The_Sheckster
asked on
Best format to store scanned images for later use in Access report
I am storing about 3,000 images which are each simply an 8.5 X 11 sheets of paper, each of which is a signed authorization from my clients. From time to time, I need to retrieve the scanned authorization and print it in an access report.
My question is: what is the best format to store these images?
For some reason, when I look at the properties of the scanned images, they are all 2528 X 3300 pixels. I don't even know how they got to be so large. Perhaps I need to resize them all to 8.5 X 11 inches, using a batch program. Also, the file sizes don't make sense. Some are 100kb, while others are 1,013kb, and yet they are the same type of image. They are currently stored as tif images.
I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.
My question is: what is the best format to store these images?
For some reason, when I look at the properties of the scanned images, they are all 2528 X 3300 pixels. I don't even know how they got to be so large. Perhaps I need to resize them all to 8.5 X 11 inches, using a batch program. Also, the file sizes don't make sense. Some are 100kb, while others are 1,013kb, and yet they are the same type of image. They are currently stored as tif images.
I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.
> I don't even know how they got to be so large.
Quite simple:
You mentioned their size in 8.5 * 11 inch, and 2528 X 3300.
2528 pixels / 8.5 inch = (approx.) 300 dpi.
3300 pixels / 11 inch = 300 dpi.
Obviously the images were scanned at that resolution.
If you scan them at 72 dpi (ok for screen, not for printing) you'd end up at 612 * 792 pixels (size in KB would also drop dramatically!)
The file format may depand on the purpose you're storing them for.
TIFF is a compressed filesize; not lossy
BMP is not comressed, so a lot larger
JPG is compressed and smapper than TIFF, since it's "lossy". Pixels with only a slight variation in color (shade) are stored as a single color.
PNG could be an alternative. Compressed; not-lossy....
Quite simple:
You mentioned their size in 8.5 * 11 inch, and 2528 X 3300.
2528 pixels / 8.5 inch = (approx.) 300 dpi.
3300 pixels / 11 inch = 300 dpi.
Obviously the images were scanned at that resolution.
If you scan them at 72 dpi (ok for screen, not for printing) you'd end up at 612 * 792 pixels (size in KB would also drop dramatically!)
The file format may depand on the purpose you're storing them for.
TIFF is a compressed filesize; not lossy
BMP is not comressed, so a lot larger
JPG is compressed and smapper than TIFF, since it's "lossy". Pixels with only a slight variation in color (shade) are stored as a single color.
PNG could be an alternative. Compressed; not-lossy....
i agree with the above, but:
if you're storing raster images (ie photos) the best way to store them is 72 pixel/inch .jpg.
if you has a lot of scanned flowcharts, diagramms, images with only a few colors, it is best to store them in an optimized .gif (for photoshop use the save for web wizard) or: to trace them with a traceing software (adobe streamline - its a bit dumb - or corel trace) and to store them as vector grapfics, just like .svg, or -as best choice for windows - .wmf, or .ai and they could be streched without borders.
more on these issue:
optimizing:
http://www.webreference.com/dev/graphics/intro.html
http://www.siriusweb.com/tutorials/gifvsjpg/
http://www.webwitchery.com/articles/format/
http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/geektalk/97/30/index3a.html?tw=design
tools for optimizing:
http://www.tucows.com/imageopti95_default.html
raster-vector differences:
http://www.ablesw.com/r2v/rasvect.html
http://www.nw-media.com/ps_intro/html/lesson_1/lesson1_pg3.html
good luck:
ati
if you're storing raster images (ie photos) the best way to store them is 72 pixel/inch .jpg.
if you has a lot of scanned flowcharts, diagramms, images with only a few colors, it is best to store them in an optimized .gif (for photoshop use the save for web wizard) or: to trace them with a traceing software (adobe streamline - its a bit dumb - or corel trace) and to store them as vector grapfics, just like .svg, or -as best choice for windows - .wmf, or .ai and they could be streched without borders.
more on these issue:
optimizing:
http://www.webreference.com/dev/graphics/intro.html
http://www.siriusweb.com/tutorials/gifvsjpg/
http://www.webwitchery.com/articles/format/
http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/geektalk/97/30/index3a.html?tw=design
tools for optimizing:
http://www.tucows.com/imageopti95_default.html
raster-vector differences:
http://www.ablesw.com/r2v/rasvect.html
http://www.nw-media.com/ps_intro/html/lesson_1/lesson1_pg3.html
good luck:
ati
ASKER
One point that I forgot to mention was that the images I have scanned are all black and white. There is no need for color. Bearing that point in mind, does that change your suggestions as to the best format to store the images?
In black & white images, there are 256 shades of grey: RRGGBB = 000000, 010101 etc. up to FFFFFF (FF hexadecimal = 256 decimal).
GIF images provide just that amount of "colors".
A very compact file type to!
GIF images provide just that amount of "colors".
A very compact file type to!
The industry standard is a Group IV Tiff Format at either 200x200 or 300x300 dpi. (From a document retention and/or legal standpoint.)
what sort of black and white? grayscale or black and white lineart?
fort lineart, i think it's better to use vector graphic formats, for grayscale images use should use .gif or .jpg with 256 (greyscale) colors - thers is a rule: if there are big homogenous areas int the image, it's better to use .gif, if there are a high number of details, use .jpg. for .jpg there's a variety of quality settings wich define the size of the output file (as you can see this in photoshop, when you're saving to .jpg).
if you cant decide, try both, and search for the optimal output. then apply setting for all images - or for wich you think it's necessary - with a batch conversion.
Some softwares, like photoshop offer you a number of batch conversion action, but it's need a little trick. If you're a beginner, it's easier to use thumbnail creators - just like express thumbnail creator - because they're easier to configure. Thumbnail creators offer you the following: they resize images and set their size or even their color. You can set the filename too, and if you don't need thumbnails, you can turn out the create thumbnail function.
worth a try?
good luck:
t.a.g.
fort lineart, i think it's better to use vector graphic formats, for grayscale images use should use .gif or .jpg with 256 (greyscale) colors - thers is a rule: if there are big homogenous areas int the image, it's better to use .gif, if there are a high number of details, use .jpg. for .jpg there's a variety of quality settings wich define the size of the output file (as you can see this in photoshop, when you're saving to .jpg).
if you cant decide, try both, and search for the optimal output. then apply setting for all images - or for wich you think it's necessary - with a batch conversion.
Some softwares, like photoshop offer you a number of batch conversion action, but it's need a little trick. If you're a beginner, it's easier to use thumbnail creators - just like express thumbnail creator - because they're easier to configure. Thumbnail creators offer you the following: they resize images and set their size or even their color. You can set the filename too, and if you don't need thumbnails, you can turn out the create thumbnail function.
worth a try?
good luck:
t.a.g.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Lobo, i know tiff was developed to store scanned - especially grayscale images.
I recomend jpg or gif for non-expert use because theay are more common, and they can be opened even with IE as a last chance.
For me - as a dtp techie - to store gray images im tiff, color in psd/eps, but i think using jpg/gif format for home use are fairly enogh.
bw:
t.a.g.
I recomend jpg or gif for non-expert use because theay are more common, and they can be opened even with IE as a last chance.
For me - as a dtp techie - to store gray images im tiff, color in psd/eps, but i think using jpg/gif format for home use are fairly enogh.
bw:
t.a.g.
Hi Thurston,
I understand your perspective; easier is sometimes the answer. However, in the original question Sheckster explains that he needs to store over 3 thousand images which are forms containing signatures from his clients. I don't believe that qualifies as "home use." What he needs is a reliable format that he can store images in and, in some cases, print from at size and for that 72dpi won't do.
Good Vibes!
Lobo
I understand your perspective; easier is sometimes the answer. However, in the original question Sheckster explains that he needs to store over 3 thousand images which are forms containing signatures from his clients. I don't believe that qualifies as "home use." What he needs is a reliable format that he can store images in and, in some cases, print from at size and for that 72dpi won't do.
Good Vibes!
Lobo
thats true, but jpg can do any pixel per inch ratio. and i dont think he might use more than 300dpi
Yes, there's no limit to what resolution a JPG can be. However, the recommendation to use JPG clearly mentioned doing it at 72pixel/inch. Not what Sheckster needs. Another risk of using JPG to store important documents (specially for someone with little experience on file formats as Sheckster seems to be, no offense intended) is that the user might be tempted to save files size by compressing the image too much and rendering it useless for his document archival purposes. By using TIFF compression is achieved without quality loss, obviously the best option for storing important document scans that include signatures which must be indentifiable.
Good Vibes!
Lobo
Good Vibes!
Lobo
If you are saving canned copies of authorization forms, I would highly suggest Adobe Acrobat. It is a very versatile and usefull program and well worth the investment!
Q. -> What program are you using to scan with?