Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[GaliciaPoland-Ukraine] Re: 35 mm LDS microfilm - frames per roll

Expand Messages
  • Chris Smolinski
    I presume you mean 300 dpi for the projected 8x11 (or whatever) image. I ve found that when taking highest resolution 12 MP (4000 x 3000 pixels, which would be
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I presume you mean 300 dpi for the projected 8x11
      (or whatever) image. I've found that when taking
      highest resolution 12 MP (4000 x 3000 pixels,
      which would be even larger than what you're
      asking for) pictures, the resulting compressed
      JPEG image files are generally around 3 MB in
      size. Obviously this depends a lot on the content
      of the image, the compression level, etc. But
      using that as a rough guide, you'd need 3 GB for
      your 1,000 images. Which isn't that much today.

      If you're using a microfilm scanner you're
      obviously at the mercy of whatever compression
      algorithm it is using, if any.

      >Thank you Roman.
      >
      >
      >You probably already have my next issue figured
      >out. Approximately how many gigabytes memory
      >(on say a flash drive) would be needed to store
      >the 1,000 images after scanning at 300 dpi?
      >
      >______
      >
      >Lavrentiy
      >
      >
      >
      >--- In GaliciaPoland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com, Roman <romankal@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> Larry,
      >>
      >> Several years ago I did a study on this. The answer is that a FULL roll
      >> of microfilm is about 100 feet long. One frame (one image) measures 24mm
      >> x 35mm, that is, one frame occupies a bit more than 1 inch of film. Work
      >> it out - with space between the frames you can place about 10 images per
      >> foot or 1000 images on a roll.
      >>
      >> Roman
      >>
      >> On 2/2/2010 8:41 AM, Laurence wrote:
      >> > 
      >> >
      >> > /
      >> >
      >> > Approximately how many frames (images) are on a roll of LDS 35 mm
      >> > microfilm?
      >> >
      >> > The following website indicates that 35 mm microfilm can have 500 to 900
      >> > frames:
      >> >
      >> > http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3
      >> > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3>
      >> >
      >> > About how many images are on a typical roll of 35 mm LDS microfilm?
      >> >
      >> > _____
      >> >
      >> > Lavrentiy
      >> >
      >>
      >

      --

      ---
      Chris Smolinski
      Black Cat Systems
      http://www.blackcatsystems.com
    • Roman
      It has been a while but I believe that I used the following settings: File Type: JPG Image Type: Gray Scale Dots per Inch: 150 JPG Quality: around 60-70%
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        It has been a while but I believe that I used the following settings:

        File Type: JPG
        Image Type: Gray Scale
        Dots per Inch: 150

        JPG Quality: around 60-70%

        However, you want to run a few tests first. Scan an image into a file
        and then display it on a computer monitor. If you are happy with the
        results, then use those settings. For a typical image at the above
        settings, I believe you should get files having size 1.5 - 2MB. Such
        files are more than adequate. If your settings generate files less than
        1MB in size, then I suggest you increase the resolution and Quality
        controls.

        TIFF files will be much larger and, I believe, not offer compression.

        The actual resolution used in the scan is substantially greater than the
        one selected. But that's a bit more technical than called for in this note.

        Roman

        On 2/2/2010 1:13 PM, Laurence wrote:
        >
        >
        > Roman,
        >
        > So at the Kensington FHC and use the Canon scanner and Capture Perfect
        > software which compression mode should I select?
        >
        > http://www.microcolour.com/canon_ms300_details_pg3.html
        > <http://www.microcolour.com/canon_ms300_details_pg3.html>
        >
        > _____
        >
        > Lavrentiy
        >
        > --- In GaliciaPoland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:GaliciaPoland-Ukraine%40yahoogroups.com>, Roman <romankal@...>
        > wrote:
        >>
        >> Larry,
        >>
        >> That depends not only on the resolution you choose but also on the
        >> compression factor if your output is a JPG file. I have found that
        >> images scanned at a resolution of 300 dpi and compressed to form images
        >> of size 1.5MB are more than adequate for the the LDS films. In this case
        >> a memory stick of size 2GB will adequately store your data.
        >>
        >> For much more detail, find the note I wrote several years ago with
        >> regard to microfilm scanning and which was later published in "Gen
        >> Dobry" by Fred Hoffman. That note might actually have been in this forum.
        >>
        >> Roman
        >>
        >> On 2/2/2010 11:42 AM, Laurence wrote:
        >> >
        >> >
        >> > Thank you Roman.
        >> >
        >> > You probably already have my next issue figured out. Approximately how
        >> > many gigabytes memory (on say a flash drive) would be needed to store
        >> > the 1,000 images after scanning at 300 dpi?
        >> >
        >> > ______
        >> >
        >> > Lavrentiy
        >> >
        >> > --- In GaliciaPoland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:GaliciaPoland-Ukraine%40yahoogroups.com>
        >> > <mailto:GaliciaPoland-Ukraine%40yahoogroups.com>, Roman <romankal@>
        >> > wrote:
        >> >>
        >> >> Larry,
        >> >>
        >> >> Several years ago I did a study on this. The answer is that a FULL roll
        >> >> of microfilm is about 100 feet long. One frame (one image) measures
        > 24mm
        >> >> x 35mm, that is, one frame occupies a bit more than 1 inch of film.
        > Work
        >> >> it out - with space between the frames you can place about 10
        > images per
        >> >> foot or 1000 images on a roll.
        >> >>
        >> >> Roman
        >> >>
        >> >> On 2/2/2010 8:41 AM, Laurence wrote:
        >> >> >
        >> >> >
        >> >> > /
        >> >> >
        >> >> > Approximately how many frames (images) are on a roll of LDS 35 mm
        >> >> > microfilm?
        >> >> >
        >> >> > The following website indicates that 35 mm microfilm can have 500
        > to 900
        >> >> > frames:
        >> >> >
        >> >> > http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3
        > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3>
        >> > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3
        > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3>>
        >> >> > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3
        > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3>
        >> > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3
        > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3>>>
        >> >> >
        >> >> > About how many images are on a typical roll of 35 mm LDS microfilm?
        >> >> >
        >> >> > _____
        >> >> >
        >> >> > Lavrentiy
        >> >> >
        >> >>
        >> >
        >> >
        >>
        >
        >
      • Laurence
        Roman, I m still not certain what compression is and how does the user of the scanning equipment and software change compression mode, e.g. from high to
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 2, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Roman,

          I'm still not certain what compression is and how does the user of the scanning equipment and software change compression mode, e.g. from high to normal, etc. when scanning to produce jpgs.

          ______

          Lavrentiy




          --- In GaliciaPoland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com, Roman <romankal@...> wrote:
          >
          > It has been a while but I believe that I used the following settings:
          >
          > File Type: JPG
          > Image Type: Gray Scale
          > Dots per Inch: 150
          >
          > JPG Quality: around 60-70%
          >
          > However, you want to run a few tests first. Scan an image into a file
          > and then display it on a computer monitor. If you are happy with the
          > results, then use those settings. For a typical image at the above
          > settings, I believe you should get files having size 1.5 - 2MB. Such
          > files are more than adequate. If your settings generate files less than
          > 1MB in size, then I suggest you increase the resolution and Quality
          > controls.
          >
          > TIFF files will be much larger and, I believe, not offer compression.
          >
          > The actual resolution used in the scan is substantially greater than the
          > one selected. But that's a bit more technical than called for in this note.
          >
          > Roman
          >
          > On 2/2/2010 1:13 PM, Laurence wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > Roman,
          > >
          > > So at the Kensington FHC and use the Canon scanner and Capture Perfect
          > > software which compression mode should I select?
          > >
          > > http://www.microcolour.com/canon_ms300_details_pg3.html
          > > <http://www.microcolour.com/canon_ms300_details_pg3.html>
          > >
          > > _____
          > >
          > > Lavrentiy
          > >
          > > --- In GaliciaPoland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com
          > > <mailto:GaliciaPoland-Ukraine%40yahoogroups.com>, Roman <romankal@>
          > > wrote:
          > >>
          > >> Larry,
          > >>
          > >> That depends not only on the resolution you choose but also on the
          > >> compression factor if your output is a JPG file. I have found that
          > >> images scanned at a resolution of 300 dpi and compressed to form images
          > >> of size 1.5MB are more than adequate for the the LDS films. In this case
          > >> a memory stick of size 2GB will adequately store your data.
          > >>
          > >> For much more detail, find the note I wrote several years ago with
          > >> regard to microfilm scanning and which was later published in "Gen
          > >> Dobry" by Fred Hoffman. That note might actually have been in this forum.
          > >>
          > >> Roman
          > >>
          > >> On 2/2/2010 11:42 AM, Laurence wrote:
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> > Thank you Roman.
          > >> >
          > >> > You probably already have my next issue figured out. Approximately how
          > >> > many gigabytes memory (on say a flash drive) would be needed to store
          > >> > the 1,000 images after scanning at 300 dpi?
          > >> >
          > >> > ______
          > >> >
          > >> > Lavrentiy
          > >> >
          > >> > --- In GaliciaPoland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com
          > > <mailto:GaliciaPoland-Ukraine%40yahoogroups.com>
          > >> > <mailto:GaliciaPoland-Ukraine%40yahoogroups.com>, Roman <romankal@>
          > >> > wrote:
          > >> >>
          > >> >> Larry,
          > >> >>
          > >> >> Several years ago I did a study on this. The answer is that a FULL roll
          > >> >> of microfilm is about 100 feet long. One frame (one image) measures
          > > 24mm
          > >> >> x 35mm, that is, one frame occupies a bit more than 1 inch of film.
          > > Work
          > >> >> it out - with space between the frames you can place about 10
          > > images per
          > >> >> foot or 1000 images on a roll.
          > >> >>
          > >> >> Roman
          > >> >>
          > >> >> On 2/2/2010 8:41 AM, Laurence wrote:
          > >> >> >
          > >> >> >
          > >> >> > /
          > >> >> >
          > >> >> > Approximately how many frames (images) are on a roll of LDS 35 mm
          > >> >> > microfilm?
          > >> >> >
          > >> >> > The following website indicates that 35 mm microfilm can have 500
          > > to 900
          > >> >> > frames:
          > >> >> >
          > >> >> > http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3
          > > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3>
          > >> > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3
          > > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3>>
          > >> >> > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3
          > > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3>
          > >> > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3
          > > <http://digitalfilmsolutions.com/blog/?cat=3>>>
          > >> >> >
          > >> >> > About how many images are on a typical roll of 35 mm LDS microfilm?
          > >> >> >
          > >> >> > _____
          > >> >> >
          > >> >> > Lavrentiy
          > >> >> >
          > >> >>
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >>
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Roman
          Larry, As I recall, when you specify JPG as the output format choice you also get a slider (0 - 100) which is labeled as quality. The typical value presented
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 2, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Larry,

            As I recall, when you specify JPG as the output format choice you also
            get a slider (0 - 100) which is labeled as quality. The typical value
            presented to you may be around 50%. This slider actually determines the
            compression level for the file - 100 is no compression giving very large
            files but best quality and 50% giving average compression and quality.
            The greater the compression, the lower the overall quality of the image
            - you will see various artifacts at edges and since these files are
            mostly script this is bad.

            An image at 100% may well be very large - a file larger than 10MB!

            Roman

            On 2/2/2010 5:40 PM, Laurence wrote:
            >
            >
            > Roman,
            >
            > I'm still not certain what compression is and how does the user of the
            > scanning equipment and software change compression mode, e.g. from high
            > to normal, etc. when scanning to produce jpgs.
            >
            > ______
            >
            > Lavrentiy
            >
          • Laurence
            / Roman thanks. I do not recall a slider on the Canon scanner that the Kensington FHC has. Perhaps the ScanPro scanner has it. From the following illustration
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 3, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              /

              Roman thanks.

              I do not recall a slider on the Canon scanner that the Kensington FHC has. Perhaps the ScanPro scanner has it.

              From the following illustration I see that the Canon has a compression selector:


              http://www.microcolour.com/canon_ms300_details_pg3.html


              I do not recall that the Center's scanner has that feature.


              I'll try to get the manual for the Canon scanner.

              ______

              Lavrentiy




              --- In GaliciaPoland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com, Roman <romankal@...> wrote:
              >
              > Larry,
              >
              > As I recall, when you specify JPG as the output format choice you also
              > get a slider (0 - 100) which is labeled as quality. The typical value
              > presented to you may be around 50%. This slider actually determines the
              > compression level for the file - 100 is no compression giving very large
              > files but best quality and 50% giving average compression and quality.
              > The greater the compression, the lower the overall quality of the image
              > - you will see various artifacts at edges and since these files are
              > mostly script this is bad.
              >
              > An image at 100% may well be very large - a file larger than 10MB!
              >
              > Roman
              >
              > On 2/2/2010 5:40 PM, Laurence wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > Roman,
              > >
              > > I'm still not certain what compression is and how does the user of the
              > > scanning equipment and software change compression mode, e.g. from high
              > > to normal, etc. when scanning to produce jpgs.
              > >
              > > ______
              > >
              > > Lavrentiy
              > >
              >
            • John Magyari
              You should try to save as tif or tiff (no Compression). This will save a raw image. Jpg or jpeg at 100% still compresses. Every time you save a jpg you loose
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 4, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                You should try to save as tif or tiff (no Compression). This will save
                a raw image.

                Jpg or jpeg at 100% still compresses.
                Every time you save a jpg you loose information and quality.
                Rotating a jpg and saving throws information away.

                Most cameras save pictures as jpgs. If you want maintain you quality
                save then as tifs (or the raw mode of Photo Program Photoshop-> PSD)
                which will create an exact copy.
                Then do what every you need to crop, rotate.
                Ideally if getting it printed as highest quality save as tif.

                Having Windows rotate a jpg image and then saving throws information
                away each time it saves.

                http://www.scantips.com/basics9j.html



                Laurence wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > /
                >
                > Roman thanks.
                >
                > I do not recall a slider on the Canon scanner that the Kensington FHC
                > has. Perhaps the ScanPro scanner has it.
                >
                > >From the following illustration I see that the Canon has a
                > compression selector:
                >
                > http://www.microcolour.com/canon_ms300_details_pg3.html
                > <http://www.microcolour.com/canon_ms300_details_pg3.html>
                >
                > I do not recall that the Center's scanner has that feature.
                >
                > I'll try to get the manual for the Canon scanner.
                >
                > ______
                >
                > Lavrentiy
                >
                > --- In GaliciaPoland-Ukraine@yahoogroups.com
                > <mailto:GaliciaPoland-Ukraine%40yahoogroups.com>, Roman <romankal@...>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > Larry,
                > >
                > > As I recall, when you specify JPG as the output format choice you also
                > > get a slider (0 - 100) which is labeled as quality. The typical value
                > > presented to you may be around 50%. This slider actually determines the
                > > compression level for the file - 100 is no compression giving very large
                > > files but best quality and 50% giving average compression and quality.
                > > The greater the compression, the lower the overall quality of the image
                > > - you will see various artifacts at edges and since these files are
                > > mostly script this is bad.
                > >
                > > An image at 100% may well be very large - a file larger than 10MB!
                > >
                > > Roman
                > >
                > > On 2/2/2010 5:40 PM, Laurence wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Roman,
                > > >
                > > > I'm still not certain what compression is and how does the user of the
                > > > scanning equipment and software change compression mode, e.g. from
                > high
                > > > to normal, etc. when scanning to produce jpgs.
                > > >
                > > > ______
                > > >
                > > > Lavrentiy
                > > >
                > >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.