Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > flatbed uv scanner

Reply
Thread Tools

flatbed uv scanner

 
 
yawnmoth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
It's fairly well known that some items fluoresces when exposed to UV
light. Unfortunately, taking pictures of these items isn't so easy.
As I understand it, filters that filter out all light save for UV
light can be bought for select cameras, but the items I'm interested
in making pictures of (some currency and some sports cards) are better
suited to scanning. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how to go
about doing this.

It seems like if I could just find an appropriately sized rectangular
piece of glass that I could just set that on top of the glass the
scanner already comes with and then set the item on top of that, but
I've not had any luck finding such an item nor have I had any luck
finding a scanner specifically designed for this.

Any ideas?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ransley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
On May 18, 9:45*am, yawnmoth <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> It's fairly well known that some items fluoresces when exposed to UV
> light. *Unfortunately, taking pictures of these items isn't so easy.
> As I understand it, filters that filter out all light save for UV
> light can be bought for select cameras, but the items I'm interested
> in making pictures of (some currency and some sports cards) are better
> suited to scanning. *Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how to go
> about doing this.
>
> It seems like if I could just find an appropriately sized rectangular
> piece of glass that I could just set that on top of the glass the
> scanner already comes with and then set the item on top of that, but
> I've not had any luck finding such an item nor have I had any luck
> finding a scanner specifically designed for this.
>
> Any ideas?


And why would you consider scanning currency
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
me@mine.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
On Sun, 18 May 2008 07:45:33 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digital yawnmoth
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>It's fairly well known that some items fluoresces when exposed to UV
>light. Unfortunately, taking pictures of these items isn't so easy.
>As I understand it, filters that filter out all light save for UV
>light can be bought for select cameras, but the items I'm interested
>in making pictures of (some currency and some sports cards) are better
>suited to scanning. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how to go
>about doing this.
>
>It seems like if I could just find an appropriately sized rectangular
>piece of glass that I could just set that on top of the glass the
>scanner already comes with and then set the item on top of that, but
>I've not had any luck finding such an item nor have I had any luck
>finding a scanner specifically designed for this.
>
>Any ideas?


You are aware it is illegal to scan most currency? In fact most currency
have details which when recognized by modern scanning programs will cause
the scan to abort with a warning to such.
 
Reply With Quote
 
yawnmoth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
On May 18, 10:02 am, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 07:45:33 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digital yawnmoth
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >It's fairly well known that some items fluoresces when exposed to UV
> >light. Unfortunately, taking pictures of these items isn't so easy.
> >As I understand it, filters that filter out all light save for UV
> >light can be bought for select cameras, but the items I'm interested
> >in making pictures of (some currency and some sports cards) are better
> >suited to scanning. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how to go
> >about doing this.

>
> >It seems like if I could just find an appropriately sized rectangular
> >piece of glass that I could just set that on top of the glass the
> >scanner already comes with and then set the item on top of that, but
> >I've not had any luck finding such an item nor have I had any luck
> >finding a scanner specifically designed for this.

>
> >Any ideas?

>
> You are aware it is illegal to scan most currency? In fact most currency
> have details which when recognized by modern scanning programs will cause
> the scan to abort with a warning to such.


What about currency that has since been replaced by the Euro and, as
far as I know, is no longer legal tender, anymore? What about this?:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.c...4d859747c38ca5

Or what about this?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...06_Obverse.jpg

Is wikipedia.org wantonly breaking the law? Do people selling
currency on eBay regularly break the law?

As far as I know, the only law regarding this says you can't *print*
them Scanning them is quite a bit different (check out the licensing
section on the wikipedia.org article, for instance), and as for UV
scans... well, let's just say that I think those would be useless for
would-be counter fitters.

As for your supposition that most scanners will abort the scan... I
am not aware of this. Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_...ion_mechanisms

It states that you can't *print* images of dollar bills with recent
image editors. *Print*. You can *edit* them all you like. And no
where in there does it say anything about *scanning*.

In short, I don't believe you know at all what you are talking about.
But hey - maybe you do and maybe the Wikimedia Foundation should hire
you as their legal counsel and fire their current one.
 
Reply With Quote
 
me@mine.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digital yawnmoth
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In short, I don't believe you know at all what you are talking about.


When you have scanned a current U$20 in any current version of PSP, PSE or
PS or any current scanner supplied software you will have your answer.
Unless things have changed in the last 5 years since I last tried it with
my old HPSJ5. Only it's own ancient software would scan it, though the
driver for my Canon 610 wouldn't print it. PSP 7 wouldn't even scan it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
yawnmoth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
On May 18, 12:07 pm, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digitalyawnmoth
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >In short, I don't believe you know at all what you are talking about.

>
> When you have scanned a current U$20 in any current version of PSP, PSE or
> PS or any current scanner supplied software you will have your answer.
> Unless things have changed in the last 5 years since I last tried it with
> my old HPSJ5. Only it's own ancient software would scan it, though the
> driver for my Canon 610 wouldn't print it. PSP 7 wouldn't even scan it.


I was able to successfully scan a current $20 when using a Microtek
ScanMaker 4850 [1] with the Scanner and Camera Wizard that comes with
Windows XP SP2 (SP3 hasn't yet downloaded with the auto-update thing)
[2]...

The fact that newer scanners might not allow it doesn't convince me
that it's illegal, per my above post. Also, it's not unprecedented
for software to be overzealous when it comes to preventing illegal
activities. For example, you're legally entitled to make backup
copies of games [3] even though many games actively take measures to
prevent you from doing that.

And in any event, there's still the issue of sports cards. Actually,
I suppose it's somewhat inaccurate to say sports cards. They're
Magic: The Gathering cards. Some cards fluoresce while others don't
[4]. The picture in [4] would be nicer if the two types were scanned
in, side by side, as opposed to being photographed with a digital
camera.

But I don't suppose I'll be getting any help... seems to be easier to
attack people than it is to help... :\

[1] http://support.microtek.com/static/sm4850.html
[2] http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...ntfaxscan.mspx
[3] http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html
[4] http://www.magiclibrarities.net/rari...on-images.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2008
On May 18, 9:45 am, yawnmoth <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> It's fairly well known that some items fluoresces when exposed to UV
> light. Unfortunately, taking pictures of these items isn't so easy.
> As I understand it, filters that filter out all light save for UV
> light can be bought for select cameras, but the items I'm interested
> in making pictures of (some currency and some sports cards) are better
> suited to scanning. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how to go
> about doing this.
>
> It seems like if I could just find an appropriately sized rectangular
> piece of glass that I could just set that on top of the glass the
> scanner already comes with and then set the item on top of that, but
> I've not had any luck finding such an item nor have I had any luck
> finding a scanner specifically designed for this.
>
> Any ideas?


Virtually any digital camera with the chip made in silicon, by far the
most common, is not great at UV work. Silicon photo junctions are
just not very UV sensitive. They are far less sensitive to UV than
film. You would be better off with a film camera.

 
Reply With Quote
 
yawnmoth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2008
On May 19, 9:04 am, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 9:45 am,yawnmoth<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> It's fairly well known that some items fluoresces when exposed to UV
> >> light. Unfortunately, taking pictures of these items isn't so easy.
> >> As I understand it, filters that filter out all light save for UV
> >> light can be bought for select cameras, but the items I'm interested
> >> in making pictures of (some currency and some sports cards) are better
> >> suited to scanning. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how to go
> >> about doing this.

>
> >> It seems like if I could just find an appropriately sized rectangular
> >> piece of glass that I could just set that on top of the glass the
> >> scanner already comes with and then set the item on top of that, but
> >> I've not had any luck finding such an item nor have I had any luck
> >> finding a scanner specifically designed for this.

>
> >> Any ideas?

>
> > Virtually any digital camera with the chip made in silicon, by far the
> > most common, is not great at UV work. Silicon photo junctions are
> > just not very UV sensitive. They are far less sensitive to UV than
> > film. You would be better off with a film camera.

>
> This is confusing. It seems that he wants to photograph the fluorescence,
> that is, the visible light, rather than the UV. This is easy with a regular
> digital camera, such as my Canon 30D, which is totally insensitive to UV.
> But it's not scanning. IF he really needs a scanner, it would need a UV
> light source, a UV transmission filter in front of the light source, and
> a UV rejection filter in front of the sensor.
>
> To the OP: what are you trying to do? If it is what I suggest,
> a scanner may be hard to get to do that.


What you suggested is basically it. Although I don't see why scanning
would be any different than photography? As I understand it, black
lights work by having a special type of glass - Wood's glass or
Wratten 18A - that blocks all light save for UV light. That results
in the object being exposed to comparatively more UV light then it
would normally be exposed to and in the fluorescence being more
visible than it normally would be.

Fluorescent lights - as a scanner would use - use phosphors to to
produce visible light from the UV light that the electrically charged
gas creates. Thinking about it, it seems like that might mean that if
you tried to filter out all light other than UV light that you'd end
up not getting any light, UV or otherwise, since the UV light is
already filtered out?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2008

? "yawnmoth" <(E-Mail Removed)> ?????? ??? ??????
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On May 18, 12:07 pm, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digitalyawnmoth
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >In short, I don't believe you know at all what you are talking about.

>>
>> When you have scanned a current U$20 in any current version of PSP, PSE
>> or
>> PS or any current scanner supplied software you will have your answer.
>> Unless things have changed in the last 5 years since I last tried it with
>> my old HPSJ5. Only it's own ancient software would scan it, though the
>> driver for my Canon 610 wouldn't print it. PSP 7 wouldn't even scan it.

>
> I was able to successfully scan a current $20 when using a Microtek
> ScanMaker 4850 [1] with the Scanner and Camera Wizard that comes with
> Windows XP SP2 (SP3 hasn't yet downloaded with the auto-update thing)
> [2]...
>
> The fact that newer scanners might not allow it doesn't convince me
> that it's illegal, per my above post. Also, it's not unprecedented
> for software to be overzealous when it comes to preventing illegal
> activities. For example, you're legally entitled to make backup
> copies of games [3] even though many games actively take measures to
> prevent you from doing that.
>
> And in any event, there's still the issue of sports cards. Actually,
> I suppose it's somewhat inaccurate to say sports cards. They're
> Magic: The Gathering cards. Some cards fluoresce while others don't
> [4]. The picture in [4] would be nicer if the two types were scanned
> in, side by side, as opposed to being photographed with a digital
> camera.
>
> But I don't suppose I'll be getting any help... seems to be easier to
> attack people than it is to help... :\
>
> [1] http://support.microtek.com/static/sm4850.html
> [2]
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...ntfaxscan.mspx
> [3] http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html
> [4]
> http://www.magiclibrarities.net/rari...on-images.html

This reminds me of the old paradox-it's forbidden (in Greece) to take
photographs of military camps and the like, or talk about "military
secrets", probably a Cold War remnant. While I was in the army myself, I
could take photos as I pleased, and learned many "military secrets". If I
upload any of these photos in the internet, am I breaking the law?



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr


 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2008
On May 19, 9:04 am, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 9:45 am, yawnmoth <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> It's fairly well known that some items fluoresces when exposed to UV
> >> light. Unfortunately, taking pictures of these items isn't so easy.
> >> As I understand it, filters that filter out all light save for UV
> >> light can be bought for select cameras, but the items I'm interested
> >> in making pictures of (some currency and some sports cards) are better
> >> suited to scanning. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how to go
> >> about doing this.

>
> >> It seems like if I could just find an appropriately sized rectangular
> >> piece of glass that I could just set that on top of the glass the
> >> scanner already comes with and then set the item on top of that, but
> >> I've not had any luck finding such an item nor have I had any luck
> >> finding a scanner specifically designed for this.

>
> >> Any ideas?

>
> > Virtually any digital camera with the chip made in silicon, by far the
> > most common, is not great at UV work. Silicon photo junctions are
> > just not very UV sensitive. They are far less sensitive to UV than
> > film. You would be better off with a film camera.

>
> This is confusing. It seems that he wants to photograph the fluorescence,
> that is, the visible light, rather than the UV. This is easy with a regular
> digital camera, such as my Canon 30D, which is totally insensitive to UV.
> But it's not scanning. IF he really needs a scanner, it would need a UV
> light source, a UV transmission filter in front of the light source, and
> a UV rejection filter in front of the sensor.
>
> To the OP: what are you trying to do? If it is what I suggest,
> a scanner may be hard to get to do that.
>
> Doug McDonald


That is right- I forgot the original problem. In that case, since the
camera is not that sensitive to UV light, you may not even need the UV
filter in front of the camera.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Flatbed Scanner as Copier Dankwart Koehler Digital Photography 2 08-08-2004 07:21 AM
Using flatbed scanner for micro fiche..can it be done? Shanghai Smith Digital Photography 0 07-03-2004 03:10 AM
Dedicated 35mm slide and negative scanner or flatbed FocaIPoint Digital Photography 14 12-28-2003 05:03 PM
Flatbed scanner recommendations for scanning film Mark Levison Digital Photography 3 09-12-2003 01:34 PM
HP 7400C Flatbed scanner-Any good for film Stromer2 Digital Photography 2 07-16-2003 01:23 AM



Advertisments