• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Legal Size Scanner thread.
50 50

1,629 posts in this topic

I've been messing around with the the original scans because they are not truly representative of the books, and as Joe said the infinite variables can make it a real nightmare to try and get it right manually. I have a few options going from lighter to darker with the auto enhance feature in Arcsoft and feel I can get a pretty accurate representation of the book using just the coarse scale that it provides.

 

HP 8250, 300 dpi, Arcsoft auto enhance, Windows XP

 

I've compared the book in hand to the auto enhanced scan (basically side by side) and it looks good.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Pre auto enhance. Entire scan is very dull looking and blurred. Looks worse than the book in hand.

 

BB53.jpg

 

 

Post auto enhance. The whites are representative to the actual book in hand while the yellowing and tanning (on the spine) which Crippens are famous for is still also accurately represented.

 

BlueBeetle53CGC8_0Crippen.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

drewincanada, I don't want to come off sounding harsh, or worse, like some know-it-all, but I've been using Photoshop since v3 and I can tell you without hesitation that you've just contradicted yourself.

 

First, the "auto enhance" feature in Arcsoft Photostudio is similar to the "variations" option in Adobe Photoshop. As you said, it adjusts the colour but does so on the entire spectrum and range of colours used on the cover, not just on the shades (white and black). Simply put, there is no scanner on the market (outside of office horses in the 80K and up range) that can properly calibrate the colour palette during scan capture mode because of the way the plastic holder and inner well washes out the colours on the cover. The reason why is because the bulbs used on high-end multifunction printers/copiers/scanners are like shinning a spotlight on the book in comparison to the bulbs used on consumer end scanners.

 

Your idea of experimenting with levels/curves and saturation is not realistic and impractical. First of all, I would not recommend any novice to experiment with these settings for two reasons. First being that you need to understand how they work, and secondly because outside of Photoshop, no software actually does the job properly. And did I mention using these features in Photoshop can be a study.

 

As well, the idea of saving the setting once calibrated to a specific scan and using it on all scans makes no sense, because these are in fact settings which would work strictly on the cover you manipulated, and shouldn't be treated as wholesale settings that can be used with every scanned comic.

 

Taking it to the ergo basics, suggesting the "auto enhance" means two mouse clicks (one to confirm) - as opposed to how many for levels/curves/saturation - being very conservative, 10? Certainly involves more tinkering than I would like on a scan.

 

You want to bring in the use of "unnatural", your suggestions are exactly that - but don't take my word for it, do a Google search for "Photoshop nightmare" and look for some of the forensic examples of real practitioners and the way they describe things.

 

One final point - and believe me when I tell you, if I were to show you that ASM 129 in real-time, you would not be complaining about how the "auto enhance" produces an unnatural scan.

 

Hi,

 

I also don't want to come off sounding like some know-it-all. :foryou:

 

I will, however, provide a bit of background, since I think my qualifications lend a bit of credibility to what I said previously.

 

I've been a professional graphic artist since 1989. I own a 12-person design advertising & marketing company in Toronto:

 

My company

 

I have been using Photoshop since version 1.0 in 1990. (Prior to that, I used Photoshop's precursor, but the name of the software escapes me at the moment.) More than Illustrator, Indesign, Quark, etc., Photoshop is the one piece of software I have used every working day for the past 20 years.

 

I don't think I've contradicted myself. I recognize that Auto Enhance will alter the entire colour spectrum. But it's not like the Variations feature in Photoshop, because at least Variations gives you a bit of manual control - deciding how many steps to apply, and in which direction.

 

Auto Enhance does exactly what its name implies: it makes those decisions for you, based partly on how it reads the spectrum of colours and the black/white levels in the document. It then arbitrarily decides on how those colours should be best represented in the final scan.

 

You only need look at the contrasty, over-saturated, edge-enhanced CGC label in the Auto Enhance examples posted in this thread see what I mean. That's not how a CGC label looks in real life. The highlights are blown out, the blue isn't accurate, and the edges of the type have been sharpened unnaturally.

 

Auto Enhance reminds me of how most people adjust the settings on their TVs: way too much colour saturation, way too much contrast, and way too much edge enhancement. But they like it. I've never understood how avid golfers (like some of my relatives) could watch golf on TV with phosphrescent grass – and think it looked good.

 

Yes, Photoshop's manual adjustment features can be overwhelming to a novice. I didn't say it would be easy. But if you want an accurate scan, then it's worth spending the time to learn how to use these features. If you only have the time to learn one Photoshop feature, then the Curves feature will make a HUGE difference to your scans.

 

If you don't have Photoshop, most scanners include software or a plug-in that includes manual correction features, including the ability to adjust the curves. At least this has been my experience with every scanner I've owned - from a $10K pro scanner to an $80 Canon cheapo flatbed.

 

Re: my comment about saving the curve settings and reusing them on future scans: this WILL work. As long as the bulb in your scanner hasn't dimmed, and as long as the scanning environment hasn't changed (e.g. some people like to drape a black cloth over the scanner to block outside light from entering the sides of the CGC case), then you absolutely CAN save your adjustment settings and reuse them on future CGC slab scans.

 

Fine tune your first CGC scan so that the blue CGC label is a realistic representation of the depth, hue and saturation of the actual label... and at the same time use the curves to ensure that the contrast, colour spectrum and saturation remain accurate for the comic itself... then save these settings as a pre-set.

 

The CGC blue label is a constant on all slabs. So if you can find settings that do a good job of capturing it accurately, then this pre-set will ensure that the label looks the same in all future scans. And if you've done a good job of ensuring the contrast, spectrum and saturation are accurate for the first scan, then these settings will be a great starting point for accurately capturing future CGC slabs. Nothing is absolute - you may need to make minor adjustments for each scan - but your pre-sets will save significant time when adjusting future scans.

 

Re: scanning DPI. All on-screen graphics are at 72 DPI. And yes, Photobucket (at least the free version) limits you to a specific image size. If you're using Photobucket to host your images, and you have the wherewithal, I'd recommend resizing your images yourself to fit their pixel dimensions. Then Photobucket won't resize/recompress them and destroy your hard work.

 

As for your original scan size, there's very little reason to scan a comic at more than 300 DPI. Yes, most scanners - even my cheapo Canon Lide 30 - will scan at a higher resolution. And some higher end scanners have better image sensors and will capture more detail than cheaper scanners. But your scanning resolution should be determined by two things: the final resolution of the device where the scan will be used, and the original DPI of the item you're scanning.

 

If you're only going to use your scan on-screen, and at smaller than actual size, then THEORETICALLY you could scan your image at 72 DPI. You won't gain anything by scanning it at 300 DPI or higher, since you're be down-resing it to 72 DPI afterwards. But I'll come back to this point.

 

If you're going to print your scan, remember that most commercial offset or digital printing is at 300 DPI (unless you're planning to do high end lithographs or some other esoteric printing format, but we ARE talking comic books here). If your scan is larger than 300 DPI, it's just taking up unnecessary hard drive space and rendering time.

 

This is where the DPI of the original image comes into play. If you're scanning photos, this point is irrelevant since there are no dot patterns in a continuous-tone photo. But if you're scanning a printed object like a comic book, the image is made up of dot patterns of four inks: cyan, magenta, yellow and black. Older comics were printed at a relatively low DPI. Not sure offhand what the printing process was (likely web printing, using big rolls of paper like newspapers use) or what the DPI was, but it was far less than the current 300 DPI used in offset (sheet fed) or web printing.

 

If you scan your comics at 72 DPI, the scanning resolution and the original image resolution will be so similar that you will end up with moiré patterns - ugly cross-hatching in the dot patterns. (Do a google search on "moirè pattern wiki".) So you are better off scanning your comics at 300 DPI. The higher scanning resolution will eliminate most moiré patterns. You can then down-res your scans in Photoshop to the final size/resolution you'll require for your end use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, on the HP L7680, there is that wonderful "flash of light" at the bottom of the scan.

 

I figure this is where the LED stops to turn around but the software continues to "read" for just a few moments too long...

 

docu0027.jpg

 

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been messing around with the the original scans because they are not truly representative of the books, and as Joe said the infinite variables can make it a real nightmare to try and get it right manually. I have a few options going from lighter to darker with the auto enhance feature in Arcsoft and feel I can get a pretty accurate representation of the book using just the coarse scale that it provides.

 

HP 8250, 300 dpi, Arcsoft auto enhance, Windows XP

 

I've compared the book in hand to the auto enhanced scan (basically side by side) and it looks good.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Roy, I think the first scan is your "baby bear", and the Auto Enhanced scan is your "Papa Bear". Personally, I think that nearmint's Fighting Yank is the ideal "Mama Bear" of a scan.

 

Your raw scan is definitely too grey/dull, and the Auto Enhanced version is far better, but it goes too far the other way. It's a bit harsh and over saturated. As for the softness of the original scan, Auto Enhance can't increase the scanning quality. The image capture is the same in both scans. All Auto Enhance can do is to sharpen the edges of the existing soft scan. That's OK (and advisable) if it's used in moderation. But Auto Enhance doesn't know from moderation! It will usually over-sharpen the edges. At first glance, the sharpened image will look much better, but on closer examination, you'll see that it actual degrades the edges of fine items like type. (Look at the type in the CGC banner.) It puts a halo around the edges, creating artificial contrast between the black of the type and the background. Instead of a natural gradation of tones in the pixels around the edges of the black type, it compresses the gradation to create a sharper edge. But because the scan is only 72 DPI, the pixels are large enough that the edges of the type start to get a big jaggy or rough.

 

I think the blue CGC label on nearmint's Fighting Yank is a great compromise - half way between your two scans. Although I don't have a CGC book in front of me right now, I think the blue of the label is likely the most natural of the three scans. And yet, the comic itself is still bright and well-saturated, with the proper contrast levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm taking notes and trying some stuff out.

 

Here are 3 scans all done differently.

 

Scan 1 is the original at 300 dpi.

 

Scan 2 is manually enhanced using Arcsoft. First I adjusted saturation to 20% (to get the Yellow correct as it seems to have a direct effect on Yellow). Did not touch hue at all (I don't care what hue says). Then I adjust the Brightness/Contrast by dropping brightness -20 and increasing Contrast +20. This looks the best of the 3 IMO when compared to the original book though not perfect. The reds are too bright.

 

Scan 3 is simply auto enhanced to one of the darker coarse settings.

 

I think the glare will remain on any extra thick slabs. There's really no way to eliminate it effectively.

 

CaptainAmericaComics3CGC5_0.jpg

 

CaptainAmericaComics3CGC5_0manual.jpg

 

CaptainAmericaComics3CGC5_0autoenha.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

drewincanada, I don't want to come off sounding harsh, or worse, like some know-it-all, but I've been using Photoshop since v3 and I can tell you without hesitation that you've just contradicted yourself.

 

First, the "auto enhance" feature in Arcsoft Photostudio is similar to the "variations" option in Adobe Photoshop. As you said, it adjusts the colour but does so on the entire spectrum and range of colours used on the cover, not just on the shades (white and black). Simply put, there is no scanner on the market (outside of office horses in the 80K and up range) that can properly calibrate the colour palette during scan capture mode because of the way the plastic holder and inner well washes out the colours on the cover. The reason why is because the bulbs used on high-end multifunction printers/copiers/scanners are like shinning a spotlight on the book in comparison to the bulbs used on consumer end scanners.

 

Your idea of experimenting with levels/curves and saturation is not realistic and impractical. First of all, I would not recommend any novice to experiment with these settings for two reasons. First being that you need to understand how they work, and secondly because outside of Photoshop, no software actually does the job properly. And did I mention using these features in Photoshop can be a study.

 

As well, the idea of saving the setting once calibrated to a specific scan and using it on all scans makes no sense, because these are in fact settings which would work strictly on the cover you manipulated, and shouldn't be treated as wholesale settings that can be used with every scanned comic.

 

Taking it to the ergo basics, suggesting the "auto enhance" means two mouse clicks (one to confirm) - as opposed to how many for levels/curves/saturation - being very conservative, 10? Certainly involves more tinkering than I would like on a scan.

 

You want to bring in the use of "unnatural", your suggestions are exactly that - but don't take my word for it, do a Google search for "Photoshop nightmare" and look for some of the forensic examples of real practitioners and the way they describe things.

 

One final point - and believe me when I tell you, if I were to show you that ASM 129 in real-time, you would not be complaining about how the "auto enhance" produces an unnatural scan.

 

Hi,

 

I also don't want to come off sounding like some know-it-all. :foryou:

 

I will, however, provide a bit of background, since I think my qualifications lend a bit of credibility to what I said previously.

 

I've been a professional graphic artist since 1989. I own a 12-person design advertising & marketing company in Toronto:

 

My company

 

I have been using Photoshop since version 1.0 in 1990. (Prior to that, I used Photoshop's precursor, but the name of the software escapes me at the moment.) More than Illustrator, Indesign, Quark, etc., Photoshop is the one piece of software I have used every working day for the past 20 years.

 

I don't think I've contradicted myself. I recognize that Auto Enhance will alter the entire colour spectrum. But it's not like the Variations feature in Photoshop, because at least Variations gives you a bit of manual control - deciding how many steps to apply, and in which direction.

 

Auto Enhance does exactly what its name implies: it makes those decisions for you, based partly on how it reads the spectrum of colours and the black/white levels in the document. It then arbitrarily decides on how those colours should be best represented in the final scan.

 

You only need look at the contrasty, over-saturated, edge-enhanced CGC label in the Auto Enhance examples posted in this thread see what I mean. That's not how a CGC label looks in real life. The highlights are blown out, the blue isn't accurate, and the edges of the type have been sharpened unnaturally.

 

Auto Enhance reminds me of how most people adjust the settings on their TVs: way too much colour saturation, way too much contrast, and way too much edge enhancement. But they like it. I've never understood how avid golfers (like some of my relatives) could watch golf on TV with phosphrescent grass – and think it looked good.

 

Yes, Photoshop's manual adjustment features can be overwhelming to a novice. I didn't say it would be easy. But if you want an accurate scan, then it's worth spending the time to learn how to use these features. If you only have the time to learn one Photoshop feature, then the Curves feature will make a HUGE difference to your scans.

 

If you don't have Photoshop, most scanners include software or a plug-in that includes manual correction features, including the ability to adjust the curves. At least this has been my experience with every scanner I've owned - from a $10K pro scanner to an $80 Canon cheapo flatbed.

 

Re: my comment about saving the curve settings and reusing them on future scans: this WILL work. As long as the bulb in your scanner hasn't dimmed, and as long as the scanning environment hasn't changed (e.g. some people like to drape a black cloth over the scanner to block outside light from entering the sides of the CGC case), then you absolutely CAN save your adjustment settings and reuse them on future CGC slab scans.

 

Fine tune your first CGC scan so that the blue CGC label is a realistic representation of the depth, hue and saturation of the actual label... and at the same time use the curves to ensure that the contrast, colour spectrum and saturation remain accurate for the comic itself... then save these settings as a pre-set.

 

The CGC blue label is a constant on all slabs. So if you can find settings that do a good job of capturing it accurately, then this pre-set will ensure that the label looks the same in all future scans. And if you've done a good job of ensuring the contrast, spectrum and saturation are accurate for the first scan, then these settings will be a great starting point for accurately capturing future CGC slabs. Nothing is absolute - you may need to make minor adjustments for each scan - but your pre-sets will save significant time when adjusting future scans.

 

Re: scanning DPI. All on-screen graphics are at 72 DPI. And yes, Photobucket (at least the free version) limits you to a specific image size. If you're using Photobucket to host your images, and you have the wherewithal, I'd recommend resizing your images yourself to fit their pixel dimensions. Then Photobucket won't resize/recompress them and destroy your hard work.

 

As for your original scan size, there's very little reason to scan a comic at more than 300 DPI. Yes, most scanners - even my cheapo Canon Lide 30 - will scan at a higher resolution. And some higher end scanners have better image sensors and will capture more detail than cheaper scanners. But your scanning resolution should be determined by two things: the final resolution of the device where the scan will be used, and the original DPI of the item you're scanning.

 

If you're only going to use your scan on-screen, and at smaller than actual size, then THEORETICALLY you could scan your image at 72 DPI. You won't gain anything by scanning it at 300 DPI or higher, since you're be down-resing it to 72 DPI afterwards. But I'll come back to this point.

 

If you're going to print your scan, remember that most commercial offset or digital printing is at 300 DPI (unless you're planning to do high end lithographs or some other esoteric printing format, but we ARE talking comic books here). If your scan is larger than 300 DPI, it's just taking up unnecessary hard drive space and rendering time.

 

This is where the DPI of the original image comes into play. If you're scanning photos, this point is irrelevant since there are no dot patterns in a continuous-tone photo. But if you're scanning a printed object like a comic book, the image is made up of dot patterns of four inks: cyan, magenta, yellow and black. Older comics were printed at a relatively low DPI. Not sure offhand what the printing process was (likely web printing, using big rolls of paper like newspapers use) or what the DPI was, but it was far less than the current 300 DPI used in offset (sheet fed) or web printing.

 

If you scan your comics at 72 DPI, the scanning resolution and the original image resolution will be so similar that you will end up with moiré patterns - ugly cross-hatching in the dot patterns. (Do a google search on "moirè pattern wiki".) So you are better off scanning your comics at 300 DPI. The higher scanning resolution will eliminate most moiré patterns. You can then down-res your scans in Photoshop to the final size/resolution you'll require for your end use.

 

Thanks for the info and the link share to your company (thumbs u

 

Have you used the "auto enhance" feature in Arcsoft Photostudio (I'm using v 5.5)? I ask this because I used the word "similar" when describing it in relation to variations, because it allows you to pick and choose from 9 tiles with lighter and darker options. In Arcsoft, there aren't the same controls as Photoshop, but it provides pre-set adjusted enhancements (9 of them) that you can choose to deal with the fading issue the slab presents.

 

I also agree on the point about not needing a higher resolution than 300 dpi, and completely understand how higher resolution scans become important for pre-press graphic design, however I have noticed that with my particular model, it does make a difference with the quality of the scan. I might be looking into this point too much, and rarely have I tried going higher than 1200dpi on this scanner, but the difference is noticeable. I think this lends me to argue for the "not every scanner is created equally" and to nitpick on settings can be made a moot point because the level of sophistication one scanners software provides isn't always the same with another.

 

For these reasons (and some others), I'm not too judgmental when it comes to looking at scans of CGC books because I know it can be complicated to figure out how some people get the results they get. It's remotely worth mentioning that I'd sooner take sharper and brighter over cropping and outright photo manipulation to cover up defects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roy,

 

Did you ever take a look at HP's support site?

 

If your 8250 is the Scanjet model, this patch may help:

 

Blue Tint Patch for HP Scanning Software

 

Fixes blue or grey tint seen in the background of documents scanned in color from the glass or ADF using HP Photosmart Software 9.0.

 

Larry

 

It is, and so is mine. Thanks for the link. (thumbs u I'll have to check it out. I had thought that there may have been a difference in driver revisions to explain the differences in the results I'm getting (on Vista) and those Roy is getting (he's on XP).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the blurriness that many people experience when scanning CGC slabs is because their scanner is focusing on the outside of the slab itself, and not on the comic inside the slab.

 

Just like auto-focus on a camera, some scanners determines the the optimum focal depth of the object on the scanning bed. If there's a three dimensional object on the scanning bed - like a CGC slab - the scanner automatically determines what area of the object it should focus on. With some of these scanners, it can "see past" the plastic of the CGC slab and focus on the comic itself. With other scanners, it focuses on the plastic slab itself, which throws the comic out of focus.

 

Then there's a third group of scanners where there is no auto focus at all: it has fixed focus - set to focus on the glass platen - so anything that isn't sitting flush against the glass will be out of focus.

 

Unfortunately, with all scanners that I know of, there is no way to manually control the focal depth. So make sure you buy a scanner that can focus on the comic inside the slab!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm always the helpful tech support geek... lol

 

Of course, I know there's something in those HP drivers that is just not quite right.

 

When I used my old Epson Perfection 1200U flatbed to scan a comic, it would generate a 140KB file. However, the OfficeJet L7680 generates a 390KB file for the same book - with the same settings.

 

That's had me stumped for the past few months.

 

Larry

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the blurriness that many people experience when scanning CGC slabs is because their scanner is focusing on the outside of the slab itself, and not on the comic inside the slab.

 

I had to learn this after owning a total of 5 scanners (two have since been shelved). The one thing that is different about the HP 8250 model is the scanning software has a "Sharpness" setting which I really, really like. Using the "Extreme" setting seems to do a wonderful job of off-setting the problem you mention above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roy,

 

Did you ever take a look at HP's support site?

 

If your 8250 is the Scanjet model, this patch may help:

 

Blue Tint Patch for HP Scanning Software

 

Fixes blue or grey tint seen in the background of documents scanned in color from the glass or ADF using HP Photosmart Software 9.0.

 

Larry

 

It is, and so is mine. Thanks for the link. (thumbs u I'll have to check it out. I had thought that there may have been a difference in driver revisions to explain the differences in the results I'm getting (on Vista) and those Roy is getting (he's on XP).

 

I'm only using the HP basic driver and using the XP Scanner and Camera Wizard to make my scans. I found the full HP driver to be cumbersome and slow. When I tried to download the Blue Tint Patch I was told I didn't need it. I believe I tried downloading it for both drivers...but the full HP Driver was actually newer than the patch so I assume it would already have it.

 

As far as Vista vs. XP I'd love to know what you're talking about as I don't remember seeing a Sharpness setting on the full driver. Do you have a screen shot?

 

This is the only place I remember seeing Sharpness settings....on Arcsoft.

 

ArcsoftSharpenfilters.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One tip on sharpening: rather than running the sharpening filter once and applying high amounts of sharpening, sometimes you'll get more realistic results if you use a lighter setting and apply it a few times.

 

Here's a good little tutorial on using Unsharp Mask, which I see that Arcsoft has (from your screen shot, Roy).

 

Tutorial

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sharpness option is available when you use the HP Scan wizard.

 

I found the full HP driver to be cumbersome and slow.

 

Abso - friggen - lutely!

 

HP = mostly great technology often hindered by horrendous software.

 

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roy,

 

Did you ever take a look at HP's support site?

 

If your 8250 is the Scanjet model, this patch may help:

 

Blue Tint Patch for HP Scanning Software

 

Fixes blue or grey tint seen in the background of documents scanned in color from the glass or ADF using HP Photosmart Software 9.0.

 

Larry

 

It is, and so is mine. Thanks for the link. (thumbs u I'll have to check it out. I had thought that there may have been a difference in driver revisions to explain the differences in the results I'm getting (on Vista) and those Roy is getting (he's on XP).

 

I'm only using the HP basic driver and using the XP Scanner and Camera Wizard to make my scans. I found the full HP driver to be cumbersome and slow. When I tried to download the Blue Tint Patch I was told I didn't need it. I believe I tried downloading it for both drivers...but the full HP Driver was actually newer than the patch so I assume it would already have it.

 

As far as Vista vs. XP I'd love to know what you're talking about as I don't remember seeing a Sharpness setting on the full driver. Do you have a screen shot?

 

This is the only place I remember seeing Sharpness settings....on Arcsoft.

 

ArcsoftSharpenfilters.jpg

 

I'm working on getting dinner ready - I'll jump on later this evening (hopefully before the Canada vs. US game) and provide a visual example of what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Microtek Scanmaker i800 takes a bit of time to tweak, but once you do, it produces beautiful, accurate scans of slabbed books with none of the glare & distortion found in other scanners:

 

bone-1-cgc-9.8-f.jpg

 

I still much prefer my Epson Perfection for raw books, but a slab won't fit in that, unfortunately.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
50 50