Scanning quality vs Image size

[zombie123]

Had a look but couldn't see any easy-to-find answer. I still have some old copies of a very popular 'E' prefixed mag. At 150 dpi the scans come out pretty ropey - at 300 / 600 they come out good BUT are too large for me to post.

I can scan 2 copies - a decent one for me & a crappy one for the sharing, but if anyone has any hints on how I can post a better copy it would be a benefit to many

Cheers in advance for any suggestions

[NIN]

I had the intention of sharing images that were not too large so I try to make them roughly 1Mb per page (an optimistic VEF average?). In a similar situation as yourself zombie when I got a scanner, what I found was, yes 600dpi is much better & my machine gives an image of about 7000 X 5000 at about 20 -25Mb,
far too large.

So what i found works for me is to do any repairs, smoothing etc then take the image size down to around 1800 - 2400 pixels in size, which gives a reasonable sized scan for sharing & also helps tighten the image a bit.

[blondifan]

There is a whole section here http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/f46...-feedback.html devoted to scanning.

I found the "Scanning and Editing Tips" thread quite useful.

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/t11...ting-tips.html

[zombie123]

Guys - thx for the quick responses. Blondifan - I did read that article, but it didn't help for this case. NIN - you talk in riddles "do any repairs, smoothing etc then take the image size down to around 1800 - 2400 pixels in size". HTF do I do that & which SW? Cheers

[MrInBetween]

Not to step on anyone's toes, but I take it you're simply asking how, having produced a large high-quality image, you can make it smaller. There are lots of ways, but I prefer IrfanView, which is free.

http://www.irfanview.com/

Open the picture in it, press <ctrl>R for the Resize/Resample dialogue. Simple buttons allow you to do things like halve the size, or for finer control, you can set the dimensions in pixels, cms or inches, or as a percentage. Make sure to check Preserve Aspect Ratio. Then <ctrl>S to save; there's a dialogue there that allows you to save with less JPG quality, but I usually set it to the highest. These commands are also available from the menus, as is a batch mode for this and other kinds of image processing.

[NIN]

Originally Posted by zombie123

... NIN - you talk in riddles

Riddles ?

Originally Posted by zombie123

... "do any repairs, smoothing etc then take the image size down to around 1800 - 2400 pixels in size". HTF do I do that & which SW? Cheers

Just about any image editing software, I didn't want to reference or recommend any in particular.
There are different processes you may like to add or work on, ('Cropping' & 'Re-sizing' the scans being the minimum expected work) as rightly recommended by MrInBetween Irfanview is a popular one, I tend to use Photofiltre .. http://photofiltre.en.softonic.com/ but it just depends on what you find easiest to use.
Most Image Processing software will re-size in pixels and experimenting, i found that range ( 1800 - 2400 ) produced images for me at about 1Mb per page and a decent quality & size to share.

Riddles! ??

[Pepper II]

Starting with too high a scan resolution not only takes longer but actually can produce an inferior image because it highlights the pixels too much. I've found 300 dpi to be the most useful setting for magazines. Microsoft Office Picture Manager has several simple image manipulating tools including resizing. I, too like the finished image to be about 1mb.

[ConstantOgler]

Originally Posted by Pepper II

Starting with too high a scan resolution not only takes longer but actually can produce an inferior image because it highlights the pixels too much.

Your scanner s/w is not that stupid! If you are scanning for video, accept the 72 or 96 PIXELS per inch that it offers for web display. NB: Size of the image, as it appears on a monitor [yours/others may vary slightly] is a separate choice you make before the scan.
#1, this gives you simple control of how large, +/-. you want the image to be. If you think this is important, 100% right! Larger is better BUT only to a point. That point or limit comes not from "dpi" but the original quality of what you are scanning. Mixing image size with DOTS per inch ["dpi"] is stoopid, b/c now image size is elusive. Got your calculator? And besides,
#2 DPI is all about PRINTING images. It's a completely different calculation. If you tell your scanner you want 72 pixels/inch for web, it does not do 72 dpi. It does optimal calculations for a video image at 72 PIXELS.
** This is treated fully at the great scantips.com
** Your files will not be bloated size. This helps a ton for yr UL + everyone's DL.
** Shrinking files requires s/w calculations by the photo editor. Not as flaky as enlarging, but still, Why would you assume it is smart, your scanner stupid?
** I am very fussy abt my scans -- in fact never satisfied. I have never seen that having a big file, then resizing down, gives a better video image. If you have no other way to moire/descreen magazines, maybe; but all modern scanners do this if asked.

[buttsie]

Theres a good example of 4 different sizes of the same picture in Melanie Reeves thread

"Here is a comparison of the same pic at 100, 200 (default), 300, and 600 ppi.
I could scan up to 19200 ppi.The trade off is the size of the file.For instance the 100 ppi file is 755 KB, 200 is 2.77 MB, 300 is 6.17 MB,and the 600 ppi is a whopping 25.6 MB.
This will take a longer time to upload."

As posted by Clark Kent

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...9&postcount=21
3 pics from same set at 300dpi 6mb each
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...2&postcount=23

[MrInBetween]

Originally Posted by buttsie

Theres a good example of 4 different sizes of the same picture in Melanie Reeves thread

"Here is a comparison of the same pic at 100, 200 (default), 300, and 600 ppi.
[...]
As posted by Clark Kent

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...9&postcount=21
[...]

The first of those pictures obviously has too much moire to be usable, so I took the third and fourth and gave them the same long dimension as the second. I think the fourth one (the third of these) is superior to the other two.