Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: The downside of film scanning

Subject: [OM] Re: The downside of film scanning
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:10:21 -0700
Brian Swale wrote:

>Well, I'm approaching some sort of a wall, which I had foreseen.
>
>When I scanned the two Spitfire shots, I also......
>
>At full resolution, the 2.2 MB jpegs convert to PDD files each about 34MB. I 
>very quickly run out of HDD space. 3 files = 100 MB.
>  
>
1. So why are you losing picture information by having the scanner 
output to JPEGs when you are ending up with full size files in the end 
anyway? Scan to TIFF and keep every little bit the scanner captures.

2. That's why there are big hard disks and CD/DVD burners. I've added a 
200gb disk (now 70% full) and a DVD burner in the last few months. A 16 
bit, 4000 dpi TIFF with infrared channel for dust removal is 184mb. Only 
3 will fit on a CD, about 24 on a DVD.

3. That's the secret reason people are going digital.  :-) An E-1 TIFF 
is only about 16kb and a RAW under 11kb. 300D RAW files average about 7kb.

Moose


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz