January 11th, 2016, 07:44 PM | #1 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,811
Thanks: 4,252
Thanked 77,734 Times in 1,773 Posts
|
Scanner hardware advice
Ok so my old scanner has packed in. Whatever I do I can't wake it up.
So as I have a nice issue of CC's "Exciting" to share with you good people, I figured I'd ask those who know to recommend a good scanner.. Ideas please. My budget is not especially limited. I just want very good quality and none of that horrible Moire interference. After all, these scan are preserving filth for posterity! |
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to delicasalat For This Useful Post: |
|
January 11th, 2016, 10:20 PM | #2 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Outskirts of Goosebump City, near the BusbyBerkeleyBakery
Posts: 777
Thanks: 4,712
Thanked 8,847 Times in 754 Posts
|
Epson v600 superb imo. Some people complain abt epson s/w, not for scan quality but other kinks. Having got used to it I'm ok. Solution to moire is "descreening" which is a box to click for mags & the like but not other stuff.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Please do PM me on any dead links, loading fails, or other issues with host. It will be fixed! |
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ConstantOgler For This Useful Post: |
January 11th, 2016, 10:37 PM | #3 |
supermoderateur
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 24,398
Thanks: 157,875
Thanked 321,663 Times in 24,312 Posts
|
Whatever you do, avoid HP !
(i have a canon scanner now and while it it simple it works fine) Edit: last time i had a HP scanner, it forced 2 non-erasable desktop icons on me, and their software was extremely pushy, while the scanning itself didn't allow me for much customisation / choices. It's by far the worst i have experienced and made me never want to have anything to do wit HP ever again. Last edited by cicciobuki; January 11th, 2016 at 10:42 PM.. |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to cicciobuki For This Useful Post: |
January 12th, 2016, 09:29 AM | #4 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,736
Thanks: 144
Thanked 14,338 Times in 1,702 Posts
|
Use a digital camera! I have done this since my scanner died and it gives excellent results. You may need to crop the image but that's all.I just download the images onto my PC and do the rest with Irfanview. If you haven't got Irfanview , it's free, uses next to no CPU or memory and is amazingly versatie. It's been my default image viewer from my first PC and it's the first thing I load onto a new one.
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to knobby109 For This Useful Post: |
January 13th, 2016, 05:57 PM | #5 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,811
Thanks: 4,252
Thanked 77,734 Times in 1,773 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to delicasalat For This Useful Post: |
January 14th, 2016, 09:55 AM | #6 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,736
Thanks: 144
Thanked 14,338 Times in 1,702 Posts
|
Quote:
I've not used it for glossy magazines but I always copy important documents using the camera. |
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to knobby109 For This Useful Post: |
January 17th, 2016, 09:26 PM | #7 |
paludicolous paravant
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Perfidious Albion
Posts: 26,735
Thanks: 75,668
Thanked 745,479 Times in 26,855 Posts
|
I have a scanner/printer from Brother for A3, which is excellent though now quite a few years old. The model has been replaced since by a successor, but it's worth trying.
Of course, this is pricier and bigger (mine cost £250 when it was new). For porn mags of that period you won't need A3, unless you go for Italian mags. Personally I wanted A3 because (i) quite a few mags I collect are large-format, (ii) I also collect movie lobby cards which are often two large to scan with A4. With good stitching software (e.g. ICE) you can often avoid these large scans, but besides stitched images not always coming out nicely, the A3 scans simply save you quite a bit of time. I would discourage simply photographing the content: you get issues with light-reflection, perspective distortion, lens distortion, and the simple annoying little thing of getting the mag flat in the first place. |
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to beutelwolf For This Useful Post: |
January 17th, 2016, 11:53 PM | #8 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sunny South Florida
Posts: 7,853
Thanks: 163,978
Thanked 119,257 Times in 7,642 Posts
|
Not if you plan to share your magazines in the Magazine Scans section of VEF! The section rules prohibit the posting of photographs. There's no reason not to buy a decent scanner. They're very inexpensive and give far better results than you're likely to achieve with a camera.
I personally use a Brother home office all in one machine (laser printer, scanner, copier, fax, toaster oven). And I agree about HP. The last HP printer I had forced me to buy $40 ink cartridges even though there was plenty of ink in them. Their scheme was to have the cartridge expire so many days after activation. I'll never buy another printer from them. |
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Pepper II For This Useful Post: |
January 18th, 2016, 02:08 AM | #9 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upper left corner
Posts: 7,205
Thanks: 47,961
Thanked 83,459 Times in 7,199 Posts
|
No, don't do this. Not a good solution for flat material; camera lenses -- outside of some exotic models-- are not made for accurately imaging flat material. The battle in imaging magazines is dealing with moire-- the irritating patterns that result from the dot patterns than the photo is composed of; using a camera will ensure that you can never get rid of moire.
A scan is infinitely better, and high quality scanners are cheap. |
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to deepsepia For This Useful Post: |
January 23rd, 2016, 10:56 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 189
Thanks: 571
Thanked 1,292 Times in 165 Posts
|
Epsons in my opinion are by far the best. Certainly not the cheapest, but very robust. I use an Epson V700, this is overkill for document scans but it does a great job on negatives and transparencies as well. As has been mentioned, the software takes a bit of getting used to. If you don't like it, Vuescan works well with this scanner and is more versatile.
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MrStockings For This Useful Post: |
|
|