Picturing scanning for videos....an easier way?
Peter S. Lee
videos. I use a flatbed scanner but was trying to figure out a better
way. I get photos in all different shapes and sizes. Is there some
better way to scan photos? the amount of time I am spending scanning
is absurd!
I called around to other shops and found that they will put videos
together at $50 for 50 pictures. I have found that by the time I scan
a photo, crop it, alter the resolution, add borders as needed, etc. I
can prep one photo in just under 3 minutes. That's 2.5 hours in photo
scanning and prep! There has GOT to be an easier way?
Again, I get photos of different sizes in a pack. Is there some sort
of automated solution for volume scanning?
Thanks.
Peter S. Lee
Inspired Software Solutions, Inc.
http://www.isshomefront.com
E-Mail: Replace the "underscore" with an underscore "_".
Markus Zingg
of sizes/format's and settings should be somewhat less, and there are uints
capable of automatically scanning a whole film.
Just my 2¢ though
Markus
Ray Quinn
Ray Quinn
David M. Whiskeyman
When I was doing more consumer work, I was doing exactly what you are. I
realize it is time consuming, but the quality far out-weighed what my
competitors were doing. In my opinion, you are doing it the "right" way and
I am sure your "demos" show the quality. I was charging $2.50 per picture.
Those who felt that was too much went to others and got an inferior finished
product....again, in my opinion. My goal was to make the video as good as I
could, using the best technology I could afford. I realized after a few
years that those who wanted price over quality were the people that I
probably didn't want to work with anyway.
Dave Whiskeyman
Peter S. Lee wrote in message <37b3fa15...@ftl.msen.com>...
>As of late I have been making more and more "picture slide-show"
>videos. I use a flatbed scanner but was trying to figure out a better
>way. I get photos in all different shapes and sizes. Is there some
>better way to scan photos? the amount of time I am spending scanning
>is absurd!
>
>I called around to other shops and found that they will put videos
>together at $50 for 50 pictures. I have found that by the time I scan
>a photo, crop it, alter the resolution, add borders as needed, etc. I
>can prep one photo in just under 3 minutes. That's 2.5 hours in photo
>scanning and prep! There has GOT to be an easier way?
>
>Again, I get photos of different sizes in a pack. Is there some sort
>of automated solution for volume scanning?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Peter S. Lee
>
>
Dog Game SuperStar
>
> As of late I have been making more and more "picture slide-show"
> videos. I use a flatbed scanner but was trying to figure out a better
> way. I get photos in all different shapes and sizes. Is there some
> better way to scan photos? the amount of time I am spending scanning
> is absurd!
>
> I called around to other shops and found that they will put videos
> together at $50 for 50 pictures. I have found that by the time I scan
> a photo, crop it, alter the resolution, add borders as needed, etc. I
> can prep one photo in just under 3 minutes. That's 2.5 hours in photo
> scanning and prep! There has GOT to be an easier way?
>
> Again, I get photos of different sizes in a pack. Is there some sort
> of automated solution for volume scanning?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter S. Lee
>
> Inspired Software Solutions, Inc.
> http://www.isshomefront.com
> E-Mail: Replace the "underscore" with an underscore "_".
Experiment with lighting and just film the pictures with a
videocamera. That's what I do, and it works great, because
you can pan and zoom etc...
I hate scanning, and I'll do anything to avoid it.
DGS
Live...
http://dogtv.com
John Carswell
>videos. I use a flatbed scanner but was trying to figure out a better
>way. I get photos in all different shapes and sizes. Is there some
>better way to scan photos? the amount of time I am spending scanning
>is absurd!
>
Shooting pictures with anything less than a 2/3" 3 chip camera doesn't
compare. I own one and I don't ever use it unless the image is larger than
what I can place on my scanner. And you have much more precise control over
panning and zooming.
I've discovered that the right scanner and software can speed things up
quite a bit. I use a SCSI scanner (faster scan time) and a software package
that lets me scan and save multiple images on a single pass and saves them
to separate files. Well not ~really~ because it does a separate pass for
each image, but I don't have to set up and position each photo. This
software is only available for UMax scanners as far as I know, but HP's
scanning software provides an even more simplistic approach. It scans and
then identifies each area into either text, graphics or images. You can then
identify those areas to keep and discard the rest.
However, it's possible to set your resolution high enough to scan a complete
page of mixed photos and them crop them into separate images. Only problem
with this is that you'll end up adjusting the gamma for each one because the
scanner's auto-setup "averages" the contrast/brightness settings of the
combined images.
In the end, you have to educate people about getting what they pay for. Not
a pleasant task, but in this case, it's very true.
Regards,
John Carswell
Peter S. Lee
>Have you ever thaught of using a film scanner instead? At least the number
>of sizes/format's and settings should be somewhat less, and there are uints
>capable of automatically scanning a whole film.
>
>Just my 2¢ though
And a good 2 cents it is. The problem is that I rarely get film as a
source.
Peter S. Lee
you scan multiple pictures at once? Thanks!
"John Carswell" <john-c...@home.com> wrote:
>I've discovered that the right scanner and software can speed things up
>quite a bit. I use a SCSI scanner (faster scan time) and a software package
>that lets me scan and save multiple images on a single pass and saves them
>to separate files. Well not ~really~ because it does a separate pass for
>each image, but I don't have to set up and position each photo. This
>software is only available for UMax scanners as far as I know,
Peter S. Lee
Peter S. Lee
>Experiment with lighting and just film the pictures with a
>videocamera. That's what I do, and it works great, because
>you can pan and zoom etc...
Doh! I hadn't thought of that. How does the quality compare to having
scanned the image? I imagine that question depends a lot on your
camera and your lighting.
jeha...@my-deja.com
and copy an paste_as_new_selection, each individual picture...
Since you are working with still pictures why not go with a digital
camera? If you get a good one for closeup work the quality will exceed
anything you can get from a DV or a scanner. As long as the camera has
a fast transfer system I think that would be what you are after.
I bought a DV with still capture being my second priority. I would have
done better to have bought digital still camera and stuck with my
regular video camera. The still captures from my DV are far better than
I could do with a video but not as good as I could have received from a
digital still camera. On the other hand I can only use one camera at a
time so the DV is an excellent compromise for me...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Caster
If using a video camera, the pic quality will usually comes out poorer. And
also u need to adjust the light setting so that there's sufficient lighting
and no shadow when u capture the photo.
Also , the photo might not stay flat when u capture, as most photos are a
bit wrapped if i am not wrong.
Tried scanning with hp6200 with the document feeder attachment, but was
disappointed with the results.
Firstly, it can't really feed in photos, cause a lot of jamming and also
unalignment of photo when feeding in.
The way the scanner is design also make it such that the top 1 cm of the pic
is unusually bright.( the photo is rolled and pass through a window where
the scanner head waits and scanned in. Due to the thickness of the photos,
the top 1cm will not lay flat wif the windows thus more light exposed).
The best way and fastest way i had tried is to scan preview the whole page 1
time, with the photo placed at the top right hand corner of the scanner.
Then selected that particular area to be scanner.
Start scaning by placing each photo on that particular area, and there's no
need to close the scanner cover also.
It save time cropping and doing a full page scan everytime.
Using this method was able to do something like 3photos per min, or even 4.
But ur scanner software must support selection of a particular area to be
scaned.
HP Precision Home(The software that comes wif HP Scanjet 4000 and below) is
NOT suitable for this type of scanning.It will scaned the whole page at
150dpi every time u scan a new pic, which is an extreme waste of time.
Tilman Sporkert
> you scan multiple pictures at once? Thanks!
UMAX VistaScan 3.1 supports this. There's an icon with a + in it. Every time
you click it you get a new frame. Put all your pictures in the scanner, hit
Preview, then create three such frames. If you have enabled auto-correction,
then each gets analyzed independently. Then hit scan, and all three
pictures get scanned.
I found that a much better way to speed up the entire process is to get a
faster scanner. I switched from a UMAX 610P to an Epson Perfection 636U. The
difference in speed is incredible.
Tilman
John Carswell
time
>you click it you get a new frame. Put all your pictures in the scanner, hit
>Preview, then create three such frames. If you have enabled
auto-correction,
>then each gets analyzed independently. Then hit scan, and all three
>pictures get scanned.
>
>I found that a much better way to speed up the entire process is to get a
>faster scanner. I switched from a UMAX 610P to an Epson Perfection 636U.
The
>difference in speed is incredible.
>
the hell out of parallel port scanners.