Weird Film Scan Situation

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by BioColor, Jun 29, 2004.

  1. BioColor

    BioColor Guest

    Hi,

    I am mystified by the CD's I just got back from my photolab.

    I asked them to scan a roll of slide film at "medium resolution"
    (3000x2000 according to their literature) and also at "high
    resolution" (6000x4000) so I could see the difference.

    I got back 2 CD's. The one marked medium has two folders each with the
    same set of .jpg files about 3000x2000 pixels. Each is about 1Mbyte in
    size. This seems very small to me.

    The one marked high has one set of the same images, again 3000x2000
    jpg files. Each is about 5Mbytes. This seems more reasonable for a
    high quality jpg with that number of pixels.

    The image pixel sizes are reported by Win Explorer and match those
    reported by Photoshop and Irfanview.

    So, first, I don't know what happened to my 6000x4000 scans. I'll have
    to ask the lab.

    But the weirdest part is that these were pictures of flowers (lupines)
    from several meters away, with lots of fine detail in the images. When
    I blow up the pics to 100% in PS, I see no difference except that the
    "hi res" ones look slightly less smooth. Both images look quite good
    at the fine detail level. I would expect that the "medium res" ones
    would have lots of artifacts due to the high compression that must
    have happened.

    How can 2 jpg files with the same pixel dimensions look the same if
    one is 5x bigger than the other on the disk?

    And is there some wonderful jpg compression that can squash a
    3000x2000 raw scanned color image (18Mbytes or so I would think) into
    1 Mbyte with no artifacts?

    And I thought I had a good handle on all this stuff...

    TIA
    Duncan
     
    BioColor, Jun 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Why are you asking that fucking question in this forum? This is not
    the right place. Why don't you take your old fashioned film and ram it
    deep inside the depths of your honkey tonk culo of yours. You gringo.
    You have some really big elephant balls to post that shit here. And
    don't **** with Mexican Sigma owners. NORTE! NORTENO XIV!!!
     
    Jorge Prediguez, Jun 30, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Yes - this is the size I use for my 6 Mpx JPEGs.
    Sounds like they've confused "high resolution" with "high quality
    JPEG".
    They shouldn't. Blow up the detail and look for JPEG artifacts.
    If they're identical they've scanned at "medium" quality and
    just re-saved for "high" quality. That's useless.
    No.

    You are right about 3000x2000 (6 Mpx, RGB, 8 bit/colour) will require
    18 Mbytes if stored uncompressed in a non-lossy format (i.e.. TIFF).

    Take that TIFF file and turn it to a "high" quality (or whatever
    designation the software uses for best JPEG, and you should get
    a file of about 5 Mbyte with almost no artifacts.

    Now if you compress the same TIFF into a "medium" quality (or
    whatever) JPEG - you should get a file of 1 Mbyte and *some*
    artifacts.

    But "medium" gualtity JPEG is actually quite good. It is when you
    select "very low" quality (compressing an 18 Mbyte TIFF into only
    200 Kbyte) that the artifacts tend to jump up and meet you.

    :-(

    Blow up the scans to 400 % and look for halos of off-colour around the
    edges of objects. There should be a lot more of them them in the 1
    Mbyte scan unless they've cheated. If you have Photoshop, use may
    also try the difference blending mode to combine frames from 1 Mbyte
    and 5 Mbyte scan to pinpoint the digfferences.

    Btw.: If I paid for scanning, I would have insisted in getting the
    results back in 16 bit/colour aTIFF - but I probably would not
    bothered about getting a high res. (re. your order for a 6000 x 4000),
    unless the quality of the originals was superb.
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Jun 30, 2004
    #3
  4. BioColor

    BioColor Guest

    On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:46:29 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr

    [Snip]
    G,

    You are right. That was extremely helpful. Thank you very much.

    Duncan
     
    BioColor, Jun 30, 2004
    #4
  5. BioColor

    Zorx Guest

    Take your fucking Sigma and put it deep into your mexican arse!! Nikon is
    the best brand!!
     
    Zorx, Jun 30, 2004
    #5
  6. BioColor

    FuTAnT Guest

    If only they weren't so expensive. Alas, I've turned into yet another Canon
    dude.... ah well.

    Cam
     
    FuTAnT, Jun 30, 2004
    #6
  7. Yes - this is the size I use for my 6 Mpx JPEGs.
    Sounds like they've confused "high resolution" with "high quality
    JPEG".
    They shouldn't. Blow up the detail and look for JPEG artifacts.
    If they're identical they've scanned at "medium" quality and
    just re-saved for "high" quality. That's useless.
    No.

    You are right about 3000x2000 (6 Mpx, RGB, 8 bit/colour) will require
    18 Mbytes if stored uncompressed in a non-lossy format (i.e.. TIFF).

    Take that TIFF file and turn it to a "high" quality (or whatever
    designation the software uses for best JPEG, and you should get
    a file of about 5 Mbyte with almost no artifacts.

    Now if you compress the same TIFF into a "medium" quality (or
    whatever) JPEG - you should get a file of 1 Mbyte and *some*
    artifacts.

    But "medium" gualtity JPEG is actually quite good. It is when you
    select "very low" quality (compressing an 18 Mbyte TIFF into only
    200 Kbyte) that the artifacts tend to jump up and meet you.
    :-(

    Blow up the scans to 400 % and look for halos of off-colour around the
    edges of objects. There should be a lot more of them them in the 1
    Mbyte scan unless they've cheated. If you have Photoshop, use may
    also try the difference blending mode to combine frames from 1 Mbyte
    and 5 Mbyte scan to pinpoint the digfferences.

    Btw.: If I paid for scanning, I would have insisted in getting the
    results back in 16 bit/colour aTIFF - but I probably would not
    bothered about getting a high res. (re. your order for a 6000 x 4000),
    unless the quality of the originals was superb.
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Jun 30, 2004
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.