Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure higher resolution will help with restoration. Scanner software such as Silver Fast might be of more value than higher res. Control over the image means more than dpi sometimes unless you plan to enlarge them.
Husband has been working on a project for a friend, scanning old family photos and restoring them. The pics are about 3x5-4x6, and he's been scanning them at the max resolution of 12,000dpi.
Does the optical resolution of your scanner even go that high? That's the real max, anything above that is pointless. It's re-sampled and can be achieved using software. If you're were going to use software like Genuine Fractals with much better results.
Quote:
If we weren't scanning them with the intent to restore and crop, would probably go back down to 600.
Fair enough but I would suggest even for that purpose it's way too high....
I have thousands of prints and slides going back to my Mother's images from the 20s on.
What is the best company to send these to for scanning. By "best" I mean economical with quality results. (Who would you feel safe sending your work to for scanning?)
Also, what about transferring VHS to DVD? Who would you use?
Wouldn't it be easy to verify what resolution actually works best? Couldn't you simply scan a sample photo at various resolutions, show pairs of those scans side by side, and zoom in till you could see differences? Unless the issue is whether you should buy a better scanner? If, after zooming in, you couldn't see any useful differences between two scans, wouldn't that imply the lower of those two resolutions would be better, because the file size would be smaller, and there would be no difference from enlargement, because zooming in would have the same effect as enlargement?
I scanned a bunch at 300 dpi and now regret not using at least 600 dpi. Reason 1 - I've wanted to enlarge a few pics that require more resolution. Reason 2 - future proofing! Display technology is constantly evolving and will continue to do so.
If scanning at 600 DPI makes sense, why does 1200 not? Why guess? Why not verify, as I mentioned in post 16? Then it would be adaptable to any future technology, the same as any higher resolution would be.
Hard disk capacity increases exponentially as time passes. It's already reached the point where there is no practical limit to how much resolution you can store from a particular set of photos.
If scanning at 600 DPI makes sense, why does 1200 not? Why guess? Why not verify, as I mentioned in post 16?
Max size needed is based on desired use. No need to scan at 1200 dpi unless you need the extra resolution. That said, 1200 dpi would probably be my target if I was scanning a bunch of snap shot sized photos today.
Hard disk capacity increases exponentially as time passes. It's already reached the point where there is no practical limit to how much resolution you can store from a particular set of photos.
At some point you're only making bigger files, longer processing times etc. 35mm film *might* produce what is equivalent to a 19MP image.
8*10 @600DPI = 29MP
4*6 @1000DPI = 24MP
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Scanning tips.
