A scanner markedly
June 19, 2009 2:07 PM Subscribe
Recommend a large format scanner.
I'm no longer a college student, and so I no longer have access to my school's 11' x 17" scanner, so now I need to buy one. The last time I was looking to buy a scanner, though, it seems that things were simpler. They were all slow, and dpi for the price was king. Now, I can't tell the why one scanner is $1000 and another $200. I realize there aren't actually very many 11" x 17" scanner options, but what is the best for the price? I want pretty good (non interpolated) dpi, but I don't need top-of-the-line or anything. I will use it mostly for scanning originals for comics, which is why the oversize is desirable.
Am I better off getting a normal sized scanner and stitching the scans together? I have a pretty good 8.1 MP camera, too. Would it prove satisfactory for me to build a setup to photograph such things? How would I do that?
I'm no longer a college student, and so I no longer have access to my school's 11' x 17" scanner, so now I need to buy one. The last time I was looking to buy a scanner, though, it seems that things were simpler. They were all slow, and dpi for the price was king. Now, I can't tell the why one scanner is $1000 and another $200. I realize there aren't actually very many 11" x 17" scanner options, but what is the best for the price? I want pretty good (non interpolated) dpi, but I don't need top-of-the-line or anything. I will use it mostly for scanning originals for comics, which is why the oversize is desirable.
Am I better off getting a normal sized scanner and stitching the scans together? I have a pretty good 8.1 MP camera, too. Would it prove satisfactory for me to build a setup to photograph such things? How would I do that?
I would take the Epson V500 over the V750 if everything I was scanning was reflective. Same size, lower price.
posted by jedrek at 2:24 PM on June 19, 2009
posted by jedrek at 2:24 PM on June 19, 2009
I don't have practical experience with this but I think photographing might work better if your originals are very large. What kind of camera do you have? SLR or point and shoot?
posted by sully75 at 2:28 PM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by sully75 at 2:28 PM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've been saving up for a Mustek A3 scanner -- they are far from top-of-the-line, but do 11x17 and have about as reasonable DPI as most consumer-grade scanners. They run at about $170 online; eBay seems actually MORE expensive than Amazon or other known vendors. One thing to watch out for, if you think you found a good deal on some pro-grade scanners: a lot of them are black-and-white only, even in the $5,000 range.
posted by AzraelBrown at 2:39 PM on June 19, 2009
posted by AzraelBrown at 2:39 PM on June 19, 2009
I don't know much about different flatbed scanners, but I do have lots of experience with using digital cameras to scan things, and I would definitely suggest sticking to the flatbed scanner. Calibrating the camera for tilt, radial lens distortion, etc. is not that bad if you don't need much accuracy, but fiendishly difficult if you do need accuracy. Also note that 11x17" and 8.1 MP only gives you about 200 DPI. (Unless you stitch; but if you're going to stitch, you need to be extra accurate with regards to tilt and distortion, so the stitching program doesn't have to warp things too much to make the edges line up.)
If you were talking about huge originals, the kind that you'd need an expensive wide-format scanner for, then I'd say the camera might be a better idea. But for something so small, the scanner will be much easier and more accurate.
on preview: Mustek! That's the name I was trying to remember. I've used their A4 scanner. I don't know how the quality compares once you get higher than 200 DPI, since that's all I've tried, but it's definitely fine up to that resolution, at least.
posted by equalpants at 2:50 PM on June 19, 2009
If you were talking about huge originals, the kind that you'd need an expensive wide-format scanner for, then I'd say the camera might be a better idea. But for something so small, the scanner will be much easier and more accurate.
on preview: Mustek! That's the name I was trying to remember. I've used their A4 scanner. I don't know how the quality compares once you get higher than 200 DPI, since that's all I've tried, but it's definitely fine up to that resolution, at least.
posted by equalpants at 2:50 PM on June 19, 2009
I don't have practical experience with this but I think photographing might work better if your originals are very large.
Echoing sully's point here: two years ago I was in the same situation as the OP, looking for a large format scanner to scan artwork. When I saw the prices, I went for the low-tech solution of building a large stand to mount my downward-pointing camera on and then cleaned up the photos in Photoshop. It worked a treat for me, so I would recommend at least giving it some thought.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:38 PM on June 19, 2009
Echoing sully's point here: two years ago I was in the same situation as the OP, looking for a large format scanner to scan artwork. When I saw the prices, I went for the low-tech solution of building a large stand to mount my downward-pointing camera on and then cleaned up the photos in Photoshop. It worked a treat for me, so I would recommend at least giving it some thought.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:38 PM on June 19, 2009
Response by poster: SLR or point and shoot?
Point and shoot.
8.1 MP only gives you about 200 DPI
I didn't even think of that. true.
The Mustek would fit the bill... cost and adequacy, but 11.7 x 16.5? Why 16.5? my paper is 17...
posted by cmoj at 3:56 PM on June 19, 2009
Point and shoot.
8.1 MP only gives you about 200 DPI
I didn't even think of that. true.
The Mustek would fit the bill... cost and adequacy, but 11.7 x 16.5? Why 16.5? my paper is 17...
posted by cmoj at 3:56 PM on June 19, 2009
Response by poster: The camera thing is seeming less likely. This is for print, and 200 dpi, even reduced, doesn't give me a lot of leeway. Plus, normalizing color seems like a problem.
posted by cmoj at 3:57 PM on June 19, 2009
posted by cmoj at 3:57 PM on June 19, 2009
You can easily use a smaller flatbed to scan large art in segments, and stitch them together in Photoshop with layers/the Difference blend mode set for top layers (when overlapping areas are in perfect registration, result is black)/black&white gradient layer masks (to smooth over seams between segments). I just taught some folks how to do it in a computer lab in New Haven last week. Large format flatbeds are ridiculously expensive, even used. Learn how to image stitch, it's the answer.
Or, if you don't want to immerse yourself in the Photoshop-centric technique mentioned above, invest in the unbelievable Autopano (http://www.autopano.net/en/photo-stitching-solutions/autopano-pro.html). While primarily designed for panoramic image stitching, it'll do a great job for this particular technique. Download the demo, try it out, it's rather amazing.
posted by dbiedny at 4:20 PM on June 19, 2009
Or, if you don't want to immerse yourself in the Photoshop-centric technique mentioned above, invest in the unbelievable Autopano (http://www.autopano.net/en/photo-stitching-solutions/autopano-pro.html). While primarily designed for panoramic image stitching, it'll do a great job for this particular technique. Download the demo, try it out, it's rather amazing.
posted by dbiedny at 4:20 PM on June 19, 2009
Just remembered something I forgot to say earlier: if you do give the camera a shot, and your camera has optical zoom, try it out at all the different zoom levels. The amount of radial lens distortion can vary greatly depending on the zoom. You might end up having to place the camera several feet above the paper, but it'd probably be worth it to minimize distortion.
posted by equalpants at 4:29 PM on June 19, 2009
posted by equalpants at 4:29 PM on June 19, 2009
Scrapbookers (to digitally archive their scrapbooks) love a program by ArcSoft called "Scan And Stitch." Much easier than Photoshop and designed for this purpose (oversized scans) only. I have seen results and it's quite remarkable.
posted by Gerard Sorme at 4:44 PM on June 19, 2009
posted by Gerard Sorme at 4:44 PM on June 19, 2009
The Mustek would fit the bill... cost and adequacy, but 11.7 x 16.5? Why 16.5? my paper is 17...
Because the "A3" in the scanner name is one of those metric/british/european paper sizes, the one closest to 8-1/2 x 11.
posted by AzraelBrown at 4:59 PM on June 19, 2009
Because the "A3" in the scanner name is one of those metric/british/european paper sizes, the one closest to 8-1/2 x 11.
posted by AzraelBrown at 4:59 PM on June 19, 2009
er, I meant closest to 11x17; I deleted some rambling, and left it incoherent.
posted by AzraelBrown at 5:01 PM on June 19, 2009
posted by AzraelBrown at 5:01 PM on June 19, 2009
You can build a nice planetary scanner for under $250 (if you already have a camera, you can build it for under $50). 8MP is a sweet spot.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 5:46 PM on June 19, 2009
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 5:46 PM on June 19, 2009
I guess the question is how big are you going to be scanning and how big do you expect to be printing?
posted by sully75 at 8:29 PM on June 19, 2009
posted by sully75 at 8:29 PM on June 19, 2009
I don't think normalizing color would be a problem with a camera. Lighting might be a touch tricky but doable. If you had a Gray card around you'd be able to get a good white balance for your lighting and then calibrate to that.
posted by sully75 at 8:31 PM on June 19, 2009
posted by sully75 at 8:31 PM on June 19, 2009
Take a look at the ~$270 Brother MFC-6490CW ledger/A3 inkjet printer / scanner.
It scans at 600 x 2400 dpi, along with #bullshit_marketing_number interpolated, and there are people who use it to print "non photo blue line art on to strathmore 2-ply plate bristol". Reviewers say it is a bit delicately built and prints mediocre photo-type prints, but is still a decent scanner and general purpose inkjet. Some cartoonists have them and like them.
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:47 PM on June 19, 2009
It scans at 600 x 2400 dpi, along with #bullshit_marketing_number interpolated, and there are people who use it to print "non photo blue line art on to strathmore 2-ply plate bristol". Reviewers say it is a bit delicately built and prints mediocre photo-type prints, but is still a decent scanner and general purpose inkjet. Some cartoonists have them and like them.
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:47 PM on June 19, 2009
That Brother machine solely prints in ledger. It scans only up to letter or legal (I forget which, but the fact is it isn’t ledger).
posted by joeclark at 11:30 AM on June 21, 2009
posted by joeclark at 11:30 AM on June 21, 2009
joeclark,
I think you may be confusing the MFC-5890CN and the MFC-6490cw. The MFC-6490cw can scan ledger sizes. There's some discussion in this Amazon review:
... Click the Scan Option and at the top you will have a button named "Configuration". Click this button and it will open a drop menu. Choose "Scan", then "Image" and this will bring up an option window where you can select your preferred settings. You can choose your file type, resolution, what file to send scans, and "Document Size" ( many options are here including the full 11 x 17 ledger size).
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:05 PM on June 28, 2009
I think you may be confusing the MFC-5890CN and the MFC-6490cw. The MFC-6490cw can scan ledger sizes. There's some discussion in this Amazon review:
... Click the Scan Option and at the top you will have a button named "Configuration". Click this button and it will open a drop menu. Choose "Scan", then "Image" and this will bring up an option window where you can select your preferred settings. You can choose your file type, resolution, what file to send scans, and "Document Size" ( many options are here including the full 11 x 17 ledger size).
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:05 PM on June 28, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
Of course, that resolution is measured only at the center of the scanner and isn't a very accurate metric for the overall scanner.
For less money with web-publishing quality results is an Epson V750M and RasterStitch are a quite good combination. We use the combination here in our offices all day, every day, for the digital archival of newspaper articles and old photos.
posted by bz at 2:17 PM on June 19, 2009