Help and Support > Feedback and Suggestions
scan size
JVJ (RIP):
--- Quote from: builderboy on August 31, 2010, 07:52:05 PM ---
So, do I love a yellowed page of comic book? Yes, but not for the artifacts of age that were imposed on the final product because of industry condition. Would I prefer to have the artists original art over the comic book page, with all its sharpness and no yellowing? Yessirree Bob.
--- End quote ---
I can easily accept that someone LIKES one scanning style over another, bb.
That's a subjective preference. Sort of like someone saying "I like creamed corn" and someone else saying "I like corn on the cob." Okay. No prob. But to argue that creamed corn is somehow better or more preferable or more "right" than corn on the cob is hogwash.
No one in this or any other thread has really done much more than state a preference for tanned backgrounds on their scans, going to varying lengths to claim that's better, preferable and more "right" than eliminating the tanned paper background. Citaltras argues against the lack of yellow in the faces, so at least he's making an effort to be objective. I respect that. It's a little true, but the yellow has never been all that visible even in the comics and once you compress them into a jpeg/cbr file, it's even less noticeable.
Other than that, you say tomaytoes and I say tomahtoes. So what?
I'll reiterate and reinforce citaltras' admonition to make initial high res scans and to store and archive them for possible reuse when technology advances can better reproduce the pages. To my mind, that's all the more reason to make those scans as pure and unmanipulated as possible.
When you turn "sharpening" on in your scanning software, you are ceding control of the output pixels to the decision that some programmer made as a "best compromise" back when he/she wrote that software algorithm. Personally, I don't believe that anyone but me should make that decision and, even then, only on a copy of the scan. Give me ALL of my pixels as faithfully captured as possible and allow me to decide what to do with them.
Tha sall msayin.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
John C:
--- Quote from: JVJ on August 31, 2010, 06:01:08 PM ---That's a great idea about the digital camera rather than a moving scan head, John,
but I think that the resolution would be limited. Getting a 6400 x 6400 ppi scan of an 1" x 1" original would require a 40 Megapixel array, but the notion would work perfectly for a 300 x 300 ppi 7" x 10" scan of a comic book page - an easy job for a 7 Mpixel camera.
--- End quote ---
To clarify, I didn't mean taking the hundred-buck model from Best Buy and mounting it under glass (unless one is a do-it-yourselfer). The optics stink and there are other serious flaws with the point-and-shoot gadgets. I meant the high-end professional digital cameras, or at least their guts. And if there aren't enough pixels, mount a few, right?
--- Quote from: JVJ on August 31, 2010, 06:01:08 PM ---You could be right about the scanner sharpening being tuned to the hardware, but I will also say that I doubt it.
--- End quote ---
I agree with that, but the idea doesn't necessarily contradict my reasoning. After all, you, the user, know what the page is supposed to look like better than the scanning bed does, and you're looking right at both. At best, the shipped, automatic software can overcome systematic defects like lens aberrations on the fringes or an odd CCD configuration.
--- Quote from: JVJ on August 31, 2010, 06:01:08 PM ---Your "Hulk" example was ill-chosen, as the character was originally gray and Kirby had little to do with the choice.
--- End quote ---
That's why I chose the example, actually If Jack and Stan had developed the Hulk in the post-Baxter era, he'd have remained gray, because the gray would have printed correctly. I think the character's profile would have suffered strongly had it not been for lousy color separation, in other words.
(Now that I think about it, I wonder if the Silver Streak's terrifying purple costume was intended to be, y'know, silver.)
--- Quote from: JVJ on August 31, 2010, 06:01:08 PM ---I like the physical comics DESPITE their flaws. Primarily because I take in the full range of the medium with a glance and the whole page has its own impact upon the eye while the flow of the story asserts itself upon focus and examination.
--- End quote ---
And that's fine. We definitely approach the medium from different angles, too, where you put a much stronger emphasis on the artists themselves and their art than I do. So interruptions in that would presumably be more jarring. Personally, I don't care what the artist "intended," except to the extent that he's carrying the narrative, so there's less interest for me in having the artist's vision translate as intended.
And to echo your comments, yes, this is all about preference and interest. If the paper is extra-pulpy, it says something about the historical circumstances (of the company or the country as a whole) at that time, but detracts from the art. So it's a matter of who the scan is "really" for, and so it's literally nothing more than opinion.
bchat:
The problem I personally have with color correction is that someone is making a choice of what they THINK the page should look like, as opposed to accurately depicting what the page DID look like when the book was new. Regardless of whether or not a choice in color correction is better or worse, the images would not accurately reflect how they looked when they were printed because a person is just guessing that they're getting close unless they have a Near-Mint copy right next to them for comparison (and odds are that with Golden Age books, that simply isn't happening). As far as I'm concerned, the less changes that someone makes to a scanned page, the better. If I don't like what I see, I can always change it myself to suit my tastes ... and that's what's really being talked about regarding color correction: personal taste. What someone else thinks looks excellent might look like garbage to me or someone else. So, as far as I'm concerned, take the guess-work out & focus on preserving the books as they are for future generations, allowing them the choice to "fix" whatever they want in any way they prefer.
When it comes to scanning pulps, I agree with Citaltris about leaving the page-color alone. If someone thinks that there is no value in the pages themselves, then why bother scanning them at all? Why not just type the stories into the computer and eliminate the risk of destroying the book altogether?
citaltras:
--- Quote from: bchat on September 01, 2010, 07:59:03 AM ---The problem I personally have with color correction is that someone is making a choice of what they THINK the page should look like, as opposed to accurately depicting what the page DID look like when the book was new. Regardless of whether or not a choice in color correction is better or worse, the images would not accurately reflect how they looked when they were printed because a person is just guessing that they're getting close unless they have a Near-Mint copy right next to them for comparison (and odds are that with Golden Age books, that simply isn't happening). As far as I'm concerned, the less changes that someone makes to a scanned page, the better. If I don't like what I see, I can always change it myself to suit my tastes ... and that's what's really being talked about regarding color correction: personal taste. What someone else thinks looks excellent might look like garbage to me or someone else. So, as far as I'm concerned, take the guess-work out & focus on preserving the books as they are for future generations, allowing them the choice to "fix" whatever they want in any way they prefer.
When it comes to scanning pulps, I agree with Citaltris about leaving the page-color alone. If someone thinks that there is no value in the pages themselves, then why bother scanning them at all? Why not just type the stories into the computer and eliminate the risk of destroying the book altogether?
--- End quote ---
I think Bchat's conclusion summarizes well the situation. All the points of view are valid as personal
preferences for the kind of correction to be presented in the screen (I know many people who prefer the
re-colored Marvel Masterworks editions better than the original comics).
Then the raw scan is the only format with the potential to fit every taste, since It can be corrected
later in each computer with Photoshop. Since some readers will not want or not be able to make the
corrections for themselves, the "raw" scan should be pre-processed with a minimum set of "raw"
corrections: at least it should be sharp (from the scanner software or photoshop) and with only a bit of
yellow correction if too old.
JVJ: post-sharpening will not be needed if you start with the book properly placed in the scan bed,
the long-sides parallel to the long-sides, and you skip the rotation that breaks sharpening.
This can be done with error less than 1 deg. In fact now I never rotate my scanned images.
I prefer to slightly bend the head.
I understand that the digital technology you mentioned that emulates black ink on white paper
is the e-ink used in ebook readers. I own one of these readers and the background is not white,
but GRAY.
builderboy:
bchat,
I don't think that I am making arbitrary choices when making color corrections. All I am doing is removing an age artifact of the paper. I think I can confidently say that these books were not printed on yellow or pink stock, and yet that tonality is what has invaded the image over the years. It is my opinion, and I understand and accept that you and citaltras don't see it this way, that to leave the image uncorrected is in effect not un-doing the modifications to the image that aging has induced.
It's just an opinion, and I don't imagine that I will sway you with the argument. I just wanted to give you the basis of the position.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version