This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Paint Shop Pro support > June 2005 > Re-scan vs resizing?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re-scan vs resizing?
|
|
|
| If I need to reduce my resolution by half, is there any
good reason to re-scan a photo at the lower resolution
rather than resizing the higher-res scan using "bilinear
resampling?"
Thanks
-Mark
| |
|
| "Mark" <nospam@thanksanyway.com> wrote in
news:I6Cdnc5ogLFFoz7fRVn-jw@w-link.net:
> If I need to reduce my resolution by half, is there any
> good reason to re-scan a photo at the lower resolution
> rather than resizing the higher-res scan using "bilinear
> resampling?"
>
> Thanks
> -Mark
When you say you want to reduce your resolution it appears to me
that what you really mean is you want to reduce the pixel size of
your image. From what I've read you should scan at the size you
want for best results, although I can't guarantee this is
accurate. However, when you reduce the size of an image in your
editor the result will lose some sharpness and usually needs a
bit of Unsharp mask to make it sharp again, while scanning at 50%
produces an image as sharp (to me anyway) as scanning at 100%.
Regards,
JoeB
| |
|
| Mark wrote:
> If I need to reduce my resolution by half, is there any
> good reason to re-scan a photo at the lower resolution
> rather than resizing the higher-res scan using "bilinear
> resampling?"
Mark, look, if you're serious about scanning, like other connoisseurs,
those people don't use boxed scanning software or Paint Shop Pro. What
you need is Vuescan. Yes, if your scanner is capable of 48 bit color,
Vuescan can and will take advantage of that. Just do a search on
Vuescan. It's very reasonably priced.
Uni
>
> Thanks
> -Mark
>
>
| |
|
| "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
> Mark, look, if you're serious about scanning, like other connoisseurs,
> those people don't use boxed scanning software or Paint Shop Pro. What you
> need is Vuescan. Yes, if your scanner is capable of 48 bit color, Vuescan
> can and will take advantage of that. Just do a search on Vuescan. It's
> very reasonably priced.
I have experimented with the demo version of Vuescan, but to me
there was no apparent benefit over using the scanner's TWAIN
interface in manual mode. Can you elaborate on your recommenation?
I do share the common complaint about Vuescan's clunky UI,
but that's a minor point if there are significant quality benefits.
Also, I recently purchased an Epson 4870 Photo, and I have been
using the packaged version of Silverfast for scanning. How would
you compare Silverfast with Vuescan?
It sounds like I will be re-scanning some of my Ridiculously
Large Photo Scans at 1200dpi. *sigh*
Thanks
-Mark
| |
|
| Mark wrote:
> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have experimented with the demo version of Vuescan, but to me
> there was no apparent benefit over using the scanner's TWAIN
> interface in manual mode. Can you elaborate on your recommenation?
> I do share the common complaint about Vuescan's clunky UI,
> but that's a minor point if there are significant quality benefits.
>
> Also, I recently purchased an Epson 4870 Photo, and I have been
> using the packaged version of Silverfast for scanning. How would
> you compare Silverfast with Vuescan?
From what I recall from my days in the "scanner" newsgroups, both a
equal, except in price. Vuescan is less expensive.
And scan as high a possible resolution, in 48 bit color, if possible.
While there may be no great reason to do so, these days, tomorrow, there
just may be.
And invest in a scanner that uses LEDs as a light source, such as the
Nikon Coolscan (?) 4000 or 8000. Florescent bulbs just don't cut it.
Uni
>
> It sounds like I will be re-scanning some of my Ridiculously
> Large Photo Scans at 1200dpi. *sigh*
>
> Thanks
> -Mark
>
>
| |
| Canopus 2005-06-05, 7:33 pm |
| Mark on 05/06/2005 wrote:
> It sounds like I will be re-scanning some of my Ridiculously
> Large Photo Scans at 1200dpi. sigh
FFrom my experience there is little advantage to scanning photo prints
at more than 300 ppi as you will not get any more detail, but, will
start seeing grain and paper fibres. 1200 ppi and 2400 ppi should be
reserved for slides and negatives and even then at 2400 ppi you will
start seeing grain.
Rob
| |
|
| "Mark" <nospam@thanksanyway.com> wrote in
news:X-GdndcIiPcC2z7fRVn-rw@w-link.net:
> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote:
or Paint[color=darkred]
capable[color=darkred]
Just do[color=darkred]
>
> I have experimented with the demo version of Vuescan, but to me
> there was no apparent benefit over using the scanner's TWAIN
> interface in manual mode. Can you elaborate on your
recommenation?
> I do share the common complaint about Vuescan's clunky UI,
> but that's a minor point if there are significant quality
benefits.
>
> Also, I recently purchased an Epson 4870 Photo, and I have been
> using the packaged version of Silverfast for scanning. How
would
> you compare Silverfast with Vuescan?
>
> It sounds like I will be re-scanning some of my Ridiculously
> Large Photo Scans at 1200dpi. *sigh*
>
> Thanks
> -Mark
>
Sorry, I just use the software that came with my Canon driver so
can't comment on any of the software you're using.
Regards,
JoeB
| |
|
| "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote:
>
> From what I recall from my days in the "scanner" newsgroups, both a equal,
> except in price. Vuescan is less expensive.
I would never actually buy Silverfast, as it costs about $500 and is only
licensed for a single scanner model! They only knock off a few
tens of dollars for an "upgrade" if you purchase a different scanner
and you want to continue using their product. I use the "lite"
version that came packaged with my scanner.
> And scan as high a possible resolution, in 48 bit color, if possible.
> While there may be no great reason to do so, these days, tomorrow, there
> just may be.
I do hang around the scanner newsgroup, and the consensus there
regarding 48 bit seems much the same as the feelings here about
scanning photos at 2400dpi (or even 1200dpi). And of course,
48dpi would give me the same file size problems, only more so.
> And invest in a scanner that uses LEDs as a light source, such as the
> Nikon Coolscan (?) 4000 or 8000. Florescent bulbs just don't cut it.
I have been very pleased with the results from my Epson 4870 Photo.
If I were scanning only 120-format or smaller, then I would probably
have bought a Coolscan 4000, or rented an 8000. But I have a large
number of larger-format negatives that my grandfather took in the
1920s, for which the only answer is a flatbed film scanner or a service
bureau (expensive.) Also, I read that the LED light source is not
ideal for either Kodachrome transparencies, or black & white,
or possibly both (I forget.) I am scanning a large collection of
Kodachrome slides, and quite a few b&w negatives.
-Mark
| |
| A Soberon 2005-06-05, 7:33 pm |
| > From what I recall from my days in the "scanner" newsgroups, both a
> equal, except in price. Vuescan is less expensive.
>
> And scan as high a possible resolution, in 48 bit color, if possible.
> While there may be no great reason to do so, these days, tomorrow, there
> just may be.
>
> And invest in a scanner that uses LEDs as a light source, such as the
> Nikon Coolscan (?) 4000 or 8000. Florescent bulbs just don't cut it.
why did you respond your imprecise and vague stupidites and not the
questions asked?
| |
|
| "Canopus" <BNRAGMAOKKXT@spammotel.com> wrote:
> Mark on 05/06/2005 wrote:
>
>
> FFrom my experience there is little advantage to scanning photo prints
> at more than 300 ppi as you will not get any more detail, but, will
> start seeing grain and paper fibres. 1200 ppi and 2400 ppi should be
> reserved for slides and negatives and even then at 2400 ppi you will
> start seeing grain.
You may be right, but scanning at 1200dpi makes me happy.
Never underestimate the importance of happiness.
Having said that, I think there is a solid case to be made for
scanning at whatever resolution is necessary to allow an
8x10 print to be made at 300dpi.
-Mark
| |
|
|
"Mark" <nospam@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
news:I6Cdnc5ogLFFoz7fRVn-jw@w-link.net...
> If I need to reduce my resolution by half, is there any
> good reason to re-scan a photo at the lower resolution
> rather than resizing the higher-res scan using "bilinear
> resampling?"
>
> Thanks
> -Mark
>
>
Scan at the same resolution that you are going to print at. If you want to
make a bigger print then the original then scan at twice the print res.
would be My advise
| |
|
| Mark wrote:
> "Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> I would never actually buy Silverfast, as it costs about $500 and is only
> licensed for a single scanner model! They only knock off a few
> tens of dollars for an "upgrade" if you purchase a different scanner
> and you want to continue using their product. I use the "lite"
> version that came packaged with my scanner.
Ah, yes, the ol' Silverfast gotcha.
I would never purchase the software to do this, but the trial version
shows it's much more capable of resizing, without added distortion, than
Paint Shop Pro is:
http://community.webshots.com/photo.../47515893EPZDBe
>
>
>
>
> I do hang around the scanner newsgroup, and the consensus there
> regarding 48 bit seems much the same as the feelings here about
> scanning photos at 2400dpi (or even 1200dpi). And of course,
> 48dpi would give me the same file size problems, only more so.
>
>
>
>
> I have been very pleased with the results from my Epson 4870 Photo.
> If I were scanning only 120-format or smaller, then I would probably
> have bought a Coolscan 4000, or rented an 8000. But I have a large
> number of larger-format negatives that my grandfather took in the
> 1920s, for which the only answer is a flatbed film scanner or a service
> bureau (expensive.) Also, I read that the LED light source is not
> ideal for either Kodachrome transparencies, or black & white,
> or possibly both (I forget.) I am scanning a large collection of
> Kodachrome slides, and quite a few b&w negatives.
Oh, okay.
It takes a lot of skill to color correct:
http://community.webshots.com/photo.../42670526IIeqQz
http://community.webshots.com/photo...118879751QdfdDW
If you need any help color correcting a scan, you just call on The Uni,
he'll blow your mind <g>
:-)
Uni
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
>
| |
|
| A Soberon wrote:
>
>
> why did you respond your imprecise and vague stupidites and not the
> questions asked?
Look, Antonio, if I left the technical help up to the "regulars" in this
group, Mark would have purchased a 4000 GHz computer with 1 Terabyte of
memory, only to find Paint Shop Pro is no more capable with it.
:-)
Uni
>
>
| |
|
| Hi Mark,
Generally standard resolution for scanning is 300 dpi. Which also
allowed to print up to 8 x 10 without any problem.
I am using photoshop for long time.. what you can do is.. Just open the
image -> image size . there you can easily change your size without
changing your resolution. so you can maintain your quality of photo and
can reduce size too. I think re scanning is a good option if you want
to increase the size or resolution of the photo..
Regards,
- Nick ( http://www.geocities.com/kandy_gr8 )
| |
|
| "Mark" <nospam@thanksanyway.com> wrote in
news:lrydnXK6QZcf0j7fRVn-rw@w-link.net:
> "Canopus" <BNRAGMAOKKXT@spammotel.com> wrote:
photo prints[color=darkred]
will[color=darkred]
should be[color=darkred]
you will[color=darkred]
>
> You may be right, but scanning at 1200dpi makes me happy.
> Never underestimate the importance of happiness.
>
> Having said that, I think there is a solid case to be made for
> scanning at whatever resolution is necessary to allow an
> 8x10 print to be made at 300dpi.
>
> -Mark
>
Mark, now I think you've got it! This is the point that Porter
made in another post to you on this issue. Unless you expect to
make prints larger than 8x10, that's a good goal to shoot for.
Scanning with a printer resolution of 300 is more than sufficient
to ensure you will have all available detail.
There is one consideration, however, that has been covered in
other threads, and that is when scanning produces what is
described as moire patterns on the image. Apparently (and don't
ask me the tech details because I don't know) if these patterns
appear in your scanned image, one solution is to scan at least
600 dpi print resolution, then resize in PSP to 300. The threads
I've seen this discussed in usually deal with scanning old black
and white images (maybe something about them makes patterning
more obvious in a scan - again, I don't know but thought I'd
mention it).
In the end, however, having a final image with sufficient print
resolution to produce an 8x10 print (which would be 300 ppi) is,
as Porter noted, a good standard for most people to work from.
Regards,
JoeB
| |
|
| On 5 Jun 2005 14:34:41 -0700, "Nick" <kandy_gr8@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hi Mark,
>
>Generally standard resolution for scanning is 300 dpi. Which also
>allowed to print up to 8 x 10 without any problem.
>
....
>Regards,
>- Nick ( http://www.geocities.com/kandy_gr8 )
Nick,
What and with what are you scanning at 300dpi to make an 8x10 print?
What is a "dpi"? How does it relate to "ppi"? I'm used to a negative
scanner, I assume this thread was about flat beds. I just don't get
the relationship between "dpi" and "ppi" I'm used to thinking about
them. When I produce digital files for printing, I produce them sized
for the final output (e.g. 8x10 and 300ppi - primarily for Frontier
printers). So to me the output is fixed. Your rule above seems to
imply the input is fixed (e.g. 300dpi for an 8x10). I'm trying to
understand the difference.
Regards,
Roger
| |
| Canopus 2005-06-06, 7:34 pm |
| Roger on 06/06/2005 wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2005 14:34:41 -0700, "Nick" <kandy_gr8@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Nick,
>
> What and with what are you scanning at 300dpi to make an 8x10 print?
> What is a "dpi"? How does it relate to "ppi"? I'm used to a negative
> scanner, I assume this thread was about flat beds. I just don't get
> the relationship between "dpi" and "ppi" I'm used to thinking about
> them. When I produce digital files for printing, I produce them sized
> for the final output (e.g. 8x10 and 300ppi - primarily for Frontier
> printers). So to me the output is fixed. Your rule above seems to
> imply the input is fixed (e.g. 300dpi for an 8x10). I'm trying to
> understand the difference.
>
> Regards,
> Roger
This is one of those confusing terms that are often used incorrectly.
dpi is dots per inch and should be used for printers or more correctly
for the number of dots per inch that a printer lays on the paper; the
higher the dpi the greater number of dots per inch that the printer can
lay on and hence the deeper the colour tone and resolution. ppi is the
number of pixels per inch calculated in an image displayed or in file;
the higher the ppi the greater the resolution. Scanners often use dpi
instead of ppi, but, ppi and dpi are the same in this case.
For interpolation a home printer normally has a native resolution of
600 ppi (all Epson printers do) so technically scanning something at
600 ppi/dpi and then sending it to the printer to print at full size
should give you a print exactly the same size as the one you scanned.
If you scan it greater or lesser than 600 ppi or resize it then the
printer has to interpolate it and the result is as good as the
printer's driver.
Scanning at 300 dpi/ppi to make a print of 8 x 10 with no problems is
an illogical statement. It would all depend on the original size of
the photo being scanned. a 16 x 20 inch photo scanned at 300 ppi
would give a very good print at 8 x 10 inch. A 2 x 2.5 inch photo
wouldn't.
Rob
| |
|
| "Roger" <leica35@yahoo.com> wrote:
> scanner, I assume this thread was about flat beds. I just don't get
> the relationship between "dpi" and "ppi"
DPI is "drips per inch," or sometimes "dribbles per inch."
This is a term that is specific to Epson brand inkjet printers.
PPI is "pieces per inch." This term refers to the tiny little pieces
of your picture that a scanner records, and arranges in neat little
rows and columns in your file thingy on your computer.
Hope that helps.
-Mark
| |
| Canopus 2005-06-06, 7:34 pm |
| Mark on 06/06/2005 wrote:
> DPI is "drips per inch," or sometimes "dribbles per inch."
> This is a term that is specific to Epson brand inkjet printers.
>
> PPI is "pieces per inch." This term refers to the tiny little pieces
> of your picture that a scanner records, and arranges in neat little
> rows and columns in your file thingy on your computer.
>
> Hope that helps.
And a computer is a piece of paper with three holes in it. Through two
of the holes you put your two fingers so making it a digit computer.
Through the third hole you tie a piece of string with knots in it, this
is your memory.
| |
| false_dmitrii@yahoo.com 2005-06-12, 11:21 pm |
| Canopus wrote:
> FFrom my experience there is little advantage to scanning photo prints
> at more than 300 ppi as you will not get any more detail, but, will
> start seeing grain and paper fibres. 1200 ppi and 2400 ppi should be
> reserved for slides and negatives and even then at 2400 ppi you will
> start seeing grain.
As I just posted farther down, I've seen detail on old B&W prints that
exceeds an Epson 4870's 600dpi setting. I've also seen modern color
prints that top out at the 300dpi setting or even before, so there's
some truth to the rule. 300 is fine for 1:1 reproduction, but higher
values can sometimes be necessary for capturing everything the image
has to offer.
For film scanning, higher res. scanning can help prevent grain aliasing
and make things easier for DCNR or similar tools. It's not so much an
issue of seeing the grain but rather whether there's detail worth
capturing at or near the scale of the grain. Not usually the case from
my compact Olympus, but there are serious photographers with high-end
equipment and quality film that can push even the best consumer film
scanners to their limits. Of course, there's still the question of
whether the user wishes to preserve everything or just get enough for a
given output size.
false_dmitrii
| |
| false_dmitrii@yahoo.com 2005-06-12, 11:21 pm |
| JoeB wrote:
> Mark, now I think you've got it! This is the point that Porter
> made in another post to you on this issue. Unless you expect to
> make prints larger than 8x10, that's a good goal to shoot for.
> Scanning with a printer resolution of 300 is more than sufficient
> to ensure you will have all available detail.
<snip>
Except if you forsee a similar use for a small portion of the original.
It's nice to have wiggle room for heavy cropping/extraction. :)
It's also worth considering how Windows currently handles bitmaps and
how screen size and resolution continue to increase. High-res scanning
would allow a larger, sharper image on future monitors; today's
screen-sized bitmaps would either look tiny or be subject to heavy
interpolation. This won't be a major problem anytime soon, but if you
have vast tracts of hard disk space, go ahead and put it to use. :)
false_dmitrii
| |
| false_dmitrii@yahoo.com 2005-06-12, 11:22 pm |
| Canopus wrote:
> This is one of those confusing terms that are often used incorrectly.
> dpi is dots per inch and should be used for printers or more correctly
> for the number of dots per inch that a printer lays on the paper; the
> higher the dpi the greater number of dots per inch that the printer can
> lay on and hence the deeper the colour tone and resolution. ppi is the
> number of pixels per inch calculated in an image displayed or in file;
> the higher the ppi the greater the resolution. Scanners often use dpi
> instead of ppi, but, ppi and dpi are the same in this case.
<snip>
And, of course, the scanner might well provide less actual detail than
either the PPI or DPI values imply. :) Just like a 5.1Mp camera could
give you a blurry equivalent to a sharp 2Mp image. At least a
printer's tested PPI output should match what's on the screen.
false_dmitrii
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|