Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: keeping the 16bit scans

What I do is correct in 16 bits, getting as close as time (which is
limited) permits, then archive as 8 bit, unsharpened tiffs. I couldn't
possibly keep them all on my hard disk, even though I have two 120 Gbyte
disks (mirrored). So I archive them to CDs. My experience is, once
you've gotten close to an ideal correction in 16 bits, touching up in 8
bits works fine.

(I see about 20 emails in front of this one, probably giving you their
answers. Be curious to see what they all say.)

Frank Paris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Ed Verkaik
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 8:56 AM
> To: frankparis@comcast.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] keeping the 16bit scans
> Fellow scanners,
> I've been scanning slides on the 4000ED, correcting, then
> saving the 16bit files as my masters. It's beginning to get
> crowded on my h.d.  My reasoning for keeping 16bit rather
> than 8bit was because I figured if I had to do a little more
> adjusting of curves, etc. then the files would handle it
> better. Am I right?  What's the difference in likely outcome
> (quality) if I did further (minor) edits on a 16bit/110mb
> instead of an 8bit/55mb file?  Rescanning of these would
> require up to an hour each of spotting because they're older
> Kodachromes so it comes down to storage space vs risks on quality.

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.