Help and Support > Feedback and Suggestions
scan size
builderboy:
p.s. - fascinating discussion on rotation and sharpening. I wish my ability to struggle with getting the piece flat on the platen didn't leave me with disturbing degrees of angularity. But a contributing factor is the fact that many print jobs leave the image askew on the page (I don't know if it was the guy printing or the guy cropping, but ONE of them screwed up).
I do not use software sharpening as I doesn't suit my eye. I should compare a rotated vs. a non-rotated image side-by-side to see firsthand the loss of sharpness.
Snard:
--- Quote from: builderboy on September 01, 2010, 01:51:42 PM ---p.s. - fascinating discussion on rotation and sharpening. I wish my ability to struggle with getting the piece flat on the platen didn't leave me with disturbing degrees of angularity. But a contributing factor is the fact that many print jobs leave the image askew on the page (I don't know if it was the guy printing or the guy cropping, but ONE of them screwed up).
I do not use software sharpening as I doesn't suit my eye. I should compare a rotated vs. a non-rotated image side-by-side to see firsthand the loss of sharpness.
--- End quote ---
My initial 2 cents: I find that if I scan at a higher resolution (i.e. 600 pixels/inch), I'm able to straighten (i.e. micro-rotate) the image without making it look "less sharp".
I realize that for some, the right & wrong ways of editing scans approach a religion, so I'm certain that in some peoples' eyes I'm clearly going to hell :) But anyway, just for reference, here is what I do for my golden age scans:
1. Do the raw scan at 600dpi, save the raw scan as an uncompressed TIFF. All sharpening/gamma correction/etc. is turned off in the scanner driver.
2. Straighten the image along a major vertical or horizontal feature in the artwork. This can be tricky when the page doesn't have any long horizontal/vertical lines, or if the left & right side aren't parallel. If the latter occurs, I go with the straight line that's closest to the edge of the paper.
3. Crop the image to preserve as much of the paper as possible, excluding the staple holes (did I mention that I usually remove the staples from my books before I scan them? HORRORS!)
4. If there are tears, small pieces missing, or other post-printing defects or defacing, I will try to fix/remove them (I won't go into how I do this because it would take another post or two :)
5. Depending on the paper/ink color, I will perform some adjustment of the color balance or levels, to make the book look "newer". This is highly subjective; the goal is for the book to "look right".
6. I also apply a slight unsharp mask (again, HORRORS!)
7. I resize the resulting page to 1280 wide, allowing the height to be whatever it needs to be to preserve the image's aspect ratio.
8. I save as a relatively high quality .jpg file.
Oh, and I also save my original unaltered TIFF files for posterity. So if someone doesn't like my scan, I can give them the DVD with the raw scans and say "go for it" (and yes, it takes an entire DVD to store the raw scans for one book!)
If you look at a recent scan/edit that I've done (i.e. Phantom Lady 17) you can see how my stuff has turned out. Actually, PL17 might not be the best example because of the pink paper; maybe look at one of my recent Police scans for another example.
This has probably been more information than anyone wants to know. I hope you enjoyed reading it at least half as much as I enjoyed typing it, in which case I enjoyed typing it twice as much as you enjoyed reading it :)
JVJ (RIP):
--- Quote from: citaltras on September 01, 2010, 11:19:59 AM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
The only point I disagree with, citaltras, is:
--- Quote ---"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."
--- End quote ---
I don't believe that the raw scan should have ANY pre-processing. Period! If it's possible to adjust the raw scan in Photoshop (or elsewhere), then give everyone access to the un-adjusted scan and let each person determine just how much sharpening and yellow correction they prefer.
Regarding straight scans: if every GA book was printed squarely on the page, you'd be right, but anyone who's scanned a couple dozen books will likely tell you that it simply doesn't happen that way. Having scanned a couple hundred stories, my experience is that you'd end up scanning every other page at least twice to avoid something that I don't see as a real problem. Yes, rotating a scan adds some blurring due to pixel extrapolation, but, If you scan at high enough resolution (300-400 ppi), then any blurring caused by straightening is easily overcome by post-scan sharpening.
Why do you believe that scanner sharpening is more appropriate than post Photoshop sharpening? I'd like to understand your reasoning, but I haven't seen the explanation yet. Here's my reason for opting for post-scan sharpening.
There's some edge-detection going on in both cases and some contrast adjustment at those edges, all of which is mitigated by and limited to the resolution of the scanner heads (native optics resolution, not extrapolated resolution) and the scanning resolution chosen. These limitations are present pre-/mid-/post-scanning. The only difference I can identify is that on the scanner bed the source material with its (theoretically) infinite edge resolution is available. However, I'm pretty certain that the scanner sharpening algorithm is applied to the captured scan - i.e. the scanner reads the edges of the source material and THEN detects and sharpens them. And I believe that Photoshop can do a better job of detecting and sharpening the captured scan than the scanning software. I would like to understand why you think the opposite.
And you're absolutely right that some e-paper/e-ink still has a grayish tint to the background. That's what the millions of research dollars are trying to overcome. I don't believe it's because they want gray, but because that's as far as the technology has come - and there are a half-dozen high-end labs searching for a better answer.
Fascinating thread, guys.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
John C:
--- Quote from: citaltras on September 01, 2010, 11:19:59 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
As Jim points out (thus forcing a rewrite on my part), the state of the art is gray, but the goal is not.
However, there's a not-so-subtle difference between e-paper (and real paper) and computer screens: The contrast on screens is painful (though necessary), because the lighter parts are actively lit, whereas e-paper (and wood-pulp and similar technologies) diffuse reflective light. That's why it's easy to spend hours or days reading a book or a magazine, but reading the same material off a monitor causes serious fatigue and burnout.
I wouldn't necessarily correlate scan de-papering with the research going into making better plastic paper, in other words, unless the scan's destination is a paper-like (not backlit) screen.
JVJ (RIP):
--- Quote from: Snard on September 01, 2010, 04:00:38 PM ---My initial 2 cents: I find that if I scan at a higher resolution (i.e. 600 pixels/inch), I'm able to straighten (i.e. micro-rotate) the image without making it look "less sharp".
--- End quote ---
I agree, Snard. This has been my experience, as well. And I think 600 ppi is a WONDERFUL and luxuriously generous choice. You need a fast scanner to make it the default of your workflow, though.
--- Quote ---I realize that for some, the right & wrong ways of editing scans approach a religion, so I'm certain that in some peoples' eyes I'm clearly going to hell Smiley But anyway, just for reference, here is what I do for my golden age scans:
1. Do the raw scan at 600dpi, save the raw scan as an uncompressed TIFF. All sharpening/gamma correction/etc. is turned off in the scanner driver.
--- End quote ---
I generally scan at 400, but that's usually because that's what publishers ask me for. The scans I do end up in printed books from IDW, Fantagraphics, etc. and since I'm doing them to "order" I do what's asked of me. But I think 600 is a great default. I save my raw files as .psd, which are Photoshop's native format and equivalent to a layered .tiff file.
--- Quote ---2. Straighten the image along a major vertical or horizontal feature in the artwork. This can be tricky when the page doesn't have any long horizontal/vertical lines, or if the left & right side aren't parallel. If the latter occurs, I go with the straight line that's closest to the edge of the paper.
--- End quote ---
The [Filter][Distort][Lens Correction] (now just [Filter][Lens Correction] in CS5) is an easy straightening tool in PS. Draw a line along a mostly horizontal or mostly vertical feature and it makes that axis horizontal or vertical. There will be some extrapolation and consequent blurring, but at 400-600 ppi resolution, I think it's negligible.
--- Quote ---3. Crop the image to preserve as much of the paper as possible, excluding the staple holes (did I mention that I usually remove the staples from my books before I scan them? HORRORS!)
4. If there are tears, small pieces missing, or other post-printing defects or defacing, I will try to fix/remove them (I won't go into how I do this because it would take another post or two Smiley
--- End quote ---
Even though I'm working on a copy of the raw file, I always do all my corrections on a separate layer.
--- Quote ---5. Depending on the paper/ink color, I will perform some adjustment of the color balance or levels, to make the book look "newer". This is highly subjective; the goal is for the book to "look right".
--- End quote ---
Here, again, all my adjustments are done on Photoshop's Adjustment Layers for the ultimate in reversibility and flexibility.
--- Quote ---6. I also apply a slight unsharp mask (again, HORRORS!)
--- End quote ---
I don't use this step in my workflow. Since this actual version of the file isn't going to be used AS IS anywhere, I don't see the need to sharpen it.
--- Quote ---7. I re size the resulting page to 1280 wide, allowing the height to be whatever it needs to be to preserve the image's aspect ratio.
--- End quote ---
This is where I would apply an unsharp mask. When resizing the scan you introduce extrapolation "blurring" similar to that from straightening, and since THIS is the image you're going to use to make the jpeg, it's where I would want to add the sharpening. That said, in PS CS3 and higher, you can turn all of steps 1-6 into a "Smart Object" and then re-size in step 7 and add the sharpening as a "Smart Filter" all non-destructively - without permanently changing a single pixel of the original. That's what I do.
--- Quote ---8. I save as a relatively high quality .jpg file.
Oh, and I also save my original unaltered TIFF files for posterity. So if someone doesn't like my scan, I can give them the DVD with the raw scans and say "go for it" (and yes, it takes an entire DVD to store the raw scans for one book!)
--- End quote ---
I always save that raw file and my "corrected" file as well, which is actually a second copy, UNCHANGED, of the raw scan, with all kinds of PS layers and adjustments and stuff stacked on top of it. Takes up space, to be sure, but storage is SO cheap these days.
--- Quote ---
If you look at a recent scan/edit that I've done (i.e. Phantom Lady 17) you can see how my stuff has turned out. Actually, PL17 might not be the best example because of the pink paper; maybe look at one of my recent Police scans for another example.
This has probably been more information than anyone wants to know. I hope you enjoyed reading it at least half as much as I enjoyed typing it, in which case I enjoyed typing it twice as much as you enjoyed reading it Smiley
--- End quote ---
No, it's exactly enough information, Snard. I believe that the more specific you can get in describing your workflow, the more value it will have (as either a good or bad example - depending on how much the reader agrees with your scanning "philosophy") to the other scanners on the site. Thanks for sharing.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version