Recommended memory for large files

[Bert Bigelow]

Carl,

Suppose huge cheap flat panel wall displays with umpteen Mpixel resolution
become available? I hope there are others wanting this so display makers
notice!




Wouldn't that be great? I saw a big (50") flat panel display demonstrating HDTV a few years ago. It was incredible, like looking out a window. The price, at that time, was $25K. Sorta takes your breath away. They have come down some, but still outta my price range.
Maybe someday....
Bert

[Richard Coencas]

Bob,

I think he is scanning 6cm x 6cm negatives from a medium format camera using 120 film. Scanning negs you need to scan at a res that will give you 200 or 300 ppi resolution at print size. So if you want to print at 4x the size of the negative (~10"x10") you need to scan at 1200 ppi to get a 300 ppi output. So, what he is doing is not out of line.

Rich

[Mac McDougald]

OP (pevincent) has gone quite a bit beyond that.
6400x6400 = > 21 x 21 " at 300ppi.

Mac

[Mac McDougald]

Yup..all well said, Rich.

He's scanning at the max optical rez of that scanner (3200ppi) at 1:1.
Which is always a good way to go if one has the storage for it.

Even though the actual resolving power of these Epson flatbeds is quite a
bit less than their ppi would suggest, they *are* the only affordable way
to do MF film (and do quite a nice job of it too).

Mac

[Richard Coencas]

Mac,

I just bought the adapter unit for my Epson 2400 and have had decent results scanning 35mm and MF negs. For $99 on top of the cost of the flat bed, it sure beats the price on any dedicated slide scanner, especially one that will do Medium format.

Rich

[Mac McDougald]

Yep, although you can do better on 35mm with 300 buck Minolta (and
probably 200 buck Pacific Image), there ain't nothing better for MF short
of Nikon 8000 or Minolta Multi Pro (for significant bucks).

Mac

[Dick Smith]

Mac,

Was looking at Pacific Image stuff, couldn't find one that did MF.

Dick

[Dick Smith]

Thanks for the clarification.

Dick

[Bert Bigelow]

Mac,
Absolutely right on. I was scanning slides with a (name witheld) flatbed, and when I got the Minolta film scanner, the difference was amazing. But, I have quite a few MF (120 size) B%W negs, and the only way I can scan them is by using the slide adapter for the flatbed as a light source, laying the negs on the glass. I can get about 75% of the image that way, which with careful placement usually is enough. Ugly...but it works.
Bert

[pevincent]

As some of you guessed, I scan at maximum optical resolution on the Epson in order to print at high resolution. I print all my images from Noritsu/Fuji digital printers. Both machines have a maximum print resolution of 1200 ppi, but frankly the human eye simply cant distinguish much over 300 ppi. About 75% of my prints are at 12x8 for album use, probably another 20% at 12x18 for framing and the occasional 5x7 or 4x6 snapshot. I find it easier to scan each roll of developed film at maximum resolution and then burn it to DVD for storage. Its faster to scan each image once at maximum resolution, and then downsample from the stored scan if less resolution is needed, than it is to rescan.

Why print everything at 8x10? Why not? If you want to see somebody's eyes pop, ask them if they'd like to see your vacation photos and then pull out a binder with 20 8x10s of your best photos. At $3/print or less (Walmart, Costco, etc) for access to million dollar digital printers, its a no-brainer. You'll find that people really enjoy looking at prints where they can SEE something!

By the way, I purchased the extra gig of memory and Elements, increased the memory allocated to it to 1.1 gig, and it flys now even with multiple layers and extensive histories.