On 2015-04-06 7:31 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> If I were doing a higher volume of digitizing LP covers, I would
> investigate a copy-stand and DSLR camera setup. It's doable, although
> you need to spend the time and money to get the lighting right, which is
> difficult with glossy covers and also it's something of a challenge to
> uniformly illuminate a 12x12 area and have the camera pick it up as
> such. Now that I wrote that, I'm happy once again I stuck with a flatbed
> scanner! It may be a little cumbersome to lift the lid and line up the
> artwork so it's square repeatedly, but once the scanning takes place, I
> always get a highly usable image, and the process is repeatable.
I am on the fence with this. I can easily do "panoramas" of album covers
in two passes with my Brother 11x17 scanner which is surprisingly decent
for the price. In fact, one stitched together double scan became a CD cover.
However, all of the people I speak to who are doing real production work
from slides to flat art are swearing by digital cameras and all sorts of
copy stand arrangements and not scanners. One friend has invested in an
Imacon scanner, but he also does very large format art scanning with a
Sony camera and Zeiss macro lenses. He is a perfectionist.
Also, the semi-automated book scanners use two DSLRs. Interesting that
Gleason thinks his high-end Kodak sheet scanner is the best for his
magazine/book digitization project.
Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.