Scanography

David · Expire: 2013-01-25

There's nowhere to really put this image, or to talk about this technique. It's definitely NOT manual focus, but there's no way to classify it as automatic focus, either. Also, there's no camera involved. And the possibilities for this are great and can lead to images upwards of 500 megapixels. In fact, I made images so big that I don't have a software program powerful enough to open them.

I picked up an issue of Photo Life the other week and it had an article about Scanography -- using a flatbed scanner as the imaging device. The author shared her images -- all flowers images of different types -- and I thought it looked like fun. I picked up a few half-price bouquets at Safeway and here is the first result I got that I could open. It's scanned at 1,200 dpi, 24-bit color (48-bit wasn't doable) to a 5X7 size (downsampled in the scanner from larger-than-letter.) The final image is 40 megs and 8400X6000 pixels (50.4 megapixels.) As I said above, at original size, 2,400 dpi, the images were 545 megapxels and too large to open -- even in Photoshop -- at 220+ megabytes. The following images are a scanned image and a 100% crop (taken from a screen capture, so it won't be full resolution.)

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

Wow! Amazing results!

I'm been interested in the technique for some years, thinking landscapes, or any subject that remains still enough; haven't tried it yet. Thanks for referencing the Photo Life article!

Adding more RAM to the computer will enable the software to open those large images, and to scan with 48-bit color... Wink

David · Expire: 2013-01-25

I've got 10 gigs of RAM and a six-core processor! Shocked

These images are just enormous at full resolution.

So I have found this technique to have one major limiting factor: DoF. Scanners are designed to focus only on what is immediately opposite on the platen. For instance, I did this image late last night:

You can see on, for example, the Vivitar 400 and the Sigma Macro that the lettering is already losing focus. On the lenses with the apertures closed, the blades are all out of focus. Would this be a viable landscape photography option if the DoF could be increased to infinity? I think absolutely yes. Even at the relatively low-res 5X7 1,200-1,600 dpi, an image prints at 100%, 300 dpi at 92 inches wide or greater. Downsampled to monitor size, the results could be amazing.

I suspect, and this is all just musing out of school for me, that someone with hardware knowledge could change the scanner's focal point from 1/16th of an inch away to a further point. That could turn a typical, inexpensive scanner into the highest-resolution camera ever made.

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

16Gb RAM might be enough; 32Gb is better...iirc, there needs to be enough ram to hold two to three, yes two to three, uncompressed copies of the image, in addition to what is needed for OS & program(s).

I haven't read the article so I don't know particulars of this specific technique (yet), but all the other info I found used a lens to focus an image exactly at the platen. DOF is then achieved by stopping down the lens. For landscapes, I'm thinking large format camera with scanner in place of the film. With dSLR sensor, a slight mis-focus on the sensor...the dof at the sensor is extremely narrow, same as for scanner -- dof of image is produced by the lens.

Scanners do focus within a very narrow range; for slides & film my V500 tries to focus starting at half the thickness of standard slide mount above the platen, then adjusts for best contrast to achieve best focus point within the film for producing the scan image.

Some of the info I saw used nearly any old scanner got on 'baY for $10...

David · Expire: 2013-01-25

Ah, got it. That's a much better approach.

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

Ah, I got it now too. I probably won't be paying US$12 to read the article because I found Janet's web site describing her 'lens-less' technique. For subjects that lend themselves well, this method seems much preferable to any system that uses a lens. A lens is needed for landscapes I think...

I'm still marveling at your awesome results David! Very Happy

David · Expire: 2013-01-25

Then I shall not deprive you of two more!

A minimalist approach -- a single sunflower petal. About 1.25 inches long in real life -- about 26 inches long printed at 100%, 300 dpi.

This is a really fun technique and the images are fantastic. I'm going to try some other subjects in the coming weeks, hopefully this can be more than a limited-use or one-trick technique.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Nisseliten · Joined: 26 May 2012 Posts: 332 Location: Sweden

I can't shake the feeling this thread will end up with a picture of a high definition butt soon..

Himself · Expire: 2013-05-30

I find them crystal clear David.
Would you mind posting a picture with the contraption?

David · Expire: 2013-01-25

Will, do, Himself. I'll make sure it's a photo of me scanographying my butt, for Nisseliten.

And yeah, I'm certain this is old news in photography. I have no illusions that it's a recent discovery or a new invention.

enliten · Expire: 2014-07-03

i've seen hack jobs where a lens is used in conjunction with the scanner to get huge panoramic landscapes

Auswanderer · Joined: 29 May 2012 Posts: 14 Location: U.K.

That this is an over-complex way of getting un-natural pictures with no DoF!

Should call it flatography.

Rolling Eyes

Andreas