I scan all picture at whatever size the picture is (don't worry about "655x480" or any other "magical" numbers - just scan the picture) at 200 dpi to allow room for zooming. The MOST important step - as soon as Pan/Crop is opened, right-click the image and choose "Match Output Aspect".

You may also want to read issue #8 of the Vegas Tips, Tricks, and Scripts Newsletter.

Jet... I actually scan higher than 200 dpi- I use 600 for most scans where I plan to do some extendsive pan and zooms. These images can be 85 megs and 6000 pixels by 6000. I find this very effective and my system still plays back real time at full preview setting. It realy all depends on how much of a move you need.... the higher the resolution scanned- the bigger you can create your effect.

If you're scanning silver halide prints (regular photos), anything above 200dpi or so is probably just wasting space.

Andy

Andy- "If you're scanning silver halide prints (regular photos), anything above 200dpi or so is probably just wasting space."

Sorry you feel that way...I don't agree with your opinion- but we all have opinions!

Do a test and you will see that the 600 DPI makes a HUGE difference and not wasting space. Scan any 5 x 7 picture at both resolutions 200 and 600 dpi.
Bring them into V4- zoom well into the picture and save your setting. Do the same for each test picture and you will not make the comment you made above...unless quality is not an issue with your projects...

Oops, really meant 300 - finger pressed the wrong key. However, in many cases 300 is still overkill.

I scan depending on the zoom I need. If you need to 2x-4x zoom just scan at double pixels you need. on vertical or horizontal depending if the foto is portrait or landscape. The resolution don't matter, but is enough on 150-200 dpi. If you use PAL resolution 720x576, you must scan at 1000 pixels high if your images are landscape, don't matter of width, or 1500 width if your images are portrait, don't matter of high.

Put match output aspect on Pan/Crop, and zoom or pan your images.

Josaver.

"Do a test and you will see that the 600 DPI makes a HUGE difference and not wasting space. Scan any 5 x 7 picture at both resolutions 200 and 600 dpi.
Bring them into V4- zoom well into the picture and save your setting. Do the same for each test picture and you will not make the comment you made above...unless quality is not an issue with your projects... "

There is plenty of information available confirming that increasing the scanning resolution beyond 200-300dpi does not yield more detail. For example:

http://www.scantips.com/basics08.html

another good place for information:

www.photo.net


If you are truly concerned about quality and wish to zoom in on a photographic image and actually produce a result with real detail, perhaps you shouldn't scan prints at all. I suggest you find a lab that has a drum scanner that they can use to scan your negatives and produce a Photo CD (Not picture CD!!). That will produce the highest quality digital images from film available, but it's not cheap. That's assuming that the quality of the optics in your camera are comensurate to a high quality image to start with. For the ultimate, you need to be shooting medium or large format with an extremely sharp lens - again - not cheap. Before suggesting that my concerns regarding quality are lower than yours, please research the subject....

Andy

Or you can get your own (good quality) negative scanner for less than $200 now. Definately better results than scanning prints.

dvdude... I read and I research all available information- THEN I test the scenario myself to determine what my course of action will be. There is never any better methodology than an actual test scenario. As stated, if you would simply conduct a test for yourself- you would see a noticeable difference between 200 DPI that you claim to be all that is needed and scanning at a higher resolution. So please do not insult my intelligence with your babble about research and then commenting on your quality standards. I did not insult you- in fact I stated we all have opinions and then stated- if you had ACTUALLY done a test rather than reading- you would see a difference. I then went to say, and the intention was- if space outways the quality for higher scans...then scan at a lower resolution. Perhaps YOU should conduct test before making the comments you make- the proof is in testing. The question at hand was scanning pictures at a higher resolution than 72 DPI. Please stick to the question asked in the forum rather than talking about drum scanning- but if you want to go there- for your business or home use, I would suggest doing research on a scanner that can handle your needs befor turning to your local printer... there are several that can handle large negatives....