Skip to main content
C
CVHManchester
Inspiring
November 3, 2016
Question

Rotate 48 bit TIFF files*

  • November 3, 2016
  • 1 reply
  • 4489 views

I am scanning a collection of ca 1500 prints using TIFF at 48 bit depth, each file being ca 819 MB. The scanner imports the the images as portrait, but most need to be rotated to landscape.

When trying to rotate these images using Organiser, this gives an error and says that the images will be reduced to 8 bit.

I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements Version: 14.1 (20151206.m.83730)  x64, Operating System: Windows 10 64-bit, 10 GB free memory.

Can I do a simple rotate in Photoshop without any modification of the internal content. just a transformation of the pixel coordinates?

Thank you

    This topic has been closed for replies.

    1 reply

    Jeff Arola
    Community Expert
    Jeff ArolaCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    November 3, 2016

    It seems silly to me that the organizer insists on converting the perfectly good 16 bits/channel (48 bit) tifs to 8 bits/channel just to rotate an image 90 degrees left or right, but unfortunately that's the way it is.

    Anyway, you can open the tifs in the pse 14 editor and rotate them by going to Image>Rotate>90° right or 90° left, then File>Save and overwright the existing tiff file.

    C
    CVHManchesterAuthor
    Inspiring
    November 3, 2016

    Thank you for the prompt confirmation of what I did not want to hear.

    When I tried your method using process multiple files, it opens each file taking about 90 seconds each.  I started with a sample directory of 20 of my files and gave up waiting.  I did not get as far as rotating, then saving them.

    Do you know of any image manipulation software that can do what I need in an economical manner?

    C
    CVHManchesterAuthor
    Inspiring
    November 4, 2016

    I discovered over 20 years ago that 24 bit files did not provide a good image of reality. I was trying to scan radiographs then.  I have only one opportunity to scan these objects, so I want to preserve the best quality image I can capture as an archive.

    I am quite sure that you are wrong on this one. Just compare and show me an example of a 16-bits image vs its 8-bits conversion where one can see the difference. The importance in 16-bits editing is the ability to edit heavily your images without risking posterization. If you have good scans to begin with, no worries.

    But, I understand you want the best theoretical quality for your scans.

    What puzzles me in your first question is that the problem seems to be the inability of the organizer to rotate your scan file.

    The scanner imports the the images as portrait, but most need to be rotated to landscape.

    The only need for rotation in the organizer is not for printing or displaying your huge scan file, it's the inability to produce a rotated thumbnail in the organizer. The original scans are like negatives, they don't need to be rotated when you choose to output them to print. Whatever output is chosen, you need to resize, flatten if needed, and rotate if needed by your output media. You don't know in advance the requirements for that output, so your problem is to manage your original scans to take advantage of the organizer: creating a (rotated) thumbnail and entering all the necessary tags and information of each file.

    Remember that even without rotating 48-bits tiff files, there are limitations in the size of images to be displayed as thumbnails.

    Photoshop Elements maximum image size limits

    It should be easier to make Organiser compatible with Photoshop's ability to manipulate 48 bit files.

    That's where Adobe does not seem to agree...

    So, while I understand you want to keep your precious scans as best as technically possible (819 MB !!!); I think you are searching in the wrong direction to take advantage of the organizer.

    I don't think I can convice you that converting to 8-bits does no harm to your files...

    What I do know is that the time to scan your files is far for being negligible. The time to open such a big file is not either.

    The best advice I have seen on forums is to use your scanner software to scan and Elements editor at the same time to manage your catalog while the scanner is running (parallel editing).

    I'd import in the organizer every scanned file, add all necessary tags etc, open the file in the editor, and create a 'custom thumbnail preview' resized and rotated version in a version set in jpeg format. Remember that an A4 format at 300 ppi quality 10 jpeg will be less than 4 MB... 0.5 % of the size of your original. Not bad for all viewing and current printing requirements, even if it's only for the best use of the organizer. Among other advantages, that solution makes browsing much faster, especially for full screen (F11) and allows displaying thumbnails for file sizes bigger that the maximum listed in the upper link. The original in the version set is always immeidately accessible, even if it is stored on a different folder/drive.


    Thank you for making me think through my assumptions and responses.

    You are right, I do not need to rotate the originals to archive them. But being put into their natural orientation, they are much more easily sorted and understood.  I just thought it would be easy, and am surprised that it isn't. As Photoshop prides itself as being an editor for 16 bit depth images, I assumed that Organiser would be compatible.  The fact that Microsoft File Explorer can do this easily (although it then adds a redundant "compression") shows that Organiser could do it easily if Adobe wanted to.  I may have misunderstood the role of Organiser. I thought it would allow me to organise the files in the folder, not just in the Organiser window.

    The optical density range of the radiographs I mentioned was far greater than the 8 bit depth.  Given the technology available then, and now, it was impossible to view this range directly from a scanned image. But the failure to record the range meant that one could not choose to look at the significant detail at the extremes of that range.  The Epson scanner I currently have access to has only about 12-13 bit depth.

    My project, just beginning, is not to view images of original objects, but to compare them in order to identify their differences. So far my tests have shown that differences are just visible at 600 dpi, fully visible at 1200 dpi, and no more significant information at 2400 dpi.  As a novice, I have not yet been able to do tweak the software to make the comparison at different bit depths. I suspect that there will be differences in the very heavily inked areas of the objects, where all detail is merged at 8 bit depth.  But it may be some time before this hypothesis is tested, and perhaps not by me, when it will no longer be possible to re-scan the originals.

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
    Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices