Epson V700 software problems

[lnbolch]

Some thoughts on image file formats:

JPEG was primarily standardized as an economical final delivery form for photographs in days of dial-up modems. One can compress the image greatly, but still have it contain sufficient information to deliver the message. When digital cameras came into being, storage cards were extremely expensive, and JPEG provided a viable solution. It achieves its compression by throwing away part of the data - which is not necessarily bad. At the highest quality settings, only redundant data is discarded and every application that can display a JPEG understands this and is able to replace that data. The method by which data is discarded and replaced is a well known standard and reconstructing the data is amazingly effective.

However, the more compression, the less data, and the less successful the restoration. Knowing this, when I prepare JPEGs for web viewing I reduce the resolution to web sizes and I set the compression to just below the level that artifacts become obvious. While the images look great in your browser, they are in fact badly damaged. Should an unscrupulous person decide to use one of my images for publication at any size over a postage stamp, they will look horrible. If any enlargement is tried, or any further image processing applied, artifacts will be horrendous. JPEG is an extremely useful format for display of photographs.

If the file is processed and re-saved at similar high compression settings, the artifacts are multiplied each time this is done. Yet the first generation looks pristine. This does not happen at high quality settings, since it is just redundant information being thrown away and restored. You may be warned against using JPEG for storage, but it is just fine at top quality settings and it will save lots of time and storage space.

TIFF is an extremely versatile specification for storage and many other needs. Digital camera RAW files and two colour fax files for optical character recognition are TIFF based. Another form of TIFF can hold multiple images. Lossless compression is part of the specification, though sometimes it works in reverse and the resulting file is actually larger.

BMP is a simpler form, less common now. I mentioned BMP in the presence of a rather pretentious geek who snorted that it was a terrible file format. I pointed out that I had actually tested it against a TIFF, layering the same image saved in both formats, having Photoshop flag the differences, analyzing the result pixel by pixel. ZERO difference. Image quality was identical down to the last pixel. Bottom line is that while TIFF is a much more versatile format than BMP for application developers, it makes no difference to whatever users. Results are identical.

There are many more older and obscure image file formats that have fallen into disuse, but none have been lost. From time to time, I read people passing on misinformation that one should ONLY use TIFF or DNG because other standards may not be supported in the future. Simply not true.

The knowledge of how to decode them is known to millions and well documented. Files from early digital workstations are still accessible by contemporary applications. A project is underway to rescue early photographs from the space-program. Specifically from exploration of the moon going back the the late 1960s. The problem was that the tapes from the time were lost and recently rediscovered. Once found, required refurbishing drives from that period in order to read them. No problem with imaging. IFF-HAM files created in the mid-1980s on the long gone Amiga computer open fine today in Photoshop.

Information persists. Post a personal and embarrassing image on line, and then try to get rid of it when you sober up the next day! Once a file format has been in use, it will persist as long as any naughty photograph.

As an alternate to JPEG for delivery, specially on-line, PNG is a winner. It provides excellent reproduction of photographs, but also type overlays. JPEG is really poor at this. Any time I do a tutorial on my web-site, annotated illustrations are posted in PNG. The downside is that compression is much less than with JPEG, so pages and illustrations open more slowly.

[bez]

Glad we (finally) sorted out the Epson Scan problem – we should have realised from the outset you probably had ICE turned on
Do you still have the file writing problem?
Thanks to Larry, but the main reason I suggest TIFF is because unlike jpeg it can hold 16 bit information, so can contain a greater tonal range (Epson call this 48 bit = R,G,B x 16) but you’ll really only benefit by working on the raw scan with a 16 bit image editor (eg. Photoshop)
It depends on what you intend to do with your scans (print? archive?) so to repeat, if you want to keep the file size down you can reduce to 8 bit after editing, or if you don’t intend to edit simply continue with jpeg, probably at the highest setting.

[bez]

Lisa – one more thing to get the best from the V700 - have you checked the small adjustable feet on the underside of the film carriers? If not, scan the same neg three times with the feet in the ‘0’ & ‘+’ positions, and removed completely.
Apply the same sharpening to each scan then examine closely (at least 100%) to see which is sharpest. Test each carrier separately.

[lnbolch]

Thanks to Larry, but the main reason I suggest TIFF is because unlike jpeg it can hold 16 bit information, so can contain a greater tonal range (Epson call this 48 bit = R,G,B x 16) but you’ll really only benefit by working on the raw scan with a 16 bit image editor (eg. Photoshop)

Which is an example of what I was referring to as "versatile". The catalogue of TIFF versions is extensive. As a storage format, you can't go wrong with using TIFF.

[LVA]

I did do an experiment scanning in 16-bit color using TIFF. Unfortunately PhotoShop Elements wouldn't let me edit in that format - at least not to the extent I wanted to. The full-fledged PhotoShop is beyond what I want to spent at the moment. I'm thinking about getting PhotoPlus or Gimp. Because I am scanning important family photos and negatives and want the best I can get out of them.

But I am extremely relieved that I have solved the problem of the Epson software. I can live with the "warming up" stuff midscan on the photos that need Digital ICE. But I definitely don't need it all the time.

The "unable to write to file" has not come up without Digital ICE, at least yet.

[Kevgermany]

The catalogue of TIFF versions is extensive. As a storage format, you can't go wrong with using TIFF.

I agree, but one caveat - not all versions of the tiff spec are supported by all packages. And it's quite possible to use .tiff, believing it to be universal, only to find that the .tiff output from one package isn't supported by another. Had that problem a while ago where Noise Ninja output .tiffs that PWP wouldn't read, although I believe PWP has since been updated. Best to avoid .tiff compression - that's one fo the grey areas.