Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Best format quality for copying slides & negatives

Reply
Thread Tools

Best format quality for copying slides & negatives

 
 
Perk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2005
Hi all, need some opinions,

My Oly C-700UZ offers three formats (actually four, but the little one
doesn't matter here), TIFF, SHQ (which I assume means Super High
Quality), and HQ.

Digitizing slides in TIFF gives a very large file in terms of disk space
and picture size, while SHQ & HQ are fairly close to one another in size.

Realizing that the file size can be adjusted, is there any practical
advantage to any one of them as far as the best resolution and final
picture quality ?

Thanks much,

Perk (:>)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joseph Meehan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2005
Perk wrote:
> Hi all, need some opinions,
>
> My Oly C-700UZ offers three formats (actually four, but the little one
> doesn't matter here), TIFF, SHQ (which I assume means Super High
> Quality), and HQ.
>
> Digitizing slides in TIFF gives a very large file in terms of disk
> space and picture size, while SHQ & HQ are fairly close to one
> another in size.
> Realizing that the file size can be adjusted, is there any practical
> advantage to any one of them as far as the best resolution and final
> picture quality ?


There are differences and they relate to file size. The larger the file
the more information that is stored. I suggest that if you intend to edit
the files that you stick with TIFF at least until after you edit them.

If you are not planning on editing them, then I suggest that you
consider testing and seeing for yourself how they hold up for the use you
intend for them. If it is your intention to display them on a computer
screen do that if you want to make prints, do that. Now take a good look
and see if you see a difference, if not go with the smaller size as there is
no advantage to YOU. I might see it different, but they are not my prints.

>
> Thanks much,
>
> Perk (:>)


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2005
> My Oly C-700UZ offers three formats (actually four, but the little one
> doesn't matter here), TIFF, SHQ (which I assume means Super High
> Quality), and HQ.
>
> Digitizing slides in TIFF gives a very large file in terms of disk space
> and picture size, while SHQ & HQ are fairly close to one another in size.
>
> Realizing that the file size can be adjusted, is there any practical
> advantage to any one of them as far as the best resolution and final
> picture quality ?


This is the way I did it:
http://tinyurl.com/c2et8

The best quality jpg will be fine. There is very little difference between
this and a tiff.

However, before doing any editing, mark the jpg as read only. Then edit and
save as a different name. If you ever need to edit again, go back to the
original read only file and edit that.

Malcolm


 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2005
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:59:16 +0200, Malcolm wrote:

> However, before doing any editing, mark the jpg as read only. Then edit
> and save as a different name. If you ever need to edit again, go back to the
> original read only file and edit that.


That'll work, and it's much safer than working with the original
files. When I do that with non-image files I always make sure that
I save a renamed copy *before* starting any edits. If an accident
happens before the name is changed (accidentally typing <Control>-S
or not realizing the program has a timed auto-save feature), there
goes the original file. But for photo images I find it safer to
never edit the original files. They're kept in a known, easily
found location, and only copies (usually on another drive) are
edited. This way if I ever need to go back to the original, I know
exactly what the name of the file is, since it's the same as the
edited copy. Even if for some reason it's desirable to change the
filename, it's probably a good idea to have the new filename contain
an embedded copy of the original filename.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digitizing slides and negatives: software to convert the negatives? MB Digital Photography 5 01-15-2007 02:31 PM
I need to transfer my digital files to 35mm slides and negatives output and other film format outputs? Chris Digital Photography 4 09-25-2004 06:43 AM
Scanning vs. Digital Camera for Copying Slides, Negatives and Prints RH Horn Digital Photography 16 05-07-2004 12:15 PM
Digicam negatives? (wasRe: Digitizing film negatives) Mark Johnson Digital Photography 0 04-02-2004 07:39 PM
Scanner for slides and negatives Mike Digital Photography 3 02-18-2004 02:28 PM



Advertisments