Just curious here Rob, but wouldn’t it be better to scan the negative at a resolution that when resized to the size picture she ultimately wants (let’s say an 8 x 10 picture), would result in that image being 8 x 10 at 300 ppi?
Most of the 35 mm slides/negatives I’ve scanned have been scanned at about 2850 ppi, so that when I resized them (with resampling turned off), the resulting image is approximately 8 inches by 10 inches, and a little over 300 ppi, which I resize to 300 ppi.
If I were to scan the image at 4000 dpi, or use the flatbed and scan it at 5400 dpi, in order to resize it to 8 x 10 at 300 ppi, I’d have to throw away a lot of pixels, resulting in a softer image. When I’m not sure what the person wants as their final size, I’ll do several scans, each at different ppi, one at 4000, one at about 3000, and sometimes one that will result in a 5 x 7 picture at 300 ppi.
Do you scan negatives at the highest resolution, just in case the person wants a large final picture? I’m just curious, that’s all.(maybe I’m doing it all wrong…<g>)
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 04:28:12 -0800, wrote:
It is indeed always best to scan at the highest optical resolution and bit depth.
About the grain, don’t forget that at 6400 ppi, and a 100% view on screen, you have sort of a microbe’s view on the silver clusters. A circumstance in which it’s hard to judge the film grain at all.
Scanner noise would be most visible in the highest density parts (the darkest on the neg, so the lightest on the reversed positive).
I always scan B/W negatives in colour (chance to minimise defects post scan), so then scanner noise would be chromatic.
Silverfast can make multiple scans of the same neg, thus being able to average an image and take into account the differences between scans and cancel those out (scanner noise would be non-coherent between scans, all the things in the image, including grain would be coherent)
Rob
