Re: looking for a scanning aid

From: SonC (Sonny Carter) (cartersn@ALPHA.NSULA.EDU)
Date: Tue May 29 2001 - 22:42:35 CDT

  • Next message: David Adams: "Resolutions" 

    Message-Id: <200105300350.UAA13740@dns.ccit.arizona.edu>
Date:         Tue, 29 May 2001 22:42:35 -0500
From: "SonC (Sonny Carter)" <mailto:cartersn@ALPHA.NSULA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: looking for a scanning aid
To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU

    <pre> I'm not trying to start "Image War" here, but an original camera scan from a Leica S1 Pro would be the same as a 2 1/4 transparency, already scanned to 2000 ppi. An image like that has to be blown up more than 700 times before you start seeing pixels. By shooting the stuff on film and scanning the film, you're doubling the workload (at least.) Most oversized pieces, like maps would do just fine at that resolution.

    Of course, it all depends on what you plan to do with it, but if you already own a $20,000 digital camera made for the job , why double your work load, shooting 4x5 (which ain't cheap or easy) and have to store and file the transparencies too? Money and staff time are prime considerations in university settings, at least at this one.

    Regards,

    Sonny Carter Digital Imaging Specialist Cammie G. Henry Research Center Northwestern State University of Louisiana

    ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary Winter" <mailto:mary.winter@MAIL.STATE.KY.US> To: <mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:25 AM Subject: Re: looking for a scanning aid

    > Larry,
    >
    > This seem's to be the classic argument for making medium-
    to large-format
    > (120 film to 8x10) analog photographs, and using a film
    scanner to capture
    > the images digitally. With proven permanence,
    human-readability, and high
    > resolution, analog surrogates should be considered. I
    believe the specs for
    > your camera are a maximum of 5140x5140 pixels, or a 75 meg
    file at 24-bit.
    > Basically, you can capture about 3 times the surface area
    on 4x5 (about a
    > 240 meg. file), which could be scanned at 2000dpi (fairly
    normal for a 4x5
    > film scanner). That should eliminate a lot of
    time-consuming stitching!
    >
    > We've found this fine for maps up to about 20x24--roughly,
    if you can see it
    > clearly on the transparency, you can capture it digitally.
    For larger maps
    > (up to 8 ft wide!), we either shoot overlapping 4x5s or
    8x10s. When we do
    > need to capture multiple views of a very large work, we
    suspend it from a
    > frame, and move the frame along a tile floor grid, while
    the camera remains
    > fixed on a tripod.
    >
    > True, a diminishing number of institutions still have the
    equipment, and
    > more importantly, the expertise to do such photography
    in-house. If you
    > can't photograph them in-house, then perhaps you could
    pursue a relationship
    > with a local studio.
    >
    > If you need to go the digital way or no way, I suspect
    there are devices
    > that would work as you've described, probably used in
    animation or video
    > capture work.
    >
    > Mary Winter
    >
    > Mary E. Winter, Special Collections Manager
    > Kentucky Historical Society
    > 100 W. Broadway, Frankfort, KY 40601
    > (502) 564-1792 ext. 4428
    > www.kyhistory.org
    >
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Larry Wentzel [mailto:mailto:lrw5@PSU.EDU]
    > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 1:28 PM
    > To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
    > Subject: looking for a scanning aid
    >
    >
    > <html>
    > All,<br>
    > <br>
    > I'm scanning with a number of oversized materials (maps,
    foldout
    > illustrations in books, etc.) with our digital camera
    (Leica S1 Pro) on a
    > boom stand.&nbsp; Because I'm interested in detailed scans
    of these
    > materials, I'm having to scan them in pieces and stitch
    them together in
    > Photoshop.&nbsp; It becomes laborious because shifting the
    material under
    > the camera, by hand, sometimes, well, <u>usually</u> means
    I accidentally
    > place the material slightly askew.&nbsp; I have to align
    the images in
    > Photoshop before stitching, and the realignment takes up
    considerable
    > time.&nbsp; I've considered placing the oversized flat
    materials on the
    > wall and using the boom stand to move the camera
    around.&nbsp; However,
    > this won't work for bound materials, like foldout maps and
    > illustrations.&nbsp; And shooting objects mounted on the
    wall involves
    > additional time for camera setup and recalibration.<br>
    > <br>
    > I'm wondering is if there exists a device that I could
    place the oversize
    > materials, something like an adjustable table top
    platform.&nbsp; I
    > imagine it would have three boards:&nbsp; the top board
    shifts only left
    > and right, the middle board shifts only forward and
    backward, and the
    > bottom is the base.&nbsp; I'm hoping said device would
    also have locks or
    > something that would keep the boards in position once
    adjusted (adjust
    > 12&quot;, lock in place and scan.&nbsp; Release, adjust
    again, lock in
    > place and scan, etc.).&nbsp; This way, the scanned pieces
    would be
    > already aligned to one another, eliminating the need to
    rotate the images
    > before stitching.<br>
    > <br>
    > If you've seen or heard of such a device being available
    commercially,
    > I'd love to know where I can find it.&nbsp; I'm also open
    to other
    > suggestions about how to get around this, and to find out
    what others
    > have done when they encountered this themselves.<br>
    > <br>
    > --Larry Wentzel<br>
    > --Digital Preservation Scanning Technician<br>
    > --Penn State University LIbraries</html>

    </pre>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 29 2001 - 22:52:45 CDT