Is this scan too blurry?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by searching, Apr 13, 2006.

  1. searching

    searching Guest

    Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected from a
    hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than saving to jpeg
    and the small amount of sharpening automatically done by scanner software.
    The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600 optical dpi and had a street price
    of US $300. I don't really know what to expect from a scanner in terms of
    sharpness.

    http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c
     
    searching, Apr 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. searching wrote:
    > Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected from a
    > hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than saving to jpeg
    > and the small amount of sharpening automatically done by scanner software.
    > The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600 optical dpi and had a street price
    > of US $300. I don't really know what to expect from a scanner in terms of
    > sharpness.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c


    I opened up the "original" version in the gimp and blew it up to 400%. Looks
    fine to me. I can't see any blurriness that I could say came from the scanner
    and not the original material. The blacks all seem a bit light though.
     
    Mark Robinson, Apr 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. searching

    David Guest

    searching wrote:
    > Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected from a
    > hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than saving to jpeg
    > and the small amount of sharpening automatically done by scanner software.
    > The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600 optical dpi and had a street price
    > of US $300. I don't really know what to expect from a scanner in terms of
    > sharpness.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c
    >
    >


    It's hard to tell, not having the source photograph. Maybe scanning some
    text would be an easier way to tell?
     
    David, Apr 13, 2006
    #3
  4. searching

    searching Guest

    "Mark Robinson" <2tod.net> wrote in message
    news:2tod.net...
    > searching wrote:
    > > Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected from a
    > > hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than saving to

    jpeg
    > > and the small amount of sharpening automatically done by scanner

    software.
    > > The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600 optical dpi and had a street

    price
    > > of US $300. I don't really know what to expect from a scanner in terms

    of
    > > sharpness.
    > >
    > > http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c

    >
    > I opened up the "original" version in the gimp and blew it up to 400%.

    Looks
    > fine to me. I can't see any blurriness that I could say came from the

    scanner
    > and not the original material. The blacks all seem a bit light though.


    Thanks, yes I think that it is a bit light also, but I am guessing that you
    usually have to play with this on any scanner.
    I do seem to get varying results in terms of sharpness though, another photo
    that I scanned that appears sharp but scans very blurry, much more so than
    the examples I put on the web and it was this scan that originally got me
    concerned that things were not as they should be.
     
    searching, Apr 13, 2006
    #4
  5. searching

    searching Guest

    "searching" <searching@research> wrote in message
    news:443daa2e$...
    > Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected from a
    > hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than saving to jpeg
    > and the small amount of sharpening automatically done by scanner software.
    > The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600 optical dpi and had a street

    price
    > of US $300. I don't really know what to expect from a scanner in terms of
    > sharpness.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c
    >


    I note there have been 22 page views of the picture so far but yet only 2
    comments, a lot of voyeurs in this group it seems.
     
    searching, Apr 13, 2006
    #5
  6. searching

    searching Guest

    "David" <> wrote in message
    news:%bj%f.12819$...
    > searching wrote:
    > > Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected from a
    > > hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than saving to

    jpeg
    > > and the small amount of sharpening automatically done by scanner

    software.
    > > The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600 optical dpi and had a street

    price
    > > of US $300. I don't really know what to expect from a scanner in terms

    of
    > > sharpness.
    > >
    > > http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c
    > >
    > >

    >
    > It's hard to tell, not having the source photograph. Maybe scanning some
    > text would be an easier way to tell?


    But it's not way off what you might expect?
    Might try scanning something else which has a better frame of reference if I
    can think of something.
     
    searching, Apr 13, 2006
    #6
  7. searching

    Malcolm Guest

    searching wrote:

    >
    > "searching" <searching@research> wrote in message
    > news:443daa2e$...
    >> Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected
    >> from a hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than
    >> saving to jpeg and the small amount of sharpening automatically
    >> done by scanner software. The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600
    >> optical dpi and had a street

    > price
    >> of US $300. I don't really know what to expect from a scanner in
    >> terms of sharpness.
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c
    >>

    >
    > I note there have been 22 page views of the picture so far but yet
    > only 2 comments, a lot of voyeurs in this group it seems.

    23 now :-O Looks ok to me... It does seem a bit lighter when I save a
    copy and open in gimp though.

    --
    Cheers
    Malcolm °¿°
     
    Malcolm, Apr 13, 2006
    #7
  8. searching

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    searching wrote:
    > Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected
    > from a hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than
    > saving to jpeg and the small amount of sharpening automatically done
    > by scanner software. The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600
    > optical dpi and had a street price of US $300. I don't really know
    > what to expect from a scanner in terms of sharpness.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c


    Looks OK once post-processed (this was a one-step-photo-fix plugin jobbie,
    couldn't be bothered manually tweaking it).

    http://nrkn.com/temp/processedScan.jpg
     
    Nik Coughlin, Apr 13, 2006
    #8
  9. searching

    -=rjh=- Guest

    searching wrote:
    > "searching" <searching@research> wrote in message
    > news:443daa2e$...
    >> Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected from a
    >> hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than saving to jpeg
    >> and the small amount of sharpening automatically done by scanner software.
    >> The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600 optical dpi and had a street

    > price
    >> of US $300. I don't really know what to expect from a scanner in terms of
    >> sharpness.
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c
    >>

    >
    > I note there have been 22 page views of the picture so far but yet only 2
    > comments, a lot of voyeurs in this group it seems.
    >
    >


    Why not post a section of a scan at full 600 dpi resolution, rather than
    what you have there?

    IMHO old scanners lose contrast, which is why the dark areas are too
    light, and I think this is due to the volatile components used in the
    plastic casings condensing onto the underside of the glass platen; I've
    had some success cleaning the underside of a Canon platen, which
    improved contrast noticeably.
     
    -=rjh=-, Apr 13, 2006
    #9
  10. searching

    Wombus Guest

    searching wrote:
    > Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected from a
    > hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than saving to jpeg
    > and the small amount of sharpening automatically done by scanner software.
    > The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600 optical dpi and had a street price
    > of US $300. I don't really know what to expect from a scanner in terms of
    > sharpness.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c
    >
    >


    I used to have the HP5200c as a work scanner.... to be honest i was
    never overly happy with the quality of the scans and also remember that
    I hated the scan driver interface.

    Scanners are so cheap now why not just buy a new USB2 Canon Model and
    enjoy the vastly superior scanning experience.
     
    Wombus, Apr 13, 2006
    #10
  11. searching

    Robert Cooze Guest

    searching wrote:
    > Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected from a
    > hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than saving to jpeg
    > and the small amount of sharpening automatically done by scanner software.
    > The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600 optical dpi and had a street price
    > of US $300. I don't really know what to expect from a scanner in terms of
    > sharpness.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c
    >
    >

    It looks like a Typical Scan from a 6"x4". Remember it is 3 steps
    removed from the original. you need to look at the original print
    closely under some sort of extreme magnification or have the original
    negative printed at 8"x"12, then you should be able to comment. from
    what I see it looks like you need to adjust the hue an saturation as
    well as the brightness contrast. The little xxx logo on the plane looks
    like it is in focus. Can't tell about the rest. You need to scan some
    text a good test is the scale from a metal ruler.

    --
    http://cooze.co.nz home of the RecyclerMan aka Robert Cooze

    / __/ / / / / /__ / / ___/ / __/ / / / |/ / /__ /
    / / / /_/ / / /_/ / _-' / __/ / / / /_/ / / /| / _-'
    ___\ ____/ ____/ /___/ /____/ /_/ ___\ ____/ /_/ /_/ |_/ /___/
     
    Robert Cooze, Apr 13, 2006
    #11
  12. searching

    searching Guest

    "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    news:443dd030$...
    > searching wrote:
    > > Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected
    > > from a hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than
    > > saving to jpeg and the small amount of sharpening automatically done
    > > by scanner software. The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600
    > > optical dpi and had a street price of US $300. I don't really know
    > > what to expect from a scanner in terms of sharpness.
    > >
    > > http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c

    >
    > Looks OK once post-processed (this was a one-step-photo-fix plugin jobbie,
    > couldn't be bothered manually tweaking it).
    >
    > http://nrkn.com/temp/processedScan.jpg
    >
    >


    Thanks a lot, I will say that the colours on the unprocessed were closer to
    the original photo, too much yellow in the processed I think.
     
    searching, Apr 14, 2006
    #12
  13. searching

    searching Guest

    "Malcolm" < > wrote in message
    news:T_j%f.509$...
    > searching wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > "searching" <searching@research> wrote in message
    > > news:443daa2e$...
    > >> Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected
    > >> from a hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than
    > >> saving to jpeg and the small amount of sharpening automatically
    > >> done by scanner software. The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600
    > >> optical dpi and had a street

    > > price
    > >> of US $300. I don't really know what to expect from a scanner in
    > >> terms of sharpness.
    > >>
    > >> http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c
    > >>

    > >
    > > I note there have been 22 page views of the picture so far but yet
    > > only 2 comments, a lot of voyeurs in this group it seems.

    > 23 now :-O Looks ok to me... It does seem a bit lighter when I save a
    > copy and open in gimp though.
    >
    > --
    > Cheers
    > Malcolm °¿°


    Thanks.
     
    searching, Apr 14, 2006
    #13
  14. On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:44:03 +1200, searching wrote:

    > "searching" <searching@research> wrote in message
    > news:443daa2e$...
    >> Is the scan on this link more blurry than what should be expected from a
    >> hp5200c scanner? No post scan processing is done other than saving to jpeg
    >> and the small amount of sharpening automatically done by scanner software.
    >> The scanner came out in 1999 and is a 600 optical dpi and had a street

    > price
    >> of US $300. I don't really know what to expect from a scanner in terms of
    >> sharpness.
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/kiwiscan/hp5200c
    >>

    >
    > I note there have been 22 page views of the picture so far but yet only 2
    > comments, a lot of voyeurs in this group it seems.


    Just had a look myself and judging by the amount coming in through the door
    that the original photo would be a bit blurry so the scan looks good i
    don't think that the scanner has introduced any appreciable blur.



    --
    Well, Ma'am, what happens is, I gets hold of 'un and smacks 'un between the
    eyes with hammer before 'un knows what's appening, and then I whispers in
    his ear, I sez, "Cross me, you bugger, and I'll have thy goolies on
    t'anvil, thou knows I can".
    Jason Ogg Witches Abroad Terry Pratchett
     
    Robin Halligan, Apr 14, 2006
    #14
    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. jack lift
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,925
    Waterperson77
    Dec 9, 2003
  2. barb
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,048
  3. NewScanner
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    986
    NewScanner
    Jan 16, 2007
  4. Peter Jason

    Which is better; too light or too dark?

    Peter Jason, Mar 6, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    788
    Mark²
    Mar 7, 2007
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    864
    Richard Karash
    Aug 9, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page