Multitool.org Forum
Non Tool Forum => The Shutter Shop => Topic started by: supratentorial on April 11, 2007, 01:44:01 PM
-
What's an inexpensive scanner that's good for scanning 3D objects?
Some scanners have better depth than others.
I've used a friend's Epson Perfection 4490 Flatbed Photo Scanner and got fairly good results but it's not an inexpensive scanner (retail price $200).
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/supratentorial/supertool.jpg)
I have one of those ultra thin scanners that uses an LED indirect exposure rather than a CCD and it has poor depth.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/supratentorial/PST.jpg)
I've tried a couple of combination scanner/printer/fax machines at Best Buy. I wasn't impressed with the results but I was only able to print a copy--not scan a high resolution image to a file.
Although regular cameras will give a better perception of depth and a more attractive image, scanners have some nice features. For example:
1) scanned images give a better representation of size and proportions.
2) scanners don't require you to fuss with lighting or focus.
-
I don't know how certain this is, but I have been told by a photographer that photo scanners are bad for this because their main focus is the up close detail. He also said that the cheaper scanners were more effective, and that if you reduce the scan resolution it will also make a difference.
I have never had any success with 3D objects on my scanner, which is probably why I have so many cameras! I have an HP all in one machine (printer/scanner/copier) which excels at photo scanning and printing, but not so good at scanning 3D. It always comes out looking like the one in your second photo.
You are right though- there are definate benefits to a scanner over a camera.
Def
-
You need to talk to UnknownVT (Vincent). All of the great photos he puts up in his reviews on KF and CPF are done on his scanner.
He said once that you need to shop for the scanners that have a fluorescent light bar, not the newer ones with the LEDs. The older fluorescent ones have a greater depth of field.
-
That was the photographer I was talking about...
He is also a member here I think... Might have to drop him a note and let him know we are talking about him.
Def
-
That was the photographer I was talking about...
He is also a member here I think... Might have to drop him a note and let him know we are talking about him.
Def
Cool. I'd like to hear his opinion.
-
Message sent... I noticed he wasn't a member here... yet... that may change though.
Def
-
MTOrg member Parnass uses a scanner for his pictures...they come out really good too...I wonder what kind he's got?
(I'll ask him)
-
MTOrg member Parnass uses a scanner for his pictures...they come out really good too...I wonder what kind he's got?
(I'll ask him)
I am using an older Epson 636U flatbed scanner. It employs what looks like a fluorescent light. Like most flatbed scanners, it does not show depth perception that well. Portions further away from the glass window become blurred (see first photo below).
There are a few complications to scanning a 3-D object with a 2-D scanner. If the objects are so deep that they force you to keep the cover propped open, too much light can get inside making the scan very dark. You can lighten the scan using the software provided for scanning. In extreme cases, I have surrounded the object with a clean, white T-shirt to keep the extraneous light from ruining the photo.
Thanks for asking.
-
From UnknownVT:
Here's an old thread on KnifeForums -
some general flatbed Scanners advice
http://knifeforums.com/forums/showtopic.php?tid/249274
If for some reason the pics don't show - the BladeForums thread has the
links updated -
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246162
My scanner is nothing special - a cheapo HP ScanJet 2100C (~$40),
which is now long discontinued.
I recently did a survey of sorts -
Epson Perfection V100 PHOTO Flatbed Scanner
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63059195
QUOTE:
"The new high-rise lid can be lifted up and laid flat to accommodate large
objects or scan 3D objects (up to 25mm thick) with the lid closed."
- looks promising -
Low priced at just under $90 (PriceGrabber.com) - but with a $40 mail-in
rebate = <$50......
BUT the best bet is to actually try scanning a typical 3D object to see if
it's OK -
failing that, get it from somewhere with a no fuss return policy.
Def
-
Parnass, that one has much better depth than my scanner, which has the LEDs.
-
Same here. When I try to scan a knife or tool, it comes out looking like Supratentorial's second photo. (Or worse.)
-
Those are some really nice scans!
-
I've got a Lexmark X1185 All In One scanner. I don't use the scanner much. After reading this thread, I decided to try scanning some multi's and see how they came out. Judge for yourself :) The Lexmark cost $50.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/665ae/scantest.jpg)