scanning graded cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Cook

Does anyone have tips on scanning graded cards? My scanner just blurs them. I think it's because the scanner isn't able to handle an item that has multiple distances from the scanning glass. Any tips?

Thanks,
Andy

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Poland

I was using an older HP 3-in-one model that would scan graded cards(or anything else for that matter) beautifully, as if you are looking at the actual card. Unfortunately, it broke! I am now using this POS lexmark and all my scans are blurry, no matter what the resolution is set on. I don't think there are really tips with one you have to make them look better, I think in this case it depends on the machine.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I had the same problem when I got my new scanner. It hates slabbed cards. My old Umax scanner had a SCSI connection it scanned everything I put on it beautifully. Not sure the deal is, but SCSI scanners seem to do a much better than these new POS USB connection scanners. And I'm not the only person taht has noticed that scanners don't seem to be as good anymore. All computer geek friends feel the same way and the ones that are into graphic arts and use scanners a lot keep an old computer around with a SCSI connection just so they can use their old scanners.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Trae R.

I have scanned a few graded cards on each of my scanners, both at work and home, and they are both USB and output very crisp and clear images. Not sure what to suggest - just standing up for the USB -vs- SCSI debate.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I'm sure it's not the connection that is making this difference. Although there is a camp of computer pros out there that swear by SCSI scanners having a better image, and I would agree from my experience.

It probably has to do with the focal length of the scanner. It would seem that most scanners are using a fixed fcal length instead of one that adjusts. Thankfully, I have a digital camera and don't have to really worry about it anymore.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Trae R.

I understand your point, I have been in IT as a "Pro" for over 4 years now (can you believe they pay me for it!?).

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

I currently have an Epson 1660, and previously had an HP - they both scanned graded cards just fine.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

although it's very finicky about some things (like changing the SIZE of anything by any means exccept increasing the resolution), it scans graded cards just fine.
'Nother low-grade Cobb-seems like that's all I scan that's graded.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Ive always had the same problem, Mine actually focuses clearly on the clear plastic even showing small scratches sometimes, but never on the card. Ive tried to mess with it many times always a blurry card scans. Sometimes Im even tempted to break them out just to get a good pic. Frank


Canon LIDE30

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

What kind of back damage does that Spreaker have? It got only a SGC10 Poor, but GAI gives that CJ Cobb a 1.5 Fair with chunks of paper missing?

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Thats why I have problems with grading Companies, SGC opinion there is nothing worse than this POOR card, but this card is far from Poor. They need to leave some room at bottom of grading scale to accommodate collector grade cards worse than this one.

Oh well, Its found a good home it goes out Monday to a fellow board memeber Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

It would seem that SGC is overly harsh at times. My m101-5 Thorpe came back a 20, but it's in worse shape than the Speaker and my Thorpe has a stamp on the back too boot. Go figure.

I do agree that grading companies need to have a wider grading scale at the bottom range, especially for vintage cards. I'm sure that the grading scales were created with mondern cards in mind.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Found this possible explanation on the web (http://www.scantips.com/chap3c.html):

"The "compact" and "ultra thin" scanners use a very different CIS chip (Contact Image Sensor). These CIS units are small and inexpensive, having no optical system (no lens, mirrors, lamp, and no A/D chip). CIS chips often have LED light sources integrated in the chip with the sensor. The CIS sensors are full size, extending over the full bed width. They work by simply being extremely near the paper being scanned (as "in contact"). This means that there is zero depth of field above the scanner glass, anything not touching the glass is too distant to be sharp, making CIS unsuitable for scanning 3D objects. CIS is also used in sheet-feed scanners and fax machines where depth is not a factor."

I started having the same type problem this past fall when I traded in my old, bulky, and slow scanner for a nice, thinner, USB version. I like my new scanner but cannot get the slabs to scan at anywhere near the quality I use to. However, I am not willing to go back to the old scanner because it would take forever to scan a page worth of stuff and it had some software issues.

Adam

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

If anyone is looking for a new scanner, consider an Epson Perfection 1670 Photo Scanner. I have one - it has Hi-Speed USB and it works great (perfectly focused scans on graded cards - I will try to post one tonight)- its not the thinest scanner around, but its certainly acceptable.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

Cheap and effective - can also use it to scan slides and negatives

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

a holder and a card. Dunno what else to say. Recent acquisition :

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

I really hadn't taken scans of my slabbed cards, so I gave it a try.

I have an HP 3970 that is about 1 1/2 years old and cost $99 at Best Buy. It has a USB interface.

To try to get the best image, I scanned so that the output was 2x original size, with jpg conversion with high quality. File size is 2.8 MB. I then used MS Picture It Photo - about $35 - to rescale, crop, and change resolution for posting.

The full image here is my original scan that has been scaled down by a factor of 4, so it is now 1/2 size, and 67 kB. It appears to be almost the proper size on my display.

I then started with a fresh copy of my original, and cropped to only the bottom edge, kept it 2x, and adjusted the JPG image quality until it was small enough to upload here - 120 kB. The apparant scratch is really a cat hair that was on the outside front of the slab.

Dave

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

that someone else gets gouged by SGC on non-tobacco vintage cards, Frank. I was beginning to get a complex.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Here is a scan from an Epson Perfection 1670. Its been resized from about 199kb to 70kb.