[HN Gopher] Responses to "I Almost Bought a Scanner"
___________________________________________________________________
Responses to "I Almost Bought a Scanner"
Author : leejo
Score : 79 points
Date : 2023-01-28 15:41 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (leejo.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (leejo.github.io)
| flipthefrog wrote:
| If the goal is to scan xpan, why not just get an old CoolScan or
| something eqivalent, and stitch together the scans
| buildbot wrote:
| Did you read the article? A cool scan is still far worse than
| an X1/X5 - these are considered to be the best scanners besides
| drum scans
|
| And coolscans don't work with xpan images according to another
| commentor below.
| [deleted]
| snapetom wrote:
| Definitely true point about the Hasselblad. They make their money
| through legacy and brand these days. There are plenty of medium
| format competitors that outperform them at a far lower price.
| Const-me wrote:
| I also have an old Mustek scanner with outdated drivers, with no
| hardware issues.
|
| Luckily, my scanner is USB, and VMware Workstation allows to
| forward complete USB devices to a guest OS. When I need to scan
| something, I fire up a virtual machine with 32-bits Windows XP
| inside, with OG drivers, and scanning software.
| Aloha wrote:
| Does Vuescan support it?
| Const-me wrote:
| Never heard of that software. Indeed, it says "VueScan is
| compatible on Windows, macOS and Linux."
|
| Thanks for the tip!
|
| Will give it a try next time I need to scan something.
| DiabloD3 wrote:
| VueScan is really really huge in the photog community for
| those who still have to handle (or restore) film negatives.
| Not only does it continue to support scanners that have
| long since been abandoned by their manufacturers, its just
| straight up better software.
|
| I've used it for shits and giggles, and it even did quality
| work on a generic Epson flatbed better and faster (and lets
| face it, Epson flatbeds aren't good, getting anything good
| out of them is very difficult).
| Aloha wrote:
| VueScan is amazing, and the author is a great guy who
| does most of his own support.
| kaispowergoo wrote:
| I had always been impressed with the fidelity of the Kai's Power
| Goo example facial images.
|
| https://www.macworld.com/article/226834/an-ode-to-kais-power...
|
| I believe a drum scanner was used.
| bombcar wrote:
| Often commercial software has tons of closed-source libraries
| that they don't have the source code to. Even Doom had that when
| opensourced. It's an annoying headache for a company to open
| source even for a project no longer in development.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| They could still release what they _do_ have. Depending on the
| nature of the missing bits, the community sometimes can replace
| or shim out chunks of proprietary code and still have an easier
| time than replacing the whole thing. Or, depending on the
| licenses involved, it can be possible to at least release
| object files so people can edit the core code then link against
| closed libraries to build the final library. That 's what
| happened with OpenSolaris - Sun released most of the OS as open
| source, but couldn't relicense some chunks, so they released a
| bunch of blobs that had to be injected into the build to create
| the final product; AFAIK some of these persist as annoying
| blobs to this day, but some were replaced piecemeal by illumos
| with FOSS versions.
|
| (Obviously, this is _very_ dependent on how much lifting is
| done by what parts and how specialized they are; if you happen
| to use a closed zip library, that 's easy for the community to
| work around, whereas if your app is a thin wrapper around
| another closed library then maybe opening it really is
| minimally useful)
| bombcar wrote:
| Yeah, and it does happen (rarely) - the best way to get it to
| happen that I've seen is to have a major _customer_ ask for
| it. So instead of normal users asking, have Ford ask for a
| guarantee that X years after maintenance ends, the portions
| of the code that can be GPL will be, or something.
|
| Even then it's rare to work, but it sometimes can.
| williamscales wrote:
| I use my DSLR on a tripod with a film holder and a light table.
| It seems to give much better results than an Epson.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| > if you patent something and don't act on it in X years then it
| enters the public domain. If you discontinue the thing that
| relies on the patent then it enters the public domain. And so on.
|
| people have an extremely limited view of patents to suggest this.
|
| so you're working a 9-5, spent all of your savings on getting a
| patent because you did perceive something everyone else
| neglected, and people on the internet are like "go form a startup
| and raise capital, or else"! that's not what they say, but they
| don't think about what they say. they imagine a person with a
| toolkit in a garage or writing software and that's it, and then
| imagine creating and monetizing that one thing is the best use of
| their time, otherwise the idea shouldn't have been contributed to
| society at all. funny, who living in an economic center and has a
| garage anyway?
|
| until we can have a real discussion on patenting and patent
| holders, as well as the incentives in making the patent claims
| broader and more generic than the inventor really had in mind,
| this conversation will go nowhere.
| [deleted]
| yellowapple wrote:
| > I partially agree - but without the patent system where does
| the incentive for companies to invest millions (sometimes
| billions) into research and development come from? Altruism?
|
| This presupposes that the patented invention is trivial to
| reproduce by mere knowledge of its existence - in which case, is
| that really the best use of a patent system?
|
| Most worthwhile inventions can't be easily duplicated like that;
| the knowledge of how to manufacture it, continue
| iterating/improving on it, etc. is almost certainly concentrated
| in and around the inventor - giving the inventor a considerable
| first-mover's advantage. A better system, in that case, would be
| to ensure the inventor can capitalize on that advantage - in
| particular, that even individual inventors have access to capital
| such that they can start producing their inventions.
|
| (A better system than _that_ would be for everyone to have a
| safety net sufficiently strong such that they can collaborate on
| inventions solely motivated by intellectual curiosity rather than
| needing to worry about monetary gain, but I digress...)
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > This presupposes that the patented invention is trivial to
| reproduce by mere knowledge of its existence - in which case,
| is that really the best use of a patent system?
|
| This seems to be the central issue with many software patents,
| where the "invention" is either generic, obvious, or already
| widespread.
|
| Take the whole set of patents covering touch screen
| interactions, for instance. Apple sued HTC for several patent
| infringements and lost, because the judge deemed things like
| scrolling through pictures "too obvious". The case covered four
| patents, as far as I remember. Apple also sued Samsung for the
| "slide to unlock" patent, and won, not because Samsung copied
| Apple, but because Apple _held the patent_ , and it was
| considered _valid_.
|
| Thus, there is no room for any sort of simultaneous inventions
| here. Samsung might have come up with the idea by themselves.
| Apple might have patented a concept that was used by others
| first. And the reason why a single company was awarded
| exclusive ownership over it, was _timing_ and _money_ , nothing
| else.
| xeromal wrote:
| https://epson.com/fastfoto-photo-document-scanner
|
| If anyone needs to scan through bulk printed photos, I used this
| device to scan all my mom's stored photos for her wedding gift. I
| scanned over 12,000 photos over hte course of a few months so I
| couldn't bother with raising a lid. This thing makes short work
| of 20-30 photos per batch and it does a great job at scanning
| them. I host a small pikapod that has them tagged by a
| rudimentary AI for their faces and other objects. It was a fun
| little project and warmed my heart.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| In a parallel fashion, I haven't delved very far into the topic,
| but I have a feeling I wouldn't be able to get any of my trusty
| old SCSI devices working, both from a motherboard and a driver
| perspective.
| dTal wrote:
| So, I missed the suggestion thread, but here's mine: hack
| together a DIY microscope scanning rig. It'll set you back less
| than 500 dollars. An open frame 3D printer like a Creality CR-10S
| can be had for a few hundred - that's your stage, complete with
| controller electronics. Replace the hotend with a bracket for a
| Pi Cam HQ - it's a decent 12MP sensor - and add a microscope lens
| [0]. Put a lightbox on the bed, then your film, then the thinnest
| piece of glass you can find to hold it down. Now you can easily
| raster-scan at over 17000dpi. You can even make minute depth
| adjustments using the vertical axis of the stage to correct for
| film flatness issues.
|
| I'm sure there are many objections to this setup - I know
| resolution isn't everything and I'm unsure if a Sony IMX477
| sensor is "good enough" for the author in terms of color and
| dynamic range - but you can't argue with the price!
|
| [0]https://shop.pimoroni.com/products/microscope-
| lens-0-12-1-8x...
| antiterra wrote:
| I assume the author knows their stuff about why consumer scanners
| aren't good enough, particularly around dynamic range. However,
| for black and white film, I'm generally able to make out the
| crystal grain on 35mm with my consumer scanner and included tray,
| so I don't know what more there is to resolve.
| lepouet wrote:
| I used to own the scan he is talking about and various epson
| scanner, you cannot imagine the difference, Epson is fine and
| you are happy with it, then you see what an Hasselblad scanner
| can do for the same negative and for the rest of yout life you
| will think that Epsons are garbage.
|
| I "used" to own it because it had some small hardware problems
| and i was unable to fix it or find someone who could repair it.
| I bought a digital back and never did film photography since.
| metadat wrote:
| What is a "digital back"?
|
| Edit: Wow! Thanks for all your replies! This sounds
| intriguing, but only tangentially related to scanning.
|
| Now if you could turn a film camera into a high-quality
| scanner.. wouldn't that be something :)
|
| I'm in the ignorant camp where I've been satisfied with Epson
| consumer grade scanners because I had no idea what I was
| missing.
|
| Cheers.
| chihuahua wrote:
| I think in some film cameras, you can replace the part of
| the camera where film is exposed with a digital image
| sensor. Then you can use the same camera, but instead of
| exposing chemical-based film, you're recording digital
| images.
| jsmith99 wrote:
| Others have already explained, but many medium format
| camera systems were made to be modular long before the
| advent of digital. The viewfinder, lens, or the bit at the
| back which holds the film could all be hot swapped if you
| wanted to switch to eg a waist level finder or different
| film.
| Tomte wrote:
| https://www.hasselblad.com/de-
| de/h-system/h6d-100c-digital-b...
|
| You love the feel of your camera, its optics, and you don't
| want to throw away 20000 dollars? Pay a few thousand more
| and it's now a digital camera, everything else stays the
| same.
| shagie wrote:
| The large format approach is often a scanner - which
| works fairly well with a landscape.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_scan_back
|
| It takes a bit of rethinking since the shutter speed
| should be thought of as exposure speed since it is the
| speed at which the scanner moves - not the duration the
| shutter is open.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > I've been satisfied with Epson consumer grade scanners
| because I had no idea what I was missing.
|
| Every time I meet someone who is expert in something I
| enjoy I have learned to tread carefully. It can often ruin
| perceptions - sure, it leads to a better result but it's
| often very pricey.
|
| Coffee, computers, networking, storage, backups,
| automation, tools, etc etc.
|
| My life is a lot better and things a lot more reliable for
| the help I've had, but I'm poorer.
| buildbot wrote:
| Replaces a film magazine with a digital sensor
|
| Has been made since the late 80s in various forms.
|
| Phase One is the "premier" brand, with hasselblad closely
| following, then you have the defunct brands such as imacon,
| leaf, megavision (maybe around still), Sinar (around, part
| of Leica), Fuji made one, Rollei also made some. Dicomed
| made an actual 60mmx60mm one for a full frame 6x6 camera,
| still unique to this day.
| lloeki wrote:
| Bouncing on that last bit: do you find digital to
| match/exceed your experience of film+hasselblad?
| shagie wrote:
| I have a Nikon Coolscan 4000 from days of old. I was able
| to scan a 35mm at about 20 megapixels of data... and it
| fixed scratches and identified dust (my father has used it
| for the past several years to scan all of the old family
| photos - including those from his parents) and it works
| very well.
|
| The big difference was in the amount of data in the blacks
| of a good slide film that you could pull out with a
| scanner. You can get a really wide dynamic range on the
| film by scanning it and pushing more or less light through
| it depending on the film.
|
| There's also something... _tangible_ or natural that film
| grain captures that I just don 't feel with for digital.
|
| For example this
| https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Provia-400-grain-
| no2-1... is a detail of
| https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Black-Sea-Nettle-
| Provi...
|
| https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/crop-of-golden-gate-
| ca... is the cable (that you can see) from
| https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Golden-Gate-
| Tower-50mm...
|
| For its time, 35mm + a good scanner was not something you
| could get near with digital cameras. The good DSLRs are
| there now for 35mm... and then I can argue with myself
| about the difference between the curves on film vs doing it
| in post in photoshop and the ease taking multiple photos vs
| getting one shot (or a bracket) and hoping and the cost of
| a _good_ digital camera vs the cost of processing film...
| its arguments that you can see fought out in my camera
| bags.
|
| And this is where I've scanned with an Epson scanner. I've
| got an older epson photo scanner. Its lid has a light in it
| (so it can transmit - and scan film). And it has a tray so
| that you can put 120 or 4x5 film in, secure it (without
| having it touch any of the glass and scratch) and scan a
| flat plane.
|
| And it did fairly well. I used it to scan my xpan shots
| (since the Nikon scanner won't do that).
| https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Sunset-Marin-
| Headlands... is one such photo.
| Aloha wrote:
| The thing I liked about film, was I knew what I was
| getting out of the box, and the images would largely take
| on the look I wanted based on my choice of film.
| lepouet wrote:
| Yes, the quality is better, you lose the film "feeling" but
| everything else is so much easier...
| vvoid wrote:
| The silver particles in the film aren't very transparent and
| you can see this for yourself with a microscope. All tonal
| representations of B&W film, whether a scan or traditional
| enlargement, depend on limitations of resolving power to blur
| or alias the grain into a tone.
|
| Correspondingly, you will see a difference in apparent grain
| from different scanners at different resolutions. If you think
| there is nothing to be gained by scanning on a drum or virtual
| drum, pick one of your best negatives and pay to have it
| professionally scanned!
| rasz wrote:
| 1. old software - For 5-15K hardware keeping dedicated $100 2007
| iMac is a non issue. No need to upgrade when it does what its
| supposed to do.
|
| 2. "3,000 Euro repair bill" "The problem is when the FireWire
| port dies the only repair that is ever proven to be effective has
| been to replace the entire main board." is BS from repair
| company. Where do they get the replacement boards from? answer is
| they dont, they fix it by replacing $1 component and charging for
| knowledge and rarity. You are paying for secret knowledge of
| where to hit the machine with hammer. Hasselblad neither
| manufactures chips nor ordered custom Firewire controller just
| for this very niche product. Someone like STS Telecom
| (https://www.ststele.com https://www.youtube.com/@ststele/videos)
| or iPad Rehab (https://www.ipadrehab.com/
| https://www.youtube.com/@JessaJones/videos) will be able to do
| the repair at reasonable (compared to $3K) cost without
| overcharging for working on rare professional photography
| hardware. As a bonus they will happily publish reverse
| engineering results so others can also repair their scanners in
| the future. The issue might be as trivial and simple as bad
| capacitors in need of a recap, this is 15 year old hardware after
| all.
| bambax wrote:
| Not exactly relevant for hi-def pro photography, but if you're
| struggling to scan paper photos, and you can't find a proper
| scanner, a hybrid solution that kind of works is to take a low-
| res scan (using any tech, even a phone) and enhance the result /
| augment the resolution using some kind of AI software suite or
| online SaaS.
| derefr wrote:
| Naive question incoming:
|
| Does a good modern camera with a macro lens, shooting from a few
| inches away, have a higher effective DPI than this scanner?
|
| If so, is the only problem trying to get a predictable, smooth
| grid of pictures from such a camera to stitch together?
|
| And if so, couldn't you just stick the camera to... a CNC
| machine, say? Is that not a thing?
| bluedino wrote:
| Weird colors, lens distortion, there is a lot of weird stuff
| when using a phone camera to 'scan' a paper document
|
| All fixable with todays filters etc though I'm sure.
| aeturnum wrote:
| Sure? Maybe? Do you have a working setup?
|
| When you get down to it - a scanner is "just" a really specific
| digital camera with a film holder. The problem is that quality
| is more about setting up the entire system consistently (film
| aligned on the scanning camera focal plane correctly, can shift
| from frame to frame, etc). As with all photographic setups, the
| chain is only as good as its weakest link.
|
| It is probably possible for any single person to build, through
| sufficient time and effort, a "better" scanner than any model
| manufactured - but once you are spending that much time and
| effort on it you've "lost the plot" of the whole effort.
| derefr wrote:
| I guess what I would naively expect to exist here, is some
| kind of "kit" for turning a DSLR into a 2D flatbed raster
| scanner, in the vein of the Pi-based emulation portable
| "kits" -- i.e. "here's a box with all the mechanical and
| structural stuff, flat-packed with foolproof assembly
| mechanisms that guarantee rigidity; just bring-your-own
| expensive electronic bit to slot into it, and watch it go."
| Where in this case the "expensive electronic bit" is the DSLR
| -- probably with a Wiki-maintained list of known-compatible
| camera bodies + lenses.
|
| _If_ such a kit existed, the "sufficient time and effort"
| would amount to maybe five hours and $500. It'd basically be
| the same hardware + electronics as a cheap 3D printer -- just
| without the need for one of the axes. (Mind you, that's
| presuming all the imaging is flowing directly from the camera
| to software on your computer, without any electronics in the
| device MITMing the signal to do computational photography
| stuff. If it needed to stitch the photos itself, it'd be a
| lot more expensive.)
|
| Enough people seem to both have this exact problem, _and_
| have the ingenuity to be the one person who produces the kit
| to scratch their own itch but also the itch of everyone else
| in the community from then-on, that I would be somewhat
| surprised if at least an _attempt_ at such a kit didn 't
| already exist.
| aeturnum wrote:
| I mean, I agree that such a kit would be hugely popular and
| useful. You just don't understand how hard the problem is.
| There's a reason that people pay thousands of dollars for
| twenty year old hardware.
|
| > _I would be somewhat surprised if at least an attempt at
| such a kit didn 't already exist._
|
| Oh there are lots of attempts!
| derefr wrote:
| Do you expect that an existing mid-tier consumer 3D
| printer company could make such a kit (with sufficient
| quality to be useful) as a byproduct of their 3D-printer
| production line -- the same way that iRobot makes
| "robotics platforms" that are just Roomba vacuums, minus
| the vacuum mechanism, plus an SDK?
|
| If so, would it be a good idea to go bug one of the 3D
| printer companies -- most likely, one of the ones that
| frequently pumps out new models to address the problems
| customers complained about in previous models -- to try
| doing this?
| aeturnum wrote:
| I don't think so.
|
| The problem is that you have a... thick 160mm plane (the
| 'target') that you need to orient exactly along another
| plane some distance away. You are going to need to mount
| things on the target and move them through with good
| speed and precision. Every link in the chain has the
| potential to throw off the alignment. Traditionally this
| is solved through a centralized manufacturing process
| where one group of people get really good at building
| (and maintaining) the devices such that they generally
| line things up reliably (i.e. a company making a
| scanner).
|
| It's kind of like P=NP for manufacturing I guess? If you
| can really figure out how to instruct a random person to
| get an above-average scan out of their DSLR, you can
| instruct them to make almost anything.
| XantosD wrote:
| I've been playing with this idea. Planning on making an
| attachment for my 3D printer, but haven't gotten around to it
| yet - for scanning medium format negatives
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-28 23:01 UTC)