Dear Sir:
Please excuse my 'between the line ' answering method ---- pls see below
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Egerton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Flat Bed Scanners.
> Ross,
>
> I agree that, although scanners were designed for flat stuff,
> they are excellent for photography, cheap (!) photography. I have
> a $100Can Acer scanner (which I got for $70 with a rebate offer)
> with which I've gotten some astounding scans.
============================================
I will try your suggestion --- except that my passion is cypraea -----
perhaps it will work --- at least for samll specimens -------
I will try 'mappa' as an experiment ---- I have no idea what the 'depth of
field' is on a flatbed scanner --- no matter the price! Mine is an HP6100c
(I bought this machine for a different purpose ---- dealing with
genealogical documents) ----
Sounds like a great idea!!
===========================================
My favorites so far
> are of a 2" Cancer magister (crab) that the scan has blown up to
> nearly 3' at 600K. The detail is astounding; every bump and bristle
> in the face and mouthparts is visible.
===========================================
What would you believe the 'depth of field' to be?
===========================================
Of course, flat things are
> better, like the 1" sanddollar I scanned into a 3' image...WOW!
> I doubt I could produce an image like that with a $70 camera.
> I'm becoming a scanner junkie!
===========================================> Thanks for the great idea!
===========================================
> Peter Egerton,
> Vancouver, BC
> (if you want to see the above scans, I'll send them to you)
>
>
>
> At 08:40 AM 6/26/00 +0000, you wrote:
> >Bod Doyle Wrote;
> >
> >>Olivier has covered some of the info needed when
> >>creating images for the web, but a flatbed scanner
> >>is really only designed for... well, flat stuff.
> >
> >This is true - they were DESIGNED for "flat stuff" - BUT, with a good
> >quality scanner like UMAX, a rather remarkable depth of field is
> >possible. I've had excellent results with a good variety of shells -
> >like the Cymbiolacca perplicata (Hedley, 1902) on the
> >http://manandmollusc.net/ home page. The main drawback with a scanner
> >is that often the colors in the resulting image are lighter (or for
> >very dark shells, darker) than in the shell -so if you are trying to
> >show a DARK orange shell, for example, often it will only show as medium
> orange.
> >
> >Swimming weather up here now, at last!!,
> >-Ross.
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Peter Egerton, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
> Collector of worldwide Mollusca,
> lifetime student of zoology and computers.
> Step into my website:
> http://www.intergate.bc.ca/personal/seashell/index.html
> -Links to add, remove, alter? Just ask!
> -This is an on-going project.
> -Suggestions always welcome :-)
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
|
