On 3/6/23 4:45 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> wrote:
>> At the moment, I've got 5,000+ pages to scan from large-format
>> paper notebooks. So "multiple scans" per page would be really
>> inconvenient. I already have to manually turn the pages, can't
>> use autofeed for bound notebooks, and each 152-page notebook
>> takes ~2.5hours to scan. Definitely a pain in the elbow.

> That's the sort of thing where I'd definately use a digital camera
> and correct for the lens distortion in software, using a flatbed
> scanner would be entirely impractical for that if you're not
> willing to chop the spine off the notebooks and use a page feeder.

If "sharp" is a goal then you'd wanna to at least go
medium-format - film or a high-end electronic, like
a Hasselblad with a 100mp back. I don't think there's
any chemical film these days that'd do it, "Tech Pan"
was THE film for "sharp" back in the day.

And there ARE "flat field" lenses intended for copy work,
no corrections needed.

> Scan Tailor is the software that I tried out for doing the
> post-processing (removing lens distortion, cropping) and it seems
> quite good. Post-processing with it is still a fair bit of work
> (hence I haven't got around to it) depending on how good your
> rig is, but you'd make up for that easily with time saved doing
> the actual scanning.
>
> https://scantailor.org/
>
> Rigging up something like the professional book scanning tables
> where you can lift up a piece of glass and then rest it down on
> the paper to make it sit flat after you turn each page might be
> worthwhile for your application as well.

On 2023-03-07, 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
> On 3/6/23 4:45 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> wrote:
>>> At the moment, I've got 5,000+ pages to scan from large-format
>>> paper notebooks. So "multiple scans" per page would be really
>>> inconvenient. I already have to manually turn the pages, can't
>>> use autofeed for bound notebooks, and each 152-page notebook
>>> takes ~2.5hours to scan. Definitely a pain in the elbow.
>
>> That's the sort of thing where I'd definately use a digital camera
>> and correct for the lens distortion in software, using a flatbed
>> scanner would be entirely impractical for that if you're not
>> willing to chop the spine off the notebooks and use a page feeder.
>
>
> If "sharp" is a goal then you'd wanna to at least go
> medium-format - film or a high-end electronic, like
> a Hasselblad with a 100mp back. I don't think there's
> any chemical film these days that'd do it, "Tech Pan"
> was THE film for "sharp" back in the day.
>
> And there ARE "flat field" lenses intended for copy work,
> no corrections needed.
>
>
>
>> Scan Tailor is the software that I tried out for doing the
>> post-processing (removing lens distortion, cropping) and it seems
>> quite good. Post-processing with it is still a fair bit of work
>> (hence I haven't got around to it) depending on how good your
>> rig is, but you'd make up for that easily with time saved doing
>> the actual scanning.
>>
>> https://scantailor.org/
>>
>> Rigging up something like the professional book scanning tables
>> where you can lift up a piece of glass and then rest it down on
>> the paper to make it sit flat after you turn each page might be
>> worthwhile for your application as well.
>
>

Original poster, here.

I ended up replacing the defunct HP Officejet all in one model 6968 with
much the same thing....an HP 6978.
Looks pretty much the same, scans faster, set up easily, plugged in w/ USB
on main computer and wifi's fine from the others around the house. Pretty
amazing to me.

I'm hoping I can use my stash of print cartridges but that's a minor thing.

I think the HP 6978 is discontinued, I got it from a reseller of some sort,
I think. It was new old stock in a generic box but had all the new printer
tapes and spacers to remove.

Works fine so far.

pH in Aptos

On 3/6/23 9:11 PM, pH wrote:
> On 2023-03-07, 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
>> On 3/6/23 4:45 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> At the moment, I've got 5,000+ pages to scan from large-format
>>>> paper notebooks. So "multiple scans" per page would be really
>>>> inconvenient. I already have to manually turn the pages, can't
>>>> use autofeed for bound notebooks, and each 152-page notebook
>>>> takes ~2.5hours to scan. Definitely a pain in the elbow.
>>
>>> That's the sort of thing where I'd definately use a digital camera
>>> and correct for the lens distortion in software, using a flatbed
>>> scanner would be entirely impractical for that if you're not
>>> willing to chop the spine off the notebooks and use a page feeder.
>>
>>
>> If "sharp" is a goal then you'd wanna to at least go
>> medium-format - film or a high-end electronic, like
>> a Hasselblad with a 100mp back. I don't think there's
>> any chemical film these days that'd do it, "Tech Pan"
>> was THE film for "sharp" back in the day.
>>
>> And there ARE "flat field" lenses intended for copy work,
>> no corrections needed.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Scan Tailor is the software that I tried out for doing the
>>> post-processing (removing lens distortion, cropping) and it seems
>>> quite good. Post-processing with it is still a fair bit of work
>>> (hence I haven't got around to it) depending on how good your
>>> rig is, but you'd make up for that easily with time saved doing
>>> the actual scanning.
>>>
>>> https://scantailor.org/
>>>
>>> Rigging up something like the professional book scanning tables
>>> where you can lift up a piece of glass and then rest it down on
>>> the paper to make it sit flat after you turn each page might be
>>> worthwhile for your application as well.
>>
>>
>
> Original poster, here.
>
> I ended up replacing the defunct HP Officejet all in one model 6968 with
> much the same thing....an HP 6978.

Note : the HP website DOES say THAT printer is "discontinued" :-)

But you oughtta be able to get HP or decent clone cartridges
for it for a number of years.

It won't scan 11x17. You'll still have to find an alternative
method.

> Looks pretty much the same, scans faster, set up easily, plugged in w/ USB
> on main computer and wifi's fine from the others around the house. Pretty
> amazing to me.
>
> I'm hoping I can use my stash of print cartridges but that's a minor thing.
>
> I think the HP 6978 is discontinued, I got it from a reseller of some sort,
> I think. It was new old stock in a generic box but had all the new printer
> tapes and spacers to remove.
>
> Works fine so far.
>
> pH in Aptos
>

On 2023-03-06 14:46, 28B.I874 wrote:
>
>   For 5000+ big pages, maybe you should consider a
>   decent print shop instead of do-it-yourself. They
>   may have a 4x5 digital cam, or even a really large
>   format scanner. That you say these are bound books
>   is a real problem - can't use a pull-page-thru kind
>   of scanner, it'd have to be a huge flatbed.

There are scanners for bound books, even automatic.

I saw a video, long ago, of a bed in V shape, and two cameras above:

cam cam

* *
* *
* *
*

And another glass in V above, to hold the book in between "flat" against
the V table. Take the photos, lift glass, pass next page. It was fast.
Maybe moving to next page was manual, I don't remember. Something like 4
seconds per page.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 28B.I874 wrote:
>> ?? For 5000+ big pages, maybe you should consider a
>> ?? decent print shop instead of do-it-yourself. They
>> ?? may have a 4x5 digital cam, or even a really large
>> ?? format scanner. That you say these are bound books
>> ?? is a real problem - can't use a pull-page-thru kind
>> ?? of scanner, it'd have to be a huge flatbed.
>
>
> There are scanners for bound books, even automatic.
> I saw a video, long ago, of a bed in V shape, and two cameras above:
> cam cam
> * *
> * *
> * *
> *
> And another glass in V above, to hold the book in between "flat" against
> the V table. Take the photos, lift glass, pass next page. It was fast.
> Maybe moving to next page was manual, I don't remember. Something like 4
> seconds per page.

Yup, now that you mention it, I also recall coming across
that V-shaped kind of device while googling for alternative
solutions (back in 2015) like you and 28B are suggesting.
But after my really bad experience with that Plustek scanner
(described in an upthread post, but not worth searching for,
just details of "bad experience") I decided to stick with
standard off-the-shelf, run-of-the-mill equipment. And the
Brother MFC-J6920DW both (a)"just works", and (b)cost just
$250 back in 2016, whereas alternatives cost like an
order-of-magnitude more, and I was very wary whether
they'd "just work" with standard PCs and peripherals.
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

On 06/03/2023 21:45, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> wrote:
>> At the moment, I've got 5,000+ pages to scan from large-format
>> paper notebooks. So "multiple scans" per page would be really
>> inconvenient. I already have to manually turn the pages, can't
>> use autofeed for bound notebooks, and each 152-page notebook
>> takes ~2.5hours to scan. Definitely a pain in the elbow.
>
> That's the sort of thing where I'd definately use a digital camera
> and correct for the lens distortion in software, using a flatbed
> scanner would be entirely impractical for that if you're not
> willing to chop the spine off the notebooks and use a page feeder.
>
> Scan Tailor is the software that I tried out for doing the
> post-processing (removing lens distortion, cropping) and it seems
> quite good. Post-processing with it is still a fair bit of work
> (hence I haven't got around to it) depending on how good your
> rig is, but you'd make up for that easily with time saved doing
> the actual scanning.
>
> https://scantailor.org/
>
> Rigging up something like the professional book scanning tables
> where you can lift up a piece of glass and then rest it down on
> the paper to make it sit flat after you turn each page might be
> worthwhile for your application as well.
>
Some macro lenses are optimised for 'close ups' and may require less
correction. I only ever had to correct engineering drawings, but those I
traced anyway. And checked dimensions against the originals. For
anything else a bit of pincushionn probably is acceptable.
People used to have process cameras for doing this with preicison

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 2023-03-07 09:36, John Forkosh wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> 28B.I874 wrote:
>>> ?? For 5000+ big pages, maybe you should consider a
>>> ?? decent print shop instead of do-it-yourself. They
>>> ?? may have a 4x5 digital cam, or even a really large
>>> ?? format scanner. That you say these are bound books
>>> ?? is a real problem - can't use a pull-page-thru kind
>>> ?? of scanner, it'd have to be a huge flatbed.
>>
>>
>> There are scanners for bound books, even automatic.
>> I saw a video, long ago, of a bed in V shape, and two cameras above:
>> cam cam
>> * *
>> * *
>> * *
>> *
>> And another glass in V above, to hold the book in between "flat" against
>> the V table. Take the photos, lift glass, pass next page. It was fast.
>> Maybe moving to next page was manual, I don't remember. Something like 4
>> seconds per page.
>
> Yup, now that you mention it, I also recall coming across
> that V-shaped kind of device while googling for alternative
> solutions (back in 2015) like you and 28B are suggesting.
> But after my really bad experience with that Plustek scanner
> (described in an upthread post, but not worth searching for,
> just details of "bad experience") I decided to stick with
> standard off-the-shelf, run-of-the-mill equipment. And the
> Brother MFC-J6920DW both (a)"just works", and (b)cost just
> $250 back in 2016, whereas alternatives cost like an
> order-of-magnitude more, and I was very wary whether
> they'd "just work" with standard PCs and peripherals.

Of course, the scanner I described is likely to be found on a library.
Someplace with lots of books to scan properly. It is likely to be quite
expensive.

Googling for "book scanner in V shape"

https://book2net.net/en/produkte/a3-format,archive-scanners,book-scanners,v-shape/falcon/

Has photos.

<https://book2net.net/en/produkte/a1-format,archive-scanners,book-scanners,v-shape/dragon/>

Impressive machine.

<https://www.i2s.fr/en/heritage-digitization/v-shape-book-scanners/copibook-v-shape>

<https://www.i2s.fr/en/heritage-digitization/v-shape-book-scanners>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 07/03/2023 01:20, 28B.I874 wrote:
> On 3/6/23 4:45 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> wrote:
>>> At the moment, I've got 5,000+ pages to scan from large-format
>>> paper notebooks. So "multiple scans" per page would be really
>>> inconvenient. I already have to manually turn the pages, can't
>>> use autofeed for bound notebooks, and each 152-page notebook
>>> takes ~2.5hours to scan. Definitely a pain in the elbow.
>
>> That's the sort of thing where I'd definately use a digital camera
>> and correct for the lens distortion in software, using a flatbed
>> scanner would be entirely impractical for that if you're not
>> willing to chop the spine off the notebooks and use a page feeder.
>
>
>   If "sharp" is a goal then you'd wanna to at least go
>   medium-format - film or a high-end electronic, like
>   a Hasselblad with a 100mp back. I don't think there's
>   any chemical film these days that'd do it, "Tech Pan"
>   was THE film for "sharp" back in the day.
>
If you check most film out you will find that today's digital cameras
have way more pixels. The old 'Process' cameras would take ENORMOUS
sheets of film to do e.g. 1:1 reproductions of large artworks

>   And there ARE "flat field" lenses intended for copy work,
>   no corrections needed.
>
Yes.
If you are going to OCR a digital cam is OK, if you want to reproduce in
munute detail, you are in another pay grade.

>

--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> Of course, the scanner I described is likely to be found on a library.
> Someplace with lots of books to scan properly. It is likely to be quite
> expensive.

As with most gear sold to such organisations. However in this case
there isn't any particularly special tech behind it. DIY
constructions are relatively easy projects, and you've got a huge
selection of projects to be copied by searching "DIY book scanner"
or just going to this dedicated website:
https://diybookscanner.org/

The Internet Archive even built their own scanner rigs using
off-the-shelf cameras, rather than buying the professional devices:
https://dltj.org/article/internet-archive-scanning-gallery/

Google has/had designs for an automated book scanner online,
although it required a lot of big laser-cut pieces which might be
expensive to have made. It was sort of upside-down, where the
book lies down on top of a triangular frame.

But as I suggested before, for notebooks it may be practical to
just rig up one flat piece of glass that can be lifted up and
sit down on both exposed pages of the notebook's to keep them
flat. Then just have a camera on a tripod over-hanging and
pointing down at the pages, and ideally a remote trigger so you
don't have to touch it to take a photo.

Personally I just do it with the tripod and the camera, without
the glass or the remote trigger, but if you're doing lots then it
would make things easier. Then a full dual-camera, angled frame
rig would make it easier again. I certainly think of those while
I'm fiddling with tensioning pages that won't stay flat.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> But as I suggested before, for notebooks it may be practical to
> just rig up one flat piece of glass that can be lifted up and
> sit down on both exposed pages of the notebook's to keep them
> flat.

Oh, looks like I snipped that bit out of my earlier post before
sending it because I decided I was rambling, so don't bother going
back to look for it.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> Of course, the scanner I described is likely to be found on a library.
>> Someplace with lots of books to scan properly. It is likely to be quite
>> expensive.
>
> As with most gear sold to such organisations. However in this case
> there isn't any particularly special tech behind it. DIY
> constructions are relatively easy projects, and you've got a huge
> selection of projects to be copied by searching "DIY book scanner"
> or just going to this dedicated website:
> https://diybookscanner.org/

Sounded interesting, though probably more time/work constructing
a good one than I'd be willing to invest. And the kicker was
clicking that "Get Started" link at the bottom of the page:
"404 Not Found error".

> The Internet Archive even built their own scanner rigs using
> off-the-shelf cameras, rather than buying the professional devices:
> https://dltj.org/article/internet-archive-scanning-gallery/

Well, the second "bullet" item describes Archive's "scribe station",
including two Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II digital cameras,
costing ... $7100 each (though that was apparently in 2006).

> Google has/had designs for an automated book scanner online,
> although it required a lot of big laser-cut pieces which might be
> expensive to have made. It was sort of upside-down, where the
> book lies down on top of a triangular frame.
>
> But as I suggested before, for notebooks it may be practical to
> just rig up one flat piece of glass that can be lifted up and
> sit down on both exposed pages of the notebook's to keep them
> flat. Then just have a camera on a tripod over-hanging and
> pointing down at the pages, and ideally a remote trigger so you
> don't have to touch it to take a photo.
>
> Personally I just do it with the tripod and the camera, without
> the glass or the remote trigger, but if you're doing lots then it
> would make things easier. Then a full dual-camera, angled frame
> rig would make it easier again. I certainly think of those while
> I'm fiddling with tensioning pages that won't stay flat.

--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> Of course, the scanner I described is likely to be found on a library.
>>> Someplace with lots of books to scan properly. It is likely to be quite
>>> expensive.
>>
>> As with most gear sold to such organisations. However in this case
>> there isn't any particularly special tech behind it. DIY
>> constructions are relatively easy projects, and you've got a huge
>> selection of projects to be copied by searching "DIY book scanner"
>> or just going to this dedicated website:
>> https://diybookscanner.org/
>
> Sounded interesting, though probably more time/work constructing
> a good one than I'd be willing to invest.

Well you see I'd do pretty much anything in preference to scanning
in hundreds (let alone thousands) of pages from books into a flat
bed scanner manually, especially as I always bump something and
mess up the alignment on one page in five when trying to scan from
something like a book. I don't know how that option can be workable
for someone in the first place.

> And the kicker was
> clicking that "Get Started" link at the bottom of the page:
> "404 Not Found error".

Try the "Getting Started" link at the top then:
https://diybookscanner.org/en/intro.html

>> The Internet Archive even built their own scanner rigs using
>> off-the-shelf cameras, rather than buying the professional devices:
>> https://dltj.org/article/internet-archive-scanning-gallery/
>
> Well, the second "bullet" item describes Archive's "scribe station",
> including two Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II digital cameras,
> costing ... $7100 each (though that was apparently in 2006).

As you already read, that's for the sake of getting 16.7 megapixel
photos in 2006. Surely you've noticed that megapixels have got much
cheaper since then. In fact if you'd got through to the "Getting
Started" page at the DIY website, you'd see that they're using
consumer model Canon cameras because you can run custom firmware on
them easily. At this point you can probably get suitable models
very cheaply second-hand.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 3/8/23 1:09 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> wrote:
>> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Of course, the scanner I described is likely to be found on a library.
>>>> Someplace with lots of books to scan properly. It is likely to be quite
>>>> expensive.
>>>
>>> As with most gear sold to such organisations. However in this case
>>> there isn't any particularly special tech behind it. DIY
>>> constructions are relatively easy projects, and you've got a huge
>>> selection of projects to be copied by searching "DIY book scanner"
>>> or just going to this dedicated website:
>>> https://diybookscanner.org/
>>
>> Sounded interesting, though probably more time/work constructing
>> a good one than I'd be willing to invest.
>
> Well you see I'd do pretty much anything in preference to scanning
> in hundreds (let alone thousands) of pages from books into a flat
> bed scanner manually, especially as I always bump something and
> mess up the alignment on one page in five when trying to scan from
> something like a book. I don't know how that option can be workable
> for someone in the first place.
>
>> And the kicker was
>> clicking that "Get Started" link at the bottom of the page:
>> "404 Not Found error".
>
> Try the "Getting Started" link at the top then:
> https://diybookscanner.org/en/intro.html
>
>>> The Internet Archive even built their own scanner rigs using
>>> off-the-shelf cameras, rather than buying the professional devices:
>>> https://dltj.org/article/internet-archive-scanning-gallery/
>>
>> Well, the second "bullet" item describes Archive's "scribe station",
>> including two Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II digital cameras,
>> costing ... $7100 each (though that was apparently in 2006).
>
> As you already read, that's for the sake of getting 16.7 megapixel
> photos in 2006. Surely you've noticed that megapixels have got much
> cheaper since then. In fact if you'd got through to the "Getting
> Started" page at the DIY website, you'd see that they're using
> consumer model Canon cameras because you can run custom firmware on
> them easily. At this point you can probably get suitable models
> very cheaply second-hand.

Canon digital cameras ???

There ARE "flat-field" lenses intended for copy work.
No distortion-correction work needed.

However RESOLUTION may be an issue. Depends on the
posters source material. Text is easy, but detailed
artsy pix/drawings are another thing entirely.

Hasselblad sells 100+ MP digital backs. Ain't cheap
(sometimes you can rent/lease) but they WILL deliver
superior product combined with proper lenses.

Somebody suggested using two good flatbed scanners
fixed in a "V" formation for the abovementioned
"bound notebooks". Not the worst idea - and perhaps
cheaper than the Hassleblad solution depending.

28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
> <<snip>>
> Somebody suggested using two good flatbed scanners
> fixed in a "V" formation for the abovementioned
> "bound notebooks". Not the worst idea - and perhaps
> cheaper than the Hassleblad solution depending.

That sounds like a really good idea, which some manufacturer
could produce pretty easily and affordably. The typical
off-the-shelf scanners, that I'm aware of, are too "thick"
to place in an (inverted) V formation, and have borders
around the edges whereby stuff near the spine of a book
or notebook placed on them would be missed. But I'd guess
some easy-for-manufacturers (but maybe not for individuals)
modifications to existing and inexpensive retail scanners
could do the trick. But I'm further guessing there's just
not enough demand for this kind of device.
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote:
> On 3/8/23 1:09 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> As you already read, that's for the sake of getting 16.7 megapixel
>> photos in 2006. Surely you've noticed that megapixels have got much
>> cheaper since then. In fact if you'd got through to the "Getting
>> Started" page at the DIY website, you'd see that they're using
>> consumer model Canon cameras because you can run custom firmware on
>> them easily. At this point you can probably get suitable models
>> very cheaply second-hand.
>
> Canon digital cameras ???
>
> There ARE "flat-field" lenses intended for copy work.
> No distortion-correction work needed.
>
> However RESOLUTION may be an issue. Depends on the
> posters source material. Text is easy, but detailed
> artsy pix/drawings are another thing entirely.
>
> Hasselblad sells 100+ MP digital backs. Ain't cheap
> (sometimes you can rent/lease) but they WILL deliver
> superior product combined with proper lenses.
>
> Somebody suggested using two good flatbed scanners
> fixed in a "V" formation for the abovementioned
> "bound notebooks". Not the worst idea - and perhaps
> cheaper than the Hassleblad solution depending.

Nonsense, I just checked the ancient digital camera that I've
used and it's only 3 Megapixels, and I'm happy with the results
from that. Using scanners rather than two modern digital cameras
and software correction is just slowing the scanning process way
down.

Anther book scanner project from my bookmarks:
http://oldcomputer.info/hacks/diyscan/index.htm

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 08/03/2023 09:28, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Nonsense, I just checked the ancient digital camera that I've
> used and it's only 3 Megapixels, and I'm happy with the results
> from that.

As I said, there is a world of difference between a 60dpi happySnap and
a full blown process camera capable of generating a distortion free 1:1
image for photolithography on a metre by metre sheet of film.

I had a 2MP camera once, It was worse than 35mm 100 ASA slide film.
8MP is where a camera challenges good 35mm film and 24MP is where its
plain better.

But you need to go a LONG way to challenge 100ASA process film covering
a square metre/

I am scanning in WWII black and white negatives mostly shot on 100ASA
film. I need 600dpi to match the negative quality. 1200 is a waste of
time, 300 doesnt do them justice.

But frankly a page of text scanned at 150dpi is sill legible

Horses for courses. For OCR simply use a camera with a macro lens

--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> wrote:
>> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Of course, the scanner I described is likely to be found on a
>>>> library. Someplace with lots of books to scan properly. It is
>>>> likely to be quite expensive.
>>>
>>> As with most gear sold to such organisations. However in this case
>>> there isn't any particularly special tech behind it. DIY
>>> constructions are relatively easy projects, and you've got a huge
>>> selection of projects to be copied by searching "DIY book scanner"
>>> or just going to this dedicated website:
>>> https://diybookscanner.org/
>>
>> Sounded interesting, though probably more time/work constructing a
>> good one than I'd be willing to invest.
>
> Well you see I'd do pretty much anything in preference to scanning in
> hundreds (let alone thousands) of pages from books into a flat bed
> scanner manually,

Those who have not yet attempted to scan a bound book on a flatbed
scanner do not yet understand the net difficulty of doing so. This is
a task for which the full frustration of doing so can only be had by
personally attempting the process. Once they have attempted their
first one, then they will understand fully why people spend such "time
work constructing" what appear to be such helpers for scanning books.

John's comment implies he is in the camp of "not yet scanned an entire
500 page book via flatbed scanner".

And no, scanning 12 pages out of a 500 page book does not count. One
has to do an entire book to gain enlightenment as to why the "book
scanning contraptions" are well worth the time/work investment.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 08/03/2023 09:28, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Nonsense, I just checked the ancient digital camera that I've
>> used and it's only 3 Megapixels, and I'm happy with the results
>> from that.
>
> As I said, there is a world of difference between a 60dpi happySnap and
> a full blown process camera capable of generating a distortion free 1:1
> image for photolithography on a metre by metre sheet of film.
>
> I had a 2MP camera once, It was worse than 35mm 100 ASA slide film.
> 8MP is where a camera challenges good 35mm film and 24MP is where its
> plain better.
>
> But you need to go a LONG way to challenge 100ASA process film covering
> a square metre/
>
> I am scanning in WWII black and white negatives mostly shot on 100ASA
> film. I need 600dpi to match the negative quality. 1200 is a waste of
> time, 300 doesnt do them justice.
>
> But frankly a page of text scanned at 150dpi is sill legible

Well the material was said to be notebooks, so I'm assuming it's
text and certainly not photographs. 150dpi is my default for
scanning text documents when there are few enough pages that using
a scanner is practical.

I know most people are more picky about quality than me, but I
think it's crazy to propose that a modern 10-20MP camera such
as the Canon Powershot models suggested for the DIY designs aren't
high enough resolution for copying notebooks. I can belive that
some people might argue for twice the resolution that I'm happy
with, but three times higher? Five times higher??? And then saying
that's _still_ not enough? Insanity.

Scanning photographic slides (some pre-WWII) is another topic, but
actually that is one I've struggled with more. Admittedly mainly due
to impatience again on my part, but trying to get equivalent
quality to a projected image is a real pain even with a backlit
scanner. There are dedicated professional film/slide scanners that
surely make it all much easier, but even second-hand ones have
four-figure price tags. I've mostly resigned myself to viewing them
all the old-fashioned way.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 08/03/2023 22:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Scanning photographic slides (some pre-WWII) is another topic, but
> actually that is one I've struggled with more. Admittedly mainly due
> to impatience again on my part, but trying to get equivalent
> quality to a projected image is a real pain even with a backlit
> scanner. There are dedicated professional film/slide scanners that
> surely make it all much easier, but even second-hand ones have
> four-figure price tags. I've mostly resigned myself to viewing them
> all the old-fashioned way.

I am using an Epson V600 Photo. Will do up to 2x 120 sided negative film
or 4x35mm at a time. It is better than the slide/negative quality.

It wasn't THAT expensive and it sorta has linux drivers that work well
enough. All the full functionality isn't there, but who needs it anyway?

http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/23%20-%20Lockheed%20Air%20ambulance%20Tobruk%201942.png

If you click on the image you can see the film grain clearly

--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 08/03/2023 22:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Scanning photographic slides (some pre-WWII) is another topic, but
>> actually that is one I've struggled with more. Admittedly mainly due
>> to impatience again on my part, but trying to get equivalent
>> quality to a projected image is a real pain even with a backlit
>> scanner. There are dedicated professional film/slide scanners that
>> surely make it all much easier, but even second-hand ones have
>> four-figure price tags. I've mostly resigned myself to viewing them
>> all the old-fashioned way.
>
> I am using an Epson V600 Photo. Will do up to 2x 120 sided negative film
> or 4x35mm at a time. It is better than the slide/negative quality.

Actually I've got a relative of that, the Epson V200 Photo. The
backlight for slide scanning died a while ago, but that should be
fixable. Comparing with a projected image I feel that scratches are
much more visible though, it still images some of the film surface,
which isn't what you want (I haven't looked into software filters
for correcting this though). Again I'm tempted by the option of
using a (good) digital camera and backlight (or maybe a projector,
telecine-style).

But as I vaguely hinted at much of my trouble is impatience. I
really want a relaxing snap, next, snap, next, workflow. The Epson
is SLOW and it irks me. Then there's the collection on Boer War
magic lantern slides that are too big for the backlight in the
Epson in the first place. Using a backlight pulled out of an
LCD screen instead, the Epson software won't turn off the
scanner-side light while scanning a larger area than the slide
backlight covers, so it images up much more of the slide's surface.
So rigging up a manual control for that light is one of my things
to try one day.

> It wasn't THAT expensive and it sorta has linux drivers that work well
> enough. All the full functionality isn't there, but who needs it anyway?
>
> http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/23%20-%20Lockheed%20Air%20ambulance%20Tobruk%201942.png
>
> If you click on the image you can see the film grain clearly

Nice, but it looks a lot like a print rather than a negative or
slide was scanned for that.

The scanner on my Brother MFC-7340 laser printer is much, much,
faster than the Epson, so I use that for scanning photographic
prints like this (yes I'll see your plane and raise you a plane
with a camel):
https://objectstorage.ap-melbourne-1.oraclecloud.com/n/axqlf7atlxkh/b/attachments/o/lascoter/A_novel_view_by_a_ship_of_the_desert_Bourke_NSW.jpg

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 3/9/23 5:16 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 08/03/2023 22:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> Scanning photographic slides (some pre-WWII) is another topic, but
>>> actually that is one I've struggled with more. Admittedly mainly due
>>> to impatience again on my part, but trying to get equivalent
>>> quality to a projected image is a real pain even with a backlit
>>> scanner. There are dedicated professional film/slide scanners that
>>> surely make it all much easier, but even second-hand ones have
>>> four-figure price tags. I've mostly resigned myself to viewing them
>>> all the old-fashioned way.
>>
>> I am using an Epson V600 Photo. Will do up to 2x 120 sided negative film
>> or 4x35mm at a time. It is better than the slide/negative quality.
>
> Actually I've got a relative of that, the Epson V200 Photo. The
> backlight for slide scanning died a while ago, but that should be
> fixable. Comparing with a projected image I feel that scratches are
> much more visible though, it still images some of the film surface,
> which isn't what you want (I haven't looked into software filters
> for correcting this though). Again I'm tempted by the option of
> using a (good) digital camera and backlight (or maybe a projector,
> telecine-style).

There can be such a thing as TOO MUCH resolution when it
comes to scanning film (or esp halftone images). Image
clarity is something of a sensory illusion, eyes and brain
kinda 'fuzz-up' what's there to create the impression of
a beautiful sharp photo. In part 'fuzziness' is why inkjets
still make better-looking prints than lasers with identical
rez specs.

Face it, NO gain in scanning Tri-X or Royal-X at 4000dpi.
Same goes for many of the faster color neg/pos films. The
higher rez just amplifies the grain boundaries. If you
'sharpen' you have to be very careful or you'll just
bring out those grains more than the picture-as-a-whole
and it'll look really crappy.

> But as I vaguely hinted at much of my trouble is impatience. I
> really want a relaxing snap, next, snap, next, workflow. The Epson
> is SLOW and it irks me. Then there's the collection on Boer War
> magic lantern slides that are too big for the backlight in the
> Epson in the first place. Using a backlight pulled out of an
> LCD screen instead, the Epson software won't turn off the
> scanner-side light while scanning a larger area than the slide
> backlight covers, so it images up much more of the slide's surface.
> So rigging up a manual control for that light is one of my things
> to try one day.

Outside of the actual real "Commercial" market you're just
not going to find an affordable, bearable, fix here.

An extremely smooth white projection screen, tilted to
avoid reflections, combined with an old view camera
that can be adjusted to undo the screen tilt and .....
best option I can think of.

>> It wasn't THAT expensive and it sorta has linux drivers that work well
>> enough. All the full functionality isn't there, but who needs it anyway?
>>
>> http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/23%20-%20Lockheed%20Air%20ambulance%20Tobruk%201942.png
>>
>> If you click on the image you can see the film grain clearly
>
> Nice, but it looks a lot like a print rather than a negative or
> slide was scanned for that.
>
> The scanner on my Brother MFC-7340 laser printer is much, much,
> faster than the Epson, so I use that for scanning photographic
> prints like this (yes I'll see your plane and raise you a plane
> with a camel):
> https://objectstorage.ap-melbourne-1.oraclecloud.com/n/axqlf7atlxkh/b/attachments/o/lascoter/A_novel_view_by_a_ship_of_the_desert_Bourke_NSW.jpg
>

On 09/03/2023 22:16, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 08/03/2023 22:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> Scanning photographic slides (some pre-WWII) is another topic, but
>>> actually that is one I've struggled with more. Admittedly mainly due
>>> to impatience again on my part, but trying to get equivalent
>>> quality to a projected image is a real pain even with a backlit
>>> scanner. There are dedicated professional film/slide scanners that
>>> surely make it all much easier, but even second-hand ones have
>>> four-figure price tags. I've mostly resigned myself to viewing them
>>> all the old-fashioned way.
>>
>> I am using an Epson V600 Photo. Will do up to 2x 120 sided negative film
>> or 4x35mm at a time. It is better than the slide/negative quality.
>
> Actually I've got a relative of that, the Epson V200 Photo. The
> backlight for slide scanning died a while ago, but that should be
> fixable. Comparing with a projected image I feel that scratches are
> much more visible though, it still images some of the film surface,
> which isn't what you want (I haven't looked into software filters
> for correcting this though). Again I'm tempted by the option of
> using a (good) digital camera and backlight (or maybe a projector,
> telecine-style).
>
> But as I vaguely hinted at much of my trouble is impatience. I
> really want a relaxing snap, next, snap, next, workflow. The Epson
> is SLOW and it irks me. Then there's the collection on Boer War
> magic lantern slides that are too big for the backlight in the
> Epson in the first place. Using a backlight pulled out of an
> LCD screen instead, the Epson software won't turn off the
> scanner-side light while scanning a larger area than the slide
> backlight covers, so it images up much more of the slide's surface.
> So rigging up a manual control for that light is one of my things
> to try one day.
>
>> It wasn't THAT expensive and it sorta has linux drivers that work well
>> enough. All the full functionality isn't there, but who needs it anyway?
>>
>> http://vps.templar.co.uk/Hughs%20Photos/23%20-%20Lockheed%20Air%20ambulance%20Tobruk%201942.png
>>
>> If you click on the image you can see the film grain clearly
>
> Nice, but it looks a lot like a print rather than a negative or
> slide was scanned for that.
>
I can assure you it was a negative.

> The scanner on my Brother MFC-7340 laser printer is much, much,
> faster than the Epson, so I use that for scanning photographic
> prints like this (yes I'll see your plane and raise you a plane
> with a camel):
> https://objectstorage.ap-melbourne-1.oraclecloud.com/n/axqlf7atlxkh/b/attachments/o/lascoter/A_novel_view_by_a_ship_of_the_desert_Bourke_NSW.jpg
>

--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain