Flatbed scanner for my face?
April 26, 2010 5:50 AM Subscribe
I'm looking for a (relatively inexpensive) scanner with a good depth of field to scan faces, objects etc. Help?
By "scanner," do you mean a tool for producing a two-dimensional image, or a tool for creating a 3D digital model? The former is just a camera. The latter won't be inexpensive (at least by my standards).
posted by jon1270 at 6:44 AM on April 26, 2010
posted by jon1270 at 6:44 AM on April 26, 2010
Response by poster: Well, a normal flatbed scanner can yield quite remarkable results. I'm interested in the particular models people use to get an image where not only the areas that are very close to the glass bed are in sharp focus. (The scanner I tried blurs everything that's more than a centimeter away from the glass).
posted by danburzo at 6:50 AM on April 26, 2010
posted by danburzo at 6:50 AM on April 26, 2010
Why would you want to scan your face, instead of just taking a picture? Scanners are not designed for depth of field.
posted by delmoi at 6:51 AM on April 26, 2010
posted by delmoi at 6:51 AM on April 26, 2010
Response by poster: @delmoi, I'm not sure I can achieve the lighting & mood with a normal camera. (Plus, I don't own one that can compare in terms of image resolution). I want the shallow depth of field -- just not *THAT* shallow. Also, I want to experiment with the temporal dimension of the scanning process (picture distortions caused by movement).
I guess I should have added some more details to the original question.
posted by danburzo at 6:58 AM on April 26, 2010
I guess I should have added some more details to the original question.
posted by danburzo at 6:58 AM on April 26, 2010
Best answer: Apparently Epson scanners are the main choice of the Scanography 'community'.(The article didn't say why, but several sites say similarly.) Here's a scanography blog for further inspiration.
Someone suggested the Epson 3170 here has a depth of field around 1.7 in.
Consensus seems to be that all scanners have a shallow depth of field, so are most suited to flat(tish) subjects. The face in your second link looks like it has rotated as the scanner has scanned, keeping portions of the subject within the scanner's depth of field as it moved.
Another couple of sites.
posted by metaphorical at 8:00 AM on April 26, 2010
Someone suggested the Epson 3170 here has a depth of field around 1.7 in.
Consensus seems to be that all scanners have a shallow depth of field, so are most suited to flat(tish) subjects. The face in your second link looks like it has rotated as the scanner has scanned, keeping portions of the subject within the scanner's depth of field as it moved.
Another couple of sites.
posted by metaphorical at 8:00 AM on April 26, 2010
There is no such thing as depth of field with a scanner, they are a lensless system (or really the focal length is infinity as it's just a sheet of glass). The only thing that will determine sharpness is the intensity of the reflected light as the scanner rasters over the objects. What will help is making sure the divergence of the scanners light source as that will affect strength and light being reflected back from off angle sources leading to blurring of the image.
posted by Large Marge at 4:43 PM on April 26, 2010
posted by Large Marge at 4:43 PM on April 26, 2010
Also, I want to experiment with the temporal dimension of the scanning process (picture distortions caused by movement).
A scanner is still the wrong tool. Take a video of the subject with a camera and post-process it to the same end result. You can combine scan lines from different frames, effectively time shifting slices at a time. There is a guy on youtube with a demo reel using this technique and it's pretty neat. There might have even been a post on the blue about this but I can't find either at the moment.
posted by Rhomboid at 6:31 PM on April 26, 2010
A scanner is still the wrong tool. Take a video of the subject with a camera and post-process it to the same end result. You can combine scan lines from different frames, effectively time shifting slices at a time. There is a guy on youtube with a demo reel using this technique and it's pretty neat. There might have even been a post on the blue about this but I can't find either at the moment.
posted by Rhomboid at 6:31 PM on April 26, 2010
Response by poster: @metaphorical: thanks for all the resources! There's some great stuff in there. I think I'll try an Epson myself (I can get the Perfection V30 at around $100).
@Large Marge: 'depth of field' was the closest term for the quality I'm looking for. Do you know something I can try, to reduce the blurring?
@Rhomboid: I think you're referring to slit-scan photography. You can extract such imagery from videos via small scripts, but there are two considerations:
* the slices need to be thin enough to keep the transition seamless;
* the resolution for the resulting image is not that great.
Nevertheless, it's an interesting technique to pursue along with the scanner experiments.
posted by danburzo at 3:19 AM on April 27, 2010
@Large Marge: 'depth of field' was the closest term for the quality I'm looking for. Do you know something I can try, to reduce the blurring?
@Rhomboid: I think you're referring to slit-scan photography. You can extract such imagery from videos via small scripts, but there are two considerations:
* the slices need to be thin enough to keep the transition seamless;
* the resolution for the resulting image is not that great.
Nevertheless, it's an interesting technique to pursue along with the scanner experiments.
posted by danburzo at 3:19 AM on April 27, 2010
Response by poster: Following up on my V30 purchase. The scanner has a 'deep focus' -- I can stand 10 cm away from the bed and still be in focus -- and unfortunately it has a lot of distortion. I can't tell whether this is due to the physical construction of the device or to some correction in the software; it may be trying to lay flat the parts that are further away.
posted by danburzo at 3:55 PM on May 1, 2010
posted by danburzo at 3:55 PM on May 1, 2010
« Older "I like you but hate your taste in books". Can... | Did they write this job for me? Um, no. Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by gjc at 6:41 AM on April 26, 2010