Professional Web Applications Themes

Scanners - Adobe Photoshop Elements

Re Epson 3200, I assume I don't need to ask this question, but will anyway. Will it work on Windows XP Home? If you scan 35mm negatives at Epson 3200's highest resolution, what file sizes will you be getting, and how enlargeable is it for quality prints? 11 x 14; 16 x 20; 20 x 24? I have umpteen million lifetime negs stashed in boxes in the basement. Each one was a masterpiece when I shot it. Am considering the possibility of spending the rest of my life going back through them. Leave my heritage for the grandkids, who no ...

  1. #41

    Default Re: Scanners

    Re Epson 3200, I assume I don't need to ask this question, but will anyway. Will it work on Windows XP Home?

    If you scan 35mm negatives at Epson 3200's highest resolution, what file sizes will you be getting, and how enlargeable is it for quality prints? 11 x 14; 16 x 20; 20 x 24?

    I have umpteen million lifetime negs stashed in boxes in the basement. Each one was a masterpiece when I shot it. Am considering the possibility of spending the rest of my life going back through them.

    Leave my heritage for the grandkids, who no doubt have other things on their minds and will probably never look at them.

    Al
    Al_Millstein@adobeforums.com Guest

  2. #42

    Default Re: Scanners

    Well, Al, I'm a little ahead of you on the family photo archive. I've been working on it for about a year now. I have about 4500 images in my Photoshop Album database so far, and I'm just getting started.
    Re your questions on image size and quality:

    A 35mm frame is 24 x 36 mm, about 1 x 1.5 inches. So, it's really easy to calculate the image size you will get at 3200 ppi. 3200 x 4800 pixels, about 15 megapixels. That's more than twice as many pixels as you get from most high-end digital SLR's. Also, most high-end scanners will do 16 bit color. That's 6 bytes of memory for each pixel, so you are talking about some big image files, 90 megabytes or more uncompressed. To put that in perspective, my database of 4500 images would require disk space of over 400 gigabytes! If you backed it up on CD-ROMs, it would take almost 700. You can reduce that by about one-third by using LZW compressed TIFF files. LZW compression is non-destructive...no image data is lost. The only disadvantage of LZW compression is slightly longer loading time.

    Another issue is "color depth." As I said, scanners are capable of 16 bits per "channel." There are three channels: R, G and B. Photoshop Elements is incapable of dealing with more than 8-bit color. Full Photoshop can use 16-bit color for some operations. Many of the pros in this forum say that 16 bit color is far superior. Others...and I am among the latter...say that the difference is not discernable to the eye in most cases. If you decide to limit your images to 8-bit color, the file sizes are cut in half!

    Now let's talk about print quality. Most people in this forum would say that you need between 200 and 300 ppi for a top quality print. Your 4800x3200 images would yield a 16 x 10.7 print at 300 ppi and a 24 x 16 print at 200 ppi, assuming no cropping. Of course you will have to crop any 35mm image to fit on the paper (or accept some white space) because the proportions are different.

    So, before you start this project, you need to think about what you are trying to do. If you really want ALL your images to be capable of making giant prints, then you need to scan at max resolution. That's probably a good idea anyway. Next, you need to decide about color depth and file format. Saving in JPEG format would greatly reduce file size, but JPEG uses a lossy compression method and is not recommended for archival storage generally.
    I hope all this helps you get started at least thinking about the decisions you have to make before plunging into the project.
    Bert
    Bert_Bigelow@adobeforums.com Guest

  3. #43

    Default Re: Scanners

    Useful information Bert. i'm still considering a film scanner to ressurect twent odd years of negatives - and I hadn't really considered the implications of storage space.....seems like the desirable size of the firewire drive that's on my Christmas list just got bigger!

    Susan S.
    Susan_S.@adobeforums.com Guest

  4. #44

    Default Re: Scanners

    Wow, Bert! 4500 already.

    Great technical info in your post. Basically, of course, there's no need to think of large enlargements in all or even any substantial portion of them. Just a few masterpieces here and there. I would adopt a much lower resolution procedure and, having my own film scanner, go back and redo those I really want bigger.

    The Epson 3200 sounds good to me, about the price range I'm willing to pop for. By the way, is there a carrier for 120 size negatives? At one point in my travels through this veil of tears I shot Rollei size, 6 x 6 cm, and still use a Pentax 645.

    Wow! 4500. What else do you do in your spare time?

    Al
    Al_Millstein@adobeforums.com Guest

  5. #45

    Default Re: Scanners

    While you will indeed get 4535 x 3024 pixels from a 35mm frame at 3200ppi
    with this scanner, note that in actual resolution, you'll be getting
    around the equivalent of about half that. The 2400 gave about 1200
    effective and the 3200 about 1600 equivalent (if that). Some have
    demonstrated that the 3200 doesn't increase resolution at all over the
    2400, since the same optical system is used.

    This according to some of the higher end users who have reported (and
    posted) their tests on comp.periphs.scanners. Done by shooting line pair
    charts and then scanning them.

    Flatbeds, regardless of their "resolution", continue to lag well behind
    dedicated film scanners, especially for 35mm. Just the nature of the
    sensor array and optics.

    Mac
    Mac_McDougald@adobeforums.com Guest

  6. #46

    Default Re: Scanners

    Bert,
    Thanks for the info. $250 doesn't sound too bad. But does it come with ICE?
    I had a shop put in the USB 2.0 for the epson Scanner. It's a little quicker than 1.1, but not by that much. Seems like the "so many X times faster" claimed may be for a better puter than mine.

    Shan
    Shan_Ko@adobeforums.com Guest

  7. #47

    Default Re: Scanners

    Bert,
    Thanks for the info. $250 doesn't sound too bad. But does it come with ICE?
    I had a shop put in the USB 2.0 for the Epson scanner. It's a little quicker than 1.1, but not by that much. Seems like the "so many X times faster" claimed may be for a better puter than mine.

    Shan
    Shan_Ko@adobeforums.com Guest

  8. #48

    Default Re: Scanners

    Al,

    RE: Epson 3200
    The highest resolution of the scanner is actually 6400 dpi. I have only used up to 3200 dpi for 35mm negs.

    The original is nominally 1"x1.5" and the scanned image size is user selectable. The purpose of my scans were for 8x10 prints. So I stay with a scanned size of 1x1.5. The 1" nominal (actual around 0.94~0.97") dimension expanded to 8" gives me around 360~380 dpi (3200/8"). Allowing for a small amount of cropping and pixel loss due to PSE enhancement, pretty good prints can be made, easily to 8x10 300 dpi, and even 11x14 if you view from about 3 to 4 feet away.

    The collection of old photos and film material is a headache. I got them in cartons stashed in my older son's basement storage. All labeled "Prints, Negs & Slides" with a number, and I have no idea what they are. I am afraid to open them up and find that I have to look thru them and have to deal with them! :)

    Shan
    Shan_Ko@adobeforums.com Guest

  9. #49

    Default Re: Scanners

    > The highest resolution of the scanner is actually 6400 dpi.

    The highest rez is actually 3200.
    The 6400 is only stepper motor discrete stops. Same as any flatbed. Only
    the lower number is optical resolution. Anything higher is interpolated,
    same as you can do in Elements with upsample.

    The real killer though, as I stated in earlier post, is that even though
    you do get "3200ppi", meaning that many pixels, the actual usuable
    resolving power OF those pixels is still much less than obtainable from
    dedicated film scanner, due to inferior optics and sensor array compared
    to the way film scanners are designed.

    3200ppi on a Nikon 4000 for example, will resolve almost twice the actual
    line pairs that the Epson will.

    Pixel totals from different devices do not necessarily reveal the same
    information equally.

    Mac

    Mac_McDougald@adobeforums.com Guest

  10. #50

    Default Re: Scanners



    $250 doesn't sound too bad. But does it come with ICE?




    Shan,
    Were you referring to my Minolta film scanner? If so, it does NOT have ICE. You have to go up to the next model which I think sells for about twice that to get ICE.
    Bert
    Bert_Bigelow@adobeforums.com Guest

  11. #51

    Default Re: Scanners



    By the way, is there a carrier for 120 size negatives?




    Al,
    Sorry it took so long for me to respond. The website crashed in the middle of my post and I lost the whole damn thing, and then I couldn't get back on...it said the website was down.

    I didn't see anyone else responding to your question about a 120-size carrier for the Epson 3200. I don't know. Hopefully, someone will answer your question.

    As for your other comment about time spent scanning slides, I use a software package called VueScan which has a handy Batch mode. It prescans each slide, sets the levels and contrast and then does the full scan and stores the image with an autoincremented filename. All I do is load up the carrier and turn 'er loose and go do something else for about ten minutes. I can scan a 36-exposure roll of slides in about 90 minutes, but most of the time I'm on the other computer or reading or doing something else. It's not much of a chore, really.
    Bert
    EDIT: Preparing the slides for scanning takes some time. I use an anti-static brush. That probably takes more of my time than refilling the slide carrier during scanning.
    Bert_Bigelow@adobeforums.com Guest

  12. #52

    Default Re: Scanners

    Wonderful discussion for decision and shopping for scanner. Thanks to all for your participation.

    No doubt a film scanner would be superior to flatbed for negatives. Another whole subject, and could be the way to go, except cost being the main barrier. Also, then what do you do for the jobs that require a flatbed. It's not just one or the other, but two contradictory purposes.

    Shan, those boxes in the basement are indeed formidable, are they not?

    Al
    Al_Millstein@adobeforums.com Guest

  13. #53

    Default Re: Scanners

    Well, Al, now you know why my den is so crowded. :)
    Beth_Haney@adobeforums.com Guest

  14. #54

    Default Re: Scanners

    Mac,

    Thanks for the info. Manufacturers claims being what they are, spurious figures are usually the norm. I suspected that when I bought the flatbed scanner that seem likely to do a job for what I need. It's pretty much like buying a sports-truck. Anyway, you get what you pay for.

    I guess some pixels are more equal than others. ;)

    Shan
    Shan_Ko@adobeforums.com Guest

  15. #55

    Default Re: Scanners

    Al,

    Sorry i missed seeing your question on the roll film carrier. Yes, the Epson 3200 does come with a carrier for 4.4x6, 6x6 and up to 6x9 mm negs. There is also one for 4"x5", another for mounted sldes in addition to that for 35 mm.
    The carriers for larger formats were considerations that finally clinches the deal for me. Not that I have such a large collection of roll film negs and slices, but just enough that It would be costly to have them commercially scanned. Most of my 120's are in black and white taken way back. Someday when I can afford a 7-cartridge printer, those B&W negs will get to be re-explored.

    Shan
    Shan_Ko@adobeforums.com Guest

  16. #56

    Default Re: Scanners

    Al,

    I thought I posted to your querry on the roll film carrier earlier on, but I still don't see it here now.
    Anyway, here it is again. Carriers that come with the Epson 3200 include one for 35mm film strips (2 side-by-side strips each holding up to 6 frames), one for 35mm mounted slides (for 4 slides), one for larger format with one lift up gate for 120 rolls (from 4.5x6, 6x6 and up to 6x9 mm) and one gate for 4"x5".
    The carriers are well made and the capability for the larger formats are the two last factors that made up my mind.
    Hope this helps.

    Shan

    EDIT: Oops, now I see the previous post. :)
    Shan_Ko@adobeforums.com Guest

  17. #57

    Default Re: Scanners

    Bert,

    Re: your #46
    If it's needs a stepping up to the next model and higher price, may be I would get a Nikon IV when I can afford it. Seem to remember a post here last year that suggested ICE is a must for scanning large quantities.

    Shan
    Shan_Ko@adobeforums.com Guest

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. HP scanners with Acrobat 6.0.1
    By Russell_Stevens@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Acrobat Windows
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 12th, 09:59 PM
  2. High end Scanners
    By Sam10819 webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Freehand
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 5th, 08:11 PM
  3. Epson Scanners?
    By Sterling Brooks in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: September 20th, 05:25 PM
  4. OS X and scanners
    By carl sutherland in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 5th, 03:34 AM
  5. What 120 scanners are available?
    By Jtown2354 in forum Photography
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 14th, 03:08 AM

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
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139