When you're scanning an image on film, what resolution is the maximum you can get from your hardware? Is it real or interpolated? What resolution do you commonly use? Remember, an image on 35mm film is just short of 1 inch high, close enough that a dots-per-inch figure will give a good comparison with the vertical resolution of a monitor. For web use, I find that scanning a conventional print, rather than the negative, can be good enough, effectively giving 1200dpi from the negative.

There is the classic answer, and then the dirt-ball practical answer: Depends somewhat on what the final intended result is, but for "everyday" scans for 'renderosity output your numbers sound about right. I scan the 35mm negatives at about 1200ppi, using levels and curves built into the scanning software, and save as an uncompressed eight bit TIFF. This gives me about an 5.5Mbyte file, with enough resolution in case I need to do any rotating, perspective control, editing of inconvenient objects, etc. This then gets any further contrast, curves, adjustments, and is reduced by 50-30% for the final CRT size. Then sharpened. And saved to web jpeg. If final result is a print, the workflow may be different, up to my maximum 4000ppi capability. May also scan with a higher bit depth, (12bit/color) if I know some of the corrections will be tricky. But for "every-day" work," the above works pretty well, and saves having to archive huge files. [I guess if I did not have the "backup" negatives, I'd need to save quite a few 60M files!]

As for making printed copies, I have been surprised how big you can go, and still get something that looks good at a normal viewing distance. Newspapers, of course, use such a low resolution that they can get away with big images from low pizel-counts. A side-thought: how do these figures compare with digital cameras.

For the most part, I always scan at the maximum optical resolution and bit depth (non-interpolated) of whatever scanning device I'm using. Simply because I hate having to go back, clean negatives and re-scan. I start with the biggest file full of the most data I can get and resize for output from there. It helps to have a DVD burner where you can off-load the files when you're done. Antonia - Actually, you'd be surprised at the image resolutions used by a lot of newspapers. At the Times/PI, we output pages as 1260DPI ~14" x ~23.5" negatives (doubele-trucks at about 26" x 24"). Of course, run the images through a 100lpi screen beforehand and print it on newspaper stock afterwards and it doesn't really matter all that much. :) -=>Donald

It sounds as though there might be some difference between printer dots and image pixels there.

Not sure I know whatcha mean by that.

Am I to assume....that this is only about "Scanners"....arrrrrgh....don't get too Technical.....it is just that a Printer suggested that I "Save" the Image at......[94mm x 58mm @ 200 DPI]...for a Business Card....I had no idea what He was on about, relating to... [94mm x 58mm @ 200 DPI]....would it be correct to assume that the Chap at the Printers, assumed I was using a ...Scanner...which I do Not? I use Photoshop Elements.

Tedz, the printer suggested that you save the image with a size of 740 by 456 pixels which when printed at 200dpi will be 94mm by 58mm (3.7 by 2.28 inches). If you multiply the pronted size in incehes by the dpi you will get the pixel size. With Photoshop you dont have to do the maths. In the resize dialogue box you can put in the dpi and choose dimensions in inches,cm, etc and it will resize the picture appropriately. I would assume there is something similar in Elements. On scanning I also scan at the highest optical resolution and colour depth to gie the highest quality file which can be used for printing or resizing down for screen viewing.

Hey! Thanks Pal....that has made things much clearer for this Kiddo! Cheers! Tedz :]