Marc Lawrence wrote:
>> Moose wrote:
>> [...]So I started over again, scanning all 200+ frames on the rolls
>> with Yosemite on them. Good idea too, if it kept me out of some
>> questionable threads the last few days. :-)[...]
>>
>
> G'day Moose,
>
> Just a quick question. I've a flatbed scanner (Epson 4990), and I'm
> going to embark on a scan of all my old 35mm stuff, mostly negative
> rather than slides (as opposed to my current willy-nilly way of
> "looking for and scanning a frame as needed" approach I've taken so
> far).
>
Sounds very familiar. ;-)
> I'm thinking of:
>
> - scanning at a reduced resolution (let's say 1600 on the long side?)
>
> - indexing the results and marking the filed negatives accordingly
>
> - using that index to then, "as needed", rescan stuff I want to work
> more seriously on (noting that my hit-ratio, particularly on my
> older stuff, is rather low).
>
> Would you (or anyone else) suggest that I'm not saving much time, and
> should scan higher (though perhaps not "full", as I believe that you're
> not getting much more at 4800 than you are at 2800)?
>
Thoughts on these questions in semi-random order:
- I'm using a film scanner, so can only scan 4 frames between the need
for physical reloading of the holder. The scanner will do six frames of
neg at once, but almost all my old stuff is in strips of four anyway. so
I would rather scan at full quality the first time and almost never have
to go back. As you can do 16 frames on four frame strips in one load,
this may be different for you.
- I found my keeper ratio for color neg rolls went up considerably when
I started scanning film. Many shots that look like junk in the 4x6, auto
prints turn out to be good after all. It's been a revelation to discover
some shots that are actually as I envisioned them when I took them, but
looked like crap in the cheap print. There are, of course, the losers
too, and I can just delete them. I actually scanned a blank frame
recently, just to keep the numbering of the image files in sync with the
film frame numbers. I can delete it or use it to add Portra 160NC grain
to a digital image. :-)
- When talking about scanner resolution, you need to be aware that
flatbed and film scanner rated resolutions are not comparable. 4800 dpi
on the 4990 is not as sharp as 4000 dpi on a film scanner. The photo-i
review of the various Epson and Canon scanners consistently shows this
to be true. The relevant page for the 4990 is
<http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204990/Page%208.htm>.
Vincent's reviews and my experience with 2700 and 4000 dpi film scanners
have convinced me that something around 3200 dpi extracts as close to
all the detail in regular films, and especially the older ones I will be
scanning more as I go on, as matters in any practical use. More
resolution just seems to make the grain bigger. So in your situation, I
would be doing some tests of scans at 3000-3200 dpi vs. scans at 4800
vs. 4800 dpi scans downsized to 3200, etc., to find out before doing a
lot of scanning what gives the best, reasonably sized results.
- 1600 pixels for 36 mm is about 1125 dpi. That's sort of no man's land
for me, not high enough for the good stuff and bigger than needed tor
indexing/evaluation. Again, some testing to decide what size works best
for your index/evaluation images could save time and grief later. By the
way, Vuescan can output both an uncompressed TIFF and a down sampled
JPEG at the same time. Don't use it to produce compressed TIFFs. At
least when I tried it, the processing time went way up and the files
were as big or bigger, no win.
- I tie the image files on disk to the film originals by both noting the
directory name on the film envelope and noting the index number on the
sticker on most processed film in a text file in the subdirectory, along
with the film type and any relevant general details about the dates,
subjects, etc. on the roll.
> It would be nice to have those old shots not only indexed and readily
> available, but not sitting in a bag in the spare room.
>
I hope you are not planning to dump the film itself? I think it's still
the most reliable back-up.
> Anyway, any thoughts would be appreciated (particularly practical
> experience). I'm also wondering about Vuescan (noting the comments
> re: raw) over the Epson software...but that's a whole other story.
>
Yup. Once again, VueScan RAW files are not for any increase in quality
over scanning directly to TIFF. In that way, they are very much not like
camera RAW files. Their use for me is about work flow.
What I'm doing lately is to scan a roll to RAW without doing anything
more than looking at the first frame preview. I then go back to scan
from the RAW files. I do a batch Preview of the whole roll, then go
through the previews, which are all held in memory, one at a time,
adjusting rotation, cropping, white point, curves, etc. Then scanning as
a batch, without closing VueScan, applies all the preview adjustments to
the full scans. That way, the scans are in pretty good shape before they
even get to PS. For this particular project, where I am also making up a
slide show on the notebook, the /14 size JPEGs I output along with the
fill rez TIFFs are generally good enough to use directly.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|