First scans - feedback sought

[GlassEye]

I have rather a lot of old magazines, and parts of magazines, which are taking up space and gradually deteriorating. I would like to scan them and donate the results to posterity, but have never tried to scan anything before, let alone high-quality gentlemen's literature (ahem). I've read through the various discussions here and come up with what I hope is a reasonable attempt. Here are the results;




This was done with an HP F2280 running from Irfan, initially saved as 300dpi bitmaps then resampled as .jpgs using PaintShop Pro. I still have the original bitmaps. No attempt made to adjust colour or contrast. I am interested in any feedback or suggestions you might have as I would like to scan the lot eventually.

Thanks...

[GlassEye]

Originally Posted by tuffy

Very good scans, but you can't "resample as .jpgs", only resample to xxx dpi bitmaps and then compress as .jpgs.

Please post the original 300dpi bitmaps without resample, but as .jpgs too.

Tuffy

Thanks - to be completely accurate, I think I resampled the bitmaps first, as you say, then saved as .jpgs.

Re posting the originals, I don't think ImageVenue will allow me to upload .bmps. They're also >20Mb in size

I can save one of the original-sized .bmps as an un-resampled .jpg if that's of any use...

[svga]

Sorry, I can give you no scanning advice but the next time you should select the correct BB code when you upload images to imagevenue:



I've marked the correct code with a red arrow, you used the other one (I fixed the BB code in your post)

I hope to see more of your scans soon,
svga

[Jism Jim]

Originally Posted by GlassEye

I can save one of the original-sized .bmps as an un-resampled .jpg if that's of any use...

Yes, I think that's what Tuffy asked for.

[Jism Jim]

As I have started scanning, I would like to have some feedback myself.
After scanning my first mag, I found the standard filter in Noiseware a bit too harsh. So I tried tweaking it a bit and looking for other options.
Here's two versions of the same pic.




1: which pic do you like best?
2: why?
3: does it make a lot of a difference to you? (one is a lot more work than the other)


Here's what I have done, my scanner is an Epson Stylus Photo RX585:

1: scan at 300dpi using the 'Magazine' setting of the driver software, in combination with a 'descreen' function, saving the scans as bitmaps.
2: remove noise using one of the filters used in the pics above.
3: compress to JPG using Irfanview (quality at 80%)

Thanks in advance for your comments

[Xxphd]

Originally Posted by Dario Rosselini

1: which pic do you like best?

Thanks in advance for your comments

difficult, I would say both are @ semi-professional level
right pic seems to have a little more contrast

[Jism Jim]

Originally Posted by Xxphd

difficult, I would say both are @ semi-professional level

Thank you X, it's remarkable what can be achieved with cheap equipment.
As there is apparently so little difference between the results, I'll use the batch filtering with Photofiltre instead of filtering each individual pic with Noiseware.

[tuffy]

You asked for:

1: which pic do you like best?

nw35_40

2: why?

it looks sharper than the other one

3: does it make a lot of a difference to you? (one is a lot more work than the other)

both have a green color cast, so it's no difference


I have this magazine, so I did some scans (200 dpi) to compare to:



Look at her eyes and compare their color.



Look at the clothes and the furniture, you can clearly see the green color cast, and that your pics are a liitle bit unsharp.


Tuffy

[ellias]

Always save as JPEGs with the least amount of compression. When scanning, place a black sheet of paper behind the page being scanned; it will eliminate print show-through. When I scan, I do it through a plug-in that runs thru Adobe Photoshop with my UMAX Astra 6400 Firewire scanner on a Mac. I scan at 300 ppi, and then in most cases physically resize the scans slightly for a smaller file. Resizing compresses the halftone dot pattern of the printed page. I never scan using a descreen filter that purportedly reduces the dot pattern as they tend to soften the images doing more harm than good. I try to keep sizes to around 5-6 megs per images with a physical dimension of 5" tall that originally are full page size. When scanning a truly great pic of one of my favorites from a beautifully printed magazine like Japan's Bachelor magazine, I will save a 10-12 meg image. I enjoy creating morphs and starting with a great file is beneficial. I find it helps the image to add a bit of contrast and a bit of sharpening. Lastly, why go through the process of scanning if you're going to archive or post crappy scans. Doing it right makes the most sense to me.

[Oudezijds]

Dear Glass Eye,
You can do what you wish - of course, but here is what I wish.

If you are using an HP scanner, you have limited "magazine" scan options. But for sure, all I have ever seen have a "descreen function. Use it to remove some of the moire' from the dots in the original magazine color separations which is conflicting with the line scanner, on the scanner.

If you have a sharpen mode, after descreening, sharpen the image at the highest level. This is an edge enhancement technique and does little to the original image.

When you go and save the image, there is usual a drop down box in the "save as" window offering you jpeg, tif, gif, bmp etc. Select .jpg at that time. The less "processing" and transcoding you do, the less "damage" done to the original image. If there is no such option, some older ones allow you to do it in the set up mode, settings mode, or even in the standard drop downs (file, edit, view, favorites, tools, HELP).

Scan the image at the highest resolution you can afford to and still make the 3mb requirement that most services require. Usually 200-250 dpi.

After that, please leave it alone. Don't "correct" the color, balance the contrast, or anything else. Reasons? If your reference monitor isn't calibrated, your well intentioned corrections might look foul on our monitors. Also, if I wish to "correct" things myself I will have an unaltered image with the maximum allowable amount of the original data to work with. Truthfully, if an image I download is yellowish or bluish, I would likely leave it alone that way because that's the way it is. If you collected stamps and you had two vintage stamps and one was grey and dingy would you wash it in "new" Tide with brighteners. No, you would consider it "patina" and you wouldn't risk damaging what was there.

That's actually where my head is at. Leave the data alone. Transcode it minimally or not at all and send as high a density pic as you can within the boundaries of your image library service. I'd say I am on the page with Elias for the most part, except that I think balancing descreen with edge enhancement does yield results and eliminate most moire'.

Thank you and welcome to our community - de Vlieg