Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 17, 2004, 8:47 AM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think I know the answer to this but want to be sure. A friend is having some of his "analog" slide film shots saved to CDdisk. Should I be able to view and edit these in the softare I use for my own digital images? I suspct the answer is no because these won't be "pixelized" as in regular digital images.
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 17, 2004, 9:40 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Yes, you will be able to edit the pictures with the same software you edit your digital camera shots. Its all a question of format. If his scanned slides are stored in a format your editor understands then you're all set.

The only question that I have is how much RAM do you have in your computer? The scans will probably be very large.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2004, 10:02 AM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm working with 1Gb of RAM so I think I'm fine....thank you.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2004, 1:17 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 98
Default

Why are slide scans so memory intenstive? I should think a picture would not be any bigger from a slide than from a camera.

I'm getting ready to jump into scanning slides and am hoping to learn all of these issues in advance.

Thanks

Deane
Deane Johnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2004, 3:05 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

1G should be enough for some editing. I know people who prefer 2G if they are editing scanned slides & and making lots of changes (layers & history use lots of RAM.) Your millage my vary.

They usually use more memory because they are scanned at a much higher resolution and true 16-bit per pixel color depth (not 8-bit for standard jpg.)

You can easily get a multi-100MB scanned slide if you have a modern scanner capable of very high resolution.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2004, 3:49 PM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

These slides are being scanned to disk at a pro camera shop so I expect good results. If my machine can't handle it, so be it. My friend is just trying this to see if it's possible as he doesn't do digital processing and I have the software. Thanks for all the ideas / opinons......
  Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2004, 3:58 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default


A scanned slide is not pure pixels in the same sense that a digital photo is. The scanner output is pure pixels, but it is representing various parts of the film. You have to take excess pixels to get all of the information available on the slide because the analog information isn't in neat bundles.

I have used Photoshop since version 3 and just went to digital cameras a couple of years ago. So all of my Photoshop work was with output from my film scanner.

With a gig of RAM I would set Photoshop to take at least 80% of the available RAM – I have a gig of RAM and have it set for 85%. Shut down anything you don't need running and clean out your services and startup. A large file can use up a gig of RAM if you have your history set high, use large brushes, have multiple images open with multiple layers etc.

Unless you have Photoshop CS you will have to convert to 8 bit before you can do anything with the image. Most other image editors only use 8 bit. Even in 8 bit you can run out of RAM. I'm still using PS7 and have run myself out of RAM in 8 bit mode. My guess is that a professionally scanned slide is going to come in at about 70Mb for a 4000 PPI scan. Some I have seen are scanned at 16 bit depth but output at 8 bit. 16 bit would be almost 140Mb and probably overwhelm your RAM in CS.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2004, 4:02 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Deane Johnson wrote:
Quote:
Why are slide scans so memory intenstive? I should think a picture would not be any bigger from a slide than from a camera.

I'm getting ready to jump into scanning slides and am hoping to learn all of these issues in advance.
A 5Mpixel image saved as a good quality jpeg is a bit under 2MB. A 2700dpi image from even an amateurfilmscanner is also about 2MB as a good quality jpeg. However, the latter is likely to be approx 3600x2700 pixels , i.e about 10Mpixels.

If you do any processing of these images, the full uncompressed image, or even several copies of it, will be present in memory, and these are 25-30MB each (millions of pixels x 24 bits per pixel, for a 24-bit image (8 bits per colour).
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2004, 4:13 PM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yowza! Lot's of data here. I've got MSDigital Image Pro, Photoshop Elements and PhotoImpact 7. Hopefully one of those and my PCcapabilities will work out. If I have problems, I'll try to ask specific questions but that won't be getting into thisfor a week or so. But thanks again to all of you who are taking the time to advise. This is great.......Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2004, 10:28 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

I once scanned a color negative at around 3800dpi, 16-bit color, multisampled and digital iced for the best quality possible. The final image was 5400x3600 16-bit tif file and about 147MB. On my computer at work I opened two images of that size to work with and shortly after the computer just wasn't responsive anymore... it's a 900Mhz Athlon w/ 768MB of ram. The more ram the merrier Of course, 900Mhz isn't exactly that fast anymore, so a faster processor really helps out. Going back to the scanning issue, some labs call themselves pros, but when it comes to scanning they will use their high-end $50,000 commercial scanner and do a piss poor job of scanning. Meaning, no color correction, no digital ice to remove dust and scratches from the images, and no optimized tonal range. And to add insult to injury, they will save the scans at an okay size of 3072x2048, but in a very compressed jpg. You know how 6mp low compression jpgs tend to be in the 2.5-6MB range? These highly compressed jpg's can be 400-600KB in size, with artifacts clearly visible. Just be aware that there are places like that.
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:56 AM.