Customer Discussions > Photography forum

What's an inexpensive scanner for my comics and comic art?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 16, 2013 11:59:20 AM PST
MutantMike says:
I want to scan my comics and comic are. Most comics when opened up measure about 10x13.5 and a lot of my art is around 12-13 by 16 or thereabouts.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 12:19:19 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 16, 2013 12:20:02 PM PST
Most small scanners these days are sized for US-letter (8.5x11)/A4 (8.3x11.7) [call it 8.5x12], and maybe up to US-legal (8.5x14).

My (not so cheap) Epson V500 handles 8.5x12 (US width, A4 length).

A scanner handling US-tabloid/ledger (17x11/11x17) or "Super B" (13x19) will cost a small fortune. As you can see, mine won't even handle US-legal.

The comics will fit per page, but not per 2-page spread on common scanners.

Posted on Feb 16, 2013 1:19:32 PM PST
MutantMike says:
Thx

Is that the way most do it, 1 pg at a time then ditch pages together in photoshop?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2013 3:35:12 PM PST
® says:
oversized flatbed are not cheap. Might as well scan two images and merge them together. Photoshop has a merging option that works well (how I overlay my 6fps shots in one, panorama, macro stacking, etc). Otherwise you can do it manually on paint.net (free software). Remember to turn on descreening (usually for magazine stuff).

You cans set up your digital camera to take a picture of the your artwork too, how painting are photographed.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2013 8:15:59 AM PST
EdM says:
With scanning oversize works, there are issues of alignment, keeping the comics and art flat, etc. With care, one is easily able to merge [but only after you know how and have the computer gear and software to do it]. Photoshop has a steep learning curve.

Another possibility to consider would be to photograph your originals either from above, or maybe hanging. Then you allow yourself the ability to move the camera closer or further to fit the image to the camera's sensor.

With a flatbed, you have the issue of cost and needing a larger, more expensive flatbed, but the lighting, focal length and flatness of what's on the bed is fixed. With a photo, the size issues are adjustable, but there are issues of getting the lighting right, holding the work flat for shooting, and best lens selection.

If you see a copy of the Declaration of Independence on the internet, e.g., that was not from a scan, but a photograph from a camera. Just a thought.

Posted on Feb 17, 2013 11:42:40 AM PST
JCUKNZ says:
Awhile back, not on this forum, there was a discussion about the problems of copying with the camera and endless problems came up until I suggested using a scanner ... the OP wrote back it had gone smoothly good as gold ... so my feeling is that the camera is not a good tool for the job unless one has a specialised camera, certainly not the average P&S. Sorry to be negative but I suggest the Paint.Net suggestion the best.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2013 4:11:16 PM PST
The main criteria for using a camera in place of a scanner are:

Even/flat illumination: at least two equal lights between 30 and 60 degrees up on each side
Camera positioned so that the sensor is parallel to the subject
Camera far enough away to avoid barrel distortion (lenses designed for linearity also help).

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2013 9:44:47 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 17, 2013 9:45:51 PM PST
EdM says:
> Camera far enough away to avoid barrel distortion (lenses designed for linearity also help).

Adding to the third point, a rectilinear lens, perhaps with a near normal focal length or moderate telephoto, if there's room in the "studio" or shooting area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectilinear_lens

"In photography, a rectilinear lens is a photographic lens that yields images where straight features, such as the walls of buildings, appear with straight lines, as opposed to being curved. In other words, it is a lens with little or no barrel or pincushion distortion. At particularly wide angles, however, the rectilinear perspective will cause objects to appear increasingly stretched ..."

So for accuracy, wide angle lenses are in general not suitable. Some lenses are advertised for rectilinear capability.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 



Thank you for your support of Amazon Discussion Forums. Due to the changing needs of Amazon Forums, we have decided to stop supporting the ‘Active discussions in related forums’ feature in order to focus on providing the most value for our customers.  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Photography forum
Participants:  5
Total posts:  8
Initial post:  Feb 16, 2013
Latest post:  Feb 17, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions