Talk:Image scanner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

old location[edit]

This page is currently at scanner (computing), which uses the Wikipedia disambiguation parentheses, which should be avoided if possible. I think this page should be moved to image scanner, as that more specifically describes what this page is about. It is conceivable one could have a different kind of scanner used with a computer, like a fancy radio scanner. It also avoids avoids using the disambiguation parens. I'm going to move the page now, so I don't have to remember to come back and do it later. If anyone thinks it's a bad idea, feel free to move it back and then explain why you think it's a bad idea. Nohat 07:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. A real example of a different kind of computing scanner is a barcode scanner. --Rick Sidwell 14:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree document scanning is not about describing document scanning hardware but is about the function of capturing documents to electronic images ie: PDF, TIFF Jpeg etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.146.171 (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Inventor[edit]

Who invented the flatbed scanner? I found this quote: "CCD flatbed scanner invented in 1975 by Ray Kurzweil". Is it true? Paranoid 10:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Scanner by JTN)

Yes this is all over the web, but I'm looking for a reliable source. This book has a timeline that claims Kurzweil was the first in 1975 but it's not a terribly authoritative looking book. I have no reason to doubt the claim, but it would be nice to have a great source, and to add it to the article. Silas Ropac (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Microfilm Scanning[edit]

Should microfiche/microfilm/hollerith card scanners be included in this article? They are not flatbeds. A microfilm scanner [depending on model] is able to scan 200 frames a minute from 16mm roll film @ 200dpi. If there are no objections, I could add info about these high-production scanners. (I'm referring to scanners made by Sunrise, Mekel, NextScan, Wicks and Wilson, etc.) -DH

DH, I think you should just go ahead. If it turns out that microfilm scanners or slide scanners or what have you require their own article, the content can always be moved. Do make sure though that no articles already exist for these topics, and make REDIRECTs where necessary.82.92.181.129 15:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Support question[edit]

Not that I think there's any hope, but does anyone know what specifically it means if your scanner progressively starts to warp the colors more and more, til the images scanned become impossibly vibrantly rainbow-colored (despite a white piece of paper being scanned) and having lots and lots of parallel lines all over? Also, if the TWAIN source pascan't be found anymore? ^^'

contact the retailer or manufacturer! 86.170.89.164 (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

SPEED ISSUES[edit]

There are some ways to measure a scanners scanning speed but what are they please if someone knows add this info

On high-end professional scanners used in graphics arts industry, one common method to measure scanners true productivity or speed is by indicating, how many scans per hour can be achieved in actual production environment using the "Seybold standard" images.
This refers to the standard of a 6x7cm test originals scanned at 350 dpi with a 400% enlargement (42 Mbyte file size), as adopted by The Seybold Report on their articles on professional scanners.
On lower spec document scanners (most commonly A4 or A3 size), the number of sheets scanned per hour is indicated.
Sometimes a claim of "nn millimeters per second" is seen, but for that to give any meaningful information for comparison, the width of the scan platen as well as used optical resolution must be given too.
(Please add respective information on other scanner types here, and all that can then be inserted to the main article as one section.) --Toweri 01:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

City?[edit]

"Most scanners today are variations on the city desktop (or flatbed) scanner." What is the meaning of the word "city" in this sentence?" Adam 11:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Infrared cleaning[edit]

I hope nobody minds me moving this section to film scanner, which I just merged. Is this technique/technology used by other types of scanners, possibly drum scanners? Imroy 19:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is. I reverted it, but maybe we should shorten the section and have an original page Infrared scanning. --vossman 20:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There's already a Digital ICE article. Since that's a trademarked name and specific, perhaps it could be renamed and expanded into a more general page. Imroy 21:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I thought it was weird that someone created a Digital ICE page.--vossman 22:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Resolution claims[edit]

scanned image of a parrot feather

My HP PCS 1610 All-in One is advertised as 1200 x 4800 optical dpi, 19,200 interpolated for scanning. It does not perform that way on my Mac. I don't mind that if I select 19,200 it replicates pixels instead of interpolating. What I mind is that it never actually scans at more than 600 dpi.

This scanned image of a feather shows the lack of depth of field (a problem when scanning books) and lighter areas around dark features. Blurring to eliminate the sharpening artifacts indicates an actual overall resolution of around 300 dpi.

So a more honest description is "300 dpi optical (with a sufficiently flat original) and 600 dpi digitally enhanced." David R. Ingham 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


== What exactly does this speed mean? SCAN SPEED: REFLECTIVE DOCUMENT (1200dpi)- 2.7 msec/line (Line Art), 8.0 msec/line (colour) REFLECTIVE DOCUMENT (2400dpi)- 5.3 msec/line (Line Art), 16.0 msec/line (colour) Can a description of it be included in the article as it speed and quality are features relevent to the page.

document scanning[edit]

I promoted it to a class 2 head, but what it really needs is a separate article. I'm working on some of the publishing pages, such a ebook, and it seems strange there is no specific article. If no objection, I'll use (or modify) the section here as a lead, but I do not have the knowledge to develop the page much further; perhaps someone else would do it better, or has another suggestion.DGG 04:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I plan to do it this week if no objectionsDGG 20:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

book scanners[edit]

I was under the impression that Google were using a new device. My knowledge on the subject is mainly derived from previous work with JStor , who do things differently. If you do know about the various current devices, it would be a great help if you could expand it. There seem to be relatively few people here who have an exact knowledge of modern printing technology (as distinct from computer technology).DGG 06:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Printing technology? I think you mean scanning technology. In order to not create a conflict of interest, I refrained so far from doing substantial edits to this and a couple of related articles. I only do edits if there are obvious mistakes, but I don't go in depth. If I did, sooner or later someone would find out and reveal that I am deeply involved in the subject and would try to construct an abuse case out if it. The scanner market is, after all, highly competitive and margins begin to dwindle. Nerves are quite blank at a couple of manufacturers. --Pmkpmk 10:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

book scanners[edit]

I will reword my question: does anyone know enough about the Google device for scanning books to say anything? (I mean the physical devices which holds the book and scans the pages, not the related computer programs)DGG 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

according to Univ. of Michigan, the scanners as a group (unknown how many) are capable of scanning over 3000 books a day. They're proprietary; no public access is allowed. In short, to answer your question, no. 69.35.100.6 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A3 Scanners[edit]

I can't believe this article doesn't even mention A3 scanners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumarine (talkcontribs) 12:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Is it "SCSI-II" or SCSI-2"?[edit]

This article mentions SCSI-II. The article on SCSI (or is it SCSI controller) discusses SCSI-2. Which is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.214.10.2 (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

so-called "Keyboard scanner"[edit]

Is it good or is it whack? I'm tempted to clear this everywhere I see it.

(Livingston Li 08:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

May I ask why? or suggestion for improvement. The keyboard scanner concept is a novelty even according to the USPTO. Thanks, Li

Patent Schmatent. [1]

It's a really interesting gadget, but I don't think it warrants a section on this page. As I see it, it is a sheet scanner (probably like a fax machine) integrated within a keyboard with some, either on-board or in PC software, OCR. This is a nice integration but not a proper type of image scanner, which is the subject of the article.

Look at this version. [2] There is no mention of any original scanning mechanism, just :

  • specs for some model (usb2, etc)
  • irrelevant office productivity claims
  • a patent application which supports my view

What if I integrate a scanner in my laptop, or in a cash register. Should there be a section for it?

Thus I remove the section. Address this argument before re-adding it, or let someone else do it.

Kl4m 08:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested that article on keyboard scanner to be merged with Image_scanner#Drum. (Discuss)[edit]

(10:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)) There is a major difference between the keyboard scanner and other drum scanner wherein the head moves and is mainly CCD technology. On the keyboard scanner the document moves and its a CIS based

Yes sorry that didn't make any sense. Kl4m 08:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Image scanning[edit]

Should we merge these two, perhaps simply by redirecting that article here? Richard001 (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like no one has an objection. So, per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, I'm proceeding with merge. Fleet Command (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Suitability of Image[edit]

Why is there are image of a 3D object being scanned and its result? Primary purpose of the 2D image scanner as described in the article is not scanning 3D objects. If required I can generate an image of a scanner scanning a photograph (can be one of my original work w/ a suitable license) and the result.

203.173.13.68 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Scanned rhino object[edit]

I need a scanner that can scan 3d objects and was wondering what make of scanner it was that scanned the rhino.It would be very hepful to me if i could find this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.16.70 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My scanner (HP Scanjet 4400c) was marketed as being able to scan objects with depth like that. I think most modern flatbeds use CCD which does this kind of thing well. 210.84.8.86 (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I took that rhino "picture" on an Epson flat bed scanner but I've changed the scanner since for a newer Epson (the Epson Perfection 4490 Photo, which I recommend). However the model I used doesn't matter because any flat bed will produce the same result. Just lay the object on the glass and run a scan just as you would for a document. Lay a large piece of cloth over the scanner to keep out the daylight. - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Not all flatbed scanners have a good depth of field. Some of them have zero depth of field so that anything not in direct contact with the glass will be out of focus. The Brother MFC 5440cn is a multifunction scanner-fax-printer with zero depth of field, the optics are focussed right on the top surface of the glass. The super slim flatbeds tend to have little or no DOF while the models that are thicker tend to have more DOF. There have been some flatbed scanners with several inches of DOF, which have been used by photographers by building a box with the scanner comprising one side. Google for "scanner camera" and "scanner photography". Hewlett Packard's ScanJet 4600 series was a see-through design with glass (polycarbonate) on both sides. The design enabled the scanner to be placed on or held against objects and documents too large to be placed *on* a conventional flatbed. Those scanners could also be placed upside down (comapred to their normal use mode) and used like a conventional flatbed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Largest scanner ever, any RS?[edit]

These guys [3] claim to have 11.5 meter wide scanning ramp. Arkhangelskoye museum in Russia scanned 8 meter wide originals (theatre backdrops). Both sources are company releases. Is there any reliable info who made (what is) the largest scanner? NVO (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Historical scanner types[edit]

There where more types of scanners historically. I cannot find a reference but I remember having a device that attached to a (tension fed, ribbon-impact) printer and it had an led and a detector. The printer would sweep back and forth and advance slowly scanning the image.

Anyone have a historical data on this. I believe that this type was many people's first home scanner. Spandox (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Final external link does not work[edit]

Link broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.228.82 (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

dead link'd it. Glrx (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Dangerous light[edit]

Not specified in article if the light from scanner is dangerous for your eyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.37.185 (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Smartphone Citation[edit]

I'm not all that familiar with what is considered appropriate citations for a wikipedia article, but in regards to the Citation Needed flag on the smartphone scanner section, I did find this product page talking about a specific application that supports the described features. http://www.droidscan.com/ I also found a reference from Wired.com that refered to this application at http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/12/10-android-apps-for-the-tech-savvy-student. If either of these makes a helpful citation, please feel free to update it, but I wasn't sure if they would be considered valid by the community or not. Ajh16 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Imaging optics seems wrong[edit]

The illustration at Image scanner#CCD Scanner seems wrong. If the "fixed mirror" is fixed, then the distance from the object to the imager changes as the carriage moves. Putting the imager on the carriage or using mirrors to the object to imager distance constant seems much more sensible. Are there any sources that show a typical optical path? Glrx (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)