Message-Id: <mailto:199503140013.SAA08562@library.wustl.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 14:42:51 -0800 From: Michael Irwin <mailto:myirwin@UCI.EDU> Subject: Re: Digitizing x-rays To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB
At 9:30 PM 3/13/95, Fred Kwiecien wrote: > I need some advice about digitizing x-rays.
> I do this now by placing the x-ray on a lightbox and then
>photographing it using a 35mm camera on a copystand. I then scan the
>resulting slide with my Nikon Coolscan film scanner. This is wasteful of
>time (two separate processes) and materials (I don't really want the
>slide). And there's an extra generation quality loss, too.
> Are there other ways of doing this that are easier, faster, better?
>Scanning it directly with a flatbed scanner doesn't yeild very good
>results because it's translucent copy. ...And some x-ray film is larger
>than the bed of the scanner, anyway.
> And of course, I need the very best quality that I can get! I need
>to retain very subtle gradations of tone, along with really white whites
>and black blacks.
I saw a researcher doing this with a demo Leaf Lumina, bolted horizontally to a stand to take pictures off a wall-mounted light box. The quality is not what I characterized as "the very best" though. Density was weak IMHO and I though the light variation coming from the multiple flourescent bulbs in the box must introduce some anomalies.
If you're using standard, large-size film of about 36 x 43 centimeters, an 11x17 flatbed with transparency should do the trick (I think that's about 14 x 17 inches and most exposures don't go all the way to the edges, do they?). I know Pixelcraft, Sharp, Relysis, and AFGA, among others, have 11x17s starting in the $10,000 range. You'll need the transparency option, but I don't know which if any have them. If that's too much $$$, then "the very best quality" might not be in your price range.
Cheers,
Mike Irwin Minotaur Design
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Keep an open mind but don't let the wind blow freely through it.