File size of 24X36 neg scan with Nikon 4000 DPI scanner.

[jean_pierre_auger1]

I want to know the file size of a 24X36 35mm negative scan at 4000

DPI with a negative scanner like the Nikon ? What is the most popular

compression format used with that kind of file ? Is the CD-R the most

frequently used support to keep these pictures ?

[jean_pierre_auger1]

Sorry, I forgot to ask the same question for 120 film scan with Nikon 8000 scanner. All technical comments are welcome....JPAuger,Montréal.

[Jeremy Stein]

16-bit scan with Nikon 4000 scanner is about 120 MB. Don't compress the file at all, or risk losing essential information. The latest version of TIFF files claim to have lossless compression, but I have not tried it. Do not use jpg files or you will lose the data you bought your scanner to provide. I use CD-R, and will continue to do so until a single DVD standard emerges. Try to find Kodak CD-R blanks to use, instead of the cheap ones from CompUSA or OfficeMax. This file size, BTW, gives 5 scans per CD-R!

[roger]

File sizes for 120 scans varies with the format. 6x6 in 16 bits from the Nikon

8000 comes at around 450MB, 6x9 around 700MB, 6x4,5 around

350MB.<br><br>

You can save compressed TIFFs using it's lossless algoritm but you risk lossing

file compatibility across computer platforms.

[morwen_thistlethwaite]

I agree that it's not worth compressing TIFF files, though you certainly won't lose any information if you use one of the standard

"generic file" compressing engines, e.g. Liv-Zempel. Out of curiosity I just tried bzip2 (one of the best compression algorithms) on a rather busy TIFF file, and it only got it down from 140MB to 95MB. As storage media is so cheap these days it simply isn't worth the effort.

<br><br>

An 8-bit uncompressed TIFF of a 6x6 image at 4000 pixels/inch will take up 3 x (2.25 x 4000)^2 bytes (neglecting the header), i.e. around 240MB. [ 2.25 inches square, 3 bytes per pixel ]. For 16 bit double this to get 480MB. If you're scanning 6x7 multiply by 7/6,

etc.

[morwen_thistlethwaite]

Oops, for 6x7 multiply by 70/55 since 6x7 format is about 55mm by 70mm.

[brian_e]

Jeremy is spot on, only thing I'd add is that an 8-bit (which is 24bit color, or 8bits of 256 levels x3 for Red, Green, Blue, or 16 million colors) is about 68MB (in TIFF). 24bit color is fine for most applications, in fact, I usually only scan in 48bit if I'm going to be doing heavy level/curve adjusting, otherwise I scan in 24bit.

[brian_e]

68MB for 24x36mm film, of course.

[paul_prachun]

For compression I now use JPEG2000 by Lurawave. This is totally lossless and can in most cases give you over 50% compression. Downside is you have to purchase it as a plug-in for Photoshop, and it takes about twice as long to open the file.

[pete_andrews]

The maths isn't difficult. You'll get 4000 x 4000 pixels per square inch. That's 16,000,000 pixels/sq inch for the calculator impaired.<br>Now multiply that by the 1.34 square inches of a 35mm frame (why this question is in the MF forum, I don't know), and you get 21,440,000 pixels. Each pixel takes 3 bytes to define, so you need to multiply again by 3. This gives you 64.32 million bytes, or 61 megabytes.<p>Answers to parts 2 and 3: JPEG, and yes.<p>BTW, Paul: Why use JPEG2000 if it only gives you a 50% compression ratio? You can get a better ratio than that by using good old-fashioned LZW compressed TIFF, and you know for certain that it's totally lossless.

[ajoy prabhu]

I have seen Altmira's Genuine Fractals and Lurawave samples of compression and they both leave me amazed that the fractals and wavelet technologies can do. I am thinking of saving it in one of the two formats- in addition to- the tiff format, this way I will be able to decompress them to a larger size later on if I need to.

 

Anyone else tired these formats to store? If so, which one do you prefer?