Re: fine art reproduction questions
Re: fine art reproduction questions
- Subject: Re: fine art reproduction questions
- From: "Stanley Smith" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 09:54:32 -0700
Pasting a reply to a similar query made last week:
We have had our Cruse Scanner for several years now, and overall I would say that it is a bit of a disappointment. We did work with Cruse to fix a major flaw in the original machine, which was an inability to achieve color consistency-- due to the lights reflecting off the painting back into the opposite light fixture-- thereby changing the color of the light hitting the painting in a continuously variable way as the painting traveled under the lights during the scan. The solution was to install special florescent tubes called aperture tubes-- they emit all of their light through a narrow slit in the otherwise opaque tube-- thus eliminating the need for a reflective-backed light fixture. I identified a lighting company in Hollywood (KinoFlo) who worked with Cruse to develop these tubes, and I had thought that they would become standard. The fact that apparently Curse still sells the original configuration, and has not switched to the aperture tubes as a standard is a little shocking.
Other problems:
-- Since focus is automatic, and dependent on measuring the height of the original from the scanner bed, it seems to miss more often than hit-- resulting in a "trial and error" approach.
-- I would say that even though you can end up with a very high pixel count the images are just not as sharp as you would expect.
-- The proprietary nature of the software makes it impossible to create good custom profile-- you do not have access to a "raw" file-- just a rendered 16-bit tif. Thne result of this is a lot of post processing to get the colors right.
-- It is slow.
-- it is a very small company with limited resources and questionable longevity.
-- it is a VERY expensive machine, that takes up a lot of floor space.
-- with current stitching software, it is becoming less necessary to capture a very high rez file in one capture.
-- the "gang-up" approach proved to be difficult to set up. It turned out to be faster to capture smaller objects on a traditional copy stand one at a time.
The machine does have its positive aspects-- when it works and is properly calibrated for exposure and focus, it does produce spectacular files, and is especially good for large maps. However, it is really slow, and a bit difficult to use. These days we use it only occasionally, relying on a Betterlight set-up for most high-rez work.
Stanley Smith
Manager, Imaging Services
J. Paul Getty Museum
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1687
(310) 440-7286
>>> Graeme Gill <email@hidden> 5/2/2010 8:12 PM >>>
robcrow wrote:
> Has anyone had any experience of the Cruse scanners?
>
> http://www.crusedigital.com/cd_main.asp
I saw one in action when I was in Munich in Feb. - looked like a neat
machine for scanning large artwork.
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden