On 2015-04-06 9:13 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> I've done similar to what Gleason is doing (and by the way, he's doing a
> good job and it's really nice to see those old magazines online and
> available to everyone, he's a Good Guy or a White Hat in interwebs
> lingo). There's no way I'd mess with a DSLR for "maw work" as I call
> scanning magazines.
> What I did for the AES (they had 2 years of JAES that wasn't scanned for
> that CD-ROM collection they put out but also weren't available as native
> PDF) was take their magazines (they had the binding cut off) and fed
> them into the "maw" I have at the office -- a Ricoh multi-function color
> copier/scanner/printer beast. I scanned them directly into Adobe Acrobat
> and fed them into the "maw" one issue at a time. It took me two
> afternoons to do two years. Gleason's "maw" looks to be a bit smaller
> than the Ricoh, but it works the same way. I assume he de-binds those
> old magazines (in the case of High Fidelity, Radio &TV News and others,
> this involves both slicing off the spine and then removing sharp and
> usually rusty staples, so once again, Gleason is a Good Guy for doing
> this).

I do think that Gleason mentions he cuts magazines and books. He also 
indicated that his duplex Kodak "Maw" can do a 1000 page (500 sheet) 
book in about ten minutes.

> I do think quality-obsessive people may have more tweaky leeway with a
> good modern DSLR setup. For what I'm doing, that's all too much time and
> effort. I'm usually about acceptable quality and maximum quantity in
> minimal available time.

The point the photographers make on the Nikon DSLR list that I'm on is 
that the DSLR once set up is MUCH faster than any scanner. At least one 
of the guys on that list does on-site digital image capture of flat and 
transparent materials using the DSLR approach on the Washington Mall, 
though I forget which museum/archive(s).

The other point I was making that when Gleason cannot un-bind a book, he 
has the mini-ATIZ book scanner which uses a pair of Canon DSLRs. I think 
they come with zoom lenses native (at least one version I once looked at 
did) although my friend in PA who does the high-end scanning prefers 
Sony bodies and Zeiss lenses.

This is what Gleason uses:

> To Richard's point, there is definitely a higher-quality way to do LP
> album cover reproductions. But, in my opinion, 9.99 out of 10 buyers
> don't care. As long as the cover is a reasonable facsimile of the
> original and the back liner notes are readable, they're happy. They're
> especially happy if the new LP sounds better than the back-in-the-day
> original. Of all the markets where there are enough customers willing to
> spend on a super-premium product, Japan is definitely the most obsessed
> with graphic quality. They really want a beautiful object, perhaps as
> much as they want a beautiful listening experience.  The US and European
> markets seem to be more accepting of something that closely reminds them
> of the original rather than a perfect graphic reproduction.

I agree with all the points that Tom makes except one, and I suspect by 
the time it gets to be a PDF or ink on paper that the quality 
differences are not noticeable. JPGs can be wonderfully good. Archivists 
prefer uncompressed lossless formats. I don't even think they like 
losslessly compressed TIFs (ZIP or LZW?).

The point I disagree with is that I think one should at least look at 
DSLR when you wish to maximize quality AND throughput, although the 
volume has to be there to support it. The reason I'm dragging this out 
is because libraries and archives may find it necessary to have high 
throughput and may be able to assign an entry-level but eager and smart 
person to the task.

As to lighting, my friend in PA has a four-head studio flash system and 
apparently if you light at an angle just under 45 degrees from each of 
the four corners you get reasonably even light. He does 4x8 foot art 
which he needs to photograph well in order to market it. John Chester 
knows him as well.

As to me...I selected scanners because I could teach my sons to use them 
and did not feel I could as good results with the DSLR approach. At the 
time I started the project, I tried DSLR scanning and 24 MP sensors were 
not econmically available. The Nikon Coolscan could scan 24MP. Also, the 
Nikon Coolscan (a major part of my family scanning project workflow -- 
46,646 slides logged) also has a batch feeder that depending on mount 
thickness can take up to 75 slides. At our settings, it took about two 
minutes per slide which is not fast.

The other challenge is that a 24 MP camera on an album cover provides a 
scan of about 320 dpi, which is short of the 600 dpi that most archival 
print scans are done at (for 8x10 images). Even a 36 MP camera provides 
about 390 dpi. I like 600 dpi as it generally clearly renders the 
individual dots of the screen printing process which allows for better 
de-screening in post. Sometimes I find descreening as part of the scan 
works well, too, but that would not meet all the archival principals 
I've learned. However, it might still be fine.



> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 8:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] LP and Media Imaging
>> 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.
>> Cheers,
>> Richard
>> --
>> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.