Very Computer

Hello! I have an Umax Astra 1220U USB scanner.  It's OK, but I'm not
satisfied with the descreening.  Grayscale pictures scanned from magazines
look grainy when descreened at anything higher than 85 lpi.

Anyway, I've seen Photoshop plug-ins that claim to improve your scan
quality.  The two I've seen are JetSoft's Art-Scan Pro and LaserSoft's
SilverFast 4.0.  However, I use Corel Photo-Paint 9 and Painter 5, so I
don't know if these will work.

Has anyone had any experience using these programs, or should I stick with
the VistaScan driver?  And if I should use VistaScan, how do I improve the
descreening?

Thanks for any advice you can offer.

Cindy Groves

Quote:> Hello! I have an Umax Astra 1220U USB scanner.  It's OK, but I'm not
> satisfied with the descreening.  Grayscale pictures scanned from magazines
> look grainy when descreened at anything higher than 85 lpi.

> Anyway, I've seen Photoshop plug-ins that claim to improve your scan
> quality.  The two I've seen are JetSoft's Art-Scan Pro and LaserSoft's
> SilverFast 4.0.  However, I use Corel Photo-Paint 9 and Painter 5, so I
> don't know if these will work.

> Has anyone had any experience using these programs, or should I stick with
> the VistaScan driver?  And if I should use VistaScan, how do I improve the
> descreening?

> Thanks for any advice you can offer.

> Cindy Groves

The truth of the matter is this:

If Vista Scan doesnt de-screen the picture to your satisfaction,
it is most probable that software can not do it.

I currently own 7 scanners, from 6 different manufacturers and
the de-screening algorythm built into VistaScan (and MagicScan
Umax other scanner driver) is the best or equall to the best
there is.

Another truth is:
Some pictures dont de-screen well:

You, however can make it better. The first thing i recommend is
using PhotoShop, it really is the best program for the work.

This method will descreen any image better than ANY de-screening
software money can buy.

Because of the fact that the de-screening options slows down the
scanning so much, using this manual method can actually go faster
than just scanning the picture with the built in options.
First step:

Scan the picture at 300 or 600 dpi with NO DE-SCREENING.

Second Step:

set the "VIEW" at 100% so you can see the structure of the
printed image. Then:

Use the Gaussian Blur filter (set only high enough to reduce the
"graininess" to a pleasing level) The picture will look blurry,
but, trust me on this, its what you want to do.

Third Step:

Resize the image (using the bi-cubic option) down to the size you
want.

Fourth Step:

If the picture is too soft or not sharp enough, use the "Unsharp-
Masking" filter (very gently at low settings) to sharpen it.

Ive been scanning with scanners into a pc since the very first
ones were built for the purpose, and this is simply the best
method Ive ever come across.

buck
--

So it goes (Kurt Vonnegut)

(one of 2 life heros)

Quote:> The truth of the matter is this:

> If Vista Scan doesnt de-screen the picture to your satisfaction,
> it is most probable that software can not do it.

Good thing I asked before buying anything, then!

Quote:

> I currently own 7 scanners, from 6 different manufacturers and
> the de-screening algorythm built into VistaScan (and MagicScan
> Umax other scanner driver) is the best or equall to the best
> there is.

Really?  I have a Microtek E3 SCSI (which I'm not using because I tried
installing it on my PII 400 MHz under Win 98, and the PC couldn't find my
video card afterwards - even though I didn't remove the video card).  I
always had great results with its descreening, but I preferred USB - fewer
headaches.

But thanks for the info - I'll try this in Photo-Paint (I'm not gonna buy
Photoshop just to do descreening...).

Cindy Groves

Besides Buck's great advice, I'd add one point:  Make sure the "10-bit"
option (or it might be "12-bit" for the 1220) is enabled in Vistascan.  The
more shades of gray you can get in the raw data, the better your results
will be after descreening.

As far as descreening goes, it's usually pointless to use a LPI that's higher
than what was used to print the source material.  For magazines, 85LPI is
about right -- if you use anything higher, all you'll do is blur the image.

Frank

can do better than PhotoPaint save your money - gaussian blur is NOT
one of the things it does better. The photoshop fanatics can't even see
that most people don't need it. And it does not get along with Corel
Draw. You don't even want to think about Illustrator, a total dog.
  And there are better descreening programs than vistascan which is
clunky at best. Epson scanners always come with excellend software if
you haven't actually bought. The Microtec software may work with the
Umax scanner if you have bought - a real improvement since the Umax is
mechanically better but has awful software.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

You say the Microtek software might work - how? Isn't each company's driver
only supposed to work with its own brand of scanner?  If this is true, this
could be interesting...

Cindy Groves

I agree with you Cindy, The only time that trick works is if you
buy a re-badged scanner (ie a umax labeled something else ect.)

Far be it from me to critisize someone who is trying to help, but
his help isnt helping.

If you dont have PhotoShop the PaintShop Pro (ver. 3.0 4.0 or
5.0) all have as good a resizing algorythm. (actually they re-
sample)

buck
--

So it goes (Kurt Vonnegut)

(one of 2 life heros)

Quote:> I agree with you Cindy, The only time that trick works is if you
> buy a re-badged scanner (ie a umax labeled something else ect.)

Mine's not re-badged.  I don't know how a different driver could work, even
with a relabeled scanner.  Thanks for letting me know!

Cindy Groves