By Ed Ladendorf (ed) on Tuesday, June 12, 2001 - 10:06 pm:
I remember reading somewhere that it is better to work with large file sizes, then reduce the size for output. Supposedly, this makes corrective manipulations more subtle to the eye. When working on "Ziggy's Mum", I did not reduce the file size, and I wound up with a file size of 66.4 megs (I don't know how) when I was working on it. Since I only have 128 megs of RAM, it was waaaay too slow, and I promptly reduced the size. Is there really an advantage to working with the large file size, or is it just a waste of time and resources?
Ed
By Mick Kerr on Thursday, July 05, 2001 - 10:17 am:
I have the same problems with memory as you Ed although hopefully I can upgrade to 256 meg shortly, so as these are only challenges I usually scale down the images to about half size to lower the load on my memory. I feel that as long as you can scale down to Doug's final size then it is alright to scale down but not too much. But if I was working on a photo for myself or friends I just put up with the slow speed to get a more acceptable finished image. Where I work (at a local Australian newspaper) we have always had it drummed into us to work on a larger file because scaling down later on can hide slight imperfections that you can usually see when you view the image at 100%.
Mick Kerr
By Ed Ladendorf (ed) on Thursday, July 05, 2001 - 09:04 pm:
Hi Mick,
Yeah, I heard the same thing about hiding certain imperfections by using a larger file size. FWIW, I just bought another 128 megs of RAM for $35.00. I know it's the cheapie, but it works.
Ed
By DJ Dubovsky on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 10:18 pm:
Here's what they told us at the NAAP seminar I attended about the size of scans. The basic scan needs only to be about 300 dpi and that anything bigger won't show any more detail than that. The larger size scans are however important if you plan to print the photo into poster or wall mural sizes only. If you plan to print average photo sizes then 300 dpi is more than plenty and alot easier to work with. They suggested testing it ourselves to see if we could see a difference in the detail when viewed side by side and I couldn't so I stopped killing myself working with those huge scans. Hope that helps.
DJ
By HokeyFX on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 11:05 pm:
The resolution of the scan should be determined by your intended output. There really is no magic dpi as all types of printers and RIPS have differing "optimum" file recommendations. A 150ppi file that looks good printed at 100 percent on an Epson 6-color injet will look quite "fuzzy" when output at 100 percent on a Fuji Frontier, or will "jaggy" when seperated to a 133lpi screen.
The more info you have about your intended output device, the better you will be able to calculate the optimum resolution for your scan.
That said, another issue to consider is your client requesting larger output in the future. You do not want to have to upsample your finished restoration (or *gasp* re-do the work) in order to fulfil this request.
Hope this helps.
By DJ Dubovsky on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 03:37 pm:
Point taken. You are absolutely right about possible future requests for larger prints. I also agree that you need to be certain what's going to be the final outcome of the file. I can really identify with those who have struggled with those huge files though, they can get tedious at times.
DJ
I remember reading somewhere that it is better to work with large file sizes, then reduce the size for output. Supposedly, this makes corrective manipulations more subtle to the eye. When working on "Ziggy's Mum", I did not reduce the file size, and I wound up with a file size of 66.4 megs (I don't know how) when I was working on it. Since I only have 128 megs of RAM, it was waaaay too slow, and I promptly reduced the size. Is there really an advantage to working with the large file size, or is it just a waste of time and resources?
Ed
By Mick Kerr on Thursday, July 05, 2001 - 10:17 am:
I have the same problems with memory as you Ed although hopefully I can upgrade to 256 meg shortly, so as these are only challenges I usually scale down the images to about half size to lower the load on my memory. I feel that as long as you can scale down to Doug's final size then it is alright to scale down but not too much. But if I was working on a photo for myself or friends I just put up with the slow speed to get a more acceptable finished image. Where I work (at a local Australian newspaper) we have always had it drummed into us to work on a larger file because scaling down later on can hide slight imperfections that you can usually see when you view the image at 100%.
Mick Kerr
By Ed Ladendorf (ed) on Thursday, July 05, 2001 - 09:04 pm:
Hi Mick,
Yeah, I heard the same thing about hiding certain imperfections by using a larger file size. FWIW, I just bought another 128 megs of RAM for $35.00. I know it's the cheapie, but it works.
Ed
By DJ Dubovsky on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 10:18 pm:
Here's what they told us at the NAAP seminar I attended about the size of scans. The basic scan needs only to be about 300 dpi and that anything bigger won't show any more detail than that. The larger size scans are however important if you plan to print the photo into poster or wall mural sizes only. If you plan to print average photo sizes then 300 dpi is more than plenty and alot easier to work with. They suggested testing it ourselves to see if we could see a difference in the detail when viewed side by side and I couldn't so I stopped killing myself working with those huge scans. Hope that helps.
DJ
By HokeyFX on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 11:05 pm:
The resolution of the scan should be determined by your intended output. There really is no magic dpi as all types of printers and RIPS have differing "optimum" file recommendations. A 150ppi file that looks good printed at 100 percent on an Epson 6-color injet will look quite "fuzzy" when output at 100 percent on a Fuji Frontier, or will "jaggy" when seperated to a 133lpi screen.
The more info you have about your intended output device, the better you will be able to calculate the optimum resolution for your scan.
That said, another issue to consider is your client requesting larger output in the future. You do not want to have to upsample your finished restoration (or *gasp* re-do the work) in order to fulfil this request.
Hope this helps.
By DJ Dubovsky on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 03:37 pm:
Point taken. You are absolutely right about possible future requests for larger prints. I also agree that you need to be certain what's going to be the final outcome of the file. I can really identify with those who have struggled with those huge files though, they can get tedious at times.
DJ
Comment