Print

Print


Hi Don:

You and Richard are hitting on a key drawback with the DSLR/copy stand method -- "provided you get 
the lighting right."

I think it's unrealistic to expect the typical multi-tasking archivist or librarian or worker bee at 
a record company to "get the lighting right" or perfect using the copy stand, or for that matter 
figure out a typical "feature"-bloated DSLR camera. Flatbed scanning is easier to master and fits a 
typical office logistic and workflow better. Plus, Don said below, the best you can do with that 
Sony camera is 250dpi. My scanner goes higher than 600dpi, but 300dpi is what I typically use for LP 
covers. Plus, my scanner has a built-in de-screener that works very well on old printed photos 
typical of album covers.

Also, what does one do with things like a hardcover book or a big equipment manual with a photo 
stand? On a scanner, one can squish it flat pretty well (although BEWARE, I've heard tales of 
breaking the scanner glass if you get too enthusiastic about squishing things flat -- much better to 
get a de-binded copy if you can obtain one).

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] LP and Media Imaging


> On 07/04/2015, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> The Sony 36 Megapixel cameras such as the A7r will do the job, provided
> you get the lighting right. They will give roughly the same resolution
> from an LP cover as a scanner at 250 dpi.
>
> A much cheaper alternative with about the same resolution is the Sigma
> DP3M, if you can find one. (The model is discontinued.)
>
>> 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.
>> http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Scanning-for-American-Radio-History.htm
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
> Regards
> -- 
> Don Cox
> [log in to unmask]
>
>