Scan Images showing IFDO vs JFIF (Looking for X,Y Resolution to show in IMATCH)

[kiwilink]

I have a directory with several scanned images from an EPSON Perfection 2580 Phot0 Scanner.  I was using IMATCH's Filter panel to search on Orientation and Dimensions to try and find all images that had a greater resolution than 300 x 300 (X,Y).

I ran into 2 issues.  1st,  I used the EXIFtool and noticed that some of my scans had EXIF data and some did not.  I also noticed that some had the resolution in JFIF and some had the resolution in IFDO.  This puzzled me as to how to search for the resolutions using the filter.  (See attachments)

Secondly, should I use Metadata Search or Orientation and Dimensions to find all images with a resolution greater than 300 x 300?  It appears that Orientation and Diemnsions would not allow me to say "greater than 300"  (only "As Specified").  Metadata Search would allow me to choose tags but when I went to choose the tags I found nothing for IFDO and only two arguments for JFIF.

So I have 2 questions:
1.  How should I be searching for this?
2.  Why are some of my scanned images containing IFDO and others containing JFIF?  Should I use IMATCH to try and create EXIF data?

Thanks for the help!!!

Michael

[attachment deleted by admin]

[jch2103]

Clarification questions:
- Did you use Epson's software for the scans or other software? (I assume in any event same software was used for all scans?)
- I assume all scans used the same output format (e.g., .jpg)?

For searching all not 300 dpi, perhaps you could use an Invert Filter search?

[kiwilink]

Hi John:

Thanks for the response.  The same scanner was used along with the software that came with the scanner. 

Mike

[kiwilink]

I just took a 35mm negative and put it in the scanner and scanned it and then brought it into IMATCH and used EXIF too look at the file (see attached).  I see the JFIF resolution.

Mike

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Mario]

The ECP output shows that your scanner / scanner software does not bother to put a standard EXIF record into your files. So you can only use the sparse JPEG/JFIF metadata in IMatch. But you can filter for this data and utilize it like any other metadata in IMatch.

Just build a data-driven category on X Resolution to automatically group your files based on their resolution. Then use the resulting categories for filters, or to just pick all files with a specific resolution.

[kiwilink]

Mario:

Thanks for the reply.   I seem to be having a little trouble with these JFIF variables related to scanned images from the scanner.  For example, in one of my Layouts (see attached) I display the EXIF X and Y Resolution around the image.  I tried to display the JFIF resolution and I didn't get anything.  (see both attachments below that include the EXIFtool output along with the Layout).


Michael

P.S. 

The bottom line is that when I see this in ECP  I can display the resolution on the layout
[IFD0]          X Resolution                    : 600
[IFD0]          Y Resolution                    : 600

When I see this I cannot display the resolution on the Layout
[JFIF]          X Resolution                    : 600
[JFIF]          Y Resolution                    : 600

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Mario]

Did you configure IMatch to import this data? Do you see it in the Metadata Panel when you switch to the Browser layout?
IMatch does not import all metadata, especially the IFD data is superfluous and usually not imported. IMatch gets the same info more reliably from the imaging components it uses or the WIC codecs.

Go to Edit > Preferences > Metadata 2 : Tag Manager and enable the JFIF tags you want to import. Then use Shift+Ctrl+F5 and Reload Metadata for all selected to bring in the data into your database. Then you will be able to see it in the Metadata Panel in the Browser layout and use the corresponding tags and variables.

[kiwilink]

Mario

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!  This is great !!!!!  I did this just for my scanned images from my scanner and got all of the resolutions!!

This is just fantastic!  Thanks so much for explaining it!

Mike