Post by: Xairbusdriver on September 03, 2012, 12:50:47 PM
Here is small portion of a 600dpi, un-edited scan:
The patterning is caused by the dots laid down by most any printing process used today. The positions of those tiny dots seldom aligns with the receptors in the scanner. Further, the sizes of the receptors usually differer from the dot sizes. The result (even assuming same size dots, which is not always true) is that some receptors will 'see' a whole dot while others will 'see' parts of two (or more) dots or the gaps between them. A single receptor has to interpolate what the 'color' is and this can create false colors in a particularly angled line that basically ruins the copied image.
My request, should you decide to accept it, is to scan the same (newspaper or magazine) image in several distinct resolution setting on your scanner and report the (unencrypted) results. Does a higher resolution setting result in less moiré or simply smaller lines?
BTW, I'd suggest using only the optical resolution settings not the higher, software derived settings.
Other suggestions, links, hardware recommendations are welcome, of course.
Thanks!
note to admin: this post may disappear after anyone reads it.
Post by: Raven on September 03, 2012, 03:39:56 PM
XABD,
The higher resolution the better. 1200 dpi would be best.
Turning the original and scanning will reduce the pattern a bit.
Photoshop filters will help by creating a soft focus.
Check out these tips...
http://www.scantips.com/basics06.html
http://www.oberonplace.com/dtp/moire/index.htm
Post by: Xairbusdriver on September 03, 2012, 03:52:14 PM
I've even tried taking multiple scans, each at slightly different angles, then combining them with different opacities on each layer. I've also seen suggestions/tutorials using various ways to soften the focus (Noise->Median, Gaussian, etc.). I think the 'solution' is a high resolution (higher than I have on the MFP, anyway) and very high quality images. Even some "photographs" are now actually just prints from an ink-jet printer! And then there are dimpled surface papers that reflect light causing a hybrid moiré pattern!
But with my limited dpi scan function, even old photos that were printed well before the middle of the last century still display this problem.I probably should invest in a good scanner if I want to pursue this activity. What model/brand are you using?
Later...
Your links:
I've even got that scantips page bookmarked from well over 10 years ago! I recognized it as soon as I saw the image of the motor cycles!
I'm sure it's been updated but I remember going there when I was using a graphics app called ColorIt! Way back in OS 8 & 9!!! 
Even the other page was last copyrighted in 2000! Of course, the problem is not new nor are the attempts to correct it. Thanks again! 
The scanner function is also maxed out at 600dpi. The printer can print at double that but that doesn't help with scanning stuff. It's just not designed/built as a higher performance scanner, especially for a black & white laser printer. It's really designed for text (for which it's great!) and an occasional grey scale image. Time to search for a dedicated scanner, I suspect... and a place on the desktop(s) to put it!
Post by: tacit on September 03, 2012, 07:21:15 PM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on September 03, 2012, 09:30:07 PM
QUOTE
there's an old munchkin trick
I didn't even know they had scanners along the 'Yellow Brick Road!' That 'trick' seems to be what most 'instructions' recommend, however, not having the wide-spread availability of munchkins, the de-focusing is done after the fact in a graphics editing app. Unfortunately, the evil 'Moiré E
BTW, is the munchkin use of those layers of acetate part of the reason some scenes were missing from copies of that film?
Post by: Raven on September 03, 2012, 09:46:30 PM
I've been using an Epson Perfection 2400 Photo scanner I purchased in... 2003! (Gawd, has it been that long!) It has served my needs well as a professional graphic designer. Originally I would scan colour print photos up to 150% or less. Always at 300 dpi for commercial printing purposes. It does allow me to scan photos up to 1200 dpi. Not many Kodak colour photos around any more since digital cameras. I now use the scanner mostly for scanning line art. The 2400 was only about $250 at the time. It has a transparency attachment which is mediocre at best. Nothing can compare to a dedicated slide and film scanner.
I KNOW there are better flatbed scanners for cheaper today.
Go for it! :-)
Post by: Highmac on September 04, 2012, 01:03:41 AM
It's a UK site but hope it helps
Post by: Frances144 on September 04, 2012, 04:57:53 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on September 07, 2012, 06:22:54 PM
Just compare this to the previous 600dpi scan!
This one was scanned at 6400dpi
The second scan did use the "Magazine" descreening filter but nothing else. Like the other image, I did nothing but reduce the resolution to 300dpi.
Granted, both originals had morié patterning, the 600dpi more than the 6400.
And the 6400dpi took considerably longer to scan. 10.6 times? I think it was more like 100.6! But simply reducing both originals to 300ppi reduced the moiré pattern to acceptable levels, without any extra steps. Of course, I know this is all illusion, smoke and mirrors; there can't possibly be 6400 sensors to the inch in that scanner! 
Now, if I can just get my wife's MBP to actually see and be able to share the thing...
Post by: Xairbusdriver on September 08, 2012, 01:19:12 PM
While PC Nation had a great price, their shipping "manners" leave a bit to wish for. OTOH, nothing seems to have been broken. At least I don't think the Sharing was included in the box...
Post by: Xairbusdriver on September 10, 2012, 01:50:21 PM
The new scanner is back on my iMac, my wife still can access the Multi-Function machine with its less capable but satisfactory scanning capabilities. We both have a scanner, we can print to both printers, life is too short to keep 'hitting' this Sharing 'problem.'
Post by: kimmer on September 10, 2012, 02:54:06 PM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on September 10, 2012, 05:09:19 PM
QUOTE
We long ago gave up on sharing the scanner
Now you tell me!!! 
Same here... now! But she can now scan on the Brother. Of course, she will now want to know why the 600MB image won't fit in the email...
Post by: kimmer on September 10, 2012, 07:11:32 PM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Sep 10 2012, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE
We long ago gave up on sharing the scanner
Now you tell me!!! I know that our network setup here is not "correct"* and so giving you info on sharing something over your network would be skewed. Or maybe I just wanted to watch as you ripped your hair out?
*I used to be able to see Sneakers PPC on the network, but I can't log on to Sneakers iMac even though he can log onto my iMac -- and we can't figure out what setting to fix.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on September 11, 2012, 07:59:19 AM
QUOTE
we can't figure out what setting to fix.
Make sure the entry for your Mac has the correct password for your main login account, if you are listed, specifically on his machine. Probably the easiest way would be to delete your entry on his machine and re-enter it. Of course, you'll have to set your machine up to allow Sharing by listing the directories you want to share in the "Shared Folders: box on your Sharing Pref Panel. If he's not using an Apple OS you might want to check the "Share files and folders using SMB (Windows)" checkbox under the "Options" button. It may be that Linux needs that checked, also. Finally, it might help to list him, specifically, in the "Users:" list.
Post by: kimmer on September 11, 2012, 12:21:58 PM
and <--me, we gave up. I have a sharing folder on my iMac and we stick everything in there. I just have to remember the dump it and not fill up my HD. 
Post by: Xairbusdriver on September 11, 2012, 05:10:06 PM
QUOTE
I have a sharing folder on my iMac and we stick everything in there. I just have to remember the dump it and not fill up my HD.
Err... isn't that kinda the same as the "Public" folder that every machine has automatically? Here's my rather limited setup. I don't actually allow many files to be shared, although many are in folders inside specific app's folders inside the Applications directory.
Post by: kimmer on September 11, 2012, 05:18:03 PM
What we have set up now works for both of us, so I'm leaving well enough alone rather than upset my beloved's apple cart. 
Post by: Xairbusdriver on September 11, 2012, 06:20:44 PM
QUOTE
I'm leaving well enough alone rather than upset my beloved's apple cart.
A truly loving and wise action! 
Post by: chriskleeman on September 12, 2012, 09:38:10 PM
About a year and a half ago, I bought an Epson 810 Artisan all-in-one printer, scanner, fax etc.
Works like a dream, Epson Scan can be configured pretty much however you want it, and any of our laptops can access it wirelessly (is that really a word???) without sharing, networking, etc.
And it rocks, it can scan to .pdf or pretty much whatever you want to do with it, and it's very quick. I'm not sure of how much resolution it can go to, but so far as I've used it, no problem getting fairly high rez scans.
More specs on request.
Just sayin'...
Chris
Post by: Xairbusdriver on September 13, 2012, 09:01:32 AM
I normally use Image Capture or PDFPen Pro to access any scanner. I think Elements (and other Adobe apps) use TWAIN for the interface (I've never bothered installing that plugin). In any event, there should be a pop-up/down/sideways list showing available resolutions.
OK, I just found and installed the TWAIN plugin for Elements. What then happens is that the Epson Scan app is called up. It is basically a port of the Windows app and it shows the usual less than pleasing window UI and fonts display. I'll probably never see it again!
Post by: Gary S on September 13, 2012, 01:49:00 PM
Back when I was on OS9, I used a UMAX scanner that had such great software, it had a Moiré choice for magazines, photos and newspapers. It put out scans that were great!
I still have that UMAX scanner and I'm wondering if it would work with Image Capture?
I'm running OS 10.6.8.
Does anyone know if that would work. It is a triple pass scanner. It took longer to scan but produced wonderful scans!
Post by: Xairbusdriver on September 13, 2012, 03:26:17 PM
Post by: Gary S on September 18, 2012, 01:33:12 PM
I may get it out of mothballs and give it a try. I don't scan much these days. It would be nice if it worked but I'm thinking it won't.
I went to the UMAX website and they are having problems with the drivers in OSX even on their new scanners, especially with Snow Leopard and Lion etc.