
>Queue up in an orderly manner, please...

Yes, I agree, PSD files are not ideal unless you have continual access
to PS. Ron is right - uncompressed TIFF files are the best choice, and
they also are one of the few formats that allow saving in
16-bit/channel mode.

Compressed TIFs are good too, as the compression is lossless*, but they
*can* give compatibility problems. So again if there is any likelihood
you will need the files and you don't have Photoshop, you could have a
problem.

(* - there *is* a lossy, jpeg compression available in TIF files, but
I've never heard of anyone who uses it!)

Storage space is cheap, especially now that DVD burners are now very
affordable.. but if the file sizes are a problem, I would simply
suggest zipping them into an archive..

Next worm-can, please...? (O;
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 26, 2005 1:35:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I intermix on a few of the cd's copies of today's currently popular graphic software

What a great idea! Anything that Increases the chances of someone in
the future being able to unravel the mysteries stored on those ancient
CD/DVD's has to be a good thing!

There is indeed IrfanView, or I have a small, old version of Thumbs
Plus that was once given away on a magazine cover. It reads and writes
just about everything and is only a couple of Mb, so I might take up
that idea - I'm about to shift my collection to DVD shortly.

Any patent charge I need to fork over? (O;


(O;
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 26, 2005 3:04:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stewy wrote:
>
> In article <d6qji6$ra7$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
> "malcom" <mak76@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I brought a Toshiba laptop 2 years ago and happily used it until last week
> > when I also brought a film scanner and connected the two together. I am
> > generally a patient person, BUT I just can't handle the wait for the
> > computer to process the scan. The scanner itself scans fine, then
> > afterwards I have to wait 5 mins (for a 3700dpi scan) for the computer to
> > finish processing the file. I know it is not the scanner causing the
> > problem as I used a friends new pc and this processing takes a couple of
> > seconds.
> >
> > The laptop is a Toshiba Satellite A10 and it's never caused me any hassle so
> > I have never had to think about what is inside it. Can someone please tell
> > me how I can find the relevent specifications of my laptop so that I can
> > post them here for somebody to advise me on what I need to upgrade?
> >
> Exactly what are you scanning at 3700dpi?
>
> If it's an A4 picture, that would yield around 43253 x 30562 pixels -
> about 1321 megapixels.
>
> I'm surprised the computer had the willingness to attempt to process
> such a huge file.
>
> Scanning at 3700dpi should only be used for items like 35mm film or
> positive images up to a couple of inches square, coins or small parts of
> your anatomy.
>
> If you want to try upgrading, I'd suggest at least a 3 or 4 gigahertz
> CPU combined with at least 5 gigabytes of RAM with no other programs
> hogging any part of this. An external drive of around 1 petabyte or
> larger, would also be useful in storing the image.

He did say 'film scanner', which would make your remarks about file size
slightly astray there. It seems you were thinking of a flatbed scanner.

Colin
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 26, 2005 8:27:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote:

>>Gentlemen, your opinions on archive formats?
>>Queue up in an orderly manner, please...
>
>
> Yes, I agree, PSD files are not ideal unless you have continual access
> to PS. Ron is right - uncompressed TIFF files are the best choice, and
> they also are one of the few formats that allow saving in
> 16-bit/channel mode.
>
> Compressed TIFs are good too, as the compression is lossless*, but they
> *can* give compatibility problems. So again if there is any likelihood
> you will need the files and you don't have Photoshop, you could have a
> problem.
>
> (* - there *is* a lossy, jpeg compression available in TIF files, but
> I've never heard of anyone who uses it!)
>
> Storage space is cheap, especially now that DVD burners are now very
> affordable.. but if the file sizes are a problem, I would simply
> suggest zipping them into an archive..
>
> Next worm-can, please...? (O;

Hi...

Next can already? Still working on this one :) 

One more suggestion, if I may... if these pics are
being archived for long time storage, then I'd like
to respectfully suggest that others might like to
consider doing what I do...

Given the incredibly cheap price of storage media,
I intermix on a few of the cd's copies of today's
currently popular graphic software. Thinking is that
even if in the future they don't know what a .tiff or a
..jpg is, at least they'll have a copy of psp or ps or
irfan or something :) 

Just a thought... now, the next can, please :) 

Take care.

Ken
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
May 26, 2005 8:57:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No argument from me, the S70 is one of the best of the 7Mp compacts,
and in general terms the 7Mp chip is a good choice - lower noise than
the 8Mp equivalent, and almost equivalent resolution..

Its bad side, according to dpreview.com*, is a little purple fringing
and edge softness at the 28mm end of the zoom (and unless you pay a lot
more, I doubt you can avoid that..), and it's not the fastest AF on the
block. I think some of the newest Sony's have better AF, but you will
probably lose out in other areas.. I suggest you go take a good lok at
the review at:

*
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons70/
May 26, 2005 3:22:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes, TIFF sounds like a good idea. I can use Photoshop and convert all my
psd file into TIFF files and subsequent files can all be saved as TIFF
files. I'll wprry about storage spave later.

Another can of worms coming up.... about buying a digital camera. I have
a number of 35mm SLR's and don't want to buy a digital one for a couple of
years more. But I did see a compact that I like and I wonder if anyone can
give me good reason not to go for it. It's the Canon Power Shot s70. I
like it because it's got:

1. reasonably wide angle lens
2. ASA as low as 50
3. MP at 7.1

I assume that the above three points mean I can take photos at ASA 50, with
wide angle and then crop and enlarge sections whilst retaing a decent image.
I think I will have permanent use of Photoshop Elements as well. Plus I can
continue to use my friends scanner for scanning 35mm negs, so I feel that
I'm going to get the best of both, 35mm and digital.


"Peter A." <peter29110@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117028425.674074.284170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> It would be difficult to better c...@go's concise response (s'ok, I'll
> blow the trumpet for you!) but one thing brings me to sound a note of
> caution.
> You mentioned that you were saving the files in psd format. This may
> not be such a good idea, especially if you only have temporary access
> to the photoshop software (I'm not quite clear if it's the scanner or
> both that are 'temporary'.)
> Perhaps you should be saving into another format (before you scan a few
> hundred more...) as there are also archival concerns.
> This is an area where everybody will doubtless have conflicting
> opinions !! However for a taste of the debate you could peruse this
> thread:
> http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/printthread.php?t=4906
>
> I'm real sorry to have opened another can of worms so soon, you being
> fully occupied with resolving resolution, but that's the problem with
> the net; it's a whole series of interconnected cans..LOL.
>
> Gentlemen, your opinions on archive formats? Queue up in an orderly
> manner, please...
>
!