File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey guise I'm about to scan a few thousand slides for archival and I'm not sure what dpi setting I should use. My scanner can do 7200, but that takes almost two minutes per slide so that's out. I'd like the image to be big enough for HDTV and 11/8.5 prints. I'd like to use lossless compression as well, but that takes up lots of space. Has anyone here every done this? I don't have one of those fancy faggot autoloaders so I want to get this right on the first and only time. Is there some newer gayer hidef format that will replace blaray and hddvd in ten years time? Will JPEG be subject to copyright law forcing some new gay format to replace it? Halp me!
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>95677

If you're using for web, you shouldn't need anymore than 150dpi. If you're looking for printing quality, use 300dpi- it's the minimum requirement for our Heidelberg printing presses.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>95678

Oops, you're looking for printing. Hmmm, it's probably a bit much but 600-800dpi should be just fine. It depends on the printer or lab you're going to be using. .jpeg image files should be fine, as it's the widely accepted file format. You only fail if you use png or gif.
>> Anonymous
With the price of storage nowadays, splurge on a few HDDs and go for the highest res scan you can make, save it in TIFF format (most decent software will do this). I know it's the slowest method, but the results should be worth it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Your scanner probably doesn't really do 7200dpi. Generally they advertise their max resolution in one axis, and their resolution in the other axis is noticeably less. E.g., my "9600dpi" scanner is actually 9600x4800dpi, which means that half the pixels in one direction are interpolated if I scan at 9600.
>> des
>>95677
Is it a film scanner or a flatbed with a transparancy adaptor?
Don't even bother if it's the latter.
>> Anonymous
>>95735
flatbed with adapter is to dedicated film scanner as holga is to hasselblad.
In a head-to-head, the film scanner will produce images which are far superior in quality and detail to the flatbed.
>> Anonymous
>>95739
Suitable maybe, but there are compromises inherent in anything which is a "combined solution".
a scanner cum negative scanner may produce acceptable results, but relative to a dedicated negative scanner those results pale in comparison
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>95742

Really? It was able to scan more than enough detail out of the slides and negatives. Any higher resolution and I'm not going to get any more detail than was captured in the first place.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>95740
Well that's a bit extreme. The scans from my flatbed always look pretty good to me.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>95747

The ones I did I could probably have scanned them at a lower resolution at that, but I was being cautious. If I don't get an increase in detail, then there's not much point scanning at ever higher resolutions. I tested it out with a comparison from the same slide with a higher resolution and got no improvement in the resulting file. It was a bigger file, but no more detail was there as the limit of the slide itself was reached before then. Never mind the fact that I don't plan on printing them at a billboard size and examining it through a loupe, though I did pixel peep the shit out of them.
>> Anonymous
I'm using a dedicated film scanner although it's still manual feed. I was originally thinking 1200dpi would be too small, but now I think it will do just fine. Thanks guise
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
HD Photo is coming around the corner? I've read it's like JPG and TIFF, but better than both combined.
>> Anonymous
look up the grain size of the film and scan at a pinch less than that resolution (i.e if you have ektachrome at 1.5nm resolution, scan at about 38,500 DPI)
>> Anonymous
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>> Anonymous
>>95796

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.