Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Question: Photos Scanning....

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    494

    Default Question: Photos Scanning....

    Guys/gals,
    I am trying to scan my old photos onto Dvds.
    What is the appropriate dpi I should set the printer to scan? 300dpi? 600dpi?
    My scanner max resolution output is 4800x2400 lor. I tried the maximum, but the file size is simply too large e.g. 150megs to 210 megs under tiff format.



    Thanks

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Behind a lens
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    Scan at the biggest dpi your scanner can afford.

    Scan once and for all. Dvds are cheap anyway.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    494

    Default

    Scan at the biggest dpi your scanner can afford.
    Thanks Binbeto

    The problem is the photos are in various sizes and black and white as well.

    I found out that after scanning photos at more than 300dpi or more....some of those photos dun show any difference or details. Especially those in black and white......

    I am trying to backup these photos as they are deteriorating, just in case...in the near future. I can duplicate them when I want to.

    Any more suggestions?

    If I scanned them in max dpi.....there are at least 100 photos I need to scan. if each is 150megs X 100 = 15000 megs 15 Gigs ley....

    Not to mention each photos take about 5mins to do from loading to inserting new photos.
    Last edited by Benign; 10th July 2005 at 06:40 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Behind a lens
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Benign
    Thanks Binbeto

    The problem is the photos are in various sizes and black and white as well.

    I found out that after scanning photos at more than 300dpi or more....some of those photos dun show any difference or details. Especially those in black and white......

    I am trying to backup these photos as they are deteriorating, just in case...in the near future. I can duplicate them when I want to.

    Any more suggestions?

    If I scanned them in max dpi.....there are at least 100 photos I need to scan. if each is 150megs X 100 = 15000 megs 15 Gigs ley....

    Not to mention each photos take about 5mins to do from loading to inserting new photos.
    By scanning bigger, you can print bigger. Ya, scanning is time consuming.

    Maybe just select those you think are better to scan instead of all?

    Have read before that anything bigger than 4000dpi has not much gain..

    I am assuming you are scanning the negative, right?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    494

    Default

    I am assuming you are scanning the negative, right?
    Oopss, forgot to say these are not negatives but 35 years old photos lor.....

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Behind a lens
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Benign
    Oopss, forgot to say these are not negatives but 35 years old photos lor.....
    Haa haa.. I see. For photos, not much experience.

    I reckon 600 or 1200 dpi will be enough.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    716

    Default

    If your photos are mostly of the same size, you might want to cut out a frame using A4 paper... This will allow you to position the photos in the same position for each scan.. Hence, there won't be a need to do a preview scan.. Simply re-use the same scan area..

    600 DPI should be fine..

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Redhill
    Posts
    1,044

    Default

    Remember: you cannot get details that wasn't there. Old photos will have ink spreading, smudging, yellowing, etc. As a matter of fact, 300dpi of an photo is already better resolution than the size of the grain on the photo. 600dpi is the highest you should attempt.

    To enlarge in the future, you can use 'up-size' programs like Genuine Fractals, etc. It doesn't really help if you scan at 2400dpi now, you are just getting more detailed scan of the same pigment/grain size. A digital upsize using programs can be better than scanning at super hi res.

    Yes, scanning at super high res will eat up time and disk space quite quickly. Lastly, in TIF, you can use lossless compression like LZW. Or use high quality Jpeg (90% quality) you will get significant saving in disk-space. As a matter of fact, old photos will not even display the entire range of colours that your new and powerful scanner can capture onto 24-bit Jpegs.

    Assuming you scanner is A4 sized, 4800pixels x2400pixels will be about 400dpi x 300dpi. So you can only be scanning at 300dpi effectively, any higher setting will be software interpolated. Check the rating on the scanner for actual scanning resolution.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    494

    Default

    Lastly, in TIF, you can use lossless compression like LZW. Or use high quality Jpeg (90% quality) you will get significant saving in disk-space. As a matter of fact, old photos will not even display the entire range of colours that your new and powerful scanner can capture onto 24-bit Jpegs.
    I saved the files in tiff under None instead of LZW. Coz I compared the file size None seemed larger. I alway believed larger file size is betta....

    The black and white photo prints is scanned under 600dpi(grayscale). The size of the photo is about 4R. The photos after some fine tuning under auto level and contrast...they turned out so much betta than originals.


    Thanks guys/gals

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Benign
    I saved the files in tiff under None instead of LZW. Coz I compared the file size None seemed larger. I alway believed larger file size is betta....
    Thanks guys/gals
    While larger filesize usually means less information loss, compressions like LZW are non-lossy compressions. Meaning that you'll have a smaller file (not always) while still retaining all the original information.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •