Hello Ernie
On 02/03/08, Ernie Longmire wrote:
> Tom Fine wrote:
>> Has anyone done LP covers in mass quantities before? Is there some
>> efficient and cost-effective way I'm not considering?
>
> My preferred method is still scan-and-stitch with a legal-size
> flatbed. Using a digital camera and a copy stand lets you skip the
> stitching step, but kills you on resolution: to get a basic 300dpi
> image of a 12"x12" record sleeve in a single shot you'd need a
> 19.5-megapixel camera.
Cameras with this kind of resolution are starting to appear. I even saw
a mention of a 23 Megapixel model the other day.
I think in a few years, the kind of resolution we need to replace
scanners with cameras will be routine; but not just yet. It is still
early days for digital photography - like color film in the 1960s.
> I've found that cleaning up the merged image
> usually takes far longer than the few minutes it takes to scan and
> stitch the artwork; if I just slapped them together with no post-merge
> tweaking I could probably do seven or eight an hour.
>
> My setup is Windows XP, Photoshop CS3, VueScan Pro and an ancient UMAX
> Astra 1200S SCSI flatbed scanner. VueScan talks directly to most
> scanners which avoids TWAIN/driver issues. It also lets you calibrate
> against a standard color target, which gets you out of the
> color-tweaking business.
>
> Some tips:
>
> * Calibrate your scanner and make sure it's not doing any brightness
> or color adjustments before it saves the scans. You can't cleanly
> stitch two halves that have different tonal values.
>
> * If you're using Photoshop CS3 (which you should be), convert the two
> halves you're stitching into Smart Layers before you rotate them --
> this lets you fine-tune the alignment later without losing any detail.
>
> * In my experience, CS3's Auto-Align command isn't as accurate as
> aligning the two halves by hand. If you set the top layer to
> Difference blending mode it's easy to spot-check and adjust the
> alignment of the two halves.
>
> * CS3's Auto-Blend, on the other hand, works great.
>
> In discussions on other forums people are always exchanging tips for
> eliminating moire patterns in their scans. I'm not sure why, but I've
> never had a problem with it.
>
Are you printing the results with a regular dot screen? That is when the
moirees show up. Reprinting a dot-screened original with a stochastic
screen (dither), as is usual on inkjets, avoids this. Commercial
printers are able to use a stochastic screen too, but it is technically
difficult.
> Today I'm scanning my old longboxes, so no stitching required. :-)
Regards
--
Don Cox
[log in to unmask]
|