Hi all; Moose asked
>
> 1. So why are you losing picture information by having the scanner
> output to JPEGs when you are ending up with full size files in the end
> anyway? Scan to TIFF and keep every little bit the scanner captures.
>
> 2. That's why there are big hard disks and CD/DVD burners. I've added a
> 200gb disk (now 70% full) and a DVD burner in the last few months. A 16
> bit, 4000 dpi TIFF with infrared channel for dust removal is 184mb. Only
> 3 will fit on a CD, about 24 on a DVD.
>
> 3. That's the secret reason people are going digital. :-) An E-1 TIFF
> is only about 16kb and a RAW under 11kb. 300D RAW files average about 7kb.
>
> Moose
The HP Photosmart I use puts out all scans as jpegs. The max resolution
35mm scan I get is about 2.4 MB . I have no idea what its native file format is
or even if it has a name.
The program I use for image manipulation is Adobe Photodeluxe which came
with my flat-bed scanner, and is small and simple to use. It puts out PDD
files which I assume are non-lossy, in contrast to jpegs which are a lossy
format Photodeluxe converts all other formats to pdd for manipulation
whether you like it or not. A 2.4 MB jpeg equates to a PDD file of about 35
MB.
I'm still using Windows 95 which has HDD size limitations. (However,
security considerations are likely to force me to change O/S, as neither
Grisoft or Adaware support W'95 any more, and I feel rather naked (no
armour) just now.) I have 2 HDDs totalling about 8.4GB, which seems a lot
to me.
I guess I should be archiving the jpegs and deleting the pdd files once they
have done their job In fact I will have to. Just seems such a waste of a file
so
laboriously created.
I also ZIP the jpegs to another machine (laptop with W'98) and write to
CDROM
Brian
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|