New type of scanner? 0

[JadeGiant]

This is new to me, but I am not sure how new the technology is. Does anyone use this type of scanner? If so, feedback? It looks like it could possibly easily scan over sized art which would be a nice benefit. 

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/shine-ultra-next-gen-portable-powerful-scanner?fbclid=IwAR1iUQxi34Z4qfv5Fs3DTGtR6xxobo4qzVcj7Y-5ILjjWIzjcEsQDQN3-fs#/

 

[Kohei]

If you do some searching you'll see that this is not their first scanner.
It's got a few comic creators freaking out thinking about bootlegging product.

There are a lot of reviews and questions and answers on Amazon regarding their previous scanner

https://www.amazon.com/CZUR-Aura-Portable-Personal-Compatible/dp/B07MHLBSV6?th=1

 

[alxjhnsn]

My sister in law is thinking of buying. If she does, I'll let you know.

[Brian Peck]

11 hours ago, JadeGiant said:

This is new to me, but I am not sure how new the technology is. Does anyone use this type of scanner? If so, feedback? It looks like it could possibly easily scan over sized art which would be a nice benefit. 

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/shine-ultra-next-gen-portable-powerful-scanner?fbclid=IwAR1iUQxi34Z4qfv5Fs3DTGtR6xxobo4qzVcj7Y-5ILjjWIzjcEsQDQN3-fs#/

 

Good for text and OCR but it would suck for scanning artwork 340dpi very low res and. Its not a scanner. Scanner had a moving head and takes multiple images and puts them all together, this is a basic camera on an overhead arm. It is for books with text and not a very big area I would say 10x16 at most. I would spend twice that and get a good epson printer scanner combination that is 10x better than this.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Brian Peck

[vodou]

7 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

340dpi very low res

Wrong. 300dpi at 1:1 scale is art book quality. As in: all those AE people are spending $125+ on

7 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

this is a basic camera on an overhead arm. It is for books with text and not a very big area I would say 10x16 at most.

Pure assumption here. All scanners are "basic cameras"

Some less "basic" than others, of course. Anybody got a spare $40k for this?

Look closely at Heritage "scans" - they are not scans at all, they are photographs

That's why in many, when the crop isn't to the exact art border you'll see whatever else is laying about on the shooting surface!

I believe most folks are very happy with HA-quality "scans". If not...let's hear the complaints.

[JadeGiant]

11 hours ago, alxjhnsn said:

My sister in law is thinking of buying. If she does, I'll let you know.

Thanks Alex - I appreciate that!

 

[JadeGiant]

11 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

Good for text and OCR but it would suck for scanning artwork 340dpi very low res and. Its not a scanner. Scanner had a moving head and takes multiple images and puts them all together, this is a basic camera on an overhead arm. It is for books with text and not a very big area I would say 10x16 at most. I would spend twice that and get a good epson printer scanner combination that is 10x better than this.

Doesn't the artist editions use a camera/picture for their publications? If so, the "camera" approach seems to work great for those. 

[JadeGiant]

3 hours ago, vodou said:

Wrong. 300dpi at 1:1 scale is art book quality. As in: all those AE people are spending $125+ on

Pure assumption here. All scanners are "basic cameras"

Some less "basic" than others, of course. Anybody got a spare $40k for this?

Look closely at Heritage "scans" - they are not scans at all, they are photographs

That's why in many, when the crop isn't to the exact art border you'll see whatever else is laying about on the shooting surface!

I believe most folks are very happy with HA-quality "scans". If not...let's hear the complaints.

This is what I was thinking as well and why my initial thought was that these look very interesting. 

[vodou]

3 minutes ago, JadeGiant said:

...my initial thought was that these look very interesting. 

Me too

[Taylor G]

300dpi is adequate if you're making prints, you need better if you're doing any editing.

Heritage scans are adequate for auction previews or smaller-scale reproduction in "Art of ...." books, no reputable publisher would use them in AE-style books.

Dunbier recommends the Epson 12000XL, scanning art at 1200dpi or more.

Just imagine that this art is being scattered to the winds, and these scans are going to be all that we have left.  It would be nice if they were better than print quality.

[vodou]

21 minutes ago, Taylor G said:

Dunbier recommends the Epson 12000XL, scanning art at 1200dpi or more.

$1650 refurb, $2800 new

Maybe with HIS budget

https://www.google.com/shopping/product/7466172206694545487/online?q=Epson+12000X&newwindow=1&sxsrf=ACYBGNTvrGBTYPRg6uBCzuxM8ZFsNlC2TQ:1578499454277&biw=1600&bih=745&prds=paur:ClkAsKraX1TBrb_9ek6VL_a5SHs8ToUZMqQNXp0L96WbncJvoSwajltdY27iXD41VBPBSb1elRQbNr_1z2zlkWcxpWzya3AAexZ_ZlyHqTYxgxhr4APGnIYBKxIZAFPVH721_Uayhp8TUGOyE2ACQ0lcoCmp5g,scoring:tp&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFpd7hsPTmAhVBMt8KHTJMBDAQ0ykIjAE

and still only capturing "small art" meaning anything larger than 12x17 is a crummy stitch-job or requires professionally shot with camera (and operator, if you don't own/know how yourself).

Suuuuuure. I'm looking for other and/or cheaper options for larger pieces, non-flat art, etc. OP may or may not have it with that exact linked product, but I'm certainly interested to see where the technology goes in that direction, down the road. Or...$40k I shared a pic of

11x17-limited scanning tech today is about as cutting edge, in general, as Spencer's web site

FYI - stitched together 2x art is not what I want in AEs for $125+, no matter how much dp(i) action is there

[alxjhnsn]

There's a place in Houston called HPI (originally, Houston Photo Imaging) that can scan giant size stuff at extreme resolution for about $50. They will make a DVD or put the scan on your USB stick. I find it much more convenient to do my large scans there than to own a scanner bigger than my 11x17 HP Officejet 7612. I suspect similar services exist in most large towns and cities.

 

My Gene Colan DD & BW was scanned by them at 600 dpi and is something like 400MB as a TIF file.

Edited January 8, 2020 by alxjhnsn

[vodou]

1 hour ago, alxjhnsn said:

There's a place in Houston called HPI (originally, Houston Photo Imaging) that can scan giant size stuff at extreme resolution for about $50. They will make a DVD or put the scan on your USB stick. I find it much more convenient to do my large scans there than to own a scanner bigger than my 11x17 HP Officejet 7612. I suspect similar services exist in most large towns and cities.

 

My Gene Colan DD & BW was scanned by them at 600 dpi and is something like 400MB as a TIF file.

True; some places still shoot to 4x5 transparency, about the same price. It adds up though, unless it's just one piece.

However, you own (more likely lease) that 40k machine...800 scans and your customers paid for it

[Brian Peck]

3 hours ago, JadeGiant said:

Doesn't the artist editions use a camera/picture for their publications? If so, the "camera" approach seems to work great for those. 

Artists Editions are scanned at 600 dpi (optical)

[Brian Peck]

7 hours ago, vodou said:

Wrong. 300dpi at 1:1 scale is art book quality. As in: all those AE people are spending $125+ on

Pure assumption here. All scanners are "basic cameras"

Some less "basic" than others, of course. Anybody got a spare $40k for this?

Look closely at Heritage "scans" - they are not scans at all, they are photographs

That's why in many, when the crop isn't to the exact art border you'll see whatever else is laying about on the shooting surface!

I believe most folks are very happy with HA-quality "scans". If not...let's hear the complaints.

When "scanning" a page against glass you want to do 400dpi and higher. Using this camera set about a foot from the book or artwork the quality degrades the father it is from the device. I never said anything about HA scans. For what it is you are way better off with Epson 7710 printer scanner or getting a mount for your phone and take pics with that. I just think this item isn't worth buying unless you are doing OCR work.

 

[vodou]

12 minutes ago, Brian Peck said:

Artists Editions are scanned at 600 dpi (optical)

That's what Scott asks/hopes for but I know for a fact he's accepted 300dpi, from those that scan their own art for him.

7 minutes ago, Brian Peck said:

Using this camera set about a foot from the book or artwork the quality degrades the father it is from the device.

"Distance" degrading (or not mattering at all) depends on the lens/focal point setting. You have used a SLR/DSLR at once in IRL...right? Anything prosumer ($1k or less) is going to give you way more "information" that either you or IDW needs, a lot will just be discarded (by you or IDW production) - especially if it's "color" b/w

11 minutes ago, Brian Peck said:

I never said anything about HA scans.

Good for you. I hope it's okay that I went ahead and added it to the conversation anyway

[Rick2you2]

I have been involved with this subject for years with the printing of my newsletters. The high level of detail which a professional print job generates (As I recall, mine told me it is 2,400 dpi), won’t matter unless you plan to do a large blow-up. That level of dpi is great for billboards; but not in my plans. For me, I have, on rare occasions, noted a difference between photocopies of 300 dpi and 600 dpi, but I also specifically recall liking the 300 dpi better on some copies. No, I don’t know why.

So, unless you are planning to wallpaper a room, or ceiling, with a copy of that Red Sonia image you just bought, I think 300 should be plenty.