Scanning transparencies without a transparency adapter??

Scanning transparencies without a transparency adapter??

Post by Erik A. Speckm » Fri, 28 Jan 1994 08:37:15



In our lab we produce lots of autoradiographs on X-ray film.  We would
like to start scanning them to use when we are preparing publications and
grants.

What I want to know is how well a typical flatbed scanner will do
without a transparency attachment vs. one with a transparency attachment.

I would rather spend the $700 bucks on other system enhancements like
more RAM and a bigger hard disk.

Has anyone experimented with this.  I have tried to find a local dealer
who would let me come in and do some test scans but very few have the
trans. attachment and they are all a pain to deal with over the phone.

Thanks.

Erik
--
____________________________________________________________________________

                             I am not a Netter.
____________________________________________________________________________

 
 
 

Scanning transparencies without a transparency adapter??

Post by Jeremy Esla » Sat, 29 Jan 1994 23:18:31



Quote:>In our lab we produce lots of autoradiographs on X-ray film.  We would
>like to start scanning them to use when we are preparing publications and
>grants.
>What I want to know is how well a typical flatbed scanner will do
>without a transparency attachment vs. one with a transparency attachment.
>I would rather spend the $700 bucks on other system enhancements like
>more RAM and a bigger hard disk.
>Has anyone experimented with this.  I have tried to find a local dealer
>who would let me come in and do some test scans but very few have the
>trans. attachment and they are all a pain to deal with over the phone.
>Thanks.
>Erik

In my experience you'd be wasting your time with such experiments.  A flat
bed scanner shines a light at the object being scanned and picks up the
refelection.  A transparency will not reflect very much at all - so the image
ends up nearly black.  A transparency lid shines the light *through* the
transparency, thus allowing the scanning head to pick up the image.

If you really want to do this on the cheap, try removing the lid of a
regular flat-bed device and placing a photographic light-box upside down
on the glass, with your transparency sandwiched in between.  This would
work better than a desklamp or similar, since you must illuminate the
transparency evenly to get acceptable results.

 
 
 

Scanning transparencies without a transparency adapter??

Post by Jeremy Esla » Sun, 30 Jan 1994 01:14:25



Quote:>In our lab we produce lots of autoradiographs on X-ray film.  We would
>like to start scanning them to use when we are preparing publications and
>grants.
>What I want to know is how well a typical flatbed scanner will do
>without a transparency attachment vs. one with a transparency attachment.
>I would rather spend the $700 bucks on other system enhancements like
>more RAM and a bigger hard disk.
>Has anyone experimented with this.  I have tried to find a local dealer
>who would let me come in and do some test scans but very few have the
>trans. attachment and they are all a pain to deal with over the phone.
>Thanks.
>Erik

In my experience you'd be wasting your time with such experiments.  A flat
bed scanner shines a light at the object being scanned and picks up the
refelection.  A transparency will not reflect very much at all - so the image
ends up nearly black.  A transparency lid shines the light *through* the
transparency, thus allowing the scanning head to pick up the image.

If you really want to do this on the cheap, try removing the lid of a
regular flat-bed device and placing a photographic light-box upside down
on the glass, with your transparency sandwiched in between.  This would
work better than a desklamp or similar, since you must illuminate the
transparency evenly to get acceptable results.

 
 
 

Scanning transparencies without a transparency adapter??

Post by Jeremy Esla » Sat, 29 Jan 1994 23:25:48



Quote:>In our lab we produce lots of autoradiographs on X-ray film.  We would
>like to start scanning them to use when we are preparing publications and
>grants.
>What I want to know is how well a typical flatbed scanner will do
>without a transparency attachment vs. one with a transparency attachment.
>I would rather spend the $700 bucks on other system enhancements like
>more RAM and a bigger hard disk.
>Has anyone experimented with this.  I have tried to find a local dealer
>who would let me come in and do some test scans but very few have the
>trans. attachment and they are all a pain to deal with over the phone.
>Thanks.
>Erik

In my experience you'd be wasting your time with such experiments.  A flat
bed scanner shines a light at the object being scanned and picks up the
refelection.  A transparency will not reflect very much at all - so the image
ends up nearly black.  A transparency lid shines the light *through* the
transparency, thus allowing the scanning head to pick up the image.

If you really want to do this on the cheap, try removing the lid of a
regular flat-bed device and placing a photographic light-box upside down
on the glass, with your transparency sandwiched in between.  This would
work better than a desklamp or similar, since you must illuminate the
transparency evenly to get acceptable results.

 
 
 

Scanning transparencies without a transparency adapter??

Post by Jeremy Esla » Sat, 29 Jan 1994 23:16:16



Quote:>In our lab we produce lots of autoradiographs on X-ray film.  We would
>like to start scanning them to use when we are preparing publications and
>grants.
>What I want to know is how well a typical flatbed scanner will do
>without a transparency attachment vs. one with a transparency attachment.
>I would rather spend the $700 bucks on other system enhancements like
>more RAM and a bigger hard disk.
>Has anyone experimented with this.  I have tried to find a local dealer
>who would let me come in and do some test scans but very few have the
>trans. attachment and they are all a pain to deal with over the phone.
>Thanks.
>Erik

In my experience you'd be wasting your time with such experiments.  A flat
bed scanner shines a light at the object being scanned and picks up the
refelection.  A transparency will not reflect very much at all - so the image
ends up nearly black.  A transparency lid shines the light *through* the
transparency, thus allowing the scanning head to pick up the image.

If you really want to do this on the cheap, try removing the lid of a
regular flat-bed device and placing a photographic light-box upside down
on the glass, with your transparency sandwiched in between.  This would
work better than a desklamp or similar, since you must illuminate the
transparency evenly to get acceptable results.

 
 
 

Scanning transparencies without a transparency adapter??

Post by Jeremy Esla » Sun, 30 Jan 1994 00:55:58



Quote:>In our lab we produce lots of autoradiographs on X-ray film.  We would
>like to start scanning them to use when we are preparing publications and
>grants.
>What I want to know is how well a typical flatbed scanner will do
>without a transparency attachment vs. one with a transparency attachment.
>I would rather spend the $700 bucks on other system enhancements like
>more RAM and a bigger hard disk.
>Has anyone experimented with this.  I have tried to find a local dealer
>who would let me come in and do some test scans but very few have the
>trans. attachment and they are all a pain to deal with over the phone.
>Thanks.
>Erik

In my experience you'd be wasting your time with such experiments.  A flat
bed scanner shines a light at the object being scanned and picks up the
refelection.  A transparency will not reflect very much at all - so the image
ends up nearly black.  A transparency lid shines the light *through* the
transparency, thus allowing the scanning head to pick up the image.

If you really want to do this on the cheap, try removing the lid of a
regular flat-bed device and placing a photographic light-box upside down
on the glass, with your transparency sandwiched in between.  This would
work better than a desklamp or similar, since you must illuminate the
transparency evenly to get acceptable results.

 
 
 

Scanning transparencies without a transparency adapter??

Post by Martin D. Pared » Sun, 30 Jan 1994 05:49:49


        Hi,
        I am starting to work on 3d graphics on a Indigo.
Here's my problem.  
        I am going to purchase LCD shutter glasses and
have started to work on my code. What I am doing at the moment is
rendering the image for one eye in the background buffer and when it is
ready switching buffers, then I render the image for the other eye and when
this is ready switching buffers again.  The problem is that since my
images are complicated it takes a long time to generate each frame, and
since the indigo only has two buffers (this is what the guides tell me)
the frame rate is reduced to about 10Hz.  This is kind of bad for LCD shutter
glasses use.  What I was hoping to be able to do was to use three buffers,
two of them switching between each other at 30Hz, while the 3rd one is
used to draw the images for each eye, poping the images to the respective
eye buffer.  Is there any way I can add a third buffer to my program?
        I had decided on using this method since it requires little
modification of any program to add the second eye image. Are there easier
alternatives to the method I am planning to use.  Any push in the right
direction would be appreciated.  Is there anywhere I could find more
information about color glasses? (are there any programs around that use it-
looking at code has always been the easiest way for me to understand new
concepts).  I have also heard some people mention "crystal eye" 3d, where can
I find more info on this.
        Thank you very much for your help.
        -Martin Paredes

         Systems Research Center - University of Maryland
 
 
 

Scanning transparencies without a transparency adapter??

Post by Jeremy Esla » Thu, 03 Feb 1994 05:36:13



Quote:>In our lab we produce lots of autoradiographs on X-ray film.  We would
>like to start scanning them to use when we are preparing publications and
>grants.
>What I want to know is how well a typical flatbed scanner will do
>without a transparency attachment vs. one with a transparency attachment.
>I would rather spend the $700 bucks on other system enhancements like
>more RAM and a bigger hard disk.
>Has anyone experimented with this.  I have tried to find a local dealer
>who would let me come in and do some test scans but very few have the
>trans. attachment and they are all a pain to deal with over the phone.
>Thanks.
>Erik

In my experience you'd be wasting your time with such experiments.  A flat
bed scanner shines a light at the object being scanned and picks up the
refelection.  A transparency will not reflect very much at all - so the image
ends up nearly black.  A transparency lid shines the light *through* the
transparency, thus allowing the scanning head to pick up the image.

If you really want to do this on the cheap, try removing the lid of a
regular flat-bed device and placing a photographic light-box upside down
on the glass, with your transparency sandwiched in between.  This would
work better than a desklamp or similar, since you must illuminate the
transparency evenly to get acceptable results.

 
 
 

Scanning transparencies without a transparency adapter??

Post by Jeremy Esla » Thu, 03 Feb 1994 05:36:13



Quote:>In our lab we produce lots of autoradiographs on X-ray film.  We would
>like to start scanning them to use when we are preparing publications and
>grants.
>What I want to know is how well a typical flatbed scanner will do
>without a transparency attachment vs. one with a transparency attachment.
>I would rather spend the $700 bucks on other system enhancements like
>more RAM and a bigger hard disk.
>Has anyone experimented with this.  I have tried to find a local dealer
>who would let me come in and do some test scans but very few have the
>trans. attachment and they are all a pain to deal with over the phone.
>Thanks.
>Erik

In my experience you'd be wasting your time with such experiments.  A flat
bed scanner shines a light at the object being scanned and picks up the
refelection.  A transparency will not reflect very much at all - so the image
ends up nearly black.  A transparency lid shines the light *through* the
transparency, thus allowing the scanning head to pick up the image.

If you really want to do this on the cheap, try removing the lid of a
regular flat-bed device and placing a photographic light-box upside down
on the glass, with your transparency sandwiched in between.  This would
work better than a desklamp or similar, since you must illuminate the
transparency evenly to get acceptable results.

 
 
 

Scanning transparencies without a transparency adapter??

Post by Andrew McNaught » Fri, 04 Feb 1994 10:58:20




>    Hi,
>    I am starting to work on 3d graphics on a Indigo.
> Here's my problem.  
>    I am going to purchase LCD shutter glasses and
> have started to work on my code. What I am doing at the moment is
> rendering the image for one eye in the background buffer and when it is
> ready switching buffers, then I render the image for the other eye and when
> this is ready switching buffers again.  The problem is that since my
> images are complicated it takes a long time to generate each frame, and
> since the indigo only has two buffers (this is what the guides tell me)
> the frame rate is reduced to about 10Hz.  This is kind of bad for LCD shutter
> glasses use.  What I was hoping to be able to do was to use three buffers,
> two of them switching between each other at 30Hz, while the 3rd one is
> used to draw the images for each eye, poping the images to the respective
> eye buffer.  Is there any way I can add a third buffer to my program?

I don't know much about the indigo, but I do see a problem with this
algorithm.
It is important that the images seen by each eye at the same (read rapidly
alternating) time relate to the same object position.  I imagine you will
need to use four image buffers, and substitute pairs of images.

Quote:>    -Martin Paredes

Andrew McNaughton
__________________________________________________________________________
|Andrew McNaughton     | - An answer went out in search of a question.
|P.N. NewZealand       | - You can hold back from the suffering of the

|----------------------|   is in accordance with your nature, but perhaps
| _Eternal_ flames     |   this very holding back is the one suffering you
| will be ignored.     |   could have avoided.  - Franz Kafka.
__________________________________________________________________________