Image Capture Scanning?

[phenixdragon]

I am new to Macs, only a few months now, and I wanted to se about scanning some old photos. I was checking out Image Scanner as it appears to do what I am looking for. Just basic scanning. I have an all in one printer and the scanner part shows up under Shared. So I select the settings I want for a photo, hit scan and I can see it scanning and there is a progress bar. However, once that progress bar completes it shows just 'Scanning...' but nothing seems to be happening. My scanner is not scanning anymore but it does seem like the OS is still processing the image. I did select to scan at 4800 dpi using millions of colors. Could this be creating a huge amount of work of it processing? And the printer/scanning is over Wifi which maybe it is slowing things down too.

Thanks!

 

[spinnerlys]

4800 DPI? Are you sure?

Use a lower setting, like 150 to 300 DPI, that will not crash the process.

I scanned my photos (15cm x 10cm) with 600 DPI (not 300) and saved as .tiff, and they were around 3000x 2000 pixel and 30MB in size. As .tiff is relatively uncompressed, you can imagine what 4800 DPI would do. That's eight (not 17) times more data, so 240 MB (not 510 MB) and 12000 (not 25500) x 4000 or 6000 (not 12250) x 8000 pixel maybe. I have no correct numbers in my head at this moment, as the post below me seems to allude to.

Resolution explained (pixels, DPI, inches)

 

[phenixdragon]

Hm...might be a little big. I hadn't realize that they would be such a huge file.

I'm testing it with a smaller DPI and seems to work without a problem.

 

[lewis82]

4800 DPI? Are you sure?

Use a lower setting, like 150 to 300 DPI, that will not crash the process.

I scanned my photos (15 x 10) with 300 DPI and saved as .tiff, and they were around 3000x 2000 pixel and 30MB in size. As .tiff is relatively uncompressed, you can imagine what 4800 DPI would do. That's 17 times more data, so 510 MB and 25500 x 4000 or 12750 x 8000 pixel maybe. I have no correct numbers in my head at this moment.

Resolution explained (pixels, DPI, inches)

10 x 15 would give 48 000 x 72 000. Pretty large, especially if it's a RAW image

 

[spinnerlys]

10 x 15 would give 48 000 x 72 000. Pretty large, especially if it's a RAW image

Can you clarify what you meant by the roll eyes?

With 15 x 10 I meant 15cm x 10cm.

According to this calculator (works with inches though), 15 x 10 cm is around 1770 x 1179 pixel at 300 DPI, so I must have used 600 DPI.


If you find an error in someone's post at least try to explain it, otherwise we're all in the dark and guessing around, like I did in the above lines with the 15 x 10 cm stuff.

 

[MisterMe]

4800 DPI? Are you sure?

Use a lower setting, like 150 to 300 DPI, that will not crash the process.

...

You are just a wee bit behind the times. A linear pixel density of 4800 dpi is hardly remarkable for scanners sold for more than a decade. Just one example is the $90.00 USD Canon CanoScan LiDE200, which optically scans at 4800 dpi x 4800 dpi and interpolates in software to 19200 dpi x 19200 dpi. The Apple Color OneScanner was Apple's last scanner to be limited to a pixel density of 300 dpi x 300 dpi. This scanner was discontinued in 1992.

 

[lewis82]

Can you clarify what you meant by the roll eyes?

With 15 x 10 I meant 15cm x 10cm.

According to this calculator (works with inches though), 15 x 10 cm is around 1770 x 1179 pixel at 300 DPI, so I must have used 600 DPI.


If you find an error in someone's post at least try to explain it, otherwise we're all in the dark and guessing around, like I did in the above lines with the 15 x 10 cm stuff.

The roll eyes were not meant to target you. I know it suggest either sarcasm, or the stupiudity of the poster above, but I swear I didn't use it like this. There wasn't one representing what I wanted (slight amazement), so I chose the closest. I guess it's the problem of not seeing the person you're talking to.

I tought, 10 inches by 15 inches, as photo paper is in inches as far as I know. My bad.

 

[phenixdragon]

You are just a wee bit behind the times. A linear pixel density of 4800 dpi is hardly remarkable for scanners sold for more than a decade. Just one example is the $90.00 USD Canon CanoScan LiDE200, which optically scans at 4800 dpi x 4800 dpi and interpolates in software to 19200 dpi x 19200 dpi. The Apple Color OneScanner was Apple's last scanner to be limited to a pixel density of 300 dpi x 300 dpi. This scanner was discontinued in 1992.

Ya but is there a reason to go that high? I just didn't realize it increased the resolution and had thought it just just basically increased the quality of the scan keeping it the size that was being scanned.

I'm just scanning old family photos form years and years ago, some 30-40 years old. I'm okay with what would roughly equal 15mp which seems to be 1200 DPI.

 

[spinnerlys]

You are just a wee bit behind the times. ...

Yep, the last scanner I used was in 2005, and it was an old, 10kg thing connected via Parallel Port at my university.

The roll eyes were not meant to target you. I know it suggest either sarcasm, or the stupiudity of the poster above, but I swear I didn't use it like this. There wasn't one representing what I wanted (slight amazement), so I chose the closest. I guess it's the problem of not seeing the person you're talking to.

I tought, 10 inches by 15 inches, as photo paper is in inches as far as I know. My bad.

After I finished, I thought so too. Seems I'm a bit jumpy right now (sleeping problems), thus my stupid remarks. I'm sorry about that. But not like David Tennant though.

 

[Ruahrc]

If it's a print, it's unlikely that a scan at higher than say 600 or 1200dpi is going to net you much. The 4800dpi stuff, that is usually reserved for scanning negatives and slide film which will benefit from the ultrahigh resolution scans.

Large format film scanned in this way (4800dpi) will net 100-200 MP images per scan, which is around the level of detail that that format can provide.

Ruahrc

 

[Designer Dale]

DPI isn't an image size, it's a measure of dots (lines) per inch. A 300 dpi image is at the feasible limit for print production. I have an 8.5X11 document in my scanner right now (a truck title, not a photo). At 300 dpi it prints a good match of the original. The file is 2500X3300 Pixels at 24 MB. At 1200 dpi it jumps to 10,200X13,200 pixels at 385 MB.

Scan color photos at 300 dpi and take line art up to 1200 dpi. That gives the best edge definition for line drawings.

Transmitting a 300 MB or larger file by WiFi would crash most anything I know of.

Like ruharc said, those high dpi settings are best for negatives and slides. You are scanning something about 1 in wide and printing it at 11 or even 20 inches wide.

Technical comments aside, I would recommend scanning by a direct connection. USB is faster and more reliable than WiFi. FireWire is best.

Dale

 

[MisterMe]

DPI isn't an image size, it's a measure of dots (lines) per inch. A 300 dpi image is at the feasible limit for print production. ...

Scan color photos at 300 dpi and take line art up to 1200 dpi. ...

Dale

You seem to be unaware of a very important point. There is no reason for your scanned pixel density to match your printed pixel density. Most graphics editors have the ability to scale their images. The more pixels in the original scan, the more flexibility in the final print. For example an 8 in. x 10 in. photograph scanned at 4800 dpi can be used to produce a 3.2 ft. x 4.0 ft. poster at 300 dpi. If you scan at 9600 dpi, then you can print a life-sized poster with no visible pixel structure. If you scan the same photograph at 300 dpi, then you are limited to 8 in. x 10 in. or smaller prints.