"GSalisbury" <salsburyg at comcast dot net> wrote in message
news:Y6WdnS-zUurOQ33VnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:Y6CDk.1956$c45.1499@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> | www.carlmcmillan.com
> | --
> | "Bennett Price" <bennett.price@comcast.net> wrote in message
> | news:bcedndGTOtKX6kPVnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> | > CSM1 wrote:
> | >> I don't have a Canon Lide 600, but I do have a Canon Canoscan 8400F.
> | >>
> | >> As far as I know you can always re-position the marquee.
> | >>
> | >> I would not recommend the Lide series of Canon scanners for scanning
> | >> postage stamps.
> | >>
> | >> The Lide series are CIS sensors, CIS sensors don't have any depth of
> | >> field.
> | >> I would choose one the CanoScan series instead.
> | >>
> | >> Example of CIS vs CCD.
> | >> http://www.carlmcmillan.com/DOF/DepthofField.htm
> | >>
> | >> My choice would be the CanoScan 8800F today.
> | >>
> | >> You can download manuals for the scanner you are interested in from
> | >> Canon.
> | >> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...upportIndexAct
> | >>
> | >> Most of the manuals are in HTML format. Which is less than idea.
> | >>
> | >> Your Epson 1670 perfection is a CCD sensor.
> | >>
> | > Why is depth of field a need for postage stamps? What could be
> flatter?
> |
> | You may not need great depth of field for postage stamps.
> |
> | But none-the-less CCD sensors have better images that are correctly
> focused
> | and they have a lens in the system.
> |
> | CIS sensors don't have any optical components at all.
> | C stands for Contact. I is Image, S is Sensor.
> |
> | Contact as in touching.
> | Since in a scanner, the sensor is not actually touching the object (it
> is
> | separated by a layer of glass), the focus is not as sharp.
> |
> | --
> | CSM1
> | http://
> |
> This depth of field aspect is interesting.
> Not something I would have given any consideration as I mostly scan flat
> document type things.
> I appreciate [now] how that might be associated with a better scanner or
> potentially produce better scans.
> Is the "depth" typically something adjustable as with the aperture in an
> SLR
> camera?
> Thx.
> Geo.
>
Not adjustable. Depth of field in a scanner is the result of the physical
design of the scanner.
CCD sensors have good depth of field because of the lens in the system.
CCD scanners have fixed aperture and fixed focal distance. (We hope the
sharp focus is at the surface of the glass).
Depth of field is very simple, the area of an image that is in acceptable
focus, near distance to far distance.
In the case of a scanner it is the height above the glass that can produce
an acceptable image.
No; basically, a CIS sensor expects the scan target to be TOUCHING the
sensor itself (there is no lens at all). However, it is NEVER touching
the sensor, because there is a piece of glass between the scan target
and the sensor. The images are never sharp.
GSalisbury wrote:
> "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:Y6CDk.1956$c45.1499@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> | www.carlmcmillan.com
> | --
> | "Bennett Price" <bennett.price@comcast.net> wrote in message
> | news:bcedndGTOtKX6kPVnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> | > CSM1 wrote:
> | >> I don't have a Canon Lide 600, but I do have a Canon Canoscan 8400F.
> | >>
> | >> As far as I know you can always re-position the marquee.
> | >>
> | >> I would not recommend the Lide series of Canon scanners for scanning
> | >> postage stamps.
> | >>
> | >> The Lide series are CIS sensors, CIS sensors don't have any depth of
> | >> field.
> | >> I would choose one the CanoScan series instead.
> | >>
> | >> Example of CIS vs CCD.
> | >> http://www.carlmcmillan.com/DOF/DepthofField.htm
> | >>
> | >> My choice would be the CanoScan 8800F today.
> | >>
> | >> You can download manuals for the scanner you are interested in from
> | >> Canon.
> | >> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...upportIndexAct
> | >>
> | >> Most of the manuals are in HTML format. Which is less than idea.
> | >>
> | >> Your Epson 1670 perfection is a CCD sensor.
> | >>
> | > Why is depth of field a need for postage stamps? What could be flatter?
> |
> | You may not need great depth of field for postage stamps.
> |
> | But none-the-less CCD sensors have better images that are correctly
> focused
> | and they have a lens in the system.
> |
> | CIS sensors don't have any optical components at all.
> | C stands for Contact. I is Image, S is Sensor.
> |
> | Contact as in touching.
> | Since in a scanner, the sensor is not actually touching the object (it is
> | separated by a layer of glass), the focus is not as sharp.
> |
> | --
> | CSM1
> | http://
> |
> This depth of field aspect is interesting.
> Not something I would have given any consideration as I mostly scan flat
> document type things.
> I appreciate [now] how that might be associated with a better scanner or
> potentially produce better scans.
> Is the "depth" typically something adjustable as with the aperture in an SLR
> camera?
> Thx.
> Geo.
>
>
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:F96Ek.1993$YU2.1050@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
[snip]
| > | > Why is depth of field a need for postage stamps? What could be
| > flatter?
| > |
| > | You may not need great depth of field for postage stamps.
| > |
| > | But none-the-less CCD sensors have better images that are correctly
| > focused
| > | and they have a lens in the system.
| > |
| > | CIS sensors don't have any optical components at all.
| > | C stands for Contact. I is Image, S is Sensor.
| > |
| > | Contact as in touching.
| > | Since in a scanner, the sensor is not actually touching the object (it
| > is
| > | separated by a layer of glass), the focus is not as sharp.
| > |
| > | --
| > | CSM1
| > | http://
| > |
| > This depth of field aspect is interesting.
| > Not something I would have given any consideration as I mostly scan flat
| > document type things.
| > I appreciate [now] how that might be associated with a better scanner or
| > potentially produce better scans.
| > Is the "depth" typically something adjustable as with the aperture in an
| > SLR
| > camera?
| > Thx.
| > Geo.
| >
|
|
| Not adjustable. Depth of field in a scanner is the result of the physical
| design of the scanner.
| CCD sensors have good depth of field because of the lens in the system.
| CCD scanners have fixed aperture and fixed focal distance. (We hope the
| sharp focus is at the surface of the glass).
|
| Depth of field is very simple, the area of an image that is in acceptable
| focus, near distance to far distance.
|
| In the case of a scanner it is the height above the glass that can produce
| an acceptable image.
|
| Depth of field
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
|
| --
| CSM1
| http://www.carlmcmillan.com
| --
Thanks for this.
I appreciate the nature of depth of field as I've played with cameras and
lenses a decent amount.
My question was towards the [a CCD? with a lens] scanner.
As I noted I hadn't considered depth before and was wondering, since a lens
was in the loop, was it somehow focusable at scan time either mechanically
or via the scanning software.
Your answer provided the no but I still learned something - make sure my
next scanner is a CCD [type] and don't bother lowballing - get a good one.
Thx.
Geo.
Might I suggest, where focus is a problem, editing in Picasa and using their
"sharpen" tool. It can be breathtaking in certain situations. It's free and
is worth looking at.
"rodney" <pookiethai@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:48def675$0$70631$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "Bennett Price" >>
>> Why is depth of field a need for postage stamps? What could be flatter?
>
> I would echo Carl's comments,
> we have this thing in stamp collecting called "fly specking"
> I like my stamps so I can see the individual hairs on the
> perforations.
> Hence Carl's advice was pertinent and saved me purchasing
> a model I would have been unhappy with.
>
>
Yes, I have Picasa Phil,
yet I have never messed around with the sharpen tool,
didn't know it existed.
Picasa is absolutely brilliant for what I need,
that is, a free orientation tool option.
Postage stamp often do not have the image proper
relating to the perforations, so the ability to tweak
the orientation is a necessity.
A slick piece of software, however do not like the
"backup" of all images it creates.
"Phil Ardussi" <nospamplease@wpa.net> wrote in message
news:aktEk.5955$YN5.578@newsfe03.iad...
> Might I suggest, where focus is a problem, editing in Picasa and using
> their "sharpen" tool. It can be breathtaking in certain situations. It's
> free and is worth looking at.
>
> "rodney" <pookiethai@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:48def675$0$70631$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>>
>> "Bennett Price" >>
>>> Why is depth of field a need for postage stamps? What could be flatter?
>>
>> I would echo Carl's comments,
>> we have this thing in stamp collecting called "fly specking"
>> I like my stamps so I can see the individual hairs on the
>> perforations.
>> Hence Carl's advice was pertinent and saved me purchasing
>> a model I would have been unhappy with.
>>
>>
>
>
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:44:17 -0500, "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com>
wrote:
>I don't have a Canon Lide 600, but I do have a Canon Canoscan 8400F.
>
>As far as I know you can always re-position the marquee.
>
>I would not recommend the Lide series of Canon scanners for scanning postage
>stamps.
>
>The Lide series are CIS sensors, CIS sensors don't have any depth of field.
>I would choose one the CanoScan series instead.
>
>Example of CIS vs CCD.
>http://www.carlmcmillan.com/DOF/DepthofField.htm
>
>My choice would be the CanoScan 8800F today.
>
>You can download manuals for the scanner you are interested in from Canon.
>http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...upportIndexAct
>
My UMAX Astra 2100U has died (left it plugged in too long), so I'm in
the market for another scanner.
The NewEgg site customer reviews for the Canon Canoscan8400F you
recommend mention a dust problem inside the glass. User IrishPirate
states that he cleans the 'platen' with alcohol and a cloth and
'problem solved'. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ge=1&Keywords=
I know what a typewriter 'platen' is. It's the large rubber roller
that moves your typing paper. I don't know what a 'platen' is on a
scanner. Or how to access it. I perused the manual that you steered me
to, but don't see anything in the 'Troubleshooting' about cleaning a
platen. Would this be unauthorized maintenance? How would you access
the 'platen'?
"John B. Smith" <crasso@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5hodi4lc2arobq89c4a33opds8a3c09mps@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:44:17 -0500, "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I don't have a Canon Lide 600, but I do have a Canon Canoscan 8400F.
>>
>>As far as I know you can always re-position the marquee.
>>
>>I would not recommend the Lide series of Canon scanners for scanning
>>postage
>>stamps.
>>
>>The Lide series are CIS sensors, CIS sensors don't have any depth of
>>field.
>>I would choose one the CanoScan series instead.
>>
>>Example of CIS vs CCD.
>>http://www.carlmcmillan.com/DOF/DepthofField.htm
>>
>>My choice would be the CanoScan 8800F today.
>>
>>You can download manuals for the scanner you are interested in from Canon.
>>http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...upportIndexAct
>>
> My UMAX Astra 2100U has died (left it plugged in too long), so I'm in
> the market for another scanner.
> The NewEgg site customer reviews for the Canon Canoscan8400F you
> recommend mention a dust problem inside the glass. User IrishPirate
> states that he cleans the 'platen' with alcohol and a cloth and
> 'problem solved'.
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ge=1&Keywords=
> I know what a typewriter 'platen' is. It's the large rubber roller
> that moves your typing paper. I don't know what a 'platen' is on a
> scanner. Or how to access it. I perused the manual that you steered me
> to, but don't see anything in the 'Troubleshooting' about cleaning a
> platen. Would this be unauthorized maintenance? How would you access
> the 'platen'?
The platen is the glass that you lay the document on to scan.
Re: Scan talk. 
Linear Mode
