This may have been discussed before, but I could not find an older thread in my search.

Anyway, I noticed some of Gerry Monaghan's scanned flowers in the gallery and I posted some images I have made using scanned shells. Does anyone else scan objects like flowers, leaves....bugs? :D

Does anyone know of any good tips or sites that discuss this? I have been using a couple methods for my scans of shells. One is to use a box with the inside painted black, placed over the object. This provides a nice, solid black background around the object and makes it easy to extract it from the background. I have also used a box with a bright white interior as a way to reflect some of the scanner light back down onto the object.

If anyone has the latest National Geographic, there is an excellent article on moths and all of the moth photos were created using a flatbed scanner. The resulting images are breathtaking in their detail.


I have attached one of my seashell scans. The shell measured just over 1 inch (25 millimeters).

No words of wisdom here Greg. But it looks like you're doing some things right! Looks great!

Ed

that's great Greg, it looks more like a photo than as scan. Looks like you don't ned any help you've got it working well.

Hi Greg

That is really interesting. I had no idea that you could scan objects with such clarity. I had built a small tent type device with a reflective surface to try to scan slides. I had no success the slide was always very dark. The moth idea sounds very interesting. I will watch for posts.

Thanks

Jerry :D

What do you need a tutorial for? From the looks of that shell you could write your own tutorial. :D That turned out very crisp. Excellent job. I will give your black and white box a try. I like the results and your are right, it does make it easy to remove from the background.
DJ

DJ, Sanda, Ed - Thanks for the nice compliments! I have been pretty happy with the results I am getting with my new scanner, but my old scanner was a nightmare when it came to scanning objects. Things had to be perfectly flat in order to get a sharp scan. I think flatbeds that have transparency capabilities have a greater depth of field than ones without. Does anyone have any technical knowledge about how to "trick" a scanner into increasing the depth of field?

Jerry - I built one of those back when I had my first scanner (rest in peace poor Umax...). Like you, I had very little success! You should check out the National Geographic article. They caught literally hundreds of different species in 1 ordinary backyard. They scanned them all on a high-end flatbed and made 34"x48" prints. If I can catch a moth or a butterfly I will attempt to scan it and post it here...I'm just such a wimp when it comes to killing even little bugs. :depressed

Hi Greg,

I have tried occasionally to scan a 3-dimensional object with my HP scanjet 5470C. The results were not bad considering it was a flatbed scanner. I used a flat black piece of paper and mounted it on the top of the scanner. You might find the following link helpful

http://www.agfanet.com/en/cafe/photocourse/digicourse/lesson2/cont_chapter05.php3

At the bottom are a few newsgroups that I have frequented and found very helpful.

Let me know how it goes or if you want to see the results of my scanner.

Lisa

Hmm...interesting experiment idea. Mount page full of text at 45-degree angle and put it on a scanner. Scan and examine depth of field. Change a setting, repeat. Repeat, repeat, repeat :)

Compare with other scanners with the same test (maybe newspaper or something else with standard print). Perhaps even a grid could be made that adjusts for angle and displays distance in mm or inches, providing a standard if printed at 100% (maybe a non-angle-adjusted measurement tool could be included for verifying lack of scaling distortion).

This could be a very original contribution here. Too bad I'm the unmotivated sort :)

Here is another link you may want to look at.

http://www.stereoscopicscanning.de/

Lisa

Lisa - Thanks for the links! You should post some of your images. :)

Doug - That is a great idea! I decided to do a quick, very unscientific, measurement. Here is the setup I used...it should be repeatable for just about anyone. I was pretty surprised at just how far out the scanner could focus.

oh...I was going to calculate all the angles but it seems that Trigonometry class has faded from my memory...sigh...

Well, let's see...decent focus up to about the 4" mark, which would be 2", which would be 1/3 of the length, which (keeping angles constant) would make for a field depth of 2/3" (Or would it? My head hurts now).

Math, anyone?

Regardless, it was deeper than I imagined. Now the question is: can you make it deeper on the same scanner?

Just for fun I looked for links:

Here's one, (http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artapr01/dwscanner.html) and here's another. (http://www.comet.net/gek/scanner.htm) Here's (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=scanner+%22depth+of+field%22) my search results.

Good links! I'm not sure if there is a way to increase the depth of field except on very high end flatbeds.

I have read a few articles that say most flatbeds are sharper and have the greatest depth of field at the center of the CCD.

Oh yeah, I forgot one of my favorite object scanning links (http://www.cat-scan.com/)
(caution: can be vulgar)

You did your math right Doug!
The break down would be as follows:

2/6 = x/2
2x2 = 6x
4 = 6x
4/6 = 2x
2/3 = x

2/3" is the field of depth.

Doug - I remember seeing that site! Poor cats... If I tried that with my cat, I would end up in the hospital with severe lacerations.

Lisa - That makes me feel bad that I can't even remember basic math!:depressed

That's OK Greg, my husband who has his Doctorate in electrical engineering was reading over my should and said - Yup, Doug's right. Math was not my best subject.

Lisa

OK Doug,

That's just about the weirdest link I've seen... and I've seen a few weird ones in my time - LOL

Lisa
Meeeowwww:cat:

Well, I did not manage to get the cat scanned today :D ...but I did find a interesting feather. I believe it's a hawk feather. Anyway, I figured it would make a good object to scan due to the complexity and detail.

I have to say, I was pretty amazed by the scan! I placed the feather on the glass and put a shallow cardboard box with bright white paper lining the inside. I like the look this gives and I think having some of the scanner light reflect back down helps bring out detail in delicate or translucent objects.

The scan was done at 1200 ppi. This really gives a good idea of just how sharp even a fairly inexpensive flatbed scanner can be.

Wow

That is really amazing. Now I have to start fooling around with scanner boxes. Thanks for the info. Greg.

Jerry :D

What a fascinating thread (except for the math parts, of course)! Lots of great information and links. It's got me wondering what objects I can scan, without moving too far from my chair.:lol: Thanks.

Here is the National Geographic article I mentioned...Moth scans (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0205/feature3/index.html)


They used an EverSmart Pro II scanner... a bit more than most of us can afford!

- Greg

You've peeked my interest... I tried scanning a pen do see how well my scanner does with 3-d objects.

Lisa

I guess I'll have to wait until my kitty brings in a feather to see how well it does with that. Did you get a chance to check out the alt.binaries scanners. I found it very useful.

Lisa:cool:

Lisa - I've been on that newsgroup a few times and found it to very helpful when I was looking to buy my current scanner. I have not been on newsgroups much since finding this site though!

I scanned a few more things today, including a dead cricket :( , a cool chunk of bark, and a really old key. I'm thinking of devoting a chunk of my web site to a page of scanned objects. I'll post it if I ever get around to making it! (...and if I ever stop making silly album covers ;) )

Scanning objects seems to be a good way to really push your scanner to it's limits. A real object contains far more visual information than even the sharpest transparency. A good example is when I scan an object at 1200 ppi and then again at 2400ppi. When I have done this with slides or negatives, I can only tell a small amount of difference between the two scans. This led me to believe that Epson's claim of 2400ppi optical was a bit exaggerated. However, scanning a real object at the two different resolutions resulted in a tremendous difference!

Wow! I haven't seen this thread in a couple of days. You guys have been from rocket science math to scanning dinosaur leg bones! :D It's all very interesting.

Ed

Ed - I'm leaving the math to Lisa and Doug! :D

I'm not up to dinosaurs yet, but I had fun scanning a cricket...The spiders in the house are quivering in fear!

a spider's head...the marks in the picture are millimeters

Kewl. I can see there is no arachniphobia with you! I took a great spider shot close up with my old camera that was kind of freaky looking. You could see the eyes and sack close up.

P.S. Like the new avatar. At least you don't get accused of making a 70's avatar (ha ha BigAl)

Lisa

Here's my little contribution to the spider world :rambo:

Again I forget the attachment! Grrrr.

G. -- dare I ask where the rest of the spider is...? :(

I've seen some websites with scanned images (Thanks, Doug, for showing me that Cat Scan is still alive and well - hadn't seen it in a few years) but never motivated myself to experiment (Deb -- I like your thoughts about "not moving too far from the chair" :D )

You folks have tapped into the resources of another potentially useful tool -- it'll be fun to see what you come up with next.

CJ - The rest of the spider is still there! I was cleaning out a closet when I found the poor dead spider. I tried to scan a living one, but it proved to be impossible as it would not stop moving. This one had been dead for some time....everyone who hates bugs has run screaming from this thread!

Lisa - That's a nice photo. You need to go find a spider to model for your new camera! :D I have a close-up lens for my old Canon AE1, but never had much luck with it due to the very limited depth of field.

Greg - that looks like some of the well-preserved spiders I find in my closets. ;)
Jeanie

I tried scanning my spider but it didn't work too well. I ended up having to take his/her picture with an Epson PC 700 digital camera on macro about 4 inches away. Luckily it was a very cooperative subject. :D
DJ

Furry little critter!

Great picture.

Lisa
P.S. what do you feed the little guy?

What ever he want's, he's not my pet. :D Actually the only way I would get that close to something that big and hairy is if it were dead already. He's encased in a resin globe. That's why the scanner didn't work so well. Every light source reflects off it. I actually was surprised at the detail I was able to get. It's an older Epson digital and I used the built in flash. All I had to do was clone out one small flash point on the stones.
DJ

YO Greg

"Enough Spiders Already":eek:

I have been giving your scanning technique some thought and tried it. I don't have a great scanner but it will scan up to 2400 dpi resolution. It is a canon canoscan 1240u. One of those scanners that is only 1" thick.

This is what I tried.

- I plucked a tail feather from my pet Bubba's tail (just kidding he gives them to me by the bunch)

- I put the feather under a printer paper box. Approx 3/4" tall.

- I cropped and scanned at 1200 resolution.

- The results are not terrible, but I noticed that if any part of the item is off the glass, it is out of focus. You don't seem to have that problem.

- I also tried a watch.. Same results.

Questions:

Do you clean up noise and artifacs. I seem to have a lot.

Is there a way to increase the depth of field??

Is there a better way to do this. Is the box the right size?

Here is a dumb one. How do you clean your scanner glass. I'm curious if there is a better way.

I am attaching my results, I reduced the resolution to 150 dpi.

Thanks for the help
Interesting thread

Jerry

:D

Jerry, I think your Canoscan uses CIS (Contact Image Sensor) technology, which does not give any depth of field when scanning. (Other scanners use CCD (Charged-Couple Device) technology - which does give some depth of field.) I don't think there is any way to increase the DOF for CIS-type scanners. :(

Jeanie

Thanks Jeaniesa

I figured it was something like that. CIS vs. CCD technology is not something that I would have investigated when I was scanner shopping. I'll just have to look at the impressive scans that Greg and the others can produce.

Jerry :D

Jerry - Jeanie hit the nail on the head. The only reason I know that is because I used to have the Canoscan 1240 before I got my current scanner! One of the reasons I got rid of it, was because of the small depth of field. I like to scan small paintings, monoprints, and etchings I have done over the years, and the textured paper some of these were made on was giving the scanner fits. On nearly every hi-res scan, I had to place a heavy book on top, just to hold the paper perfectly flat.

For cleaning, I just use an alcohol and distilled water solution. The real key is to buy some lint free cloths. Most people just use paper towels, but glass can build up a static charge and pull every little piece of lint and dust back down. I usually do a quick cleaning anytime I'm going to scan an object at high resolution or if I'm scanning transparencies.

Another tip is to take a flashlight and shine it at a angle to the glass. This will allow to see far more dust than just using regular room lighting.

This is a scan of a leaf I made last fall when I still had my 1240. You can tell in the zoomed in section just how small the depth of field is. For this scan I placed a white sheet of paper over the leaf and then placed a thick phone book on top.

For cleaning I used pre-packaged wipes made by Glass Plus (a Windex clone). Then, since the little scanner barely touches the full usability of one wipe, I also clean my monitor, and my tv, and my desk, and the window... :)

Greg and Doug

Thanks for the cleaning tips.. I am disappointed to hear about the 1240 but it does a really good job on the prints that I bought it to scan.. Maybe a new scanner in the future to do some of the more interesting scans.

Thanks
Jerry :D

Okay Greg - you got me! :) Here's my attempt of a scan of a 3D object on a cheap flatbed. This is right out of the scanner except for the red writing, which signifies approx. how far (by reading a ruler) that portion is above the scanner bed.

Ed

And the close-up.

Ed

My Epson 1200's version of a grinning cat - ceramic, of course.

I'll have to try measuring the depth of field like Ed has, but this guy shows "some" depth. (some = non-technical term for too lazy to measure)

Love it! :D

Ed

Oh that's so cute. :D
DJ

Good one CJ. I hate my canoscan.

Jerry :D

Jerry, don't feel too bad, we all had an earlier model of scanner that doesn't seem wonderful now, but when we first got it -- it was still great to finally be able to scan a print into PShop (or Paint Shop Pro, etc.). When we all get our new StarTrek replicator scanners (which provide 3D replicas of whatever we aim it at), we won't even be impressed by the drum scanners.

Sorry, StarTrek Inc. just informed me that they have extended their release date from July 2002 to April 1, 2020.

Ed - I really like your flower scans. It's nice to see what is growing around everyone's part of the world!

Jerry - I actually loved the quality of scans I got from my 1240. It did a great job at matching colors and as long as things were held very flat on the glass, the scans were sharp. The only thing I disliked about it, was the lack of depth...but most people are not using it to scan shells, insects and plants! :D

CJ - Where do I preorder that scanner? ;)

In working on the "Lisa challenge", I decided that I needed proper gems for the jewellery. Merely coloring the jewellery looked rather weak. As my wife is an avid collector of rocks, stones and polished semi-precious and precious stones (yes Chris H, on returning from those long trips there's plenty hidden in the pickup), I have a huge collection to choose from.

This is a frog made from sodalite (found mainly in the Kaokoveld (http://www.retouchpro.com/cgi-bin/gallery/index.pl?photo=161) and n. Italy).

(For Greg: not bad depth of field for a sub-$100 scanner!)

Here is a collection of semi-precious stones on a postcard sized card. (Feel free to use these in your own work or email me for a higher res jpeg.)

Al - That turned out really well! The colors are great and the depth of field is very good. I can make out the texture of the surface it's placed on.

I wish i had thought of scanning a gem for the "Lisa Challenge"...maybe you can give her some earings or a nose ring :D

Al, thanks for sharing your collection of semi-precious stones with us -- those may come in handy. Very good scanning technique.

Now, where's your collection of PRECIOUS stones? Sodalite frogs are very nice, but diamonds are .... :)

Sorry CJ, my wife isn't into jewellery (saves me a bit ;) ), so the precious stuff is still in the original matrix. I'll see if I can find the diamond :D

Greg, the earring(s) is in place, but I just can't get the nosering's aspect right :evil:

This is a gold coin at 600 on my Umax PITA
I have a chest of these in the closet.
This is a fun thread, lotsa neat stuff.

Originally posted by OhThatGirl2001
Again I forget the attachment! Grrrr.



Did you play with lizards and snakes when you were a little girl?
fugitive