|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
February 18th, 2012, 01:04 PM | #91 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,531
Thanks: 11,945
Thanked 79,765 Times in 3,160 Posts
|
Quote:
It is a technical fault with the scanner and unfortunately one that it appears to have had from the day I've bought it. The mark appears in any scan where the source material is dark enough for it to show. I was rooting through some old scans, lo and behold, there was the mark in some scans I did after I bought it. So it's either a mark that got there when it was assembled in the factory, or it might a slight reflection of the scanning assembly just as the scan begins (since it is uncannily mirrors the same shape as the assembly). What's worse than having to buy a new scanner to replace it is having bin nearly 80% of my scans and know that I'll have to rescan almost everything!! |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Darth Joules For This Useful Post: |
July 10th, 2013, 07:08 PM | #92 |
Sourcer of Smut
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,829
Thanks: 83,600
Thanked 341,626 Times in 8,422 Posts
|
I have tried two scanners.
Here's scanner '5' And scanner '7': Which scans are better according to you, and does it make a lot of a difference?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Feel free to post my scans to the relevant model threads, but do give credit |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jism Jim For This Useful Post: |
July 10th, 2013, 08:17 PM | #93 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 73
Thanks: 237
Thanked 1,915 Times in 72 Posts
|
I don't know if you've done any colour correction either on the scanners or after scanning but "5" looks slightly "warmer" to me in the colour image (but then again, it might have a slight yellow cast to it?).
I actually kind of prefer "5" for the black and white scan, it seems to have a bit more range to the greys. "7" seems to have slightly higher contrast to it. It's tricky without having the original images to compare with I guess |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sryan For This Useful Post: |
July 10th, 2013, 10:30 PM | #94 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 320
Thanks: 1,748
Thanked 12,729 Times in 306 Posts
|
To me there seem little obvious difference between the two colour scans, personally I felt the 7 one looked slightly nearer to the colour. Actually you get the same issue looking for new TVs in a showroom, for close decisions it's very difficult to decide which is better and can depend on their tuning rather than the better TV.
Here's a copy of the two side by side, enlarged, and one based on 7 where the colour cast has been removed (assuming the typewriter was white/grey). |
July 12th, 2013, 12:31 AM | #95 |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,531
Thanks: 11,945
Thanked 79,765 Times in 3,160 Posts
|
As has been said it would help having the original source in front of one self for comparison to the raw scan result.
The contrast from scanner #7 does appear to be too high. Shadows are very dark and highlights very strong, particularly in the b/w image, are washing out detail in the high tones. Having said that, #7's results are more sharper than #5's at picking out edges and is more crisper than #5. Syran is right that #5 may have a too much yellow cast, but it also may have a little bit too much green cast as well. It's almost the opposite for #7. It has a too much cyan cast, and maybe a bit too much blue, which is why the whites appear purer in the b/w image from #7 and the colour image from #7 is lacking in warm tones, but stronger in cold tones off setting any page yellowing or discoloration. Assuming you did scan the b/w image in RGB mode. If your scanners' software allows you to set custom birghtness/contrast and curve output profiles you can dial-out these deficiencies. |
July 12th, 2013, 08:06 PM | #96 |
Sourcer of Smut
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,829
Thanks: 83,600
Thanked 341,626 Times in 8,422 Posts
|
Thanks guys for your feedback.
I personally prefer number 5, but I find the difference negligible. Your remarks have confirmed that the difference is small. The difference in speed however, is not negligible. Number 7 is twice as fast. And better looking. So I have got myself a new scanner! And because it is faster, I will do my scans at 300dpi from now on.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Feel free to post my scans to the relevant model threads, but do give credit |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jism Jim For This Useful Post: |
July 13th, 2013, 08:37 AM | #97 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,736
Thanks: 144
Thanked 14,338 Times in 1,702 Posts
|
When I upgraded my computer my scanner was incompatible so rather than buy another one tried using my digital camera. The results are excellent.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to knobby109 For This Useful Post: |
July 13th, 2013, 11:48 AM | #98 |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,531
Thanks: 11,945
Thanked 79,765 Times in 3,160 Posts
|
Unfortunately all the photographed images of magazines I have seen posted here on the VEF have been utter crap. Not trying to knock people's efforts, but such images are amateurish and suffer from any of the following faults: poor lighting, light reflection, out of focus, bad ISO settings being used, and most particularly perspective distortion and image bowing. It's the half-way house of being half-arsed. They look awful.
So unless you have the skill and money to do it properply... A scanner is the best solution...and cheaper. |
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Darth Joules For This Useful Post: |
July 20th, 2013, 02:49 AM | #99 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,653
Thanks: 59,886
Thanked 488,339 Times in 6,661 Posts
|
Aging light bulb
The scanner I have been using for the last ten years is on its last legs, so I went out today and bought a new one. The same image on the the new one comes out quite different.
I could name the manufacturer and model, but I don't think it makes a difference as far as this discussion is concerned. Both scanners come from the same manufacturer and have the same software. The scan manager allows me to control brightness, contrast, gamma, etc.. But I have never used them. The default settings are fine with me. As you can see, the older image is considerably darker. I noticed that a while back, but since I also started placing a black sheet of paper behind the scanned page to prevent bleed through I considered that to be the source of the darker image. I was wrong. The image from the new scanner is still much lighter. The only thing I can figure is that as the light bulb in the scanner ages, its output does as well. Is that the case, or does anybody else have a better idea? |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to masque51 For This Useful Post: |
July 28th, 2013, 11:44 AM | #100 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,531
Thanks: 11,945
Thanked 79,765 Times in 3,160 Posts
|
Quote:
Or it could be as simple as poor calibration/processing. The older scanner image has too much contrast and a little too much colour balance towards magenta and yellow. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|