On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:16:05 -0400, "Dennis"
wrote:
Kodak,
You have a daunting task ahead of you. I have a Nikon 5000 and have scanned
nearly 1000 negatives at 4000 dpi. As fast as the 500 is, it seems like I
have been at it for an eternity. And after a while the whirring noise of
the scanner will test your sanity.
Good points. Most of my images are slides, and I will definitely
purchase the "stack loader" so I can do a lot of the scanning
overnight. But I do have about 700 strips of negatives, mostly 6
frames per strip.
Since you mentioned you do negatives, can you explain to me why Nikon
has an optional Strip Film Holder FH-3. Doesn't the base scanner
include a filmstrip holder?
Now here's, the bad news. Unless you are just going to scan these images
I will for some of them. In fact, I may use the initial scans as a
way to cull some images, by examining details. But certainly, for the
preferred images, I will need to do post-processing.
and then forget them, you will surely have to do some post processing. If
you use Photoshop and preserve the edits on layers, those 125 meg files will
most of my negatives are actually black and white at "only" 40 MB.
quickly become 350 megs or considerably more. If you archive the original
scan to protect if from accidental loss or damage, that means you have the
original 125 meg file to store and the 350 meg edited version. Now
depending on what you are doing with the final product, you can "flatten"
the layers in Photoshop, reduce the color bit depth, and probably reduce the
image size. That will get your post processed file size down to something
manageable.
Good points. I'm expecting that I will end up with several terabytes
of images when my scanning is all done. As part of my digital
darkroom project, I'm planning major upgrades to my home computer
network, including a tape backup drive capable of doing several
hundred MB on one tape. I know that won't be cheap, but then again,
neither will the total cost of the digital darkroom, which will
include that Nikon scanner, a "nice" photoprinter, color management
tools, a new computer monitor, several GB more memory for at least one
of my systems, and of course a digital camera. My "spec" for a
digital camera is either a D2X or the long-rumored full-frame Nikon.
All I can say is I've finished paying for my kids' college.
Father Kodak
Good luck.
"Father Kodak" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:36:45 GMT, "CSM1"
wrote:
"Father Kodak" wrote in message
...
I can't find this info anywhere on the Nikon web site.
If I scan an image full-on highest res, 16-bit color depth and save to
a lossless format (TIFF?) how big will that file size be? If I scan a
B&W neg, will the file size be 1/3 of the color file size?
--thatcher--
Thank you.
Filesize for uncompressed TIFF is the about same as the Image size(of the
film) times the Resolution times number of colors times 2 for 16 bits.
For 35 mm film 24X36mm, (0.945" x 1.4")
Short size = .945 * 4000=3800 pixels
long size = 1.4 * 4000= 5600 pixels.
3800 * 5600 = 21,280,000 * 3 *2= 127.68 MB for color at 16 bits.
B & W would be 42.56 MB for 16 bits.
A Calculator is found he
http://www.scantips.com/calc.html
--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
Wowzers. I guess I'm going to have to upgrade my system. More disk
storage, lots of it. I have about 3500-4000 black and white negs and
maybe 5000-6000 color negs and slides.
Kodak