neglus
|
posted on July 13, 2003 12:07:27 PM new
My trusty scanner died while I was away helping my mother...who KNOWS what my kids did to it while I was gone ( I suspect they left a nearby window open during a T-Storm or maybe it just burned out then)..whatever..it is a goner.
I bought a Microtek4850 to replace it (the dead one was a Microtek5600 and I was very pleased with it but they dont make it any more)..the resolution for both models is the same 4800x2400 DPI CCD but the new one is clearly inferior.
What does one look for to determine quality in scanners? I think I just must have lucked into a good one last time!!
I know some suggest scanning postcards with digital cameras but I have found scanning to be just as fast and the end product is much clearer..or SHOULD be much clearer with a good scanner..
any ideas??
I am not anybody else anywhere else 
[ edited by neglus on Jul 13, 2003 12:08 PM ]
|
drcomm
|
posted on July 13, 2003 12:18:17 PM new
Our scanner is fairly old, but much loved. It's a hewlett packard scanjet 5P and I have no idea if you can get them anymore. An example of one of our postcard scans:
Good enough for me!
|
neglus
|
posted on July 13, 2003 12:26:56 PM new
 This is an example of my new scanners work..just not clear!!
[ edited by neglus on Jul 13, 2003 12:27 PM ]
[ edited by neglus on Jul 13, 2003 12:31 PM ]
[ edited by neglus on Jul 13, 2003 12:31 PM ]
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 13, 2003 12:50:19 PM new
Neglus - some of the clarity is going to be determined by the scanning software as opposed to the sanner itself. If your software has a setting for scanning printed material you may want to try using that. Direct scans of printed material will often develope a moray pattern caused by the screen process used in printing (which BTW - I do not see in thie scan you posted). Your scan is going to look great to the average person and any expert is going to realize where the imperfections are coming from. (is this printed on a textured paper? That's the only thing I am seeing that could be considered an imperfection). If you are using Photoshop (Full version, Elements or LE) try uing the Sharpen feature under FILTERS.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
neglus
|
posted on July 13, 2003 01:07:30 PM new
Maybe it is the software - I am just using what was provided with the scanner and not editing - I tried scanning as an "illustration" but result were worse than when I tried to scan as "photo" (that's the way I usually scanned before with good results (the software that came with the scanner are updated versions of the adobe I had before)...should i get better photo editing software?
EGAD edited because I am SO frustrated I can't write sentences any more!
[ edited by neglus on Jul 13, 2003 01:08 PM ]
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 13, 2003 01:28:52 PM new
Maybe the problem lies in the fat that I don't know what the original looks like but I think you have a really nice scan there. Stong colors, doesn't really look under or over staurated, no morray pattern and in focus. What is it that you don't like about it?
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
sanmar
|
posted on July 13, 2003 01:33:51 PM new
I just bought a HP 6100 with a flat bed scanner. I hardly ever use a scanner, do everything with digital camera. Never have a problem with it.
|
AuctionAce
|
posted on July 13, 2003 03:12:10 PM new
I recently bought an HP2300C at Best Buys. Low end but good quality. It will be obsolete in a few short years anyway so why waste a lot of money unless you make a living on ebay.
----------------------------------
-------------- sig file ----------------------------
For the OTWA lurkers --- real message boards allow sig files! We had a revolution and threw off our moderator oppressors! ( not really, Vendio was broke at the time and laid them off ) ...
|
gcmcnutt
|
posted on July 13, 2003 03:18:31 PM new
neglus, check the various properties on your new scanner. Perhaps there is a knob called 'descreen'? Knobs like this oversample the image [scan it in finer detail and then return a lower DPI image] and filter the results to remove the offset printing dots.
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on July 13, 2003 03:26:17 PM new
I have an HP ScanJet ADF. I bought it because I was OCR'ing documents at one time for my job on a union newspaper. It feeds multiple sheets of paper without having to open the cover. It's great. Cost almost $500, but I've had it for three years now. I don't think they make them anymore, though. There are a couple of scratches in the glass. Anyone have suggestions on how to remove them?
Cheryl
|
jnash
|
posted on July 13, 2003 04:09:57 PM new
Make sure you installed any drivers for the new scanner. And then
You might try using your old scanner software with the new scanner.
My software has a option to change sources. I'm sure yours does too
just select the new scanner. The driver makes the difference sometimes
but some software can't set the driver as well as others and your
older options might be more optimum for the type images you want.
I don't think it's a descreen problem since that is pretty obvious when the
scan looks like it's crosshatched with three separate colors. Or a grid.
My scanner seems to have cigarette smoke on the scanner lens now. I'm
goanna try to clean it (maybe tonight).
|
neglus
|
posted on July 13, 2003 04:29:31 PM new
thanks - i did find the descreen option in the advanced view and I managed to get an incredible scan at 300 dpi - but when I uploaded to VD the file was HUMONGOUS even though i THOUGHT i set it to scan at 100%...then I tried to resize with INFRANVIEW and even though I saved it resized a zillion times , it wasn't saving it to the spot I directed it to: "my Images"..GRRRRRRRRRR..so I couldn't upload to VD...i think the new software overwrote the old software ( i loaded the package) so I can't use it anymore  ..I only spent $100 for my trusty scanner (it only lasted 2 years but I have to admit it has seen VERY heavy use in the year and a half i have been selling) and the same price for this lesser one at BestBuy..and I am TRYING to make a living on eBay ACE!
are the HP's easy to use for someone who is semi-klutzy? (ok more than semi). Do they scan more than one image at a time? Microtek has a $150 one with same DPI but USB2 - is that WAY faster? Sorry for all these questions - i really appreciate your help - i don't feel like the BestBuy sales people know as much as I do about this and as you can see, that's not a lot!
[ edited by neglus on Jul 13, 2003 04:32 PM ]
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 13, 2003 05:10:06 PM new
Neglus - you don't want 300 dpi - you want 72. what is happening is that your 300 dpi photo is being converted to show at a lower DPI. Since it can't adjust the file size it's adjusting the image size. In other words if you have an image that is 300 dpi x 2 inches = 600 dots (or pixels as the case may be. WHen viewed at 72 ... 600 / 72 = 8.33 inches.
You should either scan your images at 72 dpi or go in after the scan and resize to desired view size at 72 dpi.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 13, 2003 05:16:40 PM new
BTW - RE: Best Buy, Fry's ... most retailers computer people don't know squat!!!
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
neglus
|
posted on July 13, 2003 05:21:08 PM new
NEON!! THank you thank you!! You are right!! WOW!!!!! The new scanner default scans at 96 but when I adjusted to 72 i got a PERFECT scan!!!!!! I DON'T NEED A NEW SCANNER!! CARTWHEEL TIME!!! Thanks a million!
THis postcard isnt perfect but the scan is great and SOOOOO much better than the other attempts I made this afternoon!
Here's an earlier attempt:
[ edited by neglus on Jul 13, 2003 05:23 PM ]
[ edited by neglus on Jul 13, 2003 05:25 PM ]
[ edited by neglus on Jul 13, 2003 05:25 PM ]
[ edited by neglus on Jul 13, 2003 05:26 PM ]
[ edited by neglus on Jul 13, 2003 05:27 PM ]
|
neglus
|
posted on July 13, 2003 06:06:29 PM new
It looks like the new scan is not quite 100% ...could it be 72% scale? Is there a correlation between DPI and scale?
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 13, 2003 06:20:20 PM new
hmmm - try scanning at 96 and see what happens.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
nanntique
|
posted on July 13, 2003 06:59:11 PM new
HP5400c, gives you everything you need, and at a reasonable cost. Also check your local PC major sales houses for a no box special, or a floor model. They usually give the same warranty, at about a 25% discount, and since not much can be done to damage a scanner (other than scratch the glass, or be dropped, with both being quite evident) what you see is what you get. If it works when you get it home, it will probaly work for years, otherwise just return it for a refund, and shop elsewhere.
|
davebraun
|
posted on July 13, 2003 08:48:46 PM new
Yes, dpi is dots per inch. The higher the dpi setting the larger the scan looks and larger the file is. Monitors have a resolution of 72 ppi (pixels per inch) which corresponds to dpi.
The scan labeled as earlier attempt needs to be descreened which should be built into your software. If you have the choice between magazine for source or photo toggle between the two and compare.
I use photoshop for everything but the learning curve is not fun. No wizards, completely manual.
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 13, 2003 09:37:46 PM new
Dave - saying Photoshop in no fun is flat out sacriliedge. Photoshop is better than any video gaem - its all about experimenting, playing and trying new things and the cool little things you find out when you mess up do doing something else.I have a bunch of pdf tutorial files, tips, tiricks n' such if you need them.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
throughhiker
|
posted on July 14, 2003 08:51:30 AM new
Hi Neglus,
I sell postcards on ebay and thought you might consider another alternative. Of course you have to have a decent digital camera but I assume all ebayers have one. I have found scanning to be very slow process. I can photograph about 100 cards in about twenty minutes. This then requires about another 45 minutes to an hour in photoshop. I have been very pleased with this system. Just another way to get it done.
Don, The Post Card Foster Parent.
|
neglus
|
posted on July 14, 2003 10:29:59 AM new
THanks Don - maybe i am just too picky about images and buyers dont care as much as I do...I do have a decent digital but I thought it would take me a LOT more time to scan 100 than 20 mins...do you photograph more than one at a time and then frame individually?
Thanks Dave for info - i think i have to fiddle around with the descreen (that's in the advanced mode and I have always used the "dummy" mode)- good things are slow this time of year so I have some time to do a learning..whether it be scanning or photos!
YIKES! I just looked at the price of the Photoshop software!!!!
[ edited by neglus on Jul 14, 2003 10:32 AM ]
[ edited by neglus on Jul 14, 2003 11:01 AM ]
|
neglus
|
posted on July 14, 2003 11:06:00 AM new
BTW - VERY nice scan and post card drcomm - i was so frantic yesterday i didn't take the time to acknowledge! Thanks cheryl, sanmar and nan for the input on the HP's...may have to go that route in the end.
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 14, 2003 11:49:33 AM new
::YIKES! I just looked at the price of the Photoshop software!!!! ::
A lot of scanner software discs come with a LE version pf Photoshop bundled in on the CD if you look for it. It has habout 30% of the capabilities of the Full version but more than enought for what you are doing. There is also a commercial light version called Photoshop Elements.
Of course if you think that Adobe has already recouped their costs there are always copies of the full version that can be downloaded from Kazaa or Limewire. 
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
drcomm
|
posted on July 14, 2003 12:21:21 PM new
Neglus, I know JUST how you feel, and so does the rest of my family. When mamma's got computer problems, ain't NOBODY happy 
Seriously though, everyone knows to just leave me the heck alone until I get it figured out.
|
neglus
|
posted on July 14, 2003 12:24:33 PM new
Neon - my OLD scanner (or maybe it was an old digital camera )came with the LE version of the software for the MAC but PhotoDeluxe for the PC -
Aren't program downloads on KAZAA full of viruses ( or whatever the plural is) or is that just something they say to discourage downloads?
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 14, 2003 02:25:26 PM new
Neg - they can sometimes but just a run a check on the file and keep your detection program on during install and you should be good. Since I am on Mac I've never had to deal with them.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
throughhiker
|
posted on July 14, 2003 07:49:49 PM new
Neglus,
I usually set up on a card table out side in the shade, usually on the porch. I have done it with and without a tripod and have not noticed much diference. I use a piece of black poster board for the background on most cards but if the card is really dark I might use white.
I usually shoot all my pictures at the highest JPEG resolution that the camera will take and I think this has a lot to do with the quality of the final image. You can use photoshop to compress the image at the end for fast download and I think the quality is maintained.
I place the stack on the poster board that is laying on the table then I just start shooting, placing each photographed card face down and continue to move each card in place till all have been photographed.
I use a card reader to get the pictures into the computer. My compact flash is just seen as another drive and I create a folder for that batch of cards and drag them from the flash card to the folder, takes about two minutes.
Then to Photoshop:
Open>
then browse to the folder containing the images>
Then open the first one>
If you keep the card horizontal when you take the picture the next step works best. using the Rectangle select tool I select the card with a slight border arround it and select Control> c to copy it
Then select Control n for a new file. A dialog box will appear with size info, just say OK as this is the dimentions of your copied selection. Now hit Control v and your card image will fill the new window.
Under the Image dropdown I usually make small addjustments to the brightness and contrast and also I go to image size and where it gives the pixel dimentions I addjust the longest side to 500 pixels. (400 or 450 work well also and will make the image size even smaller) This gives you a nice size that is about actuall size on a 600 800 screen and the file size will compress in most instances to 30k or less.
Once you have all the addjustments done go to save to the web. Now this does require PS 5.0 or greater, I don't think this saving compression was available on eariler versions. I have PS 5.5.
I usuall save to a folder that is dated for the date I will list the cards and it helps me stay organized. (Like I'm really organized
Anyway this is my proceedure in a nutshell, I hope I haven't left out a step.
Don
|
neglus
|
posted on July 16, 2003 01:19:30 PM new
Before this thread goes away I want to thank all for the help - using the "magazine" source and 100 dpi seemed to do the trick in making this new scanner work as well as the old one - better in fact as now my "chrome" postcards do not have any yellow or blue lines..THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL!!
Here's an example:
THanks, Don, for giving me a step by step on the use of the digital - I plan on experimenting with that technique too - would be great to be able to do 100 images in an hour!!! I am afraid my learning curve on Photoshop will be a long one however I appreciate you took the time to share your knowledge and experience!
Mary Ann
|
