RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Input/Output/Workflow
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Input/Output/Workflow Scanning, printing, color management, and discussing best practices for control and repeatability

Good Scanning Tips and Tutorial link

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 10-15-2001, 10:31 PM
DJ Dubovsky's Avatar
DJ Dubovsky DJ Dubovsky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Upper Penninsula of Michigan
Posts: 1,659
Good Scanning Tips and Tutorial link

I was researching a new scanner and found this site on my search. Check this out for some excellent scanning info. http://www.corkrum.com/tutorials/scanners.html
DJ
Reply With Quote top
  #2  
Old 10-16-2001, 01:31 PM
chris h's Avatar
chris h chris h is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern UK
Posts: 991
DJ,

Quite a lot of material on that link. As you may have gathered I've just got hold of a new HP scanner and I'm running it in tandem with the old one for comparison. The HP has the facility to scan transparancies so I've been digitising some work I did in the mid seventies which has been unseen for years.
The results aren't bad considering the age of the transparancies and printoffs are good enough as handouts. The transparancies have been very carefully stored but some of the Kodachrome stock has started to deteriorate whereas a lot of stuff shot on Agfachrome shows no sign of decay. I wonder if that reflects on the film or the processing.
Reply With Quote top
  #3  
Old 10-16-2001, 01:48 PM
DJ Dubovsky's Avatar
DJ Dubovsky DJ Dubovsky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Upper Penninsula of Michigan
Posts: 1,659
Hi Chris,
I would think it is probably the film and not the process but I am no expert by a long shot on that subject.

Glad you like the link. I thought this site would benefit alot of the members when I stumbled on it.

I get my new scanner in the mail tomorrow. I am so eager for it's arrival. I went with the Epson Perfection 1650 Photo. It has the slide and negative attachment also. I was going to get a slide scanner because I already had a regular scanner but it started acting up on me so I had to get a new scanner. I decided to combine features. Went with Epson because I liked what the reviews said and because I have an Epson printer and camera so I figured the color profiles would be easier to match also. I'll let you know what it's like when I get it.
DJ
Reply With Quote top
  #4  
Old 10-16-2001, 02:43 PM
Ed_L's Avatar
Ed_L Ed_L is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: northwest Indiana, about 45 minutes from Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,824
Chris,

Just a guess, but I'd be inclined to think that the deterioration might be due to processing. Were the ones which show deterioration pretty much all processed at the same place? I've seen processing by *Kodak* fall short of perfection.

Debbie,

Great link. Thanks much. I didn't have time to go through a lot of the material, but I did see one thing that I have a question about. Here is some text that was copied and pasted:

>14.Scanning for the screen. Will the image be used
for printing or for on-screen viewing? On-screen
viewing is done at resolutions around 72 dots per
inch (dpi). If your original is the same size as what you want the final result to be, just
scan it at 72 dpi and you’ll have a perfectly sized screen image.<

Wouldn't that depend on which resolution you have your monitor set for? It seems to me that if you have your monitor set for 640 X 480, you would get a much larger image than if you had it set for 1280 X 1024. And what about different sized monitors? Quite possibly my thinking on this is wrong, but I'd like to hear what others have to say. Am I missing something? Man, I hate it when I think I know something, then someone makes me think I might be all wet.

Ed
Reply With Quote top
  #5  
Old 10-16-2001, 02:51 PM
chris h's Avatar
chris h chris h is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern UK
Posts: 991
All the Kodachrome processing went to one plant in the UK in the seventies. But I recall a labour strike and I sent a lot of stuff to the German Kodak plant. Too late to worry about just interesting to look at long forgotten projects from years ago especially the nudes !!!
Reply With Quote top
  #6  
Old 10-16-2001, 03:41 PM
DJ Dubovsky's Avatar
DJ Dubovsky DJ Dubovsky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Upper Penninsula of Michigan
Posts: 1,659
Ed
That's kind of what I thought too but I read somewhere that scanning for the web higher than 72 is a waste of time and pixels. I don't know why exactly other than larger files take too long to load on web pages. Maybe someone more familiar with web graphics could clarify that one.
DJ
Reply With Quote top
  #7  
Old 10-16-2001, 05:14 PM
jeaniesa's Avatar
jeaniesa jeaniesa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Colorado foothills
Posts: 1,826
Ed, Your thinking is correct. The important thing to remember when scanning for viewing on the screen is not the dpi but the absolute size in pixels. I've copied the following excerpt from the Scantips site:
Quote:
The useful way to think of monitor resolution is that our monitors show a fixed area of pixels, which is usually 640x480 or 800x600 or 1024x768. And the number that is important to describe video images is the X by Y image size in pixels, like 320x200 perhaps. For video, it is not important if that 320x200 image was scanned at 72 or 272 dpi. Either way the screen area consumed (320x200) will be the same (but for printing, it can matter). What is important for video images is the "X by Y" image size in pixels. Knowing this image size, we can judge how much of our 800x600 screen it will occupy. The same image will look larger on a 640x480 screen than on a 800x600 screen, and smaller yet on a 1024x768 screen. Larger or smaller meaning here to fill more or less of the total screen area.
Wayne (the Scantips author) also has a page dedicated to the "72dpi Myth" which directly addresses your question with a big table of numbers.

Hope this helps. -Jeanie
Reply With Quote top
  #8  
Old 10-16-2001, 06:03 PM
Ed_L's Avatar
Ed_L Ed_L is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: northwest Indiana, about 45 minutes from Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,824
Thanks Jeanie. I knew I read something about that, and when you mentioned Wayne's site, it came back to me. He has an excellent site.

Debbie,
What Jeanie said about the number of pixels is correct. I think what you're referring to is the fact that an 800 X 1200 pixel image at 300 ppi is *much* larger in file size than an 800 X 1200 pixel image at 72 ppi. When an image is displayed, it doesn't really matter what the resolution is, only what the pixel dimensions are. They will both display the same. That's why you don't want to send a higher resolution image.
Ed
Reply With Quote top
  #9  
Old 10-16-2001, 08:14 PM
DJ Dubovsky's Avatar
DJ Dubovsky DJ Dubovsky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Upper Penninsula of Michigan
Posts: 1,659
Thumbs down Hooray for Jeanie coming in and clearing it up for us.

I knew there was a reason but didn't understand the technicalities about it. Jeanie, what would we do with out you? I knew some one would be able to clarify the web aspect of things. I'm barely getting the handle on the print side of resolutions.
DJ
Reply With Quote top
  #10  
Old 10-22-2001, 08:50 PM
jeaniesa's Avatar
jeaniesa jeaniesa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Colorado foothills
Posts: 1,826
Still working through old messages...

Debbie, I'm glad that I could help. However, I think there are plenty of people on this site who could have helped - I just happened to be the first to answer.

Ed, To clarify something you said:
Quote:
I think what you're referring to is the fact that an 800 X 1200 pixel image at 300 ppi is *much* larger in file size than an 800 X 1200 pixel image at 72 ppi.
Actually, an 800x1200 pixel image is the same file size regardless of the dpi. The thing that changes with the change in dpi is the print size - assuming the actual pixel size remains the same. E.g., an 800x1200 pixel image printed at 300dpi is 2.67"x4" (800/300 by 1200/300); the same image printed at 72dpi is 11.11"x16.67" (800/72 by 1200/72).

What you might be thinking of is the scanning process. A 4"x6" original scanned at 72dpi becomes a 288x432 pixel image (about 366K). Scanned at 300dpi it becomes a 1200x1800 pixel image (about 6.2M!) That is a huge difference in file size! (It's also a huge difference in size on the screen - but the print size will be the same, albeit of different quality.)

Hope I haven't confused things further.

Jeanie
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Input/Output/Workflow


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tutorial (link): Painter (misc links) T Paul Photo-Art Resources 5 07-06-2007 08:51 PM
RetouchPRO Tutorial Contest, October 2006 Doug Nelson RP Tutorials 30 12-04-2006 11:31 AM
Tutorial (link): Landscape Painting Tips pavel123 Photo-Art Resources 1 09-04-2006 07:28 PM
Tutorial (link): Sketch, Tim Shelbourne Pocoroba Photo-Art Resources 3 08-24-2006 04:19 AM
An interesting link... Frank Lopes Non-RetouchPRO Resources 3 05-26-2006 07:23 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved