![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
My scanner can scan negatives or scans up to 2400, I have both the negatives and the prints of many pictures. Storage space and time are not issues. Any recommendations appreciated, |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
#4
| |||
| |||
|
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
My scanner can scan negatives or scans up to 2400, I have both the negatives and the prints of many pictures. Storage space and time are not issues. Any recommendations appreciated, There is much more detail in a negative than in a typical |
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
My scanner can scan negatives or scans up to 2400, I have both the negatives and the prints of many pictures. Storage space and time are not issues. Any recommendations appreciated, |
| |
#7
| |||
| |||
|
|
My scanner can scan negatives or scans up to 2400, I have both the negatives and the prints of many pictures. Storage space and time are not issues. Any recommendations appreciated, |
#8
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:54:48 -0500, "KSB" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote: My scanner can scan negatives or scans up to 2400, I have both the negatives and the prints of many pictures. Storage space and time are not issues. Any recommendations appreciated, You are a little short on information. "Normally" the method is to scan the negatives if you have them as they have more resolution and color depth than a print. I say, normally as it depends on what you have for a scanner. |
|
2400 dpi isn't a lot for scanning negatives. At that resolution it sounds like it might be a flat bed and they are not noted for doing well on negatives although the newer ones are getting better. |
|
Typically I scan 35mm color negatives at 4000dpi and prints at 600 dpi which is about twice the resolution they contain. Scanning prints at much above 300 dpi usually uses more memory with no gain in quality. |
|
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#9
| |||
| |||
|
|
In message <3ljlv1hkpi54041jjoc7ofaoq7gk5kuvmq (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Roger Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups (AT) tm (DOT) net> writes On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:54:48 -0500, "KSB" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote: My scanner can scan negatives or scans up to 2400, I have both the negatives and the prints of many pictures. Storage space and time are not issues. Any recommendations appreciated, You are a little short on information. "Normally" the method is to scan the negatives if you have them as they have more resolution and color depth than a print. I say, normally as it depends on what you have for a scanner. If he has a suitable scanner. 2400 dpi isn't a lot for scanning negatives. At that resolution it sounds like it might be a flat bed and they are not noted for doing well on negatives although the newer ones are getting better. And he might not, so scanning the prints might work better. Typically I scan 35mm color negatives at 4000dpi and prints at 600 dpi which is about twice the resolution they contain. Scanning prints at much above 300 dpi usually uses more memory with no gain in quality. 600dpi = 300dip x 2 (e.g. is 100% greater), so what I'm not sure quite what you mean 'much above 300dpi'? |
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#10
| |||
| |||
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
| |