Drum Scans...an Update

I got my drum scan and you were right. 200MB is insufficient for the size of the print I wanted to make. The 200MB file has a pixel dimension of 9656x7584 pixels which printed at a 355 dpi resolution would give me a roughly 26"x20" print. When I sized the print to 60"x48" the resolution dropped down to 160 dpi. Comparing the sharpness between the two there is a definite difference. I compromised and created a 50"x40" size print which gave me 200 dpi. Better. But not nearly as sharp as the 26"x20" and 355 dpi.

Nevertheless I was also determined to get the 60x48 I originally wanted. As an experiment I resized the pixel dimensions from 9656x7584 to 12000x9600. (I hesitated to go higher as a 14000... raised the file size to over 450MB already. I think I would have gone over 600MB if I wanted to go for the 355 dpi.) This gave the 60"x48" a 200 dpi resolution. And compared to the 160 dpi version I can see a noticable difference. I am going with it. The ready to print image looks acceptable on my monitor. I don't think it invites close up viewing but from a distance it looks good. If I went for the monster file of 600MB would I have got the same result as a 350 or 400MB drum scan? I hope Danny is reading this.

Thank you all for your replies.

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Will, don't be afraid to interpolate up. You don't have to stick to the physical dimensions of the scan. Bicubic interpolation within a reasonable percentage will yield excellent results. Also, considering the viewing distance for a print that large, there is no need (in my opinion) for more than 200-240ppi.

Guy

Will,

I recently learned about Genuine Fractals

http://www.academicsuperstore.com/item/index.html?tname=Genuine+Fractals&sourcecode=lcg&promocode=0D7V01XX&gclid=CLuVyOjuw4sCFSUeGAodcSNNHw

It seems to do an excellent job.

You can download a free trial for 20 images to try before you buy.

Carol
http://hy-tec-training.com

Will - you'll certainly be able to get an acceptable print from this scan. Would you get even more detail from a higher res scan? Yes, you would. We photographers want to stick noses into the print, and from close range, we can tell the difference. However, most viewers (i.e. non-photographers) will probably not do so, and it will look fine.

When you interpolate upward, use the "Bicubic Smoother" setting rather than ordinary Bicubic; theoretically it will be slightly better, although I don't honestly see much difference. There is no advantage to using Genuine Fractals rather than Photoshop's own interpolation methods.

Thank you all.

I will be glad when I can see the final print. It looks alright on the monitor when I step back but how it will look as a print still remains to be seen.

Hopefully this is the start of more to come. I will upgrade the drum scans with your services, Danny.

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

be sure to check out Genuine Fractals