Maximum file size from an Imacon Flextight

[andrew_keam]

Hi, was wondering if someone out there could help me.. I had a 5 x 4 inch negative scanned before leaving

Australia and the place that I had it scanned from says that it was done at the maximum file size that the Imacon

Flextight 949 can produce.. First of all, was just wondering why some places scan it at an extremely high

resolution ( 2040 pixels/inch in this case with a width of 12.32cm and a height of 9.82cm ) and then have you

convert it to a suitable printing resolution? Do people ever print more than 300ppi? Now, my main question is

that this produces a file size of 446.7M in 16-Bit and 223.4 in 8-Bit.... Now, all the places I have the option

of printing at here in Germany, all seem to use 300ppi as their standard setup for printing and don't deviate

from this... This only leaves me with a print size of 83.79cm (32.987in) by 66.79cm ( 26.297in).. I was hoping

to achieve a print of about 50in x 40in... I asked the guy in the lab but he didn't quite get it, even though

there is a print on display in the same lab of a 6 x 7 negative that was scanned by a flextight that stated it

was a 400MB file ( less than mine ) and it was about 50in x 40in..... Any ideas? Is there something that I have

to do that will degrade the image slightly but produce a larger size? Also, at the same place in Australia, they

state that

 

" If you need a bigger scan from 4 by 5, we can do it in two sections using the 6 by 12cm holder, and we'll lock

expsoure between the two scans, making for a very easy merge in Photoshop (5 to 10 mins if you know what you're

doing). We only offer this service at the maximum resolution of 3200 PPI, and at 48 bit. Each 'double scan' is

$50 - the final file size of the merged image will be up around the one gigabyte mark (you'll need a decent

computer!) and will print to around 50 inches at 300 PPI. "

 

The guy in charge of this place seems very onto it so I am not doubting him but just wondering if there was

another way around it...

Thanks for your input. Regards Andrew

[randall_pukalo]

They may be using the excellent upscaling algorythms that modern minilabs have to get a 40x50 inch print off

smaller scan sizes. For example, this is what a large chain here in the US (Costco) suggests for print sizes:

Print Size/Product Minimum image resolution required

4 x 6 690x460 pixels

5 x 7 805x575 pixels

8 x 8 920x920 pixels

8 x 10 1150x920 pixels

8 x 12 1380x920 pixels

11 x 14 Enlargements 1610x1265 pixels

12 x 12 1380x1380 pixels

12 x 18 Enlargements 2070x1380 pixels

16 x 20 Posters 2300x1840 pixels

20 x 30 Posters 3450x2300 pixels

 

They obviously use upscaling programs, but the prints look fantastic.

[andrew_keam]

I mean I would rather avoid it if possible but at the same time I find it odd that the Imacon is incapable of this... I mean scanning the photo in two different parts and then joining them in photoshop? Sounds a little awkward... Why can't it just be scanned at the file size needed for a bigger print?

[tobiasfeltus]

my Precision II scans a good number of pixels, and can output it as a 16bit RAW 3F file. The reason why the scanner

gives you that odd resolution, I believe is that it is the resolution that the scanner can produce per square inch of the

negative.

 

The Fuji minilabs can actually print at 600dpi, but the Durst Epsilon prints at 254dpi.

 

t

[patricklavoie]

rigth now you can have a 25x50 at 300ppi from what you have scan. you can easily get 2x the size without too much lost of quality directly in Photoshop..so a 50x100 300ppi.

 

If you print onto a inkjet instead not only you will get better result, but without interpolation you will be able to have a 38x75 200ppi..what you need and want from your original scan.

 

But to answer your question; by the weight of your file i would say it was scan at the maximum. (from what i remember from my own imacon flextight III)

 

+for what is worth, i have made some test last week; a 11x14 of a model portrait, save in photoshop at 150ppi, 180, 200, 240, 300 and 360..all print at the max resoltuion the fuji lab can do..i was surprise to see that from 200 to 360 they where not a major difference between the print if watch closely around the eye, lips whe can see some fuzzines, but you have to know where to look, and have 5 print to compare : )

[iliafarniev]

About 600Mb from top models no matter which size original material is, a 35mm or 4x5inch. Should give you an ink jet print size like 30 inch on long side straight out.

[andrew_keam]

Thanks for your answers... So it sounds like the file is at its maximum.. but Patrick, at the moment, I have a 33in x 27in file @300ppi. All the labs here seem to want a set file that is delivered at 300ppi.. How do I get around making the output size bigger ( considering that they still want it left at 300ppi ). Does then it become a photoshop technique? Is it something in image size? I find it annoying because i thought the whole point of shooting 5 x 4 was so that you could get a big, nice print out of it..... without having to then go back on yourself and degrade the image.. Any thoughts? Drum Scan? Those things are uber expensive.. Thanks Regards Andrew

[andrew_keam]

So, I just checked with another lab and they said that I could just give them a 200ppi file and the computer/printer would do the upsizing for me.. The language barrier is a bit of an issue at the moment... Anyone had any experience with this? Loss of quality etc or at the size I guess it doesnt matter so much? Cheers Andrew

[patricklavoie]

Andrew, you can go with that lab, as i said earlier, you will be happy froma 200 or more ppi i can assure you.

 

the good thing about that is at 200ppi you will have a 50x40inch without interpolation. If you want bigger, simply go to image size, check resample image and change the inch size. Up until 200% you wont see much of a lost of quality...but you wont need that since it give you the size you want.

 

hourray! you got it : )

[andrew_keam]

Nice one, cheers for the input. Off to try this lab. Thanks again, Much appreciated. Kind Regards Andrew

[elliot_n]

Your file is plenty big enough.

 

Don't upsample it in Photoshop.

 

Leave it to the lab (assuming they're using a Lightjet, Lambda, or similar).

[andrew_keam]

Yep , thanks again, they are using a lightjet, so we shall see Cheers Stefan