developed-responsibility
- +

Author Topic: scan size  (Read 17336 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Yoc

  • S T A F F
  • Administrators
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15187
  • Karma: 58
  • 14 Years Strong!
Re: scan size
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2010, 11:43:32 PM »
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

Digital Comic Museum

Re: scan size
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2010, 11:43:32 PM »

Offline JVJ (RIP)

  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Karma: 58
  • paix
    • ImageS Magazine
Re: scan size
« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2010, 12:29:08 AM »
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 (|:{>
Peace, Jim (|:{>

JVJ Publishing and VW inc.

Offline Yoc

  • S T A F F
  • Administrators
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15187
  • Karma: 58
  • 14 Years Strong!
Re: scan size
« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2010, 01:00:37 AM »
Ok Jim,
I'll take it down.

-Yoc

Offline citaltras

  • Comics collector
  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38
  • Karma: 17
Re: scan size
« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2010, 11:54:02 AM »

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.







CITALTRAS



Offline JVJ (RIP)

  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Karma: 58
  • paix
    • ImageS Magazine
Re: scan size
« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2010, 01:47:52 PM »
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 (|:{>
Peace, Jim (|:{>

JVJ Publishing and VW inc.

Offline citaltras

  • Comics collector
  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38
  • Karma: 17
Re: scan size
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2010, 04:23:29 PM »
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.



CITALTRAS



Offline JVJ (RIP)

  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Karma: 58
  • paix
    • ImageS Magazine
Re: scan size
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2010, 05:07:32 PM »
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 (|:{>
« Last Edit: August 30, 2010, 07:49:19 PM by JVJ »
Peace, Jim (|:{>

JVJ Publishing and VW inc.

Offline Yoc

  • S T A F F
  • Administrators
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15187
  • Karma: 58
  • 14 Years Strong!
Re: scan size
« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2010, 07:09:28 PM »
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

Offline JVJ (RIP)

  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Karma: 58
  • paix
    • ImageS Magazine
Re: scan size
« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2010, 07:30:16 PM »
They're just links to images on my server, Yoc,
Is there a limit on LINK size?

Peace, Jim (|:{>
Peace, Jim (|:{>

JVJ Publishing and VW inc.

Offline JVJ (RIP)

  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Karma: 58
  • paix
    • ImageS Magazine
Re: scan size
« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2010, 07:51:10 PM »
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?

(|:{>
Peace, Jim (|:{>

JVJ Publishing and VW inc.

Offline JVJ (RIP)

  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Karma: 58
  • paix
    • ImageS Magazine
Re: scan size
« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2010, 07:51:53 PM »
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.

(|:{>
Peace, Jim (|:{>

JVJ Publishing and VW inc.

Offline Yoc

  • S T A F F
  • Administrators
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15187
  • Karma: 58
  • 14 Years Strong!
Re: scan size
« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2010, 11:03:24 PM »
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

Offline JVJ (RIP)

  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Karma: 58
  • paix
    • ImageS Magazine
Re: scan size
« Reply #27 on: August 30, 2010, 11:14:41 PM »
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.

(|:{>
Peace, Jim (|:{>

JVJ Publishing and VW inc.

Offline citaltras

  • Comics collector
  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38
  • Karma: 17
Re: scan size
« Reply #28 on: August 31, 2010, 02:38:25 AM »
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.

« Last Edit: August 31, 2010, 02:44:00 AM by citaltras »



CITALTRAS



Offline builderboy

  • VIP Uploaders
  • DCM Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 288
  • Karma: 7
Re: scan size
« Reply #29 on: August 31, 2010, 11:18:24 AM »
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.