Good Scanner for Magazine Scans
blanther
slides.
Thanks much.
blanther
Uni
The best scanner I've had for magazines is the Canon N670U. It's no
longer available, but Canon has the same scanner as a LIDE model.
Uni
blanther
blanther
In article <3EA5D684...@no.email.invalid>, Uni says...
Uni
> Thanks for the info Uni.
No problem. Glad I could help.
Here's an example of my Canon N670U's output with a printed media image:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uni_stuff/FilmGimp48BitColorDemo.tiff
It's a rather large file (1.3 MB), since it's in true 48 bit color.
However, you should be able to view it even with a 24 bit color
application. I used Vuewscan and Film GIMP to process it.
Good luck.
Uni
blanther
grat detail with the reflections. I will take a closer look at that canon.
Thanks again.
blanther
In article <3EA6E10A...@no.email.invalid>, Uni says...
Uni
> Looks very good Uni, flowers show great color and detail. The tin can also shows
> grat detail with the reflections. I will take a closer look at that canon.
>
> Thanks again.
You're welcome. And when Mr.Hamrick added Vuescan support for these
Canon CIS scanners, then made a comment in this very newsgroup, like "I
suggest you sell your old flatbed scanners on eBay and buy a Canon N670U
or N1240U", you know it has to be good :)
Uni
Preston Earle
N670U's output with a printed media image:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uni_stuff/FilmGimp48BitColorDemo.t
However, you should be able to view it even with a 24 bit color
application. I used Vuewscan and Film GIMP to process it."
It is a beautiful scan, and I know you believe that part of the reason
is that it is "true 48 bit color." However, if you reduce it to 21 bit
color (in Photoshop: Image>Adjustments>Posterize>128 levels), you won't
be able to tell any difference with the 48bit image, and it will still
be beautiful. Does that tell us anything?
Preston Earle
(Ducking)
Uni
It tells me you probably have a 24 or 32 bit graphics adapter installed :-)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=1958
Patient: "Doctor, I have difficulty seeing in the dark".
Doctor: "Well, that's no surprise. From the results of our test, you
have only 24 bit eyesight".
:-)
Thanks, for the compliment.
Uni - who believes 48 bit color digital cameras is right around the corner.
>
> Preston Earle
>
> (Ducking)
>
Arthur Entlich
much more simplistic world.
Now, what the heck do I mean by THAT!?
Games, or graphics which render "attempts at reality" do so by ignoring
a heck of a lot of information. Simply put, reality, if just too
complex to accurately reproduce. No one producing computer graphics has
the rendering time, the memory available nor the money behind them to
actually reproduce all the variation and detail the real world functions
within.
Take a good look at something like a leaf. Not only does it have veins
going through it, but it has smaller veins and smaller veins, and
between those veins it has clumps of cells that make up things like
"hairs" and stomas, and dozens of other structures that end up creating
the texture, color, surface reflection, and variation that we perceive
as a certain type of leaf.
Now comes the graphic artist. He needs to fake a lot of this because
the amount of extra time and computer memory and extra complexity all
that "stuff" that isn't all that noticeable just doesn't make good
financial sense to program into a "leaf", especially when it has to be
rerendered hundreds or thousands of times to create a branch on a tree,
in the wind.
So, what is done instead is complex shading programs are used to trick
our eyes into seeing a lot of stuff that isn't really there, its faked
to allow our eyes to suggest it is there. One thing that can ruin the
effect is errors in the computations that cause steps of gray scale or
color accuracy to be sliding around. So, when a media such as computer
graphics are "rendering" reality, having extra accuracy in the blending,
or complex shading gives the illusion of greater density of information.
As a result, in those types of applications, where the information is
being re-rendered with each subtle movement, errors can become
compounded and that can lead to these shading processes falling apart.
So, in those situations, where artificial reality is being "rendered" it
makes sense to use higher color resolution because it helps to support
the illusion.
However, still scanning is not doing that. It is working with a still
image which is a "capture" of reality. Be it from film or digital or
printed source, we are not speaking about rendering anything from
mathematical formulae which will be continually acted upon to add
atmospherics or movement or whatever. The natural complexity of a real
life still image as captured by film or a very high resolution digital
capturing device does not require either the simplification a digital
graphic uses to render a game image or animation or computer generated
sequence, nor color accuracy or resolution which might otherwise be
thrown off by repeated approximations.
Therefore, the need for anything over 24 bit for our eyes in still image
digital conversion from "real" sources, once the exposure is
optimized, is very questionable.
In other words, capturing a scan at over 24 bit, other than to get
exposure and basic color balance accurately rectified is of very limited
value.
Prior to 48 bit color captures on digital cameras, how about just
something approaching each sensor capturing the full RGB information?
With the exception of scanning back cameras, which cannot be used in
other than still studio captures (they take minutes to complete) and the
newish Foveon chip, digital cameras today use Bayer interpolation,
meaning a filter grid containing 25% red, 50% green and 25% blue filters
are overlayed on top of the monochromic sensors. In fact, each sensor
only records a color separation for one color, R, G or B, so 75% of the
sensors generate no red or blue separation information, and 50% generate
no green separation. Now, THAT is a problem. It creates inaccuracy,
artifacting and lowers color resolution, and it slows down capture as
the interpolation has to be determined.
Long before I would care to see 48 bit digital camera captures, I'd be
happy to see "REAL" 24 bit captures.
The extra overhead involved in terms of data transfer time, memory
demands, etc, make the small advantage over 24 bit color
resolutions/accuracy of questionable value in still scanning, IMHO.
Art
blanter
Based on your suggestion, I went out this morning and picked up the Canon LIDE30
scanner at Staples for 70 bucks.
I must say that after 3 hours of scanning many different magazine pictures that
I am quite pleased with it.
The install was simple, the interface was simple, no power cord, it gets power
from the usb port. The scan quality is great.
Bud this bud is for you
THANK YOU
blanther
In article <3EA6E10A...@no.email.invalid>, Uni says...
Uni
> Based on your suggestion, I went out this morning and picked up the Canon LIDE30
> scanner at Staples for 70 bucks.
>
> I must say that after 3 hours of scanning many different magazine pictures that
> I am quite pleased with it.
>
> The install was simple, the interface was simple, no power cord, it gets power
> from the usb port. The scan quality is great.
>
> Bud this bud is for you
>
> THANK YOU
Sounds good. I'm glad you're pleased.
You're welcome and thanks for the Bud:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uni_stuff/unibeer.gif
:-)
Uni
Martin
same in the PSP news group - even if you do not like the product.
"Uni" <no.e...@no.email.invalid> wrote in message
news:3EA899F1...@no.email.invalid...