Digital BW, The Print

Bill,

I set the scanner resolution to scan at 364dpi, the Q-Factor to 1.0, and I
set the output size at 20x20. The file becomes roughly 101mb or there
abouts.  The Howtek D400 has 364dpi as a native optical resolution. Unless I
am missing something Howtek states that this is still considered an optical
resolution and does not resample.

As I am not an electrical engineer I do not profess to be knowledgeable on
the subject of scanner theory. However, I have been told by Howtek that as
long as one sticks to on of the optical resolutions (As provided in the
chart with the scanner) all will  be safe in the universe.

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morse" <willym@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS: combingcure)


> Mike, I'm not sure I'm following you.  Are you scanning the negative @364
> DPI or is the 20x20 print @ 364 DPI?
>
> If 20x20, then the actual scanner resolution is 3081 DPI - (20x364)/2.36 -
> not exactly optimal if what you are trying for is scanner optical
> resolution- although, come to think of it, maybe that's why you're seeing
> less grain? [g]
>
> There must be something really simple I'm not getting...
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> on 3/21/02 7:59 PM, Michael Kravit wrote:
>
> Austin is 100% right. Run these tests and you will see the results
clearly.
>
> One other thing that I have found is regarding grain. I find that by
> scanning at the lowest possible optical resolution of the scanner will
> reduce prominence of grain. That is on my Howtek D4000 if I scan at 4000
dpi
> at 1:1 the negative grain is very clearly evident.
>
> If I choose a lesser opticacal scanner resolution (Howtek provides a chart
> of the native optical resolutions) the PMT does not scan the grain and my
> images exhibit less grain in the final print. For example a 6x6 negative
> scanned at 364dpi (A Howtek D4000 Native Optocal Resolution) at a final
> print size of 20"x20".
>
> Mike
>
>
> Austin Franklin Wrote:
> > The best image out you are going to get is to scan at the optical
> resolution
> > of your scanner, and size the print (not interpolating) and let the PPI
> fall
> > where it may, providing it's above a certain point.  I've done dozens to
> > probably near hundreds of comparison tests, and the overwhelming
> conclusion
> > is that this gives the best image.  Also, everyone I've suggested this
> > methodology to, has said the same thing.
> >
> > The reasoning is pretty obvious.  Decimating the image information means
> > that you are changing the image data that the halftone algorithm is
basing
> > its decisions on, and that will degrade your output tonality and
> sharpness.
> > Now, this isn't true with EVERY image on earth, but as a general rule of
> > thumb, for me, it has held true.
> >
> > It is a very easy test you can do for your self.  Scan an image, resize
to
> > your output size in PS NOT allowing decimation to take place, and let
the
> > PPI fall where they may to 240PPI.  Print the image.  Take the same
image
> > and check the little box in re-size to allow decimation, and then change
> the
> > PPI to 240.  Print it out.  See for your self ;-)
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Mike, I forget, which software version are you scanning with?

Anyway, try this;

In PS, open a new file, @ 364 DPI, 20x20, GS- file size will be 50.6M @8bit;
change to 16 bit and the file size is 101.2M, right?

Now go to Image size, and you will see that the file is 7280 pixels.

How did you get 7280 pixels from a 2.36" (6 cm) negative? Do the math, or
use the Image size dialog box to convert, and you find that you are scanning
at 3082 PPI.

Scanning software was developed for the pre-print market, where all they
cared about was the final image size and DPI.  The final print size and
resolution, in your case, has nothing to do with your scanning resolution.
When I scan, therefor, I always scan at 100% at the film size (i.e.,
whatever my crop size of the film is), and set my resolution to a scanner
native resolution, depending on what I expect my largest final print size
and resolution will be.

When you resample, you smooth out (read blur) the image; you are doing this
at about the grain resolution (I know, my terms aren't exactly correct
here), so it makes sense that it might reduce the presence of the grain.  It
might be interesting to scan @ 4000DPI, resample to 3082 DPI in PS, and
compare it to your scan.

Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, MA 02139



on 3/21/02 9:25 PM, Michael Kravit wrote:

Bill,

I set the scanner resolution to scan at 364dpi, the Q-Factor to 1.0, and I
set the output size at 20x20. The file becomes roughly 101mb or there
abouts.  The Howtek D400 has 364dpi as a native optical resolution. Unless I
am missing something Howtek states that this is still considered an optical
resolution and does not resample.

As I am not an electrical engineer I do not profess to be knowledgeable on
the subject of scanner theory. However, I have been told by Howtek that as
long as one sticks to on of the optical resolutions (As provided in the
chart with the scanner) all will  be safe in the universe.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morse" <willym@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS: combingcure)


> Mike, I'm not sure I'm following you.  Are you scanning the negative @364
> DPI or is the 20x20 print @ 364 DPI?
>
> If 20x20, then the actual scanner resolution is 3081 DPI - (20x364)/2.36 -
> not exactly optimal if what you are trying for is scanner optical
> resolution- although, come to think of it, maybe that's why you're seeing
> less grain? [g]
>
> There must be something really simple I'm not getting...
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> on 3/21/02 7:59 PM, Michael Kravit wrote:
>
> Austin is 100% right. Run these tests and you will see the results
clearly.
>
> One other thing that I have found is regarding grain. I find that by
> scanning at the lowest possible optical resolution of the scanner will
> reduce prominence of grain. That is on my Howtek D4000 if I scan at 4000
dpi
> at 1:1 the negative grain is very clearly evident.
>
> If I choose a lesser opticacal scanner resolution (Howtek provides a chart
> of the native optical resolutions) the PMT does not scan the grain and my
> images exhibit less grain in the final print. For example a 6x6 negative
> scanned at 364dpi (A Howtek D4000 Native Optocal Resolution) at a final
> print size of 20"x20".
>
> Mike
>
>
> Austin Franklin Wrote:
> > The best image out you are going to get is to scan at the optical
> resolution
> > of your scanner, and size the print (not interpolating) and let the PPI
> fall
> > where it may, providing it's above a certain point.  I've done dozens to
> > probably near hundreds of comparison tests, and the overwhelming
> conclusion
> > is that this gives the best image.  Also, everyone I've suggested this
> > methodology to, has said the same thing.
> >
> > The reasoning is pretty obvious.  Decimating the image information means
> > that you are changing the image data that the halftone algorithm is
basing
> > its decisions on, and that will degrade your output tonality and
> sharpness.
> > Now, this isn't true with EVERY image on earth, but as a general rule of
> > thumb, for me, it has held true.
> >
> > It is a very easy test you can do for your self.  Scan an image, resize
to
> > your output size in PS NOT allowing decimation to take place, and let
the
> > PPI fall where they may to 240PPI.  Print the image.  Take the same
image
> > and check the little box in re-size to allow decimation, and then change
> the
> > PPI to 240.  Print it out.  See for your self ;-)
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Michael,

> ...the Q-Factor to 1.0...

Do you mean the "I-Factor"?  From the Trident manual:

"I-factor - The I-factor represents the interpolation factor which will be
applied to the image to achieve the specified dots per inch.  An
interpolation factor of 1 will cause the scanner to perform the scan at the
closest native resolution to the specified dpi. ..."

That sounds to me like what you are talking about.

Regards,

Austin

Austin, Bill,

I don't know whether this is correct or not, so to actually see if there is
a difference I just finished scanning a 6x6 Ilford Delta 100 negative
processed in PMK Pyro @ 364dpi at 24"x24". I am now scanning the same
negative at 4000 dpi at 100%, it should be done in about 30 minutes. I will
post a few extreme closeup enlargements for comparison.

In the meantime,

I looked in the Howtek manual and it states that optical resolution is
controlled by the lens aperture and spatial resolution is controlled by the
dots per inch setting. Increasing the dpi will increase the amount of data
within the image. Optical resolution is expressed as the number of dpi that
can be discriminated, or in simpler terms, how fine in detail each pixel is.
The wider the aperture the softer the image is.

Howtek told me that by scanning at a listed optical resolution, the scanner
will automatically adjust the lens aperture to accommodate the final image
size. It will not interpolate up the file. Maybe they were pulling my leg?

Mike.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS: combingcure)


> > Mike, I'm not sure I'm following you.  Are you scanning the negative
@364
> > DPI or is the 20x20 print @ 364 DPI?
>
> Bill,
>
> He's talking about a different beast then you are probably used to.  I'm
not
> saying he's right or wrong, as I don't know his scanner, but PMT scanners
> (Photo Multiplier Tube), AKA drum scanners, aren't subject to the
resolution
> issues CCD scanners are.  They only use a single element sensor, and an
> aperture.  The aperture is typically selected such that the width of the
> resolution is covered.  It's the drum that moves in an XY pattern,
> illuminated from within for film, to scan the media.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Austin,

Yes, Silverfast calls it Q-Factor.

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS: combingcure)


> Hi Michael,
>
> > ...the Q-Factor to 1.0...
>
> Do you mean the "I-Factor"?  From the Trident manual:
>
> "I-factor - The I-factor represents the interpolation factor which will be
> applied to the image to achieve the specified dots per inch.  An
> interpolation factor of 1 will cause the scanner to perform the scan at
the
> closest native resolution to the specified dpi. ..."
>
> That sounds to me like what you are talking about.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Hi Michael,

Well, then it sounds to me that no matter what resolution you are using, the
scanner is being set to the closest native resolution, right?

24" at 364 SPI is 8736 pixels.  That's 4000 SPI over a span of
2.184"...which is just about the size of the image area of a 6cm wide piece
of film.  Is the chart you have based not only on DPI but on output size?

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Kravit [mailto:michael.kravit@...]
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:09 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS:
> combingcure)
>
>
> Austin,
>
> Yes, Silverfast calls it Q-Factor.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:59 PM
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS:
> combingcure)
>
>
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > > ...the Q-Factor to 1.0...
> >
> > Do you mean the "I-Factor"?  From the Trident manual:
> >
> > "I-factor - The I-factor represents the interpolation factor
> which will be
> > applied to the image to achieve the specified dots per inch.  An
> > interpolation factor of 1 will cause the scanner to perform the scan at
> the
> > closest native resolution to the specified dpi. ..."
> >
> > That sounds to me like what you are talking about.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >

Austin/Bill

I have sent to each of you copies of two scans. Each a 300% enlarged section
of a 6x6 negative. One scanned at 4000dpi @100% and the other at 364dpi at
24"x24". Can either of you see any difference other than contrast as one
Iadjsuted earlier? I can not see anything that would lead me to believe that
the scanner is softening or rezzing up the 364dpi scan.

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS: combingcure)


> Hi Michael,
>
> Well, then it sounds to me that no matter what resolution you are using,
the
> scanner is being set to the closest native resolution, right?
>
> 24" at 364 SPI is 8736 pixels.  That's 4000 SPI over a span of
> 2.184"...which is just about the size of the image area of a 6cm wide
piece
> of film.  Is the chart you have based not only on DPI but on output size?
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Kravit [mailto:michael.kravit@...]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:09 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS:
> > combingcure)
> >
> >
> > Austin,
> >
> > Yes, Silverfast calls it Q-Factor.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS:
> > combingcure)
> >
> >
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > > ...the Q-Factor to 1.0...
> > >
> > > Do you mean the "I-Factor"?  From the Trident manual:
> > >
> > > "I-factor - The I-factor represents the interpolation factor
> > which will be
> > > applied to the image to achieve the specified dots per inch.  An
> > > interpolation factor of 1 will cause the scanner to perform the scan
at
> > the
> > > closest native resolution to the specified dpi. ..."
> > >
> > > That sounds to me like what you are talking about.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Austin
> > >
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Sorry guys, but Yahoo does not print your entire email addresses. Please
send them to me and I will email the files.

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS: combingcure)


> Hi Michael,
>
> Well, then it sounds to me that no matter what resolution you are using,
the
> scanner is being set to the closest native resolution, right?
>
> 24" at 364 SPI is 8736 pixels.  That's 4000 SPI over a span of
> 2.184"...which is just about the size of the image area of a 6cm wide
piece
> of film.  Is the chart you have based not only on DPI but on output size?
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Kravit [mailto:michael.kravit@...]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:09 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS:
> > combingcure)
> >
> >
> > Austin,
> >
> > Yes, Silverfast calls it Q-Factor.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS:
> > combingcure)
> >
> >
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > > ...the Q-Factor to 1.0...
> > >
> > > Do you mean the "I-Factor"?  From the Trident manual:
> > >
> > > "I-factor - The I-factor represents the interpolation factor
> > which will be
> > > applied to the image to achieve the specified dots per inch.  An
> > > interpolation factor of 1 will cause the scanner to perform the scan
at
> > the
> > > closest native resolution to the specified dpi. ..."
> > >
> > > That sounds to me like what you are talking about.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Austin
> > >
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Austin,

The only difference I can see between the two scans is the evidence of
visible grain in the 4000dpi scan which makes the image look courser. This
tends to support my previous statement that scanning at high resolutions on
drum scanners tends to articulate the grain as compared to scanning at lower
resolutions.

Mike

Austin/Bill

I emailed the files to Martin to upload into the files section. One is
called 364.jpg and the other 4000.jpg

They are both 300% enlargments of a section of a forest scene.

Mike