From: Harv@cup.portal.com (Harv R Laser)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.multimedia
Subject: Re: Best way to scan/obtain images?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 16:17:49 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <69631@cup.portal.com> <1992Nov17.085935.879@nrlvx1.nrl.navy.mil>

>
>First, thanks a LOT for you guys who posted.  I saved those articles :)
>
>> Well, it depends. :-)
>> 
>> 1. How much ya wanna spend?
>
>Assume price is no problem, but that the item must work with an A4000 so I can
>take it with me :)

Well, the problem is, y'see, I don't have a 4000 [yet]. I don't hvae
a 1200 yet either, so I don't have an Amiga with AGA. Thus all of my
comments relate to using this stuff with my 2500.  I hope to be able
to pick up a 1200 soon as they come out cuz I really need to test
and review AGA capable software which I can't do, and my means
are too slim right now to find $3000 for a 4000. You lucky dog :)

>
>> 2. Ya wanna carry the digitizer around with ya?
>
>Thats no problem.
>
>> 3. Ya want the highest possible quality but willing to spend more for it?
>
>The image will be used for video-tape and for kiosks, so "print-quality" might
>not fit in. I don't know, I'm new at this but looking forward to it :)
>
>> 4. Ya real cheap and yer destination images will be low-res so high
>> quality isn't important?
>
>Video tape and screen renderings are the destination.  Printing is of no
>importance, so that I hope helps out :)
>
>> 
>> For flat artwork, books, magazines, etc. the best way to get the images
>> into an Amiga is with a 24bit flatbed color scanner. A good one, like
>> the Epson ES300C plus driver software is gonna cost ya about $1000 give
>> or take.  "Hand scanners" are generally b&w only.
>> 
> Is this overkill for video?

Nope, it's not overkill. As some sage once said "ya can't make
chicken salad outta chicken shit." Meaning (in this context) that
it's a lot easier to degrade a good image than to enhance a bad
image. The better an image you start out with, the more you'll be
able to do with it... massage it into different resolutions, formats,
etc.
>
>> Digiview is real cheap, but you need a camera, lights, a copy stand,
>> and a helluva lotta patience to use it and its quality won't approach
>> that of a good scanner, altho talented folks can do good things with it.
>> 
>
> I hear that digiview has problems on an A4000 :(
>
>> A framegrabber can grab frames from live television or running videotapes.
>> Many are out there, quality and prices vary. Figure about $300 minimum.
>> 
>
>This could be what I want.  I have a nice4-head vcr with a solid pause, and a
>camcorder.

Ya might keep yer eyes open on c.s.a.marketplce for people selling
the ol Progressive Peripherals FrameGrabber. Nice unit, I used to 
own one. Feed running videotape into it, press one key when you
see something you want to grab. 
Grabs in 1/30th of a second. This is what differentiates a real
FrameGrabber from a "slow scan digitizer" which requires a paused or
still source.

>
>> A slow-scan digitizer like DCTV or DigiView can grab frames from still
>> video sources, or paused VCR tapes if they have a rock-solid pause
>> mode, preferably digital freeze-frame although if you add a time-base
>> corrector, this can make up for a less-than ideal paused source.
>
>ahh, maybe this is what my vcr would be good at.  Does DCTV work with the
>A4000?  Does scala support it?

See above. I don't hvae a 4000. :-(

>
>> A Xapshot is a hand-held very compact still video camera made by
>> Canon USA Inc., officially called the RC-250. It has color NTSC
>> (television) output and can be input fed into a DCTV for excellent
>> results. A Xapshot/DCTV combination will set you back around $700
>> again give or take. 
>
>So this would give me a slow-scan digitizer for video sources and a "camera"
>for outside then?  To my needs, this seems to have an advantage over the
>scanner, or is the  quality not worth it?  Is the xapshot color?

Be advised that the quality out of the xapshot is not as clean or
detailed as what a 24 bit Epson scanner will get you. The quality of
the xapshot is about on par with VHS video tape, i.e. run of the mill
home-quality television. Yes, the xapshot is color. 
Canon makes some higher end still video cameras, they just introduced
a new upscale xpashot model RC-570 I believe. Has better lens,
infrared auto-focus (the little xapshot is fixed focus), and other
nifty features. Unfortunately it also costs about $3000. The little
Xapshot can be had for under $400. LIke I said, you know how deep
your pockets are.
>
>
>> But this combo will not approach the quality
>> you'll get with a nice 24 bit flatbed scanner, because scanners
>> have higher resolution. 
>> 
> Do you think the higher resolution would be waisted for video uses?  I'd also
>have to get photos made of my images, but I can also use this to grab anything
>from magazines :)
>
Nope, not wasted. See above. The quality of what you get from a magazine
with a color scanner will far surpass what you could get by aiming
the Xapshot at the same magazine, it's a matter of focus, lighting,
etc. The scanner is fixed-focus and perfectly coupled to the artwork
and lighting is never a problem. The Xapshot has a strobe flash
but this will reflect off the surface of a magazine unless you muffle
it, or light the magazine some other way and not use the strobe on
the camera. I've played around with this quite a bit, with 
varying degrees of success.  The Xapshot has two focus settings,
one is fixed from 3 feet to infinity, and the other is macro at exactly
eleven inches. I mean *exactly* eleven inches. 


>> I've used all these devices and currently own the Epson scanner,
>> the Canon Xapshot, and DCTV so I can help you with specific questions
>> on those. You'd be best off finding a quality Amiga dealer who can
>> demo these devices for you and show you what kind of software 
>> interfaces them to an Amiga.  Such dealers do exist but they are
>> rare.
>
>I am in the DC metro area.  There is a nice shop called "Diskcovery" but they
>don't have anything like this (ie: one old a500, 3 suped-up ibms).  
>
>As for software, my base will be:
>	morph+
>	scala2mm (they told me it will be upgraded for a4000 support)
>	a 3D software (currently imagine, but hopefully something more
>			friendly, maybe caligari24..)
>	sunrize 12-bit audio board
>	brilliance (or, DCTV paint now that you got me thinking about it :)
>
>So these images will be stretched and pulled rather extensively :)
>> Regards, Harv
>
>Thanks, Harv.
>-- 
>Doug Dyer   *    STI   *    dyer@nrlvax.nrl.navy.mil    | "(2B) | !(2B) -> ?"

Again, Doug (and anyone else who is following this), there are acceptable
ways, and there are crummy ways, and there are excellent professional
ways to get real world images into an Amiga.  The major factor always
boils down to how much money you want to throw at the problem. 

The scanner is wonderful but you can't take it outside and scan a
model standing in front of a swimming pool. The Xapshot is neat but
it's a pain to use to photograph a magazine page. You could shoot
film of a model, get it developed into prints, then scan the prints.
Or you could shoot the model electronically with the Xapshot and
suck it into your Amiga via DCTV. Two different roads to the same
solution. Practice makes perfect, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

I have both and I use both, and I use them differently. By the way,
there are a bunch of Xapshot pics I took at the World of Commodore
Amiga Show in Pasadena a couple months ago sitting on amiga.physik.
unizh.ch, the big anonymous FTP site in Switzerland (and its 
mirrors). They're in .JPEG format. i believe they're in
his directory "pix/illu" with names like woc1 thru woc5.lha
You may wish to FTP them and check them out. They were all made with
the Xapshot and DCTV and ADPro, scaled down to quarter screen and
then composed into 2x2 grids. This seems to make so-so Xapshot
pics come out razor sharp and clean. The look much better scaled
down this way than they do full screen sized. ::shrug::

Harv