Scanning ppi for linear scan with Nikon Coolscan 9000

[Alan_Silvester]

I've managed to muddle myself but reading too much on the internet!! I'm confused...

At the moment I'm creating linear scans of my 6x7 negatives using Silverfast ai studio (the latest update). I'm running my scans at a quality of 300ppi and the resolution at 4000ppi. I'm exporting uncompressed TiFF files (64 bit HDI RAW) at around 600-700mb per file. They take ages and they're massive!

I've slightly lost the plot when it comes to the two ppi figures and what they're actually doing to my image quality. I get that I can't really print higher than 300ppi and I can't visually perceive higher than 300ppi but if I'm going to br producing these massive linear scans should I not aim to increase the quality to 600ppi +?

Anyone whose well versed in this process (preferably with this scanner) give some solid advice to a newbie?!

 

[Bob Carnie]

What is the highest native resolution of your scanner?... Going beyond that is kind of pointless...There should be a drop down menu that shows your possibilities.. On my Eversmart Supreme, the native is 5600 but I can choose much higher but basically all I am achieving is larger file size but not higher quality ... My Imocan is a bit lower native and all I do is drop down to the largest setting and crop and allow the scanner to do its thing.. I can get much higher files on the Eversmart than the Imocan but in practical test over the last 15 years I have found that sticking with the scanners potential is the best bet.

hope this helps

I have a device that prints at 200 ppi and 400 ppi its called a Durst Lambda and one can see the difference in quality of small type , images resolve themselves acceptably.. my inkjets run at 300 and I would be comfortable running at all three PPI settings. the higher the print resolution requires a much higher native resolution file.. not just bigger ... so there is a difference between lets say a Canon 15mp camera and a new Leica camera.. the larger the print the more you will notice the drop off on quality...Frankly the old saying Garbage in Garbage out, or you get what you pay for.. applies...
I have just finished a large printing project from files from a 100mp Phase camera and its the first time since 1983 that I can say that digital files can match 8 x10 film.. only took us 35 years but a major accomplishment for the digital sensor IMHO.

 

[Alan_Silvester]

well the scanner specs claim 4,000-dpi true optical-resolution, which is what I've gone with. Silverfast does allow me to exceed that figure (I think to 8000) but it shows as red on the slider (I'm reading red as bad!). I have no idea if I'll need a print at this resolution, probably not but as I'm trying to produce a set of linear scans I'm really trying to max out the quality now and use these as my 'RAW' files to work from in the future.

Still a little unclear on the print quality ppi figure. Again as I'm conducting a linear archive scan, not knowing if this is for print or beyond, I've no idea if setting everything at a baseline of 300ppi is the right thing to do or not. I guess what I'm asking, regardless of image resolution, is what's the max ppi this scanner can achieve and is it going to give more detail in the final scan if I go up to 600dpi quality, knowing of course than I can come down to 300ppi if I used the file for print one day.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Set your scans up for the claimed 4000 resolution- wasting energy to go beyond.. The ppi you can sort out in photoshop or Capture One .

 

[Ted Baker]

Just scan at 4000, I am 99% that scanner doesn't do anything in hardware beyond that, what ever silverfast is doing beyond 4000 dpi you can do at any stage later. hope that helps.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

The Nikon Coolscan 9000 has a real 4000ppi - unless it requires a CLA.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You are conflating actual resolution with how many dpi the image is at output. You should only pay attention to the actual file dimensions in pixels. To avoid confusion, just scan everything at actual negative size to prevent the software resampling the file.

 

[Alan_Silvester]

OK cool. Thanks everyone. Think I'm getting my head around it.

I get what you're saying about sampling the actual size of my negative but wouldn't that be a lower dimension than the 4000ppi that everyone is recommending? I'm assuming there is scope for some up-scaling from the actual negative size or is that not possible without degredation?

You are conflating actual resolution with how many dpi the image is at output. You should only pay attention to the actual file dimensions in pixels. To avoid confusion, just scan everything at actual negative size to prevent the software resampling the file.

 

[Alan9940]

OK cool. Thanks everyone. Think I'm getting my head around it.

I get what you're saying about sampling the actual size of my negative but wouldn't that be a lower dimension than the 4000ppi that everyone is recommending? I'm assuming there is scope for some up-scaling from the actual negative size or is that not possible without degredation?

Alan,

I don't use a Nikon scanner, but I do use Silverfast Ai Studio for my two scanners. I always scan linear files at max native resolution of my scanners, then re-purpose the "raw file" for whatever is needed. For example, if I'm making a print I use Image Size in PS (resample unchecked) to change ppi to 360 (Epson printers.) If I need to downsample for a smaller print, then ppi is set to 360, resample checked, and image dimensions entered. The point is that the linear scan is your master file to which all downstream needs can be met. The master never changes.

Hope this helps.

 

[Les Sarile]

OK cool. Thanks everyone. Think I'm getting my head around it.

I get what you're saying about sampling the actual size of my negative but wouldn't that be a lower dimension than the 4000ppi that everyone is recommending? I'm assuming there is scope for some up-scaling from the actual negative size or is that not possible without degredation?

For reference, a scan of 6X7 @ 4000dpi from my Coolscans 9000 will result in an image with 9,000 X 11,000 pixels minus some cropping. I use Nikonscan but even it has an option to reformat the output for a specific print size which I don't change. Instead I would do my editing - as needed, and scale for a target print size after.

 

[Alan9940]

For reference, a scan of 6X7 @ 4000dpi from my Coolscans 9000 will result in an image with 9,000 X 11,000 pixels minus some cropping.

At what resolution for output? How much cropping? I ask because I have 6x7 scanned by West Coast Imaging to a mere 200MB file size (results in ~1377ppi), and my prints run as follows:

8.2 x 10.4 (@360ppi)
9.9 x 12.5 (@300ppi)
12.4 x 15.6 (@240ppi)

Therefore, unless we're looking at some extreme cropping your 4000ppi scan should result in a large print. What am I missing?

 

[Les Sarile]

At what resolution for output? How much cropping?

The Nikon Coolscans 9000 has an optical resolution of 4000dpi and I provided the pixel size of the scanned MF 6X7. This translates to 2.25 X 2.75 @ 4000 = 9,000 X 11,000.

 

[Alan9940]

The Nikon Coolscans 9000 has an optical resolution of 4000dpi and I provided the pixel size of the scanned MF 6X7. This translates to 2.25 X 2.75 @ 4000 = 9,000 X 11,000.

Ah, you did say pixels...sorry, for whatever reason my old eyes/brain only saw 9 x 11 and thought print size.