flatbed uv scanner

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by yawnmoth, May 18, 2008.

  1. yawnmoth

    yawnmoth Guest

    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?
     
    yawnmoth, May 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. yawnmoth

    ransley Guest

    On May 18, 9:45 am, yawnmoth <> 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
     
    ransley, May 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. yawnmoth

    Guest

    On Sun, 18 May 2008 07:45:33 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digital yawnmoth
    <> 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.
     
    , May 18, 2008
    #3
  4. yawnmoth

    yawnmoth Guest

    On May 18, 10:02 am, wrote:
    > On Sun, 18 May 2008 07:45:33 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digital yawnmoth
    >
    >
    >
    > <> 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.collecting.coins/msg/fd4d859747c38ca5

    Or what about this?:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_$20_Series_2006_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_constellation#Other_banknote_detection_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.
     
    yawnmoth, May 18, 2008
    #4
  5. yawnmoth

    Guest

    On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digital yawnmoth
    <> 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.
     
    , May 18, 2008
    #5
  6. yawnmoth

    yawnmoth Guest

    On May 18, 12:07 pm, wrote:
    > On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digitalyawnmoth
    >
    > <> 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/using/setup/hwandprograms/printfaxscan.mspx
    [3] http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html
    [4] http://www.magiclibrarities.net/rarities-alternate-fourth-edition-images.html
     
    yawnmoth, May 18, 2008
    #6
  7. On May 18, 9:45 am, yawnmoth <> 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.
     
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, May 19, 2008
    #7
  8. yawnmoth

    yawnmoth Guest

    On May 19, 9:04 am, wrote:
    > Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 18, 9:45 am,yawnmoth<> 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?
     
    yawnmoth, May 19, 2008
    #8
  9. ? "yawnmoth" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:...
    > On May 18, 12:07 pm, wrote:
    >> On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digitalyawnmoth
    >>
    >> <> 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/using/setup/hwandprograms/printfaxscan.mspx
    > [3] http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html
    > [4]
    > http://www.magiclibrarities.net/rarities-alternate-fourth-edition-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
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, May 19, 2008
    #9
  10. On May 19, 9:04 am, wrote:
    > Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 18, 9:45 am, yawnmoth <> 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.
     
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, May 20, 2008
    #10
  11. ? "Allen" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:4831d3a1$0$3351$...
    > Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
    >
    >> 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, when I was in the US Army in 1954 and training to use a Nike
    > surface-to-air missile, Ohm's Law was marked "Confidential"--the lowest
    > level of "military secrets", but nonetheless not to be copied or even
    > discussed outside our classroom. We all got a big laugh out of that.

    Near every telephone in the boot camp, was printed "Be careful what you say,
    the enemy is hearing". And by that time, our arch-enemies (the Turks)
    probably will know the size of the Commander's underwear...



    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    hordad AT otenet DOT gr
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, May 20, 2008
    #11
  12. In article
    <>,
    yawnmoth <> writes
    >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.
    >
    >Any ideas?


    You used to be able to buy UV tubes in a number of different sizes
    compatible with standard fluorescent fittings (they are basically
    standard tubes without the phosphor coatings on the inside).

    I bought a couple for the making printed circuit boards in the 80s.
    Larger, restricted UV wavelength, tubes are available for tanning beds.
    Smaller types are used on hand held wands for detecting forged
    banknotes.

    Have a look around, and you might find one that fits the scanner you are
    planning to use. I had an old Logitech hand scanner that used the same
    size tube as the banknote scanners.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, May 21, 2008
    #12
  13. On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:38:42 +0300, Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
    > ? "Allen" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    >> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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, when I was in the US Army in 1954 and training to use a Nike
    >> surface-to-air missile, Ohm's Law was marked "Confidential"--the lowest
    >> level of "military secrets", but nonetheless not to be copied or even
    >> discussed outside our classroom. We all got a big laugh out of that.


    > Near every telephone in the boot camp, was printed "Be careful what you say,
    > the enemy is hearing". And by that time, our arch-enemies (the Turks)
    > probably will know the size of the Commander's underwear...


    From _my_ time in the air force (>40 years ago), I determined that the
    reason every thing which was marked "Top Secret" was, in fact, marked
    thus, was to prevent the "enemy" from finding out just how antiquated,
    obsolete, unreliable, and marginally capable the "stuff" actually was.

    Probably not much different now-a-days -- in any man's military.
     
    Allodoxaphobia, May 21, 2008
    #13
  14. On Wed, 21 May 2008 00:08:43 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    >
    > You used to be able to buy UV tubes in a number of different sizes
    > compatible with standard fluorescent fittings (they are basically
    > standard tubes without the phosphor coatings on the inside).
    >
    > I bought a couple for the making printed circuit boards in the 80s.
    > Larger, restricted UV wavelength, tubes are available for tanning beds.



    > Smaller types are used on hand held wands for detecting forged
    > banknotes.


    And, cat piss. :)

    Jonesy
     
    Allodoxaphobia, May 21, 2008
    #14
  15. In article <>, Allodoxaphobia
    <> writes
    >On Wed, 21 May 2008 00:08:43 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    >>
    >> You used to be able to buy UV tubes in a number of different sizes
    >> compatible with standard fluorescent fittings (they are basically
    >> standard tubes without the phosphor coatings on the inside).
    >>
    >> I bought a couple for the making printed circuit boards in the 80s.
    >> Larger, restricted UV wavelength, tubes are available for tanning beds.

    >
    >
    >> Smaller types are used on hand held wands for detecting forged
    >> banknotes.

    >
    >And, cat piss. :)
    >

    What are you feeding your cat? !*!??
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, May 21, 2008
    #15
  16. ? "Kennedy McEwen" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:...
    > In article <>, Allodoxaphobia
    > <> writes
    >>On Wed, 21 May 2008 00:08:43 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    >>>
    >>> You used to be able to buy UV tubes in a number of different sizes
    >>> compatible with standard fluorescent fittings (they are basically
    >>> standard tubes without the phosphor coatings on the inside).
    >>>
    >>> I bought a couple for the making printed circuit boards in the 80s.
    >>> Larger, restricted UV wavelength, tubes are available for tanning beds.

    >>
    >>
    >>> Smaller types are used on hand held wands for detecting forged
    >>> banknotes.

    >>
    >>And, cat piss. :)
    >>

    > What are you feeding your cat? !*!??
    > --

    Banknotes:_)



    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    hordad AT otenet DOT gr
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, May 21, 2008
    #16
  17. In article <g11uh2$b7t$>, Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    <> writes
    >
    >? "Kennedy McEwen" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    >news:...
    >> In article <>, Allodoxaphobia
    >> <> writes
    >>>On Wed, 21 May 2008 00:08:43 +0100, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> You used to be able to buy UV tubes in a number of different sizes
    >>>> compatible with standard fluorescent fittings (they are basically
    >>>> standard tubes without the phosphor coatings on the inside).
    >>>>
    >>>> I bought a couple for the making printed circuit boards in the 80s.
    >>>> Larger, restricted UV wavelength, tubes are available for tanning beds.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Smaller types are used on hand held wands for detecting forged
    >>>> banknotes.
    >>>
    >>>And, cat piss. :)
    >>>

    >> What are you feeding your cat? !*!??
    >> --

    >Banknotes:_)
    >

    8 out of 10 kitties prefer genuine banknotes to forged ones! ;-)
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, May 21, 2008
    #17
  18. yawnmoth

    yawnmoth Guest

    On May 20, 6:08 pm, Kennedy McEwen <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > yawnmoth <> writes
    >
    > >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.

    >
    > >Any ideas?

    >
    > You used to be able to buy UV tubes in a number of different sizes
    > compatible with standard fluorescent fittings (they are basically
    > standard tubes without the phosphor coatings on the inside).
    >
    > I bought a couple for the making printed circuit boards in the 80s.
    > Larger, restricted UV wavelength, tubes are available for tanning beds.
    > Smaller types are used on hand held wands for detecting forged
    > banknotes.
    >
    > Have a look around, and you might find one that fits the scanner you are
    > planning to use. I had an old Logitech hand scanner that used the same
    > size tube as the banknote scanners.

    Any ideas as to what I should search for?

    When buying a generic power adapter, you need to pay attention to such
    things as the DC input voltage, amperage, and the outer / inner
    diameters. I imagine I'd need to make similar considerations here,
    but I'm not sure how I'd determine what those considerations are or
    where to buy potentially non-standard fluorescent bulbs?
     
    yawnmoth, May 22, 2008
    #18
  19. In article
    <>,
    yawnmoth <> writes
    >On May 20, 6:08 pm, Kennedy McEwen <> wrote:
    >> In article
    >> <>,
    >> yawnmoth <> writes
    >>
    >> >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.

    >>
    >> >Any ideas?

    >>
    >> You used to be able to buy UV tubes in a number of different sizes
    >> compatible with standard fluorescent fittings (they are basically
    >> standard tubes without the phosphor coatings on the inside).
    >>
    >> I bought a couple for the making printed circuit boards in the 80s.
    >> Larger, restricted UV wavelength, tubes are available for tanning beds.
    >> Smaller types are used on hand held wands for detecting forged
    >> banknotes.
    >>
    >> Have a look around, and you might find one that fits the scanner you are
    >> planning to use. I had an old Logitech hand scanner that used the same
    >> size tube as the banknote scanners.

    >Any ideas as to what I should search for?
    >
    >When buying a generic power adapter, you need to pay attention to such
    >things as the DC input voltage, amperage, and the outer / inner
    >diameters. I imagine I'd need to make similar considerations here,
    >but I'm not sure how I'd determine what those considerations are or
    >where to buy potentially non-standard fluorescent bulbs?


    Length and width are the main things for compatibility, and check it has
    standard fittings.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, May 22, 2008
    #19
  20. yawnmoth

    John Turco Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digital yawnmoth
    > <> 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.



    Hello,

    Back in 2000, just for kicks, I used my previous USB flatbed (Artec 36-bit
    "Ultima 2000"), to scan a U.S. $20 bill (series 1995); it was done with the
    device's bundled software, at (I believe) 800dpi.

    At any rate (pun intended), I encountered no problems, whatsoever, and it
    came out great.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, May 27, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stromer2

    HP 7400C Flatbed scanner-Any good for film

    Stromer2, Jul 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    553
    David R
    Jul 16, 2003
  2. Mark Levison

    Flatbed scanner recommendations for scanning film

    Mark Levison, Sep 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    476
    Azzz1588
    Sep 12, 2003
  3. FocaIPoint

    Dedicated 35mm slide and negative scanner or flatbed

    FocaIPoint, Dec 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    4,341
    J. A. Mc.
    Dec 28, 2003
  4. Shanghai Smith

    Using flatbed scanner for micro fiche..can it be done?

    Shanghai Smith, Jul 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    392
    Shanghai Smith
    Jul 3, 2004
  5. Dankwart Koehler

    Flatbed Scanner as Copier

    Dankwart Koehler, Aug 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,733
    Mike O'sullivan
    Aug 8, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page