in house dollar bill thumbnail
 Total: 42,817 books
 New: 194 books




small login logo

Please enter your details to login and enjoy all the fun of the fair!

Not a member? Join us here. Everything is FREE and ALWAYS will be.

Forgotten your login details? No problem, you can get your password back here.

Scanning in the 2020s - Feedback

Pages: [1]

topic icon Author Topic: Scanning in the 2020s - Feedback  (Read 2069 times)

wahski

message icon
Scanning in the 2020s - Feedback
« on: August 17, 2021, 06:34:48 AM »

Apologise for the more than 20 questions here, but thought I might throw out my thoughts and see what comes back.

I am after feedback / confirmation what I am uploading is acceptable size, resolution & quality to match whatever devices people have.  What are people reading these things on these days, and what reasons made them decide their specific resolution / bit depth / dpi when uploading?
Do people mainly prefer to utilise the web version or the downloaded file version?

Could not find anything all that recent on site as to best recommendations re: scans.

I found "Scanning Tutorial" from 2008 (https://comicbookplus.com/forum/?topic=652.0)
which is detailed, but guess somethings have changed since then.

-HDD capacities have gone way up (can get 20TB now, my first HDD was 20Mb)
-Screen resolution /bit depth on all devices have increased.
-Processing speeds/capabilites increased greatly to handle bigger files/high resolutions.
-Scanning technology/quality has improved and costs come down.
-Plethora of (free and non-free) image tweaking/scanning apps have appeared since.

Took a sample of recently uploaded files and can see they vary:

The Web based version of the images are usually less quality than within the downloaded "CBx" file
ie roughly 975 wide x 1434 high resolution 96dpi 24bit

eg:
https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=79055&comicpage=&b=i  60 pages 157MB (av file size 2.61Mb)
https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=79031&comicpage=&b=i 52 pages 130MB (av file size 2.5Mb)
Here these images are btw 300-400 DPI and 2650 x 3900 resolution

https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=79017&comicpage=&b=i 51 pages 40MB  (av file size .78Mb)
Here images are up to a whopping 4608 x 3370  96DPI 24bit 
[my screen resolution is only 1920 x 1920 - need bigger screen!  :o ]

Is there some reasoning behind wanting images larger than screens can display natively?
Is this because people want to also print a physical copy - hence the higher dpi?
Or want to zoom in and see stuff?

Recently I uploaded  https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=78986 28 pages 36MB (av file size 1.28Mb)
Resolution is 1613 wide x 2160 high  24bit 96dpi.

The reason I went 2160 horizontal pixels, as that is max horizontal resolution for a 4K screen (which is still not that common but thought it would look good still into the future), but mainly because source material was quite large 10"(25.5cm) x 13"(33cm) so might be hard to read on a smaller device, so gave it higher resolution.

I recently uploaded another comic (which has not appeared on site yet but hopefully soon appear under https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=3396) and made vertical height around 2372 pixels as noticed that is max resolution of an iPad Pro. (since most comics are usually taller than they are wide picked this resolution out of thin [non-covid-filled] air)

In order to scan/create CBZ files adequately, I think it's best to know the target audience / device.
Are they desktop computer screens / laptop screens, iPad / Tablet / Kindle / phone?
I guess via web traffic, could determine what remote device being used to view the image.
But you cannot tell what device is being used to view the downloaded file version.

Is there a good compromise/ middle ground resolution/dpi that works for most people,
and is sufficient thinking of the future? 

FYI -  I scanned something in circa mid 1990s (picture in your mind - hand drawn on wood an orangutan playing a guitar on a beach in front of a 1957 Chevy in cartoon style), at the time resolution was quiet 'high' being a bmp file - now quality/resolution would be considered very average.

Do people prefer original colours (ie original look and feel of old comic on faded yellowing paper) or 'tweaked' to b/w to look 'fresher'?

It takes me a number of hours per comic to scan, crop, align images and convert them to CBZ format, so would be good to get it right first time.

I have not uploaded that many comics like some others, but if have a moment to take a 'bo-peep' at some things I've done and see if doing ok or what I could do better.  I am towards bottom of page https://comicbookplus.com/?cbplus=contributor_othercontributors_s_s_8#topcbp

If have any feedback/ideas/thoughts on any of this - it would be appreciated -thanks.


ip icon Logged

narfstar

  • Administrator
message icon
Re: Scanning in the 2020s - Feedback
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2021, 11:24:13 AM »

Well I don't know that there is one right answer. I think 300 dpi is optimal but does make the files big. 300 has advantages to printers. We have people like Roy Thomas and Craig Yoe who will use some of our files and prefer 300 dpi. Now if you are doing all black and white the files will not be large. I never set the size but allow what the scanner does and don't really look. I think most files are scanned at 100 without any problems.
ip icon Logged

Snard

  • Administrator
message icon
Re: Scanning in the 2020s - Feedback
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2021, 03:42:05 PM »

I think you have the right idea. Computer monitors, download speeds and hard drives are much better than they were 20 or so years ago when the comic scanning practice began in earnest. When I started scanning comics, page widths of 1200 to 1280 pixels were fairly common. More recently, many people I know are now shooting for 1920 to 2000 wide, sometimes higher for rarer material. The thing to remember is that it's fairly easy for someone to shrink a scan that they consider "too big", but if a book is scanned at a lower resolution, there is no way to recover the detail by enlarging the files.

I don't know if this answers any of your questions. As narfstar said, there is no one right answer, it depends on the material and what you plan to do with the files. Several people I know scan their books at 400 or 600 dpi, and save the raw scan files for possible future use, should standards change some time down the road. Plus, those files are useful for printers who might want to publish scans.

Good luck, and thanks for asking these questions. And don't be afraid to ask more!
ip icon Logged

srca1941

  • VIP
message icon
Re: Scanning in the 2020s - Feedback
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2021, 05:51:08 PM »

Here are my scanning/editing methods and reasoning. Different people have different philosophies, priorities, etc., so take them for whatever you think that they're worth. Hopefully I'm clear in my explanations, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask. (I don't often look at the boards here, so if I don't reply send me a PM or e-mail.)

A couple of notes before I begin. I use Photoshop for editing, so things I say regarding that may be different or unavailable in other programs. GIMP should be pretty close and free. (https://www.gimp.org/) I have it on my laptop, but have hardly used it, so I can't really speak on the differences. Also, I use VueScan for my scanning software. (https://www.hamrick.com/) It works with pretty much any scanner and allows you a lot of control over the scan. Often much more than the software that came with the scanner. I HIGHLY recommend it. (End of commercial.)

1) Resolution

Typically I scan books at 400dpi. Some books I do at 600, but I'll explain that in a moment. Why 400? For one, I think that there is a noticeable difference in clarity between 300 and 400, particularly with more detailed art. 300 is considered the minimum acceptable for printing, and by scanning at 400, that gives a little more than just the minimum. Also, with modern scanners, there really isn't any difference between scanning speed at 300 and 400, so I figure why not do the better resolution? I look at my scanning as digital preservation of the book for the future and treat every book and scan as though it were going to be reprinted someday.

So, regarding 600dpi scans. I do these in only a few situations. One is hyper-detailed art, such as Lou Fine, Will Eisner, Mac Raboy, or their lookalikes. More often though, I do it when I don't want to have to rescan the book in the future. Future-proof it in other words. Examples of this would be rare books that I don't want to damage, or really brittle books that may not survive multiple trips to the scanner. 600dpi is considered the optimal resolution for printing. It's the professional resolution, and laser printer resolution. I highly doubt that there will come a day when more than 600 will be required, so I consider it a "final scan" quality. I don't do this for every scan because it is considerably slower.

For the rest of this post let's use Crack Comics #29 as an example book since I just did that one a few days ago. (At the time of this writing, I still haven't edited and posted it yet, so don't worry if you can't find it.) I scanned that one at 600, because it's an early Quality book where Lou Fine's work was still the "house style" even though he didn't work on this issue. I also made sure to scan the full page, not just the image portion. That will segue into the next point...

2) Raw files



Always save your raw, uncropped, unedited files. You never know when or why you may need to come back to them. Some people say TIF files are what you should save raws as, and they are indeed best. They're lossless, meaning no loss in quality in editing and re-saving. However, they're also much larger in file size than JPGs. JPGs are lossy, meaning they loose quality when resaving, even if you save at maximum quality. For myself, the loss at maximum quality is unnoticeable, so I save my raws as maximum quality JPGs. However, I do not ever do any editing to a raw file and then re-save it as the raw. I always save a copy in a different folder.

So, say I just scanned the example book. I would save it in a folder, "Crack Comics 29." Once I had the book fully scanned, I would create a sub-folder that I called "Master" (for master files, but you could call it "RAW," or "Fred," or whatever you want). I would copy all of the scans in the Master folder and those would become my raws. I would do all of my editing on the files in the parent folder and leave the copies in the Master folder alone.

Now, let's say I made a mistake editing a page. I've already saved and closed the file so I can't simply "undo." I would go to the raw folder, get the unedited version of that page, copy it, and paste it back into the parent Crack Comics 29 folder. I could then re-edit the page without having to scan it again or lose any quality through multiple file saves.

3) Editing

The first step in editing will be straightening and cropping. Photoshop has a straightening tool under Filter>Lens Correction where you can click and drag a line across the image to straighten it. I like to use the panel borders on the right side or the top as guides, but often the artist didn't do perfectly squared lines and corners, so straightening is a lot of eyeballing and seeing what looks best. Cropping is similar. I like to leave a little gutter space around the image and not make it too tight. (I used to do tight crops, but that's another story.) I also don't want too much empty gutter space outside the artwork either. Again, it is subjective.



That brings us to the most subjective part of the process, and what you do here depends on what you envision people doing with your scans. If it's just reading, you might want to do color correction. If so, different people have different standards for what they think is aesthetically pleasing. Some like white paper, some prefer the natural yellowing of time. That is really your call. There is no right or wrong answer. It depends on the person. However, I would urge caution to avoid over-editing. Too much work and your pages can look washed out or overly saturated. There is a sweet spot where you can get the image looking right according to your taste, but not lose too much detail.

This is an example of that sweet spot:



This would be an example of too much editing where color detail begins to deteriorate:



For myself, I like to share my books in raw form. This allows whoever downloads them to fit them to their needs without my own edits getting in the way. That said, I recently switched to a new A3 scanner to be able to do larger, 2 page scans. This new scanner is great, but lacks the color accuracy of the Epson V550 that I have been using, and used to scan the example book. With my new scanner, which I bought used and is older, I have to increase the vibrancy and saturation to make the scan match the look of the physical book. I also think it is a little softer than my Epson, so I've started sharpening my scans a little too. Otherwise, they're unedited.

4) Compression

Now we're back to the technical part of the scanning process. Any scan is going to be a pretty decent file size saved in maximum quality. You will want to compress the JPGs to make the final files reasonable size. Some people also resize the image at this point. Personally, I leave the pages the size they were scanned at unless they were done at 600dpi. Then, I reduce them to 400, but I save the 600 edits separately so that I can come back to them later if needed. I would caution against resizing the page because it defeats the purpose of having a print quality image. However, if you really feel you must, I wouldn't make it any smaller than 1400 pixels wide. That's mostly personal preference, but if I have a book in my collection and see that it has already been scanned by someone else, but is smaller than 1400, I tend to mark it as a book I will rescan in the future. I don't mean that to be a degradation of, or negative comment on anyone else's work, I always appreciate anyone taking their time to scan their books and make them available at any size. I just like print-quality scans to be available if possible.

So, back to compression. Once I finish my editing in Photoshop, I use "Save for Web" to compress my final JPG files for posting. I use medium quality (40) and "optimized." I find that that gives me a good looking image that is not too large in file size, and without noticeable degradation.

Hopefully that gives you some guidance and is what you're looking for. Like I said though, if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

-Eric
ip icon Logged

The Australian Panther

  • VIP
message icon
Re: Scanning in the 2020s - Feedback
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2021, 01:34:59 AM »

Quote
if a book is scanned at a lower resolution, there is no way to recover the detail by enlarging the files. 


I've never scanned anything, but am considering doing so at some future point. So totally green.
You start with a Printer with a built in scanner. How do you adjust the printer to get the required resolution?
I told you, totally green!   
ip icon Logged

srca1941

  • VIP
message icon
Re: Scanning in the 2020s - Feedback
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2021, 03:49:38 AM »

An all-in-one printer like that is likely to have a CIS scanner. If you scan with that, you'll have to be careful. Ideally, you'd want a CCD scanner. I'm sure those terms sound confusing. You can look them up if you'd like, but the technical details aren't really important. What you should remember is that a CIS scanner will be out of focus unless the book is firmly flush with the glass, whereas a CCD scanner will be in focus even if there is a little distance between the glass and the book. Here is an example using America's Biggest Comics Book, a comic with VERY tight binding.

First let's look at a CIS scan from my printer. Notice how the image blurs as it goes into the spine rendering the text unreadable.



Now, here's the same book on my regular scanner which is CCD. With it, you can read the text as it curls up into the spine.



I'm not saying that you have to have a CCD scanner to be able to scan books, but you need to be aware of the limitations of the technology and compensate for them. Start out scanning with your printer and see how you like it. If it's something you think you'd like to do more of, or you just want to be sure of producing good scans, then you might want to think about upgrading to a stand-alone scanner that is CCD.

When scanning on a CIS scanner (or even a CCD), I wouldn't recommend using the lid to flatten the book. It probably isn't going to be heavy enough. I use a book to hold the spine down as much as it can be flattened. Originally, and for many years, I used a paperback Overstreet to do this until it wore out and fell apart. Now, I use a book of similar size and weight. I also use small blocks of wood to help hold down the corners. The book I use is roughly 5.25" by 8" and 1.75" thick. It probably weights a pound and a half or two pounds. It's heavy enough to hold it down, but not so heavy as to do damage. Likewise, the size makes it easy to move and adjust the book.

As for setting your resolution, it should be easy to do in your scanning software, or in the menu system on your printer. For exactly how to do it, I'm afraid you'll have to look it up for your particular printer and model. You may be more limited on your resolution choices. On my printer, I can do 300 or 600dpi. No 400 option available.

-Eric
ip icon Logged

The Australian Panther

  • VIP
message icon
Re: Scanning in the 2020s - Feedback
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2021, 05:14:49 AM »

Danke Eric!

ip icon Logged

Yoc

  • VIP & JVJ Project Member
message icon
Re: Scanning in the 2020s - Feedback
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2021, 01:16:04 PM »

Excellent advice.
Thanks very much guys!
:D

-Yoc
ip icon Logged

srca1941

  • VIP
message icon
Re: Scanning in the 2020s - Feedback
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2021, 01:23:26 AM »

ip icon Logged

wahski

message icon
Re: Scanning in the 2020s - Feedback
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2021, 11:02:58 AM »

Thanks for everyone's input on this matter.
It would seem a consensus is to upload in highest un-tweaked format possible.
Then people can do what they like with it after that, if they want to print it out or edit / improve on it.
[too bad can't upload original tiffs - they'd be too big]

It is amazing what you can do with Photoshop type apps these days.
I have probably been scanning my stuff in at overkill 1200dpi, but hard drive space is cheap and have a reasonably good scanner.  My previous scanner was Microtek XT6060 (A3 600 dpi) but the optics on it was not as good as my current Epson.

eg scanned with Microtek - https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=71725&b=i 600dpi  to me is not as 'sharp' as my later scans, there are definitely differences in quality between scanners.

But I think srca1941 has got it about right with 400dpi being a good compromise on resolution.
Especially since the comic books are not a real photos and colour depth is more limited -  you can get away with it.
300dpi was traditionally the point where printed text was able to match that of typed text (ie letter quality), if you can remember back to the days of 9pin vs 24pin dot matrix printers........

For comparison sake, here is a zoomed up section of a scan at various resolutions to show differences.    As you can see 1200 vs 400, you don't lose as much detail as you do below 400dpi.
The 75pi is original jpg, and then when you resize it to fit onto web page, it gets more fuzzier, as is not in native resolution.

You can see differences in quality of the text and part of the image.
ip icon Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Comic Book Plus In-House Image
Mission: Our mission is to present free of charge, and to the widest audience, popular cultural works of the past. These are offered as a contribution to education and lifelong learning. They reflect the attitudes, perspectives, and beliefs of different times. We do not endorse these views, which may contain content offensive to modern users.

Disclaimer: We aim to house only Public Domain content. If you suspect that any of our material may be infringing copyright, please use our contact page to let us know. So we can investigate further. Utilizing our downloadable content, is strictly at your own risk. In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this website.