Help and Support > Feedback and Suggestions
scan size
Snard:
--- Quote from: BobS on August 02, 2010, 06:34:34 PM ---The latest 2 scans today, Fight Comics #24 (Cimmerian32) and Teenage Temptations #3 (Darwination and 2x4), are 1600 pixels wide.
Star Ranger Funnies v2 01 has a nice Jack Cole cover and his 4-page story (with 8 to 15 panels per page) is good enough to be reprinted in a book, maybe even a book solely on Cole and his work. The rest of the comic is pretty good too!
After JVJs comics are scanned, I doubt that this comic will ever be scanned again. I also doubt that anyone else has as nice a copy of the issue.
Proactive is better than too late.
Best to all,
Bob
--- End quote ---
My 2 cents here:
For the golden age books that I scan, I do the raw scans at 600 ppi, save the files in a lossless format (.png) and archive them to DVD for long term storage. The edited & posted versions of those scans are 1280 pixels wide today, because that has been a standard and acceptable size for most folks.
But in the future, when we all have bigger monitors, 100 terabyte hard drives and gigabit broadband connections, someone can re-edit those raw scans into something a bit more detailed, without having to further damage the book.
Or, if someone wants to do that today, they can do that too. All they have to do is ask me (and reimburse me for postage & media costs). However, note that a single comic takes an entire DVD when the files are 600 ppi and lossless.
citaltras:
--- Quote from: JVJ on August 01, 2010, 08:57:35 PM ---
You might be comparing apples and oranges, Jon.
The "dpi" you mention refers to the coarseness of the color screen patterns used, not the resolution. Since the golden age comics were published basically as line art, there is no upper limit on how much ppi scanning info can be useful. Of course, given the "quality" of the presses used, it's mostly defects that get revealed.
Still, the higher the scanning resolution, the more accurate the line edges (and the edges of the color "dots") will be. By its very nature, scanning blurs edges and no matter how coarse the dot patterns that were used for the color screens, their edges (and those of the black plate) are still subject to the "law" of "the higher the scanning resolution, the sharper the edges".
And, as always, Bob, we're fighting the two-headed devil of "file size and bandwidth". Storage space and transmission time (not to mention scanning time, which is being donated gratis) will always be the determining factors, with much concern given to those who can't keep up with the latest and greatest in both technologies. Be happy that we get to see those scans at all is my take on it.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
--- End quote ---
Revisiting this topic, the law of the higher the scanning resolution the sharper the edges in general
fails in practice for several reasons, related to scanner machine quality, scanning software,
and poor image editing skills. For all of these you can end with a large comic image, say 1600 pixels wide,
but with blur lines and modified colors, that is a bad scan, that will not be better than a standard
900 pixels wide, good scan.
As an example, look at the GIT scans of silver and bronze age Marvel comics, that are commercial scans
made by professionals. The single pages are 900 pixels wide, so the the single cbz files are aroung 10 MB each, and yet they are the best scans available, better than the amateur-made ones, even if the
later can be larger than 1200 pixels and files over 25 MB. The reason: the GIT scans are SHARPER
and the colors have not been altered in the editing.
One reason: in many scan guides they suggest to apply a Gaussian blur to the scan. Then you lost
sharpness and all the fine details. Another guides explain how to use color substitution to change yellow
paper background to white, etc. All of these are in my opinion bad practices.
Another reason: using a cheap scanning machine you can obtain poor results, the bad optics of the scanning cells and low lamp luminosity sometimes contribute to a blur and dark image.
Finally the scanner software also modifies the image and colors.
My suggestion: use a good scanner (I recommend EPSON), with focus at maximum and without color corrections. In the editing correct only slightly the blue and green levels, if needed, and nothing more.
Scan at 200 dpi and you will end with a 1400 - 1600 pixels image. Save as medium quality jpg
as to obtain around 800 MB of size per page.
JVJ (RIP):
Everything you say is true, citaltras,
And still the final quality of the output WILL be limited by the initial scan and it's resolution. The execution of the post-scanning workflow can very seriously
affect the quality in a negative manner, but one can do only minimal recovery from a poor or low res scan.
You are so accurate when you advocate learning what works and what doesn't. I scan at 400 ppi for color and 1600 ppi for b&w and I make masks that protect the edges before I blur, thus maintaining sharpness and eliminating moires. Each project requires a slightly different approach - and there are no "bad practices" just inappropriate practices for a particular problem or poorly implemented practices due to inexperience.
I still believe that the initial scanning resolution establishes the maximum clarity you'll be able to present in the final output, no matter how professional you might be. There is no limit to how poorly a good scan can be mishandled, so again I agree that there are reasons why high rez scans don't guarantee sharper output in the final file, but they certainly ENABLE them.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
darwination:
I think I've weighed in before on this topic, but I'll go ahead and toss another 2 cents in.
First to agree with a couple of Cialtras' points -
-A poor machine can contribute to a poor scan. If you are going to put valuable comics on the scanner or do a good number of scans, it is absolutely worth it to buy a good scanner. The better your raw image is, the better your end result will be. All in one units, old machines, etc. can produce scans that can't much be helped in photoshop. To get a good end result, it really helps to take a good picture in the first place. I'd agree that Epson makes good scanners (I use the v300 as one of my main machines) especially for sharpness of line. The scanner software works well across operating systems and the price is right ($90). My one note here, though, is that you have to be careful about prescan settings to get the colors right. Another scanner I love is the Plustek 3600. Perfect colors every single time, truly remarkable. However, I'm wary about recommending the scanner because of problems many have had with bulb life, longevity, and poor customer service.
-Cialtras is absolutely right about blur/noise filters and even descreen options. All of these can lead to blurry text (not that all golden age comics were printed with sharp text in the first place). In general, the scanners of old paper are pretty good about this. We like to see paper grain, the individual dots, and sharp line work. Some scanners use a little smart sharpen in their edit to help with this.
As for dpi and page width, there is more than one way to skin a cat, but I do prefer at least a 1200 pixel width as something of a minimum. Jim is right in that, as far as the raw scan goes (and to some extent the end product), scanning in higher dpi means sharper line work, better reproduction of paper grain and dot patterns, and clearer text. I've heard the Marvel scan guide goes with 600 dpi, and many archival projects use this as a baseline.
I personally scan at 400dpi (up from 300dpi which I started at) which I find to be a nice compromise between speed and quality and file size. I scan in tif, edit in tif, and lastly share a sized-down jpeg (this way I can share larger versions of my scans in the future if it is ever warranted). There are two options here for sizing down, the most common method being to reduce all the images to a standard with 1280, 1680, etc. and reduce jpeg quality so that each page is in a target range (I personally try and go for about 1MB a page). A second option, one which I've been toying with more, is to keep the original page width and save at a lower jpeg quality. Peeps who gather images from Heritage auctions might have noticed this approach in that their images of paintings can be a few thousand pixels wide yet weigh in around a MB in file size. If a 2500 pixel width page is saved at 3jpeg quality looks exactly like a 1280 width image in the viewer, why not share the page at original width (with no resampling on the width reduction)? For pulps in particular, I like this choice because it allows for the option for viewing with large text for the eyesight impaired, but I also like the choice of cutting out a single panel in a comic and having it fill the entire screen. Just something to think about that deviates from most scan guides you will find out there. I'm not sure how comic scanners arrived at a mostly uniform practice of resizing to 1280, but there are other options out there that will not necessarily increase file size.
(and really obsessiveness about file size is short-sighted. In the short time I've been scanning the accepted file size has grown steadily and it will continue to grow).
Anyways, I'm rambling and have lost any focus I might have had when I started to type, so I'll stop! ;)
P.S. Thanks to all of you scanners who scan and share, no matter how you choose to do it - the choice is yours along with the effort.
JVJ (RIP):
Were I to prepare a scan for sharing, guys,
I Would scan the comic page at 300 ppi at actual size on my Epson 15000 scanner. This yields about a 2070 x 3000 ppi file that's about 35-40 MB. I scan as .psd (same as .tif for all practical purposes) with NO scanner settings activated: No sharpening, no color correction. All of my corrections are done in Photoshop.
(I have an Epson V500 for scanning line work up to 6400 ppi. It has a LED scanning mechanism and it is Instant On, FAST, and nearly silent. The The Epson 15000 is as fast or faster and has an 11½"x17½" bed, but it's better for color scans, IMO. It only has a native scanning resolution of 2400 ppi, though.)
I've never seen any reason to blur or descreen an old comic scan. The dot patterns of the colors are so large that unless you're reducing them for physical print, there's no chance of them generating moires - the prevention of which is the primary impetus for blurring, as far as I know.
All my cleaning and repairing would be done in Photoshop and saved as .psd (or .tif, if you prefer). All my final files would be saved as .psd.
To make a .cbz, I would use one of two approaches:
1. a. Save the .psd (or .tif) file
b. then Save for Web & Devices
c. pick a "Quality" and/or "Image Size %" that results in a file size you prefer
(generally about 500K).
d. save as .jpg into a separate folder.
2. a. save the .psd (or .tif) file
b. [Image][Image Size] choose 1000 pixel width with Resample Image checked
c. Sharpen the reduced file
d. Save for Web & Devices
e. pick a "Quality" to get the file size you want.
f. save as .jpg into a separate folder
g. DON'T save the reduced .psd file
Then collect the contents of the separate folder into a .cbz file
BOTH of these approaches can be run in batch mode with actions in Photoshop. I'm certain that if I actually scanned a few books, this process would get tweaked. As it is, they are more mind games or intellectual speculation than tried and true processes.
FWIW.
(|:{>
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version