Re: [APML] Scan Size?

["Jeff Crilly" <jlcapml@sbcglobal.net>]

I have an epson 4870.

I scan medium format (6x7) at 2400 dpi 48 bits, and it seems to be more than enough.
The PS files are 200mb.

1200dpi at 48bit is more palatable for the machine.

I then do all the processing in PS in 16bit mode, then
down to about 600dpi or so, then switch to 8 bit for
converting to jpeg, then off to costco for printing.
IIRC, the costco norika (?) printer is something like 600dpi.
(I guess I shoulda taken notes.)

Anyhow, I think we're local -- you're on tac, right?

The folks at keeble sell the two (afaik) top scanners..
the espson and the microtek.  you could pick their brains
on the issue.  Fwiw, the price of the 4870 at keeble is
ok -- I scrounged mine from compusa, but keeble's
price (I discovered later) is the same.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <RBissinger@aol.com>
To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 8:24 AM
Subject: [APML] Scan Size?


> I don't take a lot of astrophotos so I use a local commercial photo lab to scan my images so I can align/combine/enhance them with
software like Registar and Photoshop.  At this point I'm not ready to invest in a film scanner.
>
> My question is, what size scan should I get?  The photo lab offers scans all the way from 300dpi scans for 4x6 prints using a Fuji
Frontier scanner at $1 a pop to 300MB drum scans at $55 each.
>
> I would like 8x10 prints, but how big a scan will I need so I can do the usual stacking and processing of deep sky objects using
Photoshop?  I think a 300MB scan would be great but probably overkill; what might be a reasonable compromise between quality and
cost?  Thanks.
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo

_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo