Re: [ARSCLIST] Scanning LP covers

[Francesco Martinelli <fmartinelli@xxxxxx>]

It is true indeed - the differences in measure units and official sizes
fooled me.
Just for the record, many sites advertise this units as A3 (11.7" x 16.5")
while it's actually something they call A3+ (12.2" x 17.2"). I don't know if
A3 is officially a standard size, but be that as it may, the difference is
enough to make them useful for scanning covers, thank you very much for the
info. Unfortunately it's unlikely I'll find it on Ebay for Italy, but I'll
try to get a new unit for the archive.
Best
Francesco

----- Original Message -----
From: <audio101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Scanning LP covers


> Hello,
>
>  The Epson 836XL scanners will scan a 12.2" x 17" image, i own one! and i
can scan an entire album cover with room to spare on all sides in 1 pass! I
have scanned over 500 albums with it so far and the quality is simply
amazing! best 250.00 I ever spent.
> I specifically bought this model because of its features and price.
>
>
>  Epson does make a 836 scanner and that is NOT the same, the model MUST
have the XL on the end. The Expression 836XL and 1640XL scanners are pro
quality scanners with a retail price around 2500.00 ea.
>
>   I see these refurbished on ebay for 350-400 all the time. and in my
opinion, the best way to scan album covers.
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Mike Richter <mrichter@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: 08/09/03 02:56 AM
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Scanning LP covers
>
> >
> > At 08:57 AM 8/9/2003 +0200, Francesco Martinelli wrote:
> >As far as I can see, these are A3 scanners, and will leave out a strip 1
> >cm wide from any cover. You can adjust/compensate or just live with it,
> >but I would not recommend them for archival work, as often some
> >interesting info will fall exactly into that strip (series number, etc).
> >35x35 cm scanners do exist for specialized markets but they are awfully
> >big and expensive (I found them used to scan tile designs). At this point
> >the digicam options (with the caveat about light and distortion) seems
> the
> >most viable for me.
> >Francesco
>
> It seems that we're coming back to the suggestion I offered. In that case,
> let me offer some detail.
>
> The copy stands I'm familiar with tend to overkill for your needs; a
> home-made rig is in fact quite simple since you do not need variation in
> the layout. Were I doing it, I'd plan on four small strobes for
> consistency
> of illumination and color temperature; the camera needs an external flash
> sync or hot shoe. You do not need zoom on the camera and if your
> requirement for resolution is reasonable, there are some excellent lenses
> on inexpensive cameras with ~2 megapixels. Assuming a moderately priced
> printer if you are going to paper or a usual computer monitor, that will
> be
> ample. (Figure on 150 dpi for color printing and do the arithmetic
> yourself. Of course, the pixel count for the monitor is easily estimated
> from the display dimensions.) If you go the low-cost route, you may want
> to
> put a supplemental lens on the camera (usually, it's in the mount on the
> copy stand) so you can use the optimal focus of the lens.
>
> I don't know what the market offers today; zoom lenses are the norm for
> moderate-cost digicams and finding a non-zoom with moderate resolution, a
> good lens and external sync may be impossible.
>
>
> Mike
> mrichter@xxxxxxx
> http://www.mrichter.com/
> >