Alex Lee wrote:
On 2010-01-08 09:45:15 +1100, Polymorph <polymorph69@hotmail.com> said:On Jan 8, 3:57 am, sc...@alfter.DIESPAMMERSDIE.us (Scott Alfter) wrote:Scanners have worked pretty well for me over the years at capturing imagesof expansion cards. Then again, I've mostly used HP scanners...startedwitha ScanJet 4p way back in the day that replaced a somewhat temperamental Mustek scanner, and I'm currently using a Photosmart 3210. Maybe the opticsin HP scanners are set up a bit differently so they'll deliver a bit moredepth of field.Yeah, I have an old (about 12 years old) HP scanner which does a great job scanning expansion cards. However, I also have a much newer Canon scanner which produces rubbish when scanning expansion cards - nodepth of field as you suggest. I guess in this case (newer ! better). ;-)Cheers, MikeIt comes down to the light source used in the scanner itself - Canon LIDE scanner employ a LED light source, which doesn't reflect as much light back as the more traditional fluro based light sources, and anything with depth is lost when scanned. Older scanners are a safe bet that depth will be captured, but I've been happily scanning lots of things with my Epson Perfection 4490 scanner which is only a couple of years old.
There's the light issue, and then there's the depth of focus issue. You must have both enough light and enough depth of field if a scan of even a relatively flat 3-dimensional object is going to be useful. In general, cameras are a better bet, since they are designed to capture 3D objects. Of course, the lighting must still be good. -michael NadaNet and AppleCrate II: parallel computing for Apple II computers! Home page: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon "The wastebasket is our most important design tool--and it's seriously underused."