Digital Comic Museum
Help and Support => Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: BobS on August 01, 2010, 01:13:55 PM
-
The higher your screen resolution is, the smaller the scans become.
Historically, folks have been increasing screen resolution.
In the future avg. screen resolution will probably be higher than now.
I bring this point up now because many rare old comics, like early Centaur, will probably never be rescanned.
I suggest that early comics especially be scanned at the larger size.
If you have smaller monitor or lower resolution, CDisplay can be set to shrink (when necessary) to screen width or whatever.
Just my 2 cents.
Bob
Public Enemy #1
-
The printed image of Golden Age Comics is a bit wider than 6 inches. What was the print density of Golden Age comics? I seem to recall 96 dpi. That would mean at the commonly used width of 1200 pixels, you're already capturing twice as much information horizontally (or four times as much information per square inch as was in the original comic. Now I understand you don't have a perfect match so you capture each color dot, but I'd not think going beyond 1200 pixels of width is going to improve things much.
This would be for a lossless save of course, BMP or TIFF, not JPG.
-
Both Paint.net and infranview offer loss less jpg
-
Both Paint.net and infranview offer loss less jpg
Being "offered" and being "used" are two different things, Narf. "Lossless jpeg" is simply saving a jpeg at "maximum" quality - i.e. No Compression. In which case, the file size is not reduced and the advantages of the jpeg format are nil. Yes, "lossless jpeg" exists (in ANY program that allows for a file to be saved as jpeg), but it's not something that I've ever seen anyone use except as a way to send high-resolution scans as email attachments, when size is not an issue.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
The printed image of Golden Age Comics is a bit wider than 6 inches. What was the print density of Golden Age comics? I seem to recall 96 dpi. That would mean at the commonly used width of 1200 pixels, you're already capturing twice as much information horizontally (or four times as much information per square inch as was in the original comic. Now I understand you don't have a perfect match so you capture each color dot, but I'd not think going beyond 1200 pixels of width is going to improve things much.
This would be for a lossless save of course, BMP or TIFF, not JPG.
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 (|:{>
-
A nice synopsis of the situation Jim.
Couldn't have put it better if I tried.
-
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 (|:{>
Jim,
I'm INCREDIBLY HAPPY to get the scans, and I thank you for providing most of the books being scanned. I also thank all you scanners for the tedious work you do in scanning page after page after page and then editing the pages. I don't want to appear ungrateful for what all you do.
I have a wide monitor and my resolution is set at 1600 pixels x 900 pixels.
A lot of the early Fox comics and the earliest Batman Comics (which I got elsewhere), etc. have been scanned at 1600 pixels width.
I'm not sure but I believe Cim and Darwination both scan at 1600 pixels width. Maybe some other scanners too.
Most of the scans here are fine, fantastic even.
However, I would like to see Star Rangers v2#1 at full 1600 pixels width, especially the Jack Cole story where I do believe more detail would show at higher resolution.
Also maybe Keen Detective Funnies v2#6, with the Eisner Muss 'Em Up Donovan story (cited in Great Comic Book Heroes) and the Lucky Coyne story where the text is just readable (by my old eyes).
I doubt that these 1930s comics will ever be scanned again, and in my opinion the 1930s comics in particular need to be preserved as best possible.
Best wishes,
Bob
Public Enemy #1
-
You're welcome, Bob,
Yes, the older books DESERVE to be scanned at high rez, but folks still have to deal with the realities of upload and download speed. Deserving and getting are two different things. Alas.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
History, though, shows that one day, these things...just happen. After all, when most of us started reading old comic scans, they were individual pages of single stories in sometimes-barely-legible resolution that was probably geared for the XVGA crowd. That didn't change right away, and there are probably still some straggler pages in the scanned comics because they were already scanned. However, today, they're barely seen anymore, and most of those stories have been rescanned.
So, while I'm pretty happy with the state of affairs as-is, I do appreciate that Bob is voicing the concern earlier than later, and I'm sure the changeover will happen eventually. And if there's ever a speed boost to go along with the resolution, the odds aren't bad for re-scans, judging by what we've already seen.
-
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
-
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
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.
-
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 (|:{>
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.
-
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 (|:{>
-
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.
-
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.
(|:{>
-
Thanks very much for your post Beau and Jim.
I've added Jim's post to the Scanning Tutorial in the Help Section.
Beau, if you ever wanted to do a tutorial on your scan techniques for readers here PLEASE do in a new topic of your own in the Help Section as well. I'm sure everyone would love to read how you achieve your superior scans.
:)
-Yoc
-
I would not think that's an especially good idea, Yoc,
though I do take it as a compliment. It's not as if I have had a lot of actual experience scanning comics for these sites. It was meant more of a "what I WOULD do if I WAS scanning" think piece than a "how to" instructional. For all I know, it might turn out to be a terrible workflow. Perhaps we should get some feedback from the guys on the frontlines as to how my ideas hold up. Just saying...
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Ok Jim,
I'll take it down.
-Yoc
-
I agree with JVJ that it may be convenient to store high resolution copies of raw scans for preservation
purposes, but not for sharing or reading on a computer, where 200 ppi is large enough (or 300 with high compression as interestingly mentioned by darwination)
Concerning EPSON scanning software, I have found convenient to scan with unsharp mask option turned on at maximum unless I want a blur raw scan to start with.
It can be sharped later with photoshop, but EPSON unsharp mask ON produces better results for comics. Starting with that raw image at 200 dpi, photoshop may not be needed at all. Just zip and enjoy.
As illustration here is a sample page scanned and color corrected as available elsewhere.
I just reduced size to 900 pixels for convenience
(http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj200/citaltras/basura/Eternals18.jpg)Here is a scan I have made of the same page from my personal paper copy,
with my EPSON perfection v200 photo without any color correction, but only the scanner option unsharp mask on. Reduced also to the same 900 pixels width.
(http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj200/citaltras/basura/Eternals18good.jpg)My conclusions: no color corrections is better. The fine quality of this scan is just a result
of the scanner used. Any further correction will just contribute to degrade the image, loosing
quality, unless you know what you are doing.
-
Unless you know what scanner and settings were used on the the first page, Citaltras,
I'm not certain that it's a valid conclusion to get from the comparison. What's the comic? I'll make scans with both of my scanners without sharpening (which I maintain should only be done AFTER you reduce the .tif file to the size you intend to use for the .jpg) and then we can compare Apples and Apples.
I'll be the first to admit that the first scan is less than optimum, but I'm not sure that you've established WHY.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
JVJ: my point was not on sharpening (that is needed to get my results, otherwise the image would be blurry), but on color corrections.
Whatever the scanner was, or the corrections made on the first image,
the raw scan is much better and the same size,
or even smaller, since every correction make the resulting file a bit larger.
The page is from Kirby's Eternals #18.
-
JVJ: my point was not on sharpening (that is needed to get my results, otherwise the image would be blurry), but on color corrections.
Whatever the scanner was, or the corrections made on the first image,
the raw scan is much better and the same size,
or even smaller, since every correction make the resulting file a bit larger.
The page is from Kirby's Eternals #18.
I did misunderstand your point, citaltras,
and certainly agree that whoever did the scan and correction on the first image was not really improving things. It would be interesting to see the raw scan, don't you think?
And I'm not sure why "the raw scan is much better and the same size." If you're looking at a jpeg, and the raw scan was .tif, then the latter would certainly not hold true. As for the former, "much better", observation, I've seen some pretty ugly raw scans in my day. Scanning is a skill and you gotta learn the basics and then keep practicing to keep them sharp (ha ha).
I guess I don't understand why you say that the image would necessarily be blurry if you don't use your scanner's sharpening setting. Below are four scans that I made of an X-Men comic using the following settings on my Epson 15000: no sharpening, minimum sharpening, medium sharpening and maximum sharpening - NOT PRESENTED IN THAT ORDER. All four scans were straightened and color corrected, then reduced to 900 pixels wide, Unsharp Mask at 70% in Photoshop and saved as a jpg at 60 quality. Can you put them in the proper order? Does it make a difference? I've NOT previewed these, so I'll be seeing them together for the first time here, too.
#1:
(http://www.bpib.com/temp/cb-sharpen/sharpen-1.jpg)#ii:
(http://www.bpib.com/temp/cb-sharpen/sharpen-2.jpg)see next post for part two.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Jim, your examples didn't show.
There is a maximum file size allowed for pictures posted via a reply.
"Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip
Maximum attachment size allowed: 1024 KB, per post: 4"
-Yoc
-
They're just links to images on my server, Yoc,
Is there a limit on LINK size?
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Here are the second set of four scans with varying degrees of sharpening.
#C:
(http://www.bpib.com/temp/cb-sharpen/sharpen-3.jpg)#IV:
(http://www.bpib.com/temp/cb-sharpen/sharpen-3.jpg)Again, four scans with no, min, med, and max scan sharpening applied. Not in any order. Which is better? Does it matter?
(|:{>
-
I really should post one with MY notion of color correction, too, so here's #JVJ:
(http://www.bpib.com/temp/cb-sharpen/sharpen-jvj.jpg)FWIW.
(|:{>
-
thanks Jim.
They weren't showing at all when I first looked.
If they were links I didn't pick up on that at the time.
-Yoc
-
They were always links, Yoc,
but perhaps five of them in one post was too much. So I split them up. Maybe they would have worked together, but now for certain they do.
(|:{>
-
Hard to say, because you applied a further sharp mask in photoshop and these are not the raw scans.
But after zooming in Picara's face, my guess is:
image 1: maximum sharp
(http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj200/citaltras/basura/facelarge1.jpg)image 2: low sharp
(http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj200/citaltras/basura/facelarge2.jpg)image 3: medium sharp
(http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj200/citaltras/basura/facelarge3.jpg)It is not really easy to appreciate on these thumbnails, but you can check by zooming at some small black line or dot in the original images.
As for your color correction, is perhaps too much for me. The yellow of the paper is lost, but with it, some of the yellow components
of the art are lost too, plus the faces tones are shifted to pink.
I prefer to keep the paper as background, correcting just a little if too yellow. For two reasons:
1- I want to see a scan of the original comic book and not only of the art. For me the paper is a part of the book.
Editing colors too much you end with a new edition of the book, very different to the original.
An example are the scans of old Pulp magazines that are available. If you eliminate the paper, you lost the essence of the pulp
since only the text remain.
2- The second reason: if you read these comics in a computer or in the IPAD, then the white background is annoying
for the eyes. A yellow background, like that of the original paper is more comfortable and less harmful for the eyes.
-
Thanks, one and all for sharing of techniques and opinions on various scanner quality. All I know is that my current methods are far different from those that I initially used, that my image quality is improving, and that I am learning as I go. I trust this will continue, and that's enough to keep me satisfied.
Citaltras, there have been some parallel discussions in other threads regarding color correction (among other corrections), and about the personal preferences of the editor in what he or she wants to see. I do understand the attachment to the object itself, the book with all its warts and aging phenomenon.
One thing that I keep in mind, though, is that my perception of a 50 year comic is not the perception that the original buyer had when he picked it off the rack 50 years ago. Mine is an arbitrary snapshot in time. Add to that the abuses of the 50 years of storage, or the poor execution of the printing press man, and I think I am comfortable saying that the image that I am most eager to see is what the creative team tried to produce back at Year 0. As best as I can guess it, anyway.
So, for me, editing includes removal of paper discoloration, obvious ink blobs, paper folds and tears. I don't like backgrounds going to absolute white, either. I agree about with you about eye strain, and it was never brilliant white paper back then anyway.
there's my 2 cents.
-
Help me out here, Citaltras,
I posted four scans labeled
#1
#ii
#C
#IV
To cut to the chase and bypass my Monty Python ianity, let's call the #1, 2, 3, and 4.
Am I right in considering your post to be:
#1 = maximum
#2 = minimum
#3 = medium
and (assumption here on my part)
#4 (no entry) being no sharpening
just checking?
Another question: why WOULDN'T you apply a sharpening in Photoshop? One small rotation in PS to straighten the page and you have resampled your scan and interfered with the sharpening done on the scanner. Change the dimensions/resolution of the scan and you've totally eliminated the "Sharp" portion of the sharpening. ANY resampling negates a large part of the effect of the scanner sharpening and introduces blurriness from extrapolation of pixels.
You have FAR more control of sharpening in Photoshop, with nearly infinite gradations and, I'm nearly positive, a much more sophisticated algorithm than you'll find in any scanning software. I see scanner sharpening as a "lowest common denominator" approach to the problem. It's also "lossy" in that you're letting the scanner software "decide" which pixels it's actually going to capture.
Granted, it's faster and requires less thought and involvement with the scans, and, like I've said before, I'm examining the task in the abstract not as a part of day to day workflow.
The clarity of the final jpeg that is inherent in the initial scan is all that is really important, IMHO. I guess I don't see a great value in comparing the raw files since it's the POTENTIAL for a great final product that matters.
I was positive that NO ONE was going to agree with my approach to color correction, and your comments are not unanticipated. I'll counter with two questions:
1. Did the pulp writers find any added value to their prose because it was printed on cheap paper? I think "the text" is all they really cared about. Current fascination with the "artifacts" of pulps has absolutely nothing to do with their content and everything to do with modern perceptions and nostalgic colored glasses.
2. You READ comics?
In all serious, though, there has been an inordinate amount of money spent on trying to create a digital technology that emulates black ink on white paper and your statement that "A yellow background, like that of the original paper is more comfortable and less harmful for the eyes." sounds like a rationalization that flies in the face of BILLIONS of research dollars. I'm sure it reflects your personal opinion, but for me to categorically accept it as a fact would require a bit more reference to the science.
At this point I give in because I know that I'm a minority of ONE on this. The yellow is still in the faces, it just isn't as obvious, as you point out. But, then, it isn't so obvious on the printed comics either.
FWIW.
(|:{>
-
Two thoughts:
- I don't have any specific information, but it seems to me that the sharpening algorithm onboard the scanner IS probably of lower quality overall, but on the other hand, it may well be tuned to the quirks of the scanning hardware. It'd be a waste of money, after all, to add software that didn't specifically redress the hardware flaws, and nobody hires programmers because we're so much fun. (Actually, that's not entirely true, but that was a terrible place to work.)
[Sidenote, with the talk about rotating the scanned image, why are scanners still using those crawling motorized mechanisms? Can't they just mount a good digital camera to the bottom to get instant and reliable scans?]
- I'm also in the "as-is is better" camp with scans. Maybe I'm too much a post-modernist, but to me, the artifacts of the medium are just as important (or can be, at least) as the writing and art. A fair amount of ideas in art, after all, come from overcoming the physical limitations. As an example off the top of my head, would the Hulk have been green if Jack Kirby drew on a Wacom tablet or 1960s Marvel printed with modern technology?
But, then, I also own very old copies of many books that I can get in clean, modern paperback or (in many cases) download for free from Project Gutenberg. Because on top of the aforementioned issues, I just like the physical products, probably much more than the art itself.
-
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.
You could be right about the scanner sharpening being tuned to the hardware, but I will also say that I doubt it. If you ask any graphics professional, they will tell you that scanner sharpening is ideal only for effects production and not for best quality work. i.e. if you are trying to get a specific "sharpened look" over a lot of scans and don't care to mess with the final scan.
To quote Richard Romano in "The Scanning Workshop" (and just about every other book/tutorial on scanning I've encountered) "It's generally a good idea, if you are ultimately going to be editing an image in an image editing application after scanning, to save all special effects, sharpening, and other such enhancements for that stage. As good as scanning software can be, it's still no substitute for the features and capabilities of a good image manipulation program."
Granted, that was back in 2001, but I'm pretty certain that the sharpening tools in Photoshop have outpaced the development of the "sharpen" button in CanonScan or EpsonScan or HP ScanPro. I could be wrong on this, but it's still what I think.
Your "Hulk" example was ill-chosen, as the character was originally gray and Kirby had little to do with the choice. Still, I understand and agree with your point that technology has its effect on creativity.
On the other hand, the price of a comic book is astronomically increased if there are NO defects and NO yellowing of the paper, so I think that most serious collectors (i.e. those with more dollars than sense) agree more with my values than with the "old is good" attitude that is being touted by most scanners.
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. Literally, it's EASIER for me to assimilate the story in book form than it is on a computer screen. And I think that Kirby did a pretty decent job of "overcoming the physical limitations" of the medium and I GUARANTEE you that when I was reading FF #50 for the first time, after I bought in on the stands, I was NOT looking at the paper or the pulp pieces floating therein. I was, quite unconsciously I assure you, factoring them OUT of the experience and just looking at the art and the story and the words. To bring them to my attention in a scan is tantamount to assault and battery, IMHO.
Peace, JIm (|:{>
-
Hi guys,
I'm very much enjoying this topic.
I hope other scanners will join in on it.
While not known for my scans my own opinion mostly mirrors John's but I certainly can see the logic is Jim's points as well.
-Yoc
-
Yep, Yoc...I can see both sides of it. I have done a little of my own artwork, though, and I am solidly with JVJ when he says that the artists who were creating the work were not in love with the medium. By that I mean the inexpensive paper, the sometimes sloppy printhouse work, the difficulties in getting blacks to cover in overprint color areas.
They were in love with the final product, yes, but had you asked them if they wanted higher standards in printing, better quality paper, I can't imagine that they would have said anything but YES! YES! YES! You see it today when publishers have sufficient market to go to a prestige format.
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.
-
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.
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 (|:{>
-
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.
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?
You could be right about the scanner sharpening being tuned to the hardware, but I will also say that I doubt it.
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.
Your "Hulk" example was ill-chosen, as the character was originally gray and Kirby had little to do with the choice.
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.)
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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 :)
-
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.
The only point I disagree with, citaltras, is:
"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."
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 (|:{>
-
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.
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.
-
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Even though I'm working on a copy of the raw file, I always do all my corrections on a separate layer.
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".
Here, again, all my adjustments are done on Photoshop's Adjustment Layers for the ultimate in reversibility and flexibility.
6. I also apply a slight unsharp mask (again, HORRORS!)
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.
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.
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.
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!)
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.
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
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 (|:{>
-
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.
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.
Good point, John,
the e-paper goal is reflective and all scans (unless used in printed form) are going to be seen with projected light. I'm not one who spends a lot of time READING scans, so my experiences with long exposure to them is minimal. I can't comment on the effect of the page color on prolonged viewing with any first-hand knowledge. I'll take your and citaltras' word for it.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
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).
Even IF everyone had the perfect copy to scan and refer to, bchat, we're still dealing with quality of the scanners involved. I have three scanners: an HP and two Epsons. I bought my first Epson, a 15000 with a 11½"x17½" scanning bed, and planned on retiring my HP 7400C, but then I found that the HP did a much better job of capturing high resolution line art that I was scanning at 1600 ppi. The HP was rated at 2400 ppi (optical resolution) while the Espon GT-15000 was only 600 x 1200 ppi optical - though it did interpolation up to 9600 x 9600 ppi. I discovered that the "interpolation" wasn't all it was cracked up to be and kept the HP up and running. It's since been replaced by an Epson V500 with native 6400 x 6400 optical. Works great.
But the lens quality, optical resolution and, it must be stated, the skills of the scanner all come into play in your "accurately reflect how they looked when they were printed" criteria. Add to that the individual skills in assessing how closely your monitor image reflects the comic, and how well calibrated your monitor is, etc. ad infinitum and it's nearly impossible to be anything BUT subjective about ANY scanned comics page. So having access to the raw scans with ZERO interference and "fixing" is, as you say below, the best alternative.
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?
I know I'm a minority of one here, too, but as far as I am concerned, the text is all that has ANY value in a pulp page - with the exception of any illustrations (it goes without saying). YES, type the damn things into the computer or let The Gutenberg Project OCR them. I am seriously bemused as to why people are taken with page-color in comics, but when you bring pulps into the discussion, bemused becomes seriously bewildered. Sorry, but there is something about being attracted to the LOOK of old paper that I just don't GET. I didn't grow up with them nor did I collect them or read them as a kid, so any nostalgia I'd be "feeling" would be contrived and wishful thinking. I guess I'm too much of a pragmatic realist. If I wanted to read a story, why would I care what medium it first appeared in? ???? I SO don't get it.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
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.
What I do with other people's comics, bb,
is close the scanner lid on the comic BUT insert a pencil or a sharpie between the lid and the bed so it doesn't close all the way. This applies, to my sensibilities, the perfect amount of "pressure" on the spine of the comic without stressing it. Perhaps in some cases another item (a block eraser, a CD or DVD case?) might be more appropriate, but you get the idea.
To most easily compare a rotated/non-rotated scan, do one version aligned on the bed and another at a slight angle. Then rotate the second scan to be aligned. Drag the rotated scan into the aligned Photoshop file. It will come in as a separate layer. Turn the opacity of the added layer down and position the two images so that they perfectly align. Then turn the opacity back to 100% and turn the top layer on and off (click the eyeball next to it in the Layers Panel) and you'll easily see what the rotation has changed.
LMK what you see.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
But the lens quality, optical resolution and, it must be stated, the skills of the scanner all come into play in your "accurately reflect how they looked when they were printed" criteria. Add to that the individual skills in assessing how closely your monitor image reflects the comic, and how well calibrated your monitor is, etc. ad infinitum and it's nearly impossible to be anything BUT subjective about ANY scanned comics page. So having access to the raw scans with ZERO interference and "fixing" is, as you say below, the best alternative.
I just wanted to chime in and say how much I'm enjoying the technical discussion of people's different approaches to scanning. I've worked in the print industry specializing in digital prepress as my day job. This conversation has not only been interesting for me, it also has useful tips that I might be able to apply in other areas of my digital work. :)
-- Kevin Yong
PS -- I want to echo the advice to keep a "raw" scan of any images for archiving, separate from any cleanups or edits applied in Photoshop. Once you start tweaking the underlying pixels, you can never get that original data back. You never know when you might have a reason to go back and rework the edits, or apply a different tool in a later version of the software, without going back and starting over from scratch with a new scan.
-
Yes, you are right. The higher your screen resolution is, the smaller the scans become. This is like one rule of graphics. It depends upon the pixels of the monitor. Resolution is one of the important part of the graphics.
-
Hello, Jim we haven't met Just wanted to say that I love your comment below.. Thanks rangerhouse
Sorry, but there is something about being attracted to the LOOK of old paper that I just don't GET IT
But the lens quality, optical resolution and, it must be stated, the skills of the scanner all come into play in your "accurately reflect how they looked when they were printed" criteria. Add to that the individual skills in assessing how closely your monitor image reflects the comic, and how well calibrated your monitor is, etc. ad infinitum and it's nearly impossible to be anything BUT subjective about ANY scanned comics page. So having access to the raw scans with ZERO interference and "fixing" is, as you say below, the best alternative.
I just wanted to chime in and say how much I'm enjoying the technical discussion of people's different approaches to scanning. I've worked in the print industry specializing in digital prepress as my day job. This conversation has not only been interesting for me, it also has useful tips that I might be able to apply in other areas of my digital work. :)
-- Kevin Yong
PS -- I want to echo the advice to keep a "raw" scan of any images for archiving, separate from any cleanups or edits applied in Photoshop. Once you start tweaking the underlying pixels, you can never get that original data back. You never know when you might have a reason to go back and rework the edits, or apply a different tool in a later version of the software, without going back and starting over from scratch with a new scan.