scanner Nikon 8000 - how to scan at less than 4000ppi?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nobody nowhere, Dec 7, 2003.

  1. The question may sound naive, but neither the manual nor "read me" seem
    very clear on this point. For example, with Epson perfection (flatbed),
    I can tell the scanner to scan at any ppi I choose, for a particular
    output size. I don't know how to do the same with the Nikon 8000 (apart
    from trying to do the maths myself). Thanks in advance for any
    comments.

    nobody
     
    nobody nowhere, Dec 7, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Oops. Mine's unplugged (it shares an extension cord with the Mesa Boogie,
    which got taken out the other night and hasn't been put back in) so I can't
    check exactly where and what the terms are, but either the second or third
    or so from the top thing in the tools palette has a box that you have to
    type the right number into. That dialog box may also set the magnification
    or some other stuff in the output file.

    I think there aren't a lot of numbers you can enter, e.g. 4000 and 2000 but
    nothing in between work.

    Note that this actual scans at a different resolution. Also, downsampling
    from 4000 to 2000 may look better than scanning at 2000.

    I suspect that the Epson just resamples in software.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 7, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. To my eternal shame: the information is more than clearly given in
    "crop" (page 71 of the manual)! (these things happen in the best
    families... :))


    nobody
     
    nobody nowhere, Dec 7, 2003
    #3
  4. You've read more of the manual than I have<g>.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 7, 2003
    #4
  5. Thanks David, presumably what you are saying is scan at 4000 and
    downsample in Photoshop to a lower resolution, is that right? Some
    articles in this NG would suggest that any form of downsampling would
    result in some loss of detail, others think that it does not really
    matter.

    After I made the superhuman effort :)-)) of opening the manual and
    finding out how to scan at a lower resolution, I scanned a picture at
    33MB (about 2000ppi), to see what a Canon 1ds might produce, and compare
    this with the same picture scanned at 4000ppi. When I asked PS what
    the best size was, it reduced the size of the print by an inch or so on
    which side (the original 4000dpi was printed as A3), yet the resulting
    image, although somewhat smaller, was equal to if not better then the
    one scanned at 4000dpi. I don't know whether or to what extent I could
    extrapolate this result to the 1ds, and conclude that the Canon would
    have been capable of the same image quality, without the hassle of
    scanning. In any case, I assume that all this may not be news to you and
    others in this NG. It also seems that it is largely a matter of size,
    after all, despite other variables to consider. The main variable, *as
    far as I am concerned*, is whether the camera would use artefacts
    (interpolation, etc.), which might deliver a less natural image than the
    scan does (mine is a Nikon 8000, as you know). (This may not matter too
    much to others).

    But all this is more relevant to 35mm, whilst my strong inclination is
    in favour of larger formats.


    nobody
     
    nobody nowhere, Dec 7, 2003
    #5
  6. nobody nowhere

    Rafe B. Guest


    For what it's worth, I've added representative 0.25" x 0.25"
    snippets from 1Ds captures to my scan-comparison page:

    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Dec 7, 2003
    #6
  7. nobody nowhere, Dec 7, 2003
    #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.