Insect scanning

Tell us more about the method of scanning insects. How to achieve a clear and vivid image? What should I pay attention to when choosing a scanner? What programs should I use for editing?

Well, I do not know, but to scan everything (not insects) I usually use Photoshop (Epson Perfection 2480 scanner). I'm just trying to scan insects. Yesterday's scans: http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1149457 in a hurry. And so, a really good question. I fully support him.

Looking at the amazing scans of beetles on the Internet, I also wanted to try it. Unfortunately, my scanner did not give the expected result. The image is not three-dimensional and blurry.
Maybe I didn't search well, but there is little information on the insect scan and it dates back to 2003-2006. Progres does not stand still, so the actual question. Which scanner would you recommend buying? Target only insects.

Looking at the amazing scans of beetles on the Internet, I also wanted to try it. Unfortunately, my scanner did not give the expected result. The image is not three-dimensional and blurry.
Maybe I didn't search well, but there is little information on the insect scan and it dates back to 2003-2006. Progres does not stand still, so the actual question. Which scanner would you recommend buying? Target only insects.

It seems to me that today there is no point in bothering with the scanner. It won't give you enough depth of field, especially on three-dimensional objects like beetles. Digital camera-quite solves the problem. Even in a series of relatively inexpensive digital bottles, there are decent copies that will allow you to improve the quality of photos in macro mode by an order of magnitude. And if you use a binocular with an adapter for a camera and a program for gluing layer-by-layer frames, the photo quality will be simply excellent. There are examples of such photos on the forum. IMHO, the scanner was a good solution when digital cameras were just developing.

Tell us more about the method of scanning insects. How to achieve a clear and vivid image? What should I pay attention to when choosing a scanner? What programs should I use for editing?

Here is the detailed information http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/berlov4.htm

Which scanner would you recommend buying? Target only insects.

Any CCD-based scanner. For example, I have an Epson perfection V33.

IMHO, the scanner was a good solution when digital cameras were just developing.

No digital camera is even close to the resolution of a CCD scanner.
The camera is more convenient, the CCD scanner is better. To whom what is more important.

This post was edited by okoem - 14.01.2011 09: 58

I have this one: http://support.epson.ru/product.asp?product=381
But I don't drive yet (it doesn't work out normally), and it's pretty old.

No digital camera is even close to the resolution of a CCD scanner.
The camera is more convenient, the CCD scanner is better. To whom what is more important.

The resolution of your scanner is 4800x9600 dpi, but this is a resolution of 216x297 mm.
Therefore, if you are scanning an object with a size of, for example, 20x10 mm , the image resolution will be lower than on a camera with a 10 Mpx matrix, where the subject occupies the entire visible area. On the scanner, of course, you can set the scale of the scanned object, but in this case it will be an interpolation, and not a real increase in detail.

I didn't like it, or maybe I don't have any experience.
Today I scanned Aromia moscata in Photoshop just for fun.
The system is not very weak:
ЦП-Intel Pentium 4 640, 3200 MHz (16 x 200)
System Board-Asus P5B-VM
System Memory-2032 MB (DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM)
Video adapter-NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO 512
Pins:
1) Loads the system to 100
% 2) Took more than half an hour.
3) You can take photos faster and better.
Here are the results:
1) The file itself (cropped at the edges and slightly processed using ACDSee Pro 3).
2) Source code properties.
I'll add: when scanning, I set 9600dpi in the driver.
3) Clarified file

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 14.01.2011 12: 35

Pictures:

1.jpg — (250.63 k)


2.jpg — (62.18 k)


3.jpg — (278.47к)

And if a little podshamanit?



Oh, you posted an improved version earlier

This post was edited by KingSnake - 14.01.2011 12: 46

The resolution of your scanner is 4800x9600 dpi, ......

Oops...
I ran a test and found that the camera was actually better.

Scanner, 4800, scan time 2 minutes.
The cost of the scanner is about$110



Camera, 6 MP, tripod mount, setup - the same couple of minutes.
The cost of the camera is about 1200$

Of course, the camera is better. And for high-quality scanning, you need to have a good scanner and a good computer. And plenty of time.

Oops...
I ran a test and found that the camera was actually better.

The scanner resolution of 4800x9600 dpi is not an optical resolution, but an interpolated one.
When interpolating between two image points, software inserts one or more additional points, which are assigned the average value of neighboring colors. However, no matter how great the interpolation algorithm is, it is artificially created, and not taken from the original data, which does not give a real gain in quality.
And the optical (or physical) resolution of this scanner, if I'm not confusing anything, is 1200x2400 dpi.

The cost of the camera is about$1200

I would say that the photo is for all the money
It is not a pity to pay the appropriate amount for quality.

the scanner vibrates. you need to protect the object from vibrations for a decent image quality. a digital camera has a huge disadvantage-the grip when the hole is open will tend to zero, and the soap-to infinity. the CCD scanner has a very large grip, almost any object can be scanned. but in general, of course, the scanner is designed for scanning flat images like sheets of paper, and not for scanning insects.

A couple of times on the HP website, I saw the line "scanning three-dimensional objects"in the descriptions of their scanners. What would that mean?

a digital camera has a huge disadvantage-the grip when the hole is open will tend to zero, and the soap-to infinity.

So no one forces you to open it. We put it on a tripod and shoot at any hole.

A couple of times on the HP website, I saw the line "scanning three-dimensional objects"in the descriptions of their scanners. What would that mean?

the CCD scanner has a very large grip,

So no one forces you to open it. We put it on a tripod and shoot at any hole.

a normal quality tripod for macro photography? I've been looking for it for 3 years now. tell me where to buy-buy

The heavier the tripod , the better) And the 5d mark II with a hundred does not weigh so much that some decent tripod, such as the Manfrotto pro models, cannot withstand it:
http://manfrotto.com/category/8374.0.0.0.0/Photo

I repeat again: a macro-tripod, not a tripod. totally different things. I passed the stage with tripods safely and very quickly: they are absolutely not suitable for macro photography of static objects on the table.

here's a good macro-narrative. it's a pity, they don't sell it in Russia

http://www.goshotcamera.com/product/CST016...14x16-base.html

a normal quality tripod for macro photography? I've been looking for it for 3 years now. tell me where to buy - buy

Where to buy - I don't know, I have a homemade one.
I unearthed an old Soviet photo magnifier on the mezzanine, unscrewed the screw that secures the lamp with optics, and screwed the rotating head from the tripod into their place in the same hole. That's all.
I didn't saw or drill anything. From the additional details-I had to choose a screw of the right length to screw the head, because the native screw is very short. The Colias test shot above was taken from this tripod. Shooting conditions: aperture 16 + shutter speed 1/4 sec + cloudy weather. I don't use artificial lighting.
On the camera, I set the descent delay to 2 seconds, after which it remains only to change the butterflies, adjust the focus and press the shutter.

You can use tables for binoculars or microscopes as a tripod. It is only necessary that the camera lens would fit into the hole from the block head, and this is on our tables (MBS and Chinese models), alas.. There are also tripods from industrial binoculars, you can conjure with them.

I was thinking about the magnifier. but I still want a complete professional-level device, not a self-made one.

You can use tables for binoculars or microscopes as a tripod. It is only necessary that the camera lens would fit into the hole from the block head, and this is on our tables (MBS and Chinese models), alas.. There are also tripods from industrial binoculars, you can conjure with them.

There are two points here.
First, the camera still needs to be fixed somehow, which means that you will have to design and manufacture the mount. Secondly, if the lens is a hundred, then the height of such a tripod may simply not be enough.

I was thinking about the magnifier. but I still want a complete professional-level device, not a self-made one.

In general, I agree. But in particular, the samopal described above satisfies my personal needs by 100% or so.

here's a good macro-narrative. it's a pity, they don't sell it in Russia

http://www.goshotcamera.com/product/CST016...14x16-base.html

Duc what's the problem, they kind of deliver by Fedex/USPS to any country?

P. S. Buy on you?

This post was edited by Bad Den-20.01.2011 15: 03

the cost of sending to us is 250 bucks. toad crushes )

the cost of sending to us is 250 bucks. toad crushes )

Now I tried to order, there are 2 delivery options:
Shipping Method
USPS: Priority International (6 - 10 business days) $67.00
USPS: Express International (3 - 5 business days) $79.15

So shta...

! budget !
I don't know how to do any tc processing to my great shame
the scans are very tight, but ...
ancient epson # XXXX, all settings - automatic, resolution-manual-at maximum, origina more than 3000 points horizontally

epson 3590, settings-automatic, resolution-manual-maximum, original more than 5000 points horizontally


This post was edited by AGG-08.02.2011 22: 43

The topic is old, but I will insert my "5 kopecks".
I regularly take photos of small fish and artificial fly lures. At first, I bothered with all sorts of macro lenses. It worked, but quite poorly - all macro lenses have a small depth of field.
At one point, I tried to take a picture with a regular staff member, the result exceeded all expectations. The depth of field was gigantic, compared to macro lenses.
Now I use a good soap dish + AV mode is mandatory (aperture priority, set the smallest aperture (in numbers, the largest)) + macro mode + tripod + optional shutter release delay.
Any tripod is suitable, as long as it is heavy and stable.

About the backlight. Make sure to highlight the background, not the subject itself. It is important. In general, try it, you will understand.

This post was edited by Denis S-24.08.2013 22: 37