Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-16-2016, 03:13 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,711
Note that the issue depends on prints or slides. I tend to scan prints at 300 dpi and slides/negatives at 1200 and some slides at 2400. (I did a number at 4800 and then found out that that was more than Kodachrome was really capable of, plus it took a really long time.
__________________

__________________
meierlde is online now   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 06-16-2016, 03:55 PM   #22
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DrRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,722
I'm looking at buying a scanner for photos and flat items, and was going to go for very high ~4800. Didn't buy yet.
__________________

__________________
"The mountains are calling, and I must go." John Muir
DrRoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2016, 04:02 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrRoy View Post
I'm looking at buying a scanner for photos and flat items, and was going to go for very high ~4800. Didn't buy yet.
Note that scanning at 4800 is vast overkill as few films have that resolution. Now 1200 or 2400 are better, but the high end scanners have more features. One nice on on epson is the ability to put multiple prints on the scanner and have the software make them into separate images.
Epson also has the capability to convert color negatives into positives.
__________________
meierlde is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2016, 07:54 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrRoy View Post
I'm looking at buying a scanner for photos and flat items, and was going to go for very high ~4800. Didn't buy yet.
I don't think you can buy a new scanner today that reaches a true 4800 dpi resolution. Pretty much all flatbeds top out at around ~2000 dpi regardless of what their inflated specifications say. And nikon / minolta / etc no longer make their dedicated film-only scanners.

I suppose you could find an old nikon coolscan / minolta dimage on eBay. But I'm hanging on to mine (and yes it actually reaches the 5400 dpi spec)
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2016, 09:11 PM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,309
Memory is cheap. There is no reason to compress photos to save space.
__________________
Music Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2016, 09:27 PM   #26
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,711
Epson has a formula that suggests that you take the ratio of the lengths of the input document and the largest desired output document and divide them, and multiply by 300 to get the desired resolution. Thus to take a 4x6 to 8x10 go for 600 dpi. For 35mm slides to go to say an 8x10 it would be 2400 dpi, and to go to 16x20 5100 dpi.
__________________
meierlde is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2016, 09:29 PM   #27
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
Memory is cheap. There is no reason to compress photos to save space.
For 500 or so photos (or even many more), I'd agree.

But just as a point of reference, a while back I finally got through a project of transferring ~ 30 hours of Mini-DV video tapes to a computer. I could do a massive amount of compression on those (10~30x IIRC) and I couldn't see any degradation (just family videos, content more important than quality).

Yes, memory is cheap, but these files were so massive, I'd need to dedicate an entire drive to them, and making a backup would take all day, versus a few hours.

Smaller file sizes can be about convenience as well, especially when quality just isn't that big a deal.

For my music files, only lossless FLAC format. I sometimes make a compressed copy for a portable player or casual use.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Archiving old family photos and film Meadbh Other topics 10 12-12-2011 12:43 PM
Digital frames & photo-scanning services? Nords Other topics 14 02-05-2009 11:24 AM
Optimal scanning resolution for 35mm negatives Sam Other topics 12 01-13-2007 09:17 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:17 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.