3D Images using a flat bed scanner

I have seen a couple of sites recently where images of 3D objects (eg flowers) have been created using a flat bed scanner.
The images appear exactly as if taken with a camera (with macro lens) ie no flat sections because it is sitting on a scanner.

Images are crystal clear with white backgrounds etc.

Can anyone explain how these images of 3D objects are created using a scanner?

Any attempts to replicate this have turned out very ordinary.

regards

PeterH

"My View" <no spam > wrote in message

I have seen a couple of sites recently where images of 3D objects (eg flowers) have been created using a flat bed scanner.
The images appear exactly as if taken with a camera (with macro lens) ie no flat sections because it is sitting on a scanner.

Images are crystal clear with white backgrounds etc.

Can anyone explain how these images of 3D objects are created using a scanner?

Any attempts to replicate this have turned out very ordinary.

Most scanners will do this fairly easily. If a scanner uses a mirror and lens arrangement to focus the image on the detector, there is generally enough depth of field to do a satisfactory image of small objects.

Other scanners use a linear array of detectors, called a contact image sensor, that is as close as possible to the material being scanned - these have almost no depth of field, and produce a poor image of objects placed on the scanner bed.

http://www.scantips.com/chap3c.html (look for "CCD or CIS sensors"). --

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Thanks Mike.
I have a Canon scanner with CIS - that would explain the poor quality scan of 3D objects.
PeterH

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

"My View" <no spam > wrote in message

I have seen a couple of sites recently where images of 3D objects (eg flowers) have been created using a flat bed scanner.
The images appear exactly as if taken with a camera (with macro lens) ie no flat sections because it is sitting on a scanner.

Images are crystal clear with white backgrounds etc.

Can anyone explain how these images of 3D objects are created using a scanner?

Any attempts to replicate this have turned out very ordinary.

Most scanners will do this fairly easily. If a scanner uses a mirror and lens arrangement to focus the image on the detector, there is generally enough depth of field to do a satisfactory image of small objects.
Other scanners use a linear array of detectors, called a contact image sensor, that is as close as possible to the material being scanned - these have almost no depth of field, and produce a poor image of objects placed on the scanner bed.

http://www.scantips.com/chap3c.html (look for "CCD or CIS sensors"). --

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Hi Peter,

I have seen a couple of sites recently where images of 3D objects (eg

flowers) have been created using a flat bed scanner.
The images appear exactly as if taken with a camera (with macro lens) ie no
flat sections because it is sitting on a scanner.

Images are crystal clear with white backgrounds etc.

Can anyone explain how these images of 3D objects are created using a scanner?

Any attempts to replicate this have turned out very ordinary.<<

Quite awhile back, I did fossils on a flat bed scanner that came out pretty good.

If I were trying to get 3D images from flowers - I might try with a soft white cloth to cover the flower(s) during scan and not put scanner cover down.

I might try this myself - if time opens up (unlikely).

Good luck with your efforts.

Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon

"My View" <no spam > writes:

Can anyone explain how these images of 3D objects are created using a scanner?

Any attempts to replicate this have turned out very ordinary.

You have to use the big clunky type of scanner with the long optical path, to get any depth of field.

This is the website I was talking about
http://www.pbase.com/accordsystems/floral_scanography

"Conrad" wrote in message

Hi Peter,

I have seen a couple of sites recently where images of 3D objects (eg

flowers) have been created using a flat bed scanner.
The images appear exactly as if taken with a camera (with macro lens) ie no
flat sections because it is sitting on a scanner.

Images are crystal clear with white backgrounds etc.

Can anyone explain how these images of 3D objects are created using a scanner?

Any attempts to replicate this have turned out very ordinary.<<

Quite awhile back, I did fossils on a flat bed scanner that came out pretty good.

If I were trying to get 3D images from flowers - I might try with a soft white cloth to cover the flower(s) during scan and not put scanner cover down.

I might try this myself - if time opens up (unlikely).

Good luck with your efforts.

Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon

In article <JbBmh.349$>,
"My View" <no spam > wrote:

This is the website I was talking about
http://www.pbase.com/accordsystems/floral_scanography

I've seen some like these before, and impressed I was then, too. I'd be interested to know for what she used the transparency adapter. Unfortunately there is no way of contacting the photographer except by leaving a guest-book entry, and she doesn't appear to have replied to any of the entries she already has.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

There was an article a year or so ago about a scan-photographer in one of the magazines I get. It might have been Studio Photography. I recall that he used monofilament fishing line to hold hold flowers and avoid the squished-on-the-glass look. Sorry, that's all I remember about it. Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

I know that some Linotype (professional grade) flatbed scanners were pretty good at scanning 3D - objects, googling for it I found a couple of links. One of them is:

http://www.flatbed-scanner-review.org/Linotype-Hell_flatbed_ scanner/Japan_candy_Heidelberg_CPS.html

I wrote "were" because the company discontinued the product line, but I am sure that many are still in use.

I came across this article yesterday http://tinyurl.com/y68uhm

"Tom Nelson" wrote in message

There was an article a year or so ago about a scan-photographer in one of the magazines I get. It might have been Studio Photography. I recall that he used monofilament fishing line to hold hold flowers and avoid the squished-on-the-glass look. Sorry, that's all I remember about it. Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:50:46 +0100, "Cgiorgio" found these unused words floating about:

I know that some Linotype (professional grade) flatbed scanners were pretty good at scanning 3D - objects, googling for it I found a couple of links. One of them is:

http://www.flatbed-scanner-review.org/Linotype-Hell_flatbed_ scanner/Japan_candy_Heidelberg_CPS.html

I wrote "were" because the company discontinued the product line, but I am sure that many are still in use.

Nearly any scanner that does -=NOT=- use a lens system (such as the older Microtek legal size) will do a credible job on 3D items.

Hi There!

You cannot describe these images as 3D images! It will be silly to remind you of digital cameras, and what they do in a glance, especially when you have a tripod. I still remember days when we had to use scanner to take a real snap shot. I wasn't happy with the results, to the extent I discarded this silly procedure. If you insist to use scanner to take some real shots, you need to scan the front view, side view then top view. I was doing this for the packs which are rectangular boxes. Using Photoshop you can reassemble these sides together by applying proper perspectives for each view. The most important thing that you feather (as required by your case) the edges to be joined together. It will need some training to master the procedure.

Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
Senior Graphic Designer

My View wrote:

I have seen a couple of sites recently where images of 3D objects (eg flowers) have been created using a flat bed scanner.
The images appear exactly as if taken with a camera (with macro lens) ie no flat sections because it is sitting on a scanner.

Images are crystal clear with white backgrounds etc.

Can anyone explain how these images of 3D objects are created using a scanner?

Any attempts to replicate this have turned out very ordinary.
regards

PeterH