SCANNING Question: How to Achieve a Hi-res Low-res scan

SCANNING Question: How to Achieve a Hi-res Low-res scan

Post by John Barbier » Sat, 18 Jan 1997 04:00:00



***** Please reply to Newsgroups and Myself as I check mail more often than
Newsgroups *****
 I'm having a problem with scanning some images in to a machine for a home
page, I had a company scan some 35mm slides on to a CD (using Kodak PhotoCD
initially to acquire the scans) and stored thousands of low res 5" X
7"(32-56 K MAC jpg.) files.  I now have the need to scan my own so I went
out and bought a Nikon Super Coolscan (with the autoloader) and proceeded
to make my own scans (I should tell you that my level of experience with
scanners is probably Advanced beginner).
    When I began scanning I noticed by comparison that the Nikon was not
even close, the Kodak CD blew the Nikon out of the water, and Kodak's
imaging is not even up to most peoples par, but I've heard raves about the
Nikon, in the photography industry even.  I then tried scanning at
progressively higher resolutions to a full res 28.8 MB file at 2700dpi and
noticed something even more disturbing, that even though I had this 28.8MB
file with all this extra information in it and zoomed all the way out
(theoretically at it's sharpest) it still didn't even come close to the
low-res Kodak scan at the same sizes, I'm wondering if I'm doing something
wrong as far as a method to improve the image with software before saving
it as it's final file type or is it a problem specific to these types of
scanners, I can't help but want to believe that Nikon would produce a
scanner of better quality than my on screen comparison, someone pleez help
me.....
                                                        JOHN

 
 
 

SCANNING Question: How to Achieve a Hi-res Low-res scan

Post by G.P. Toote » Sat, 18 Jan 1997 04:00:00


|>     When I began scanning I noticed by comparison that the Nikon was not
|> even close, the Kodak CD blew the Nikon out of the water, and Kodak's
|> imaging is not even up to most peoples par, but I've heard raves about the
|> Nikon, in the photography industry even.  I then tried scanning at
|> progressively higher resolutions to a full res 28.8 MB file at 2700dpi and
|> noticed something even more disturbing, that even though I had this 28.8MB
|> file with all this extra information in it and zoomed all the way out
|> (theoretically at it's sharpest) it still didn't even come close to the
|> low-res Kodak scan at the same sizes, I'm wondering if I'm doing something

i'm not surprised if you tried to zoom it out like that. if you *re-scaled* it to
that size, using something like photoshop you would find it looked just as good i
suspect. or failing that, some tweaking with the options you use to scan might be
in order. to get a really good result depends a lot on the nature of what you're
scanning, with photographs things like matt or shiny finish will affect it, how
overexposed/underexposed the picture was etc etc.. you should be able to get a
very acceptable if not comparable quality image to photo cd's with almost any
scanner given that you can get the right adjustments. it's just some scanners are
a real pig to get these options right :)

nik

|> wrong as far as a method to improve the image with software before saving
|> it as it's final file type or is it a problem specific to these types of
|> scanners, I can't help but want to believe that Nikon would produce a
|> scanner of better quality than my on screen comparison, someone pleez help
|> me.....
|>                                                   JOHN
|> >

--

 
 
 

SCANNING Question: How to Achieve a Hi-res Low-res scan

Post by Steve Berr » Sat, 18 Jan 1997 04:00:00


I don't have an answer to your problem but you may get more information

Hope these help.
Steve

 
 
 

SCANNING Question: How to Achieve a Hi-res Low-res scan

Post by Lanc » Tue, 21 Jan 1997 04:00:00


Quote:>|>     When I began scanning I noticed by comparison that the Nikon was not
>|> even close, the Kodak CD blew the Nikon out of the water, and Kodak's
>|> imaging is not even up to most peoples par, but I've heard raves about the
>|> Nikon, in the photography industry even.  I then tried scanning at
>|> progressively higher resolutions to a full res 28.8 MB file at 2700dpi and
>|> noticed something even more disturbing, that even though I had this 28.8MB
>|> file with all this extra information in it and zoomed all the way out
>|> (theoretically at it's sharpest) it still didn't even come close to the
>|> low-res Kodak scan at the same sizes, I'm wondering if I'm doing something

>nik

 Hi, I have the Nikon Scantouch 110 (might be similar to yours) and was
wondering at the same thing. Funny thing is when I viewed it zoomed out, it
seemed to have all this grain and pixellation but when I zoomed to the 1:1
in photoshop, It was great. Much better than I would have expected of
scanners.

******************************************
Lancer's Mech and Star Wars 3d Art Gallery
http://www.users.interport.net/~lancer/
******************************************

******************************************
"If you don't stand for something, you'll
fall for anything "

 
 
 

SCANNING Question: How to Achieve a Hi-res Low-res scan

Post by Nick » Fri, 24 Jan 1997 04:00:00




Quote:>  Hi, I have the Nikon Scantouch 110 (might be similar to yours) and was
> wondering at the same thing. Funny thing is when I viewed it zoomed out,
it
> seemed to have all this grain and pixellation but when I zoomed to the
1:1
> in photoshop, It was great. Much better than I would have expected of
> scanners.

Ahem....  excuse me, Nikon Super Coolscan is a dedicated 35mm slide
scanner.
And the the model you'd mentioned (Scantouch 110) is a 'Flatbed' type (for
reflective).

And for the 'zoom-in/out' pixellation (eg. high enlargement with lower dpi
images) are
really normal.   The question is whether is it 72 dpi for screen resolution
or 300 dpi
for s/s 150 lpi for comercial press, for example.

Nick

 
 
 

SCANNING Question: How to Achieve a Hi-res Low-res scan

Post by Nick » Fri, 24 Jan 1997 04:00:00




Quote:>  Im having a problem with scanning some images in to a machine for a home
> page, I had a company scan some 35mm slides on to a CD (using Kodak PhotoCD
> initially to acquire the scans) and stored thousands of low res 5" X
> 7"(32-56 K MAC jpg.) files.  I now have the need to scan my own so I went
> out and bought a Nikon Super Coolscan (with the autoloader) and proceeded
> to make my own scans (I should tell you that my level of experience with
> scanners is probably Advanced beginner).

<details snip>

Quote:>JOHN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear John,

I understands the frus youre going thru.
But before condamning the scanner, i would suggest the following points
to observed or take :-

1) Have you set the film properly ?
        eg. ensuring that the emulsion surface (slightly dull side) is facing down.
        - this applies, if your scanner is installed horizontally.
        - In your case (with the auto-loader), the emulsion side should face right,
          when your unit is installed vertically.

2) Clean the film surface.
        If possible, wear a pair of disposable plastic gloves when handling the
        surface of the film strips and mounting. (greasy fingerprint marks will
        affect the quality of the scan).  Use a photographic brush or blower to
        dust off dust-specks, which may sticks on the surfaces of the film.

3) Was the unit subjected to vibration during the scanning operation ?
        If an external unit placed on a table that shares with other electrical
        appliances/devices, eg. table-top fan, ink-jet printer (concurrently
        when in operations, can cause low vibration, which enough to upset
        the scanning quality to any scanner !).

4) Software utilisation and enhancement.
        Did you use the Nikon Scan software properly ?
        Eg. Autofocus button - Did you hold down the Ctrl key simultaneously
        while hitting the Autofocus button ?  Try this for every slides inserted
        for a new scan - so as to re-calibrate or re-focusing by the scan optics.
        For more details, please refer to the unit users manuals.

5) Internal scanning optics may be soiled.
        While this is unlikely for a brand new unit, but ......  
        To keep the unit (especially the scanning area / Film slot opening) in good
        condition, Id home-made a dust-cover for my unit (Coolscan II) - I cut a
        piece of anti-static plastic sheet (from any bus card anti-static wrappings),
        and cover it at the Film slot area, during non-operational period. This will
        prevent any dust to settle on or get into the scanning optics interior.

Hope this helps.
Nick

**Any Coolscan users out there might want to add ? - TIA

 
 
 

SCANNING Question: How to Achieve a Hi-res Low-res scan

Post by c.. » Fri, 24 Jan 1997 04:00:00


The low res scans look better because it's screen resolution
- i.e. your viewing it 1pixel : 1pixel.

DO Not zoom out on your image, Zoom in! In Photoshop double click the
magnifying glass to view 1:1.  
Also I don't recomennd scanning above your scanners True Resolution
or you results with start to deteriorate. (i.e. - true resolution =
2000x2000 dpi, interpolated=4000x4000 dpi.....)
Also make sure your monitor color mode  matches your images color mode
or colors may dither.

-Graham Fisk

============================
 CMI Business Communciations, Inc.  
 Multi-Media | Imaging | Presentations
============================

www:    http://www.cmibiz.com    
ftp:    ftp://ftp.cmibiz.com
voice:  312.787.9040
fax:    312.642.6911
bbs:    312.943.0690  

 
 
 

1. SCANNING Question: How to Achieve a Hi-res Low-res scan

The problem you're likely having with the Nikon Coolscan is that the focus
control is *way* too sensitive.  I've used one for years and found that the
first thing you need to do it ditch their little "focus gauge" control.  
Instead use the direct focus method where you're actually looking at a section
of the original as it is being scanned (by pressing one of the control keys
when clicking on the Focus button - it depends on the software version you
have.)  The second thing is that the final correction on the focus wheel will
be incredibly tiny - about the thickness of the index line on the wheel.  When
you hit it, you'll easily see the grain on the film - even with Kodachrome or
the new V-tec films.

Focusing these things is sort of a black art - my biggest gripe with the
product.  But when you hit it, you'll have a scan that's as good as a Photo-CD
of the same resolution.

 - Bruce Spainhower
   Focal Point Systems

2. OpenGL and Direct3D

3. Lighwave with Matrox Digisuite

4. Iris printing and Hi res scan on net

5. Hi Res scans?

6. Hi res scans