«

I am wondering if anyone here has advice on a scanner that can handle
11.5x14.5ish sized pages? I would like to be able to scan in full pages
from a *very* old family album to maintain the original feel. I spend
alot (too much) time on the computer, but haven't ventured into AV
stuff yet.

I hate to turn over this album to someone else, and am planning to
tackle the project on my own. The pages consist of both pictures and
text (even some fabric patches). I would also be using this scanner for
smaller photo albums (ie 8x11). I would be doing on the order of 100
pages to start.

I have started to look at wide large format scanners, but haven't been
able to find many reviews aside from some of the Espons (Expression
10000XL and GT-15000). Any thoughts on these or others?

I am assuming, based on all the group posts I have read (and I have
been reading quite a bit for days and days), that I should be saving
all scanned pages at 600 (maybe even 1200) into TIF format, depending
on size and future enlargement plans. Does this change if I will be
scanning old newspaper also?

And should I certainly use 48-bit?

Step one for me is just scanning, which I hope to take of relatively
quickly, then return to do color correcting/cropping/etc (but saving
the original scan).
If this is just plain foolish and if you would just say "take it to
some local scanning shop in San Francisco", please do let me know!

Thanks-

Consider using a document camera setup.

John Mares

"nwaiterh" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>I am wondering if anyone here has advice on a scanner that can handle
> 11.5x14.5ish sized pages? I would like to be able to scan in full pages
> from a *very* old family album to maintain the original feel. I spend
> alot (too much) time on the computer, but haven't ventured into AV
> stuff yet.
>
> I hate to turn over this album to someone else, and am planning to
> tackle the project on my own. The pages consist of both pictures and
> text (even some fabric patches). I would also be using this scanner for
> smaller photo albums (ie 8x11). I would be doing on the order of 100
> pages to start.
>
> I have started to look at wide large format scanners, but haven't been
> able to find many reviews aside from some of the Espons (Expression
> 10000XL and GT-15000). Any thoughts on these or others?
>
> I am assuming, based on all the group posts I have read (and I have
> been reading quite a bit for days and days), that I should be saving
> all scanned pages at 600 (maybe even 1200) into TIF format, depending
> on size and future enlargement plans. Does this change if I will be
> scanning old newspaper also?
>
> And should I certainly use 48-bit?
>
> Step one for me is just scanning, which I hope to take of relatively
> quickly, then return to do color correcting/cropping/etc (but saving
> the original scan).
> If this is just plain foolish and if you would just say "take it to
> some local scanning shop in San Francisco", please do let me know!
>
> Thanks-
>

John Mares wrote:
> Consider using a document camera setup.
>
> John Mares
>

Seconded:

I photographed and scanned a large scrapbook loaned me for that
purpose. The photographs were made under a sunlit 'gazebo' canopy,
good diffuse lighting, with a Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro on a Canon
20D.This is what they looked like, which may give an idea of the kind
of material you'd have to work with:

http://www.fototime.com/B8E0312AE3ED126/orig.jpg page
http://www.fototime.com/C0B9229884CE8D1/orig.jpg view 2
http://www.fototime.com/E495648CEF5C04D/orig.jpg crop

The scans required dismantling the scrapbook, and in cases where items
used more than the 8 1/2 by 11-inch dimensions of the Epson 4870
scanner bed, multiple scans and stitchings.

For my purposes (making the content available and legible in digital
form), the photography method was easier, faster, and equally
effective. Comparing the outcomes, I would not again use up the extra
time and energy that scanning required.

--
Frank ess

> "nwaiterh" <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
>> I am wondering if anyone here has advice on a scanner that can
>> handle
>> 11.5x14.5ish sized pages? I would like to be able to scan in full
>> pages from a *very* old family album to maintain the original feel.
>> I spend alot (too much) time on the computer, but haven't ventured
>> into AV stuff yet.

nwaiterh wrote:
> I am wondering if anyone here has advice on a scanner that can handle
> 11.5x14.5ish sized pages? I would like to be able to scan in full pages
> from a *very* old family album to maintain the original feel. I spend
> alot (too much) time on the computer, but haven't ventured into AV
> stuff yet.
>
> I hate to turn over this album to someone else, and am planning to
> tackle the project on my own. The pages consist of both pictures and
> text (even some fabric patches). I would also be using this scanner for
> smaller photo albums (ie 8x11). I would be doing on the order of 100
> pages to start.
>
> I have started to look at wide large format scanners, but haven't been
> able to find many reviews aside from some of the Espons (Expression
> 10000XL and GT-15000). Any thoughts on these or others?
>
> I am assuming, based on all the group posts I have read (and I have
> been reading quite a bit for days and days), that I should be saving
> all scanned pages at 600 (maybe even 1200) into TIF format, depending
> on size and future enlargement plans. Does this change if I will be
> scanning old newspaper also?

There is no gain in preservoing the information of photo prints if you scan at more htan
250 or 300 pp1. If you scan at a higher pixel count, you'll just pick uop dust particles
and other blemishes. And I don't think you'll lose image quality noticably if oyu save in
..jpg format at moderate ocmpression.

>
> And should I certainly use 48-bit?

No. 8 bits per color is more than enough to cover the full range of color depth that can
be in a photo print. I'm assuming the old prints are B/W (really, gray scale), so you
might as well scan in gray scale, which will keep the file sizes smaller.

>
> Step one for me is just scanning, which I hope to take of relatively
> quickly, then return to do color correcting/cropping/etc (but saving
> the original scan).

Yes, always save the orginal scan. Treat it as if it were a negative, that you can't
replace.
> If this is just plain foolish and if you would just say "take it to
> some local scanning shop in San Francisco", please do let me know!

It depends on how much your time is worth. And there have been numerous complaints on
this NG about the poor quality of scans from a local camera shop. That doesn't mean that
they all do bad work, but you should try one out on a few prints before you entrust the
rest of the job to them.
>
> Thanks-
>

Thanks for the comments all-

One note about the scanner v camera. If you were starting from scratch
and didn't have the camera setup, would you still go with that choice?
It seems like a larger format scanner (albeit a bit pricey, though I
would likely turn around and sell it in the end) would be a good way to
go. And one good (?!) thing about the old albums is that they have
deteriorated to the point where I don't have to take them apart - the
pages are all sitting separately already. So it seems like a scanner
would take far less time, but maybe I'm just not considering the time
it takes to do each scan?

nwaiterh wrote:
> Thanks for the comments all-
>
> One note about the scanner v camera. If you were starting from
> scratch
> and didn't have the camera setup, would you still go with that
> choice?
> It seems like a larger format scanner (albeit a bit pricey, though I
> would likely turn around and sell it in the end) would be a good way
> to go. And one good (?!) thing about the old albums is that they
> have
> deteriorated to the point where I don't have to take them apart -
> the
> pages are all sitting separately already. So it seems like a scanner
> would take far less time, but maybe I'm just not considering the
> time
> it takes to do each scan?

A scanner has the advantage of requiring little setup and greater ease
of establishing a routine for swapping from page to page for
near-perfect results. A camera setup will take a little more
adjustment to realize the potential for near-perfection. In either
case, you're likely to spend some time on post processing.

The difference is in the length of time between imaging start and
next-imaging start. The scanner takes quite a while to scan and
process, the camera less than a second for exposure while its
processing is deferred until transfer to the PC.

My experience:

Camera work takes a few minutes, a couple more to transfer the images,
and I'm ready to sit back, relax, and post-process.

Scanner takes lots of time (depending on choice of definition and
content), hovering, and finger-drumming to get the images into the
computer, before relaxing into the same post processing posture.

When I have the option, for a considerable number of objects, the
camera is my choice. For the odd scan, the scanner is equal or better
for product, and it is always set up.

Photography seems like play, scanning like work.

Might be different for others.

Now, about storing all those giant, hard-won image files...

--
Frank ess

Thanks again!
If (hypothetically of course ) I decide a scanner is the way to go
- any suggestions for a larger format one? The only home ones I see
again and again are the Espons.

In article <. com>,
"nwaiterh" <> wrote:

> I am wondering if anyone here has advice on a scanner that can handle
> 11.5x14.5ish sized pages? I would like to be able to scan in full pages
> from a *very* old family album to maintain the original feel. I spend
> alot (too much) time on the computer, but haven't ventured into AV
> stuff yet.
>
> I hate to turn over this album to someone else, and am planning to
> tackle the project on my own. The pages consist of both pictures and
> text (even some fabric patches). I would also be using this scanner for
> smaller photo albums (ie 8x11). I would be doing on the order of 100
> pages to start.
>
> I have started to look at wide large format scanners, but haven't been
> able to find many reviews aside from some of the Espons (Expression
> 10000XL and GT-15000). Any thoughts on these or others?
>
> I am assuming, based on all the group posts I have read (and I have
> been reading quite a bit for days and days), that I should be saving
> all scanned pages at 600 (maybe even 1200) into TIF format, depending
> on size and future enlargement plans. Does this change if I will be
> scanning old newspaper also?
>
> And should I certainly use 48-bit?
>
> Step one for me is just scanning, which I hope to take of relatively
> quickly, then return to do color correcting/cropping/etc (but saving
> the original scan).
> If this is just plain foolish and if you would just say "take it to
> some local scanning shop in San Francisco", please do let me know!
>
Buy yourself an ordinary (cheap) A4 scanner and scan in two halves.

I recently scanned a collection of old newspaper-sized comics (TV
Century 21) in two parts. As I was doing the same action again and
again, workflow became very fast.

The measure tool (under the eyedropper) in Photoshop will make sure both
images are oriented properly.

Scan at around 400-600dpi (300 to save time) and save as TIFF or PSD.
Backup the raw scans to DVD.

Scanning old newspapers can be scanned at 100-150dpi as the quality of
newspaper printing is very low.

IMHO those flatbeds which scan up to 4800dpi are way over the top and
are only useful for scanning tiny objects like stamps and coins.

Marvin wrote:

> There is no gain in preservoing the information of photo prints if you
> scan at more htan 250 or 300 pp1. If you scan at a higher pixel count,
> you'll just pick uop dust particles and other blemishes. And I don't
> think you'll lose image quality noticably if oyu save in .jpg format at
> moderate ocmpression.

I disagree. It depends on the sharpness of the print. Here is a test
that shows you gain detail up to at least 400 ppi. The scans were done
with a 600 ppi scanner, so above 400 ppi are limited by the scanner.
I should redo the test with my 4800 ppi epson 4990 scanner.

see the last section on this page:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ml#printpixels

>> And should I certainly use 48-bit?
>
> No. 8 bits per color is more than enough to cover the full range of
> color depth that can be in a photo print. I'm assuming the old prints
> are B/W (really, gray scale), so you might as well scan in gray scale,
> which will keep the file sizes smaller.

I agree with this if you do not plan any digital editing. If you
have some prints with subtle detail you want to coax out, then
the highest bits/channel the scanner is capable of might help
a little. You can always convert to 8-bit when done editing.

Roger

Roger -
Is there scanning software that you would recommend?
I am not looking for anything overly complex, but something that can
still support dealing with old photos and newspaper articles, some that
have become rather worn over time.
I get a bit confused regarding whether the scanning software is what I
should be using for the editing on the Mac (most likely instead of a
PC), or if I should simply scan the file and then use a separate
program for working on the tiff (like Aperture, Photoshop, etc).
Thanks-