HELP---Scanner for coin imaging

YCCY9229

Anyone here use a scanner to take pictures for their coins? I am planning to buy the scanner with 600 x 1200 dpi. Will this scanner takes nice and detail coin pictures?

Y.C.

100proof1957

i have not,but looking into it.

seems like 600x1200 is gonna be grainy

I am looking for an all in one solution.

Print,Scan,Copy,Fax,MEM card reader.

ER

I just got my Epson 4800 x 9600 dpi scanner, will be playing with it for a while. Then, I 'll post my collection (my own coin images, finally).

Smittys

You want 4 to 8 times that resolution
I'd look for a different one. I've been using my
for about three years and it does a good job
yet it only cost about 100.00
So if I were you I'd look for 4800 to 9600
Just my two cents worth.

Smitty

LeeG

I'd definately shop around, read reviews, and be careful which one you buy. I've got a Brother MFC-3420C, 4800-1200 dpi, ALL-IN-ONE, that doesn't do coins well. It may be I don't know how to operate it correctly, some are great though for coins! Lee

Cameonut

My only input is that I have had superior results from scanners that use a tube as a light source instead of LED's. Not sure why that is, but my two best scanners for scanning slabs had a tube.

CarlWohlforth

I get better pictures now after spending loads of time learning how to use my digital camera. Before I bought the camera I used scanners. I found the very thin ones no good on coins in slabs because the focal length of the lens was too short. The older fat (thick) scanners worked better on slabs. However now that I figured out my digital camera I can't be satisfied with a scanner any more...

Cameonut

Carl
I think you are right, the older thick scanners work better and I suspect most use a tube. The thin scanner I bought used an LED and it was worthless for coins.

airplanenut

A digital camera will allow much more controlled pictures (they'll look like what you want them to look like) and overall a much better quality. I'd suggest a digi cam over a scanner... some good coin digicams are as cheap as $75-$100, like the one Russ uses.

Jeremy

K6AZ

Definitely go with a digital camera over a scanner. The Olympus D-395 is a 3 megapixel camera with macro, which you need for shooting coins. Street price is around $125 new in the box from several reliable retailers.

DorkGirl

Scanners are quick and easy, cameras are not. My scanner likes bright copper, but hates dark copper. It makes all my silver coins look darker than they really are and will not show any kind of rainbow or color. It does pretty good on gold. It will show detail very well, but it will not show luster on silver.

Some examples:

K6AZ

Digicams really aren't that difficult, especially with the number of accomplished coin photographers we have around here to answer questions and help.

LindeDad

Scanner does't work well with any of the bright coins. Also you will need a higher resolution than that for any coins. I had one and gave up for the digtal camera.

magikbilly

You can get reasonable results with a scanner. My sig line - albeit greatly reduced and such, was made with an Epson 2450. I have larger better images if anyone wants to see them - and I wrote a post describing all the tricks I used to get the color and such.

Best,
Billy

ccex

I am very happy with my Epson Perfection 1200 SCSI scanner for most of my circulated coins. Mine came from a truckloaded of used computer hardware earmarked for disposal by City of Chicago offices. It is fast and reliable, with free software easy to find on the internet.

However, no scanner will capture luster as well as a digital camera with a stand and good lighting. I'm still perfecting my setup, and it will soon be as easy for me to use as my scanner.

CoinOnTheCob

Seriously, if you are going to spend money buy a digital camera. I use a scanner set to 1200 DPI and I get cruddy pics. It darkens every coin I lay on the glass. Oh, yeah. That’s another problem, the inside of the glass is dirty and I don’t know how to clean it. This coin is like a mirror. All the junk you see on the coin is on the inside of the glass. It has also given me a ghost image. I am near the point where I am going to clean the glass with a hammer. I think if you do buy a scanner, you and I will also have to start a support group.
Dennis

wvinchic

Be wary of "high" resolution numbers like 4800 dpi. A lot of the time, that 4800 is actually interpolated. Interpolation is bascially when the scanner and the software for example take two pixels, averages them and makes a third pixel. So, the software is "making up" some of the data. Thus you are getting "fake" info. Not good when trying to get the exact detail of something like a coin.

A decent 1200X1200 resolution scanner will do everything you need and more. Most of the time, people use the scanning software and never change the resolution. Most of the time, they are set to a default of either 72 or 200. Well, to make it easier to see, I will show you some example. NOTE - These are straight scans with NO color correction.

Scan number one was scanned at 75 dpi and resized 150% via scanner software. Sorry for the dust. I just flopped this slab on the scanner.




Scan number two was scanned at 200 dpi and resized 150% via scanner software.




Scan number three was scanned at 300 dpi and resized 150% via scanner software.




Scan number four was scanned at 600 dpi and resized 150% via scanner software.




The reason they get so huge is due to the amount of information they contain. The higher the dpi, the higher the amount of information in the file. These images go from 36 k to almost a meg. If I take the number 4 scan into Photoshop, then go to resize it, then turn off Resample image (another interpolation) and I change the dpi to 72, the image becomes 27 inches wide! However, for online reproduction, you only need 72 dpi. Anything higher is just a representaion of what is actually there in the info. If you sent a 72 dpi image to a newspaper or magazine, they would laugh at you. They need a minimum of 300 dpi. This is because when you make things larger, the dpi gets reduced. Also, line screen comes into effect. You need a X dpi for Y line screen to get the correct number of colors to be reproduced. There is a formula, but ya'll don't need me to bore you anymore. Typically, 300 dpi is ok for 133 - 150 ls for Print Reproduction. 72 dpi is fine for online Reproduction. Soooo, I scan at 300, do my color correction and blowing up, then I reduce the dpi to 72 dpi before I save it. The pictures I have presented here are at their original scanned dpi for presentation purposes.


Make sense?? It have been a long time since I actually went over this stuff. I went to college for it, worked a couple of years, then became a Stay At Home Mommy to my 3 year old and my 1 year old. I am used to baby talk Kinda turns your brain to mush after awhile.

If ya got any questions, ask!


Stacy


P.S. - All you need is a 1200X1200 scanner. Mine is a 2400 and is overkill but reproduces coins nicely. It is a HP 3970.

K6AZ

Well, I think what we need here is a side by side comparison of the same coin both scanned and shot with a digicam. My scanner is an Epson Perfection 2400 dpi, one of the better scanners on the market and the best I've ever had as far as coins go. Sometimes when I'm lazy I will use it, especially for circulated coins. My camera is a Nikon 8800 8 megapixel mounted in a Testrite CS3 copystand that has been slightly modified. First image is from the scanner, second from the camera.

Stuart

Stacy: I must admit that your scanned images of that Cameo Proof Sac Dollar are outstanding.

I have a feeling that a scanner can do an outstanding job on cameo proofs which are "black & white" coins, but that it may be less advantageous for demonstrating frosty mint luster on a typical uncirculated coin (see Eric's example in the prior post).

Having said that, I am extremely impressed with your scanned images. Well done!!

ccex

Nice comparison/contrast, Eric. It looks like the scanner is "good enough for jazz."

As a jazz musician, I have always taken offense to that cliche. Yes, images from a halfway decent scanner are good enough for eBay auction pictures, where the imaging standards are at best mediocre. I agree that time and a few hundred dollars and some time spent on a digital camera setup can make the difference for those who demand more than mediocrity.