Thank you for the information. I guess my question can be framed as follows: If I'm scanning a color 35mm slide, what is the dpi setting to make a 8 1/2 X 11' borderless print. This scanner's default setting was 24_bits. It can go to 48_bits but it isn't recommended (can't remember their explanation off hand).

Thanks for the suggestion Bob. The scanner is a Perfection V850 Pro.

Thanks for responding.

The scanner is an Epson Perception V850 Pro. So far I've only processed 35mm slides. Initially, I used the default 300 dpi setting and the file sizes were less than an mb. I worked my way up to 2400 dpi for the latest batch and the file sizes are between 3 and 4 mb. I want to be able to go to a 8 1/2 X 11 borderless print. A good many of the slides are 40 to 50 years old. All are stored in the once ubiquitous Kodak circular slide trays. I'm using Digital Ice on all, color restoration on many, occasionally backlight compensation and the default sharpening. I'm not complaining about the results but I am curious about the file size as the file sizes on my Canon 8800F scanner were much larger at 600 dpi with inferior results. It wouldn't surprise me if my old brain has forgotten some setting that explains it all. All the images are saved as jpegs (highest quality). (maybe I should re-check that setting)

After digitizing photos, slides and negatives over many years and various flatbed and dedicated film scanners, I still have over 2000 images to go. Prior to my purchase of a Perception 850 Pro last week, I was using a Canoscan 8800F which is a great scanner for a lot of things, but its Achilles Heel is slides, with the results being variable and inconsistent. After reading raves about the Epson scanners for years, I decided to spring for one. Their support is based in Manilla, and although no one was rude, after several calls and speaking to several techs, they don't seem to have much familiarity with the product, asking many times to wait while they are gathering info and I had to ask the same question several different ways, they didn't always catch on.

So if anyone can give me some assistance or insights, I will be greatly appreciative. First, I'm interested in learning what resolution to use for slides that may be printed for 8'' X 10" mounting.

Second, the unit comes with a holder for up to 12 35mm slides. Right now, I'm learning to use the Epson Scan application. Am I correct in assuming that although I'm scanning a batch of 12, each one is scanned separately so each one should be individually configured for things like backlight compensation, dust removal, grain correction, etc. Is that correct?

Third, the results so far, are impressive but I have much learn and experiment with. The file sizes I'm getting are surprisingly small, given my experiences with the CanoScan. The slides are mostly high speed Kodachrome.

Thanks in advance for feedback.

The Earth is warming up and whether it is a "natural" occurrence or man-made or a combination of both, it is happening folks and it is already beginning to wreak havoc. Why do so many people resist this reality, refusing to consider doing something about it. Below is another of many stories about the consequences of g****l w*****g. It's scary. (sorry that the pictures are mising)

Melting Arctic ice turns abandoned military base into ticking toxic time bomb

Michael Irving August 5, 2016

2 PICTURES Melting Arctic ice could release toxic waste from an abandoned US military base, a new study ...

Melting Arctic ice could release toxic waste from an abandoned US military base, a new study says (Credit: NASA/Creative Commons) View gallery (2 images)
With temperatures rising across the globe, the poles are being hit particularly hard. Melting Arctic sea ice could wreak plenty of havoc through rising sea levels, but other potential hazards are coming to light. If these warming trends continue, a US military base, built into the Greenland Ice Sheet and abandoned since the 1960s, could eventually be freed from the ice – along with hundreds of thousands of liters of waste and pollutants.

A "city under the ice," Camp Century was built in Greenland in 1959 encased within the ice sheet. Officially, it was there for scientific research and to experiment with construction techniques under those extreme conditions. Unofficially, it was intended to develop into a nuclear missile launch site within reach of the Soviet Union. While that never eventuated, the facility did house up to 200 people and was powered by a nuclear reactor.

When the camp was decommissioned in 1967, everybody essentially just up and left, on the assumption that the ice would entomb the facility and seal the harmful materials within. And to an extent it has, with snowfall piling a further 35 m (115 ft) of ice on top of the camp in the years since.


Camp Century was built into the Greenland Ice Sheet during the Cold War, and abandoned in 1967, leaving behind hundreds of thousands of liters of pollutants
But in a new study led by William Colgan, a climate scientist at York University in Toronto, researchers looked at climate projections and found that by the end of the century, the ice might be melting faster than it's being replenished.

"When we looked at the climate simulations, they suggested that rather than perpetual snowfall, it seems that as early as 2090, the site could t***sition from net snowfall to net melt," says Colgan. "Once the site t***sitions from net snowfall to net melt, it's only a matter of time before the wastes melt out; it becomes irreversible."

The wastes in question pose a significant hazard. Thankfully, the nuclear reaction chamber was removed when the camp was abandoned, but the infrastructure is still there, which, according to the researchers' studies of Arctic building materials of the time, could contain toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). That's on top of an estimated 200,000 liters (53,000 gal) of diesel fuel, and 240,000 liters (63,400 gal) of waste water, including sewage and radioactive coolant from the generator. Melting ice could carry these pollutants to the ocean, putting marine ecosystems at risk.

So what can be done about it? For now, not much, according to the study. Considering its depth, an attempted cleanup would be costly and difficult. "It really becomes a situation of waiting until the ice sheet has melted down to almost expose the wastes before anyone should advocate for site remediation," says Colgan.

When that time comes, the question of who is responsible for the effort is a politically sensitive one. Being a US base built on Danish land, but within the now-self-governing territory of Greenland, international law is a little unclear about the responsibilities for existing hazardous waste.

"The study identifies a big hole in the extant set of laws and rules we have to deal with environmental problems globally," comments Jessica Green, a political scientist at New York University.

The research was published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Source: University of Colorado, Boulder

Thank you so much for this treat. They are all wonderful but listening to the 13 year old Laura singing opera with such grace, power and control was truly something else. Yes, thanks again.

All of this talk seems to miss some main points made in the article - poor sex education and the ready availability of pornography online. If teenagers can't get comprehensive sex ed at home or school, they turn to pornography for information and maybe even role models. Pretty terrible but that's the way it is today. Unfortunately, there is a lot of resistance to sex education at school because of the mistaken idea that it will lead to promiscuous sexual behavior. The ultimate responsibility falls on parents and religious leaders that parents turn to for guidance. Unfortunately, it appears that it will take a long time to turn this around and a lot of young girls will pay a high price.

I'm afraid it's more than young people. It may open a hornet nest to say, but there are plenty of politicians (most of whom never saw war) and their followers who are all too ready to spill blood.

a few of these photos have been posted before but this is a very sobering look back. The statistics provided highlights the staggering cost of life.

http://dailybananas.com/12_d_27_rarely_seen_photos_of_world_war_2_that_alter_your_perception_of_the_past_us_db_1/?utm_source=12_d_27_rarely_seen_photos_of_world_war_2_that_alter_your_perception_of_the_past_us_db_1&utm_medium=dde03qexasrmh&utm_campaign=27_rarely_seen_photos_of_world_war_2_that_alter_your_perception_of_the_past&utm_term=12&utm_content=RHR_m35-65_WW2

I meant to say link was not "always" reliable so keep on trying.

Found this on a facebook page. Link is not only reliable but persistence is worth it.


http://yourtailorednews.com/12_d_Rarely_Seen_Historical_Photos_rhr_US_TN_1/?utm_source=12_d_Rarely_Seen_Historical_Photos_rhr_US_TN_1&utm_medium&utm_campaign=Rarely_Seen_Historical_Photos_rhr&utm_term=12&utm_content

It also says that no one really knows. That's why I said "you may be overstating . . . " which ever numbers you believe, they are all terribly high, just terrible.

Thanks Leon for your informative reply.