Reflective scanning questions...
Reflective scanning questions...
- Subject: Reflective scanning questions...
- From: "CS Carl Stawicki (4211)" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:28:06 -0400
Hi all,
I'm in the process of finding a new scanner to replace our Topaz 1. The
Topaz is actually our favorite scanner, but unfortunately, it would rather
be sipping a Corona on a beach in Florida on retirement, than continue
making scans for us for much longer. We needed to replace the maxi-board and
power supply twice in a little more than a year, plus it won't work under
OSX, even Classic.
I'm thinking of splitting the functionality between two new scanners, one
geared towards transparencies and one for reflective (this is a workflow
issue; scanner operators are expected to perform about 40 scans a day of
mixed originals). Most of the budget would go towards a trans scanner. The
Imacon Flextight 848 is what I'm looking into for that. I've read some good
things about this one in the List Archives, but any new thoughts would be
wonderful. I'm mostly interested in peoples' thoughts on reflective
scanners. The one I have my eye on is the Epson Expression 1640XL (just
under $3000). Here is my list of questions:
1. How important is optical density for reflective artwork? The originals we
scan are painted artwork and illustrations, and collages. Scanning actual
photos is rare. The 1640XL has a 3.6 Dmax. It's hard for me to visualize
what that figure means for comparisons.
2. Is it really important to have a high-end flatbed for reflective work, or
would a more moderate scanner, like the 1640XL, do the trick? I feel
reflective artwork doesn't need super-high resolutions, like you would need
from a film scanner.
3. It's very important for us to scan great textures, like paper textures,
cloth, collages, small objects, etc. The high-end flatbeds brag about using
XY scanning, which is good because there's no sweet spot, but in my
experience (we have an EverSmart also), produces inferior textures. I feel
this is because since it captures in two directions, the texture gets
"flattened out". A cheaper scanner that only scans one way produces modeling
shadows across the texture, thus accentuating it nicely. Anyone agree,
disagree?
4. I'm convinced the trans HCT target will benefit us with the Flextight
848, but is the reflective target worth it?
I will appreciate anyone's opinion and thoughts.
Thanks,
Carl.
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.