Which is better scanner or photos?
January 11, 2005 8:16 PM   Subscribe

Is there any benefit to using a flatbed scanner instead of a copy stand with a digital camera to digitize flat art?
posted by alana to Technology (8 answers total)
 
Depends on how good your copy stand is, or how crappy your scanner is.

Generally speaking, if the flat art is smaller than a normal sized scanner, get the scanner. You'll get much more consistent lighting and color rendition. A generic "good" scanner will probably run you around $150-$200. A digital camera, copy stand, and two lights can easily be many times as much.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:34 PM on January 11, 2005


For an 8"x10" bit of art, you'd need a 5 Megapixel camera to match a 300 DPI scanner. Or a 28 Megapixel camera to match 600 DPI.
posted by krisjohn at 9:02 PM on January 11, 2005


also, it's quite possible to scan non-flat objects with good results.
posted by dorian at 9:15 PM on January 11, 2005


Besides the resolution issue (already commented on) it is difficult to photograph flat objects and have them remain perfectly distortion-free. Any lens that puts you reasonably close to the object is probably going to introduce some barrel distortion. Also, you'd want to avoid zoom lenses on the camera because in a copystand configuration, gravity is gonna want do things to the lens elements/focus. Lighting can also be problematic in a copystand/camera arrangement.

Good quality scanners are so stinking cheap I'm not sure why this would be an issue as long as the art would fit on the platen.
posted by spock at 9:29 PM on January 11, 2005


Response by poster: as long as the art would fit on the platen.

Therein lies the rub.

I was just curious if digital cameras (particularly the prosumer models) had come far enough to make copy stands a reasonable option for larger pieces of artwork. The answer seems a resounding "not really".
posted by alana at 10:36 PM on January 11, 2005


The only reason it would make sense (I use my D100 and a couple lowe lights for copy work), is if you already have the camera/lighting gear, or if you have do a LOT of similar items and the resolution is not a big issue.

I sometimes (rarely) shoot 1/2 of a piece at a time, and stitch the two photos together, but generally because it's an odd shape. I'd have the same problem with a flatbed scanner. I'd use the same solution too.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 11:08 PM on January 11, 2005


Depends how good a result you want, using a camera and lighting setup. Much easier to get even, consistent exposure and lighting from a scanner - that's what they're designed to do, after all. A camera, lights and stands obviously takes up a lot more room, organization and setup time, too.
posted by normy at 11:27 PM on January 11, 2005


I was just curious if digital cameras (particularly the prosumer models) had come far enough to make copy stands a reasonable option for larger pieces of artwork. The answer seems a resounding "not really".

That's not what we said at all.

What we said was, if the artwork is smaller than a normal flatbed scanner's dimensions, it would be far more economical to buy the scanner. If it's larger, you'll need to invest a good chunk of money on camera gear. You could always rent it.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:23 AM on January 12, 2005


« Older Cool Coffee   |   What's the best way to store coffee grounds? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.