Slashdot Mirror
Homemade Digital Cameras
Michael Golembewski writes "For the past three years, I've been taking apart cheap secondhand flatbed scanners and turning them into homemade large format digital cameras. They are well over 100 mexapixel in resolution, and produce results that are both similar to and significantly different from traditional digital and conventional cameras."
That is some eerie art! Is your initial part of your last name really pronounced "Golem" by chance?
Very cool effects. When I read the snippet I figured this was going to be something like the old "Make an E-size scanner out of any hand scanner" fraud that was popular for a few years back in the old days (remember stitching manually on a Pentium 200, anyone?).
For some reason I can't believe this works. I figured the scanning element (CCD) needed an intense amount of light to properly "read" an image on the bed.
The fact that you use duct tape to get everything "light tight" put a good smile on my face, as well as the fact that you even got this working. If you're thinking of selling artwork, I'll be the first in line (the lady and I realized it's time for more photo-prints in the house). By the way, the image taken of the actual camera doesn't seem very high res. Was this by choice?
If it's the look and effect you are going for, you can achieve that more easily with a regular digital camera and a bit of post-processing.
I don't see hwo you'd do that without a lot of photoshop work (go and look at some of the fun distortions they get due to the way a scanner scans the image).
Well, well. Since the quality exceeds those provided by "consumer-level" equipment, how are these guys going to deal with the Digital Transition Content Security Act?
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
How would you know what effect to strive for in Photoshop unless you've already built something like this and found out what it looks like?
:)
Methinks you're missing the point a bit here
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I will need a pickup truck to take this along on my next vacation.
But that would skip the fun of the hack. Hacking projects are not always attempted as a more efficient/practical way of doing something.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
The grayscale, banding, and vignetting are easy.
For the scanning effects, you take a video or continuous shooting (most digital cameras support both) and simulate the scanning by taking scanlines sequentially from successive frames.
Opened a path to new computer technologies and related devices
Salvador Dali meets a camera. Brilliant stuff!
What are you doing now, you lazy drunken obscene unsayable son of an unnameable gipsy obscenity?
Sticking 25+ mb images on your server and submitting it for a slashdotting.
Still, quite cool. He did a good job of describing the effects - made it informative, yet simple enough for most people to understand.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
This has got to be one of the more fun geek mod projects. I'm definately assembling one. Got to keep an eye out on Ebay for a suitable camera. A great new use for my notebook. I'd love to try some shots at a carnivale. The spinning rides would make for some interesting shots. I'd love to try some high res landscapes though. Could also do some stunning macro photography as well.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/08/turn-your-optic al-mouse-into-a-crappy-scanner/
If you rtfa it's because the distortion from a camera like this is because it captures the image in a series of scan lines, each scanline is a small exposure, but the entire picture is made up of thousands of slices. This is different from a regular digital camera where the entire sensor is exposed which gives a motion blur effect. A scanner camera does not give you motion blur but actual clear distortion as the world changes during the exposure.
It's a different effect and it's captured through optics and time, it can not be replicated perfectly in a computer and photoshop is not the solution to all problems artistic. This is a very creative idea and I plan on personally converting my 4x6 scanner to take picture like this. It's an original idea, I'd be interested to see if color filters on the lens would allow you to take multiple exposures for red/green/blue and mix them in the computer to create a color image. I think it could make some very interesting pieces of art.
While it's a neat (if not original) hack, why bother making actual photographs with it?
These photos are, in addition to their subject, also "photos of the scanner" which is a tangible thing. That makes it more interesting, or at least different, than digital effects. I think the process is part of the artwork. But maybe most importantly, its seems a lot more fun duing it like this.
So that's one point. But more broadly, it seems to me to be a bit more organic than using photoshop. He says the effect is reletively predictable, but given unpredictable environments, such as cars on a road, the picture could end up more interesting than anything you could concieve and then coerce into existance
Finally, I really, really, really don't understand why these types of comments are made. Every bloody hack article there's some grim, sad comments about how the hack sucks because a) it could be done easier in some other way, b) it's 'pointless', c) it's 'try-hard', or whatever other reason. It's so infuriating - do you have any sense of exploration and experimentation? Or understand the desire to tell others about your experiences?
// It had been Fat's delusion for years that he could help people. --Philip K. Dick, Valis
Disable the motor (maybe just remove the carriage), and set it up to take pictures of things going past it. Cameras like this are used at finish lines at athletic meets. Interesting distortion. Might be an interesting project for someone still at school - I was once around the teachers trying to work out who won a 100m dash: some of them were a little bald(er) by the end of the day.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
100 MEGAPIXELS!!! in convenient 432 x 432 sizes.
How would you know what effect to strive for in Photoshop unless you've already built something like this and found out what it looks like?
I suppose it's a question of whether you consider photography as something where you visualize something and then create it, or whether you randomly snap things until you get something that looks cool.
In this particular case, however, the effect itself is quite old--far older than digital; you get the same effect, for example, with panoramic film cameras, which work by moving a slit across a piece of film. Any reasonably experienced photographer should know this type of image since it's pretty classic.
And if you want to replicate it with digital, it's pretty easy (see other message).
What a great idea. It reminds me of when I got my first scanner and I'd scan my face, following the light down as it passed my eyes or mouth, which created some very Blackhole Sun video type images. I can't decide if the details he gives on how to make the camera aren't detailed enough because a) I just haven't played with it enough to see that it is self explanatory or b) because it really isn't detailed enough. I can't tell if this is a really old school camera obscura type hack that would require moving parts or if it just focuses the image small enough onto the CCD (or whatever the proper TLA is) that it doesn't have to move. I'm guessing moving parts since the cameras are so big. I need to watch eBay for a cheap scanner. This would be fun to play around with.
This is kinda similar to the technology they use for doing photo-finishes in track & field races.
/ 2004/photofinish_75pc.jpg
See here - http://www.sportingworld.co.uk/newyearsprint/pics
The best ones are when somebody puts their feet on the finishing line, and it gets stretched out to several "metres" long.
Kayamon
It seems he figured out how to script the camera to take continuous photos, and animated them into movies. Unfortunately, these movies require Flash 8 to play, and the latest Linux Flash Player is v7! This is the second site today that has kept me from viewing content because of this issue (though in this case it simply seems inadvertent; by contrast, you can't access any of animationmentor.com with Linux).
If you rtfa it's because the distortion from a camera like this is because it captures the image in a series of scan lines, each scanline is a small
But it is the same way existing digital line cameras work, and it's the same way film-based line cameras work, yielding, not surprisingly, the same effects.
It's an original idea,
No, it's not. Even the consumer-scanner-as-large-format-camera is old.
I'd be interested to see if color filters on the lens would allow you to take multiple exposures for red/green/blue and mix them in the computer to create a color image. I think it could make some very interesting pieces of art.
You mean like Technicolor? Or like Autochrome? Or like three-CCD analog camcorders, digital cameras, and digital camcorders?
That's the kind of thing that makes you wish you'd thought of it first. =)
Those pictures are amazingly one-of-a-kind.
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
I find it hard to believe that he can get 115 megapixels out of that scanner. Since he is using a 4x5 camera, that works out to a scanner resolution of 2400dpi. That is the kind of resolution of high-end film scanners, not a cheap flatbed (whatever the marketing material says).
lhk
Nice. My first thought was that it would be just one of the many how-to-make-your-own-digital-camera articles that have been around for ages at Make magazine and other similar media... so a lot nicer and more creative than that. And now I want to find an old, old camera, with an old flatbed scanner and try some of that stuff myself.
Back in the early 90's Dicomed introduced a digital camera back for 4x5 cameras for commercial use. It used the same theory, slap a scanner on the back of the camera. You had to use hot lamps, a studio environment and nothing could move. But the results were stunning, 100MB files that could easily be printed on the cover of a 150 line screen magazine. Wonderful.. What is really cool about your work is that you are celebrating all of the motion artifacts that studios were killing themselves to remove when using this technology. Your stuff is pretty creative and fun, and most importantly makes one look at the world differently.
This effect is impossible to create to anything near this level of detail or clarity using traditional digital tools.
You can buy a high-resolution scanning digital camera off the shelf, which gives you exactly the same distortions but actually produces excellent still images. You can buy a used Horizon camera and get the same effect on film, minus the banding, stuttering, and poor focus. You can look on the web for "slit-scan photography" (used, among other things, in the film "2001"). You can do this sort of thing with any old large format camera. Or you might look around the web for the same hack done in the mid-1990's, multiple times.
Finally, I really, really, really don't understand why these types of comments are made. It's so infuriating - do you have any sense of exploration and experimentation? Or understand the desire to tell others about your experiences?
No, what's infuriating is when people do the same "hack" over and over again. At some point, it ceases to be a hack and just is a pathetic display of inexperience.
Interesting project, it reminds me of the digital camera I built with a fellow student as a degree project. We ground the top of a 256 byte DRAM using a grinding machine in the mech.eng lab and fitted a glass window. The DRAM capacitors discharge at a different rate when exposed to light. We mounted the chip to a PCB, cut the back out of a 35mm Zenith camera and mounted the PCB. Obviously the optics and chip were poorly matched, we were only using a small part of the lens.
Knowing the discharge rate of the DRAM and the time to load and scan all 256 elements you could get a black and white image. We used the camera for some image recognition work. One application was counting the number of cups remaining in a drinks machine hopper by edge detecting the image then counting the "lips" that we saw.
That was back in the autumn of 1986. We've come a long way.
For fuck's sake. I've got a Horizont, several large-format cameras, and a Panoscan. I still think this is cool. Not everybody can afford the equipment I use, and none of it is exactly the same as this, anyway. Good art is still made with disposable cameras. Why have a chip on your shoulder about non-elitist equipment?
... and then they built the supercollider.
The scanner software that comes with the scanner he's presently using shuts the thing down if there are hardware faults. All his mods count as hardware faults thus making the shipped driver useless to him. He discusses a closed source pro driver which is a bit better, but still not perfect for his needs. Then explains how he uses SANE to make the thing actually work like he wants.
That's cool -- an artist embarks on getting enough programming language to modify a program so he can use it like he wants to. That's owning your hardware in the purest sense. And it's made possible by the community that generates all that great open source software.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"They are well over 100 mexapixel in resolution..."
Does that mean each pixel can hold 100 mexicans worth of optical information?
First, what does [apple]-shift-3 do? Apparently in Panther it takes a screenshot, but why is that cool enough to get tattooed on your neck?
And second, why on earth is this so hot? Mmmmf.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Excellent work! You've created something 'original' and as well, replicating some of the effects of distorted paintings of the 18th century.
Technically you've cobbled together some cheap equipment to produce interesting timeslices of reality.
I was thinking that the lenses you have used should create a focused image on the glass? If so, does the image cover the whole area of the glass or just a portion of it?
Is the focussed image large (A4 size for eample)?
What if you use the scanning engine from a slide scanner? This way the scanner-camera would be physically much smaller and yet achieve comparable resolution? (and would probably scan faster when required).
Brilliant work!
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
You mean like Technicolor? Or like Autochrome? Or like three-CCD analog camcorders, digital cameras, and digital camcorders?
Pshaw. Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii did it first.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Why have a chip on your shoulder about non-elitist equipment?
I don't. I have a chip on my shoulder about people claiming something as artistically and/or technically new when it has been done numerous times before, and often better.
Here is one link. Here's another one. There have been a number of other variations, including leaving the scanner in the film plane of a LF camera.
But nobody claimed this. The article says:
The examples you provide are not provided by the standard use of traditional equipment. The article does not claim this effect has never been done before.
What do you mean by "better"? Art is very subjective, there is no absolute scale of goodness. Does it matter that Andy Warhol used mediums that many other people used?
... and then they built the supercollider.
The cameras seem to be put together with nothing but spit and scotch tape, but the results are astonishing. I think I'll go and hack my old Epson scanner now!
You'll find it in Goethe. I can't remember the original word for word, but in effect he says that without working within restrictions we never reach the highest levels of achievement; whoever wants to make something great must submit to the limitations of some medium. This guy has found a restricted medium that can be used to produce something like art. Arguments about megapixels are as irrelevant as arguments about how fine Renaissance artists could grind up their paint.
Pining for the fjords
Putting aside for a moment the artistic effects, this project could be turned in a distortion-free ultra-cheap ultra-hi-res digital camera. You only need to "fix" the image so that it stands still while the scanner works. For example, you could expose to light a plate covered with some photo-sensitive chemical (like, for example, a silver halide) and then putting that in front of the scanner. I wonder why nobody thought of this before...
Nuffsaid
________
Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
This seems to be actually repeating early developments in professional digital photography. The first digital backs for cameras like the Sinar, and the Arca Suisse were miniaturized flatbed scanners like that. Obviously they were really good only for still life. But still (back in 1992 or so) when I was in photographers school and we visited someone who had one of those backs, we managed a portrait of someone sitting very still. There were little smears where his breathing caused motion.
Sadly we did not experiment with more motion. I think the "experimenting" with motion is the interesting part (as far as photography is concerned). Some of the pictures on the site are enjoyable. Hacking it all together yourself is interesting too, at least for us geeks.
As for the comments in the style of "large format photography is only about the image quality"... it isn't exactly only about that. It is also about stuff like parallax control (putting buildings "upright" with parallel lines) and depth of field control (laying the plane of the depth of field folded through the scene in order to allow image to be sharp on other areas). All this can theoretically be achieved even with smaller formats, but due to mechanics it gets harder the smaller the format (Arca Suisse's 6x9cm cameras seem to be the smallest that still work very well, at least in my experience).
Therefore the "experiments" done with this hack to in a line a bit with stuff like putting ordinary photographic paper into a large format camera or using polaroids for transfer prints. The "long exposure" part of it is also a reference to the times way back, when due to old processes like the daguerreotype, portrait subjects were held up with wire constructions. Very cool, all of this hack, congratulations.
So ist's mit aller Bildung auch beschaffen:
Vergebens werden ungebundne Geister
Nach der Vollendung reiner Hoehe streben.
Wer Grosses will, muss sich zusammenraffen;
In der Beschraenkung zeigt sich erst der Meister,
Und das Gesetz nur kann uns Freiheit geben.
Pining for the fjords
Andrew Davidhazy has done similar things at the Imaging and Photographic Technology
1 /index.html
Rochester Institute of Technology years ago. His site is interesting
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/
Many have done the same later on. I got through a Christmas period converting a Umax page scanner to a panorama scanner. It was fun.
http://www.pigment-print.com/Panorama%20Camera%20
It's an individual accomplishment, and perhaps he discovered this himself. If you discovered an algorithm, made an invention, or such by virtue of your own intellect and effort, wouldn't you think it were nice? And that you wanted to share it?
Just ease up a little. Don't be so picky about prior art. ; )
Then you should ask for your money back; that's pathetic.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Yeah, maybe he should just strap three of these together and post-process in Photoshop.
Well, post-processing actually only works on the image you have in front of you. Given that the scanner exposes individual lines in the image over time (e.g. it - "scans") to generate the end image, you would actually need a movie to be able to generate the same effect with post-processing. A movie with very high-quality frames, and an unbelievably high frame rate (effectively you would want a frame for each line, so depending on the scan speed up to perhaps a few thousand frames a second - and then you would throw out the entire frame except the single line you wanted.) The scanner idea is starting to sound better to me.
On a more general note, this whole attitude is endemic now. Sure you can correct stuff later, but it is generally better in photography to try to get the best image you can at the moment you are taking it; you've then have got a lot more to work with! The phrase "polishing a turd" comes to mind...
This is the first HE hack I've seen on /. that made me go "I wanna do that!". Perhaps it's because photography has become a bigger hobby of mine than computers?
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
I really like the style of your work, I wish I had your enthusiasm. You might be interested in my mate, Angus's work - http://www.serratedimage.com/
You have earned a Photography Geek Badge for your efforts.
Bravo sir.
And to anyone who says 'why' or 'whats the point': go stuff yourself.
This is one cool site with gigapixel images.
Or... "why use pov-ray (or maya, 3ds max, lightwave, etc) when you can just take a picture?"
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
The similarities with slit-scan photography immediately stood out to me as well.
For anyone that's interested, there's a reasonably good page describing the technique here and pages about it's application in the stargate sequence of 2001 here and here.
It's possible to fake the technique in Adobe aftereffects with the time displacement filter too.
I remember reading about a similar attempt using EPROMs in late '80s. In a normal recycling procedure, these were erased by shining a high intensity UV light for a couple of minutes through the glass window that's present in the IC shielding. After making sure all bits are reset, the window is covered by a sticker or label. Then the data is 'burned' and the (typically 256Kb/32KB) ROM was inserted into your BBC micro (insert favorite hobby computer).
Similar to the process you describe, an image could be gathered by setting all bits to 1 (or actually 0, as EPROMs have negative logic), then waiting for bits to flip. I don't think a lense was used, just a diafragm (dot in piece of black paper). On average, an exposure took 1-4 hours (and resulted in a very poor quality black/white image for current standards) if the scene was bright enough. Lighting the scene with a UV helped a bit, though visible light worked surprisingly well.
Of course, the whole whing was hardly useful, but remember that - at the time - the average micro had little more periferals than a keyboard, joystick. Mac had a mouse and some MSX systems had support for an analog "gen-locked" camera, BBC had some support for light pens. There may have been handscanners for PC/ATs. So mostly any hardware that would allow translation from analog to digital was greedily welcomed.
I'm tempted to bid... please, somebody, stop me?!!!!
This is somehow similar to mobile phone cameras. Some of them are very slow too:
m l
http://dimss.solutions.lv/samsung-phone-camera.ht
Absolutely fantastic images.
I'm just wondering if you (or anyone else) has considered changing the speed of the scanner motor so you can do long exposure stuff. Capturing a sunset or something running from top to bottom would look absolutely awesome.
However, I guess you'd need to stop down dramatically for something like a 15 minute exposure of the sun...
Dude, you should let me be your slashdot dupe checker. I'm pretty confident that this was on Slashdot the last time it happened. I was a bit impressed by this guys contraptions so I guess I remember the URL, here you go. http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/tech/scanner.html
http://www.scannerphotography.com.nyud.net:8090/
With that many pictures I would have used the coral cache link in the summary.
You can get a similar effect, at much poorer resolution, by processing digital video of a pan. You take a narrow slice out of each frame, and append them together into a scanned image.
I've played with this and got some images I'm very pleased with. However it's spurred me into wanting to hack some scanner hardware. Unfortunately I'm more comfortable with software than I am with the mechanical...
I wrote up the video to panorama stuff.
A pinhole camera would fit your needs methinks. Just punch a very small hole in a lighttight box and voila there is your camera. But you will have to figure out your own exposure time though.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
You have to set the scan area as small as possible.
I had to prop the lid open a tiny bit, which left tiny shadows, as if the chips were floating above a white surface.
Site temporarily down - too many people looking! Sorry... I'll sort it out soon. Mike
Is there anyway to disassemble a scanner to create a fast server?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Next challenge...strap on an scanner/printer to that camera and take instant pics.
I once did something similar with a scanner. I needed a close-up shot of a keyboard for use as a splash screen for ergonomic software I was working on. I didn't have a digital camera but I did have a scanner, so I took a keyboard and placed it upside-down on the flatbed and scanned it in. I was a little desperate and did not expect a very good image. But I was amazed at the results. The image was perfect!
The page now says:
"Please Visit my site on this cached mirror... scanner photography"
Which of course takes you to a page that says:
"Please Visit my site on this cached mirror... scanner photography"
And following that link.....
groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
Taking apart a scanner and assembling a device to bring down his web server. Oh, wait...
Your assumption is based on the idea that he would learn about the same rate as you. This is wrong for several reasons
1. People don't learn at the same speed
2. This guy was learning something very specific
3. The dedication - this guy had a project he wanted to work, you were taking some classes
You should be able to code what ever you want - all it takes is the desire and dedication to do it - no formal classes are required. Prehaps the fact you never "messed with Basic" explains why you haven't learned much - you simply aren't interested enough to pursue it yourself.
The Martian Rovers and Casini use scanning cameras to reduce weight and volume of optics. Works fine if things arent changing too fast.
I remember seeing a photo-finish for one of the stages during the last Tour de France and they used a similar setup. The image was all normal-looking except for the spokes on the bicycles. Instead of radiating out from the hub to the rim in straight lines, they sort of bent upward. Like so. That's not the best example, but you get the idea.
This sig rocks the casbah.
Too bad the site is down, I want to try putting a scanner in my camera obscura (http://members.shaw.ca/mhamilto).
Yes, I remember that Canon lens, I played around with it once in a trade show (though I have not really worked with it). But it exists just to prove my point: It is very limited in what you can actually do. Both tilting and shifting have a very low range and it's just one lens (a wide angle), so limiting the use you can get out of it. It was made for architectural photography mostly (so you can get parallel building lines and maybe "fold" the plane of sharpness a bit "down"). Getting two (or more) focal points exactly right is not easy with such a tiny thing. Mechanics are limiting clearly.
Have you ever worked with a real large format camera? The difference is immense. With a good camera, the limits of tilt and shift are the limits of the lens being used. Put a big magnifying loupe on and you get the focus very accurate in multiple points across a 3d field.
>> A Modern Salvador Dali
>> (Score:3, Funny) by CarnivorousCoder (872609)
>> Salvador Dali meets a camera. Brilliant stuff!
> Why is parent modded funny ?
Dali died in 1989.
Used view camera lenses can be had at reasonable prices. There's no good reason not to buy a lens that's a century old. 4x5 inch coverage, even 8x10 are not unreasonable. A look at eBay revealed 2 lenses below $160 for 4x5 coverage. You should be able to buy complete view cameras from an antique dealer.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
A bit off topic, but do these cameras still have the PLAY TUNE command? :)
Check out the video!
"The HP ScanJet 4c's SCL (Scanner Control Language) command set includes an unofficial PLAY TUNE command."
Check it out: Scanjet Music
Defining Statistics and Social Research
My wife used to have a jewelry business, and I did all the product photography for her.
At first I tried using film; but the turnaround time, even with 1-hour developing is a drag, because it's tough to get everything Just Right, when you're dealing with highly-reflective and very small objects. So, we discovered that it's much easier to just drop the stuff onto a flatbed scanner and do a hi-res scan. The old HP scanner I had at the time had a really deep depth-of-field and a nice wide, diffused light source, so even non-flat pieces came out very nice. And, you could stick colored paper or cloth on top of the product for fun backgrounds - propped-up a bit if you needed to get the background out of focus.
Then that scanner died and I couldn't find another scanner that would duplicate the DOF and diffused light source. So I bought a digital camera.
But, boring story short: if you can find a scanner with the right DOF, you can do some really great macro stuff with it. 4000dpi at 1:1 shows a surprising amout of fine detail.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Sure you can correct stuff later, but it is generally better in photography to try to get the best image you can at the moment you are taking it; you've then have got a lot more to work with! The phrase "polishing a turd" comes to mind...
I would mod parent up, but a) I have no mod points right now and b) it's already at 5.
I saw a ton of this when I worked at Kinko's. People would bring in crappy ripped-up, stained, faded and overexposed wallet photos for enlargement. They didn't want to understand that crappy input like that = crappy output. We could do basic stuff like white correction (one guy liked the white-corrected copy I made for him better than the original photo) and maybe if a customer really begged for it, red-eye editing, but any kind of complicated restoration was beyond us.
But by God, they had seen the whiz-bang scanner commercials on TV! The guy on TV just clicked a button and everything looked brand-new! Why won't you serve me, I'm a customer dammit! What do you mean a 100x50 JPG, won't look good when you blow it up to 60"x30"? (Actually happened. I had to print an 8x10 section of the enlarged image before the guy would believe me when I told him how crappy it would look.)
-- Old Man Kensey
Well, I didn't expect that to happen... My bandwidth limit was drastically exceed this morning. As you know. Luckily, some great people have offered me a bit of help... so you can see the project again. I've put up a link on ww2w.scannerphotography.com Thanks so much for looking at my work... I hope you enjoy it! Mike Golembewski
I know I'm not the first person to say this, but those images are amazing. I think it's wonderful that you've been able to do this.
This is MUCH more interesting than an iPod in a geiger counter.
Proverbs 21:19
Next time try some Gaffer's Tape... reknowned in the studio photography world to stick like a sumbitch, leave no residue when peeled away, and block light completely. It's a high-threadcount black cotton tape with masking tape adhesive, and it realy is dark-safe.
SoupIsGood Food
...At that kind of resolution, panning across the Grand Canyon might give some pretty impressive results...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Someone should invent a camera that can capture the flow of comments posted to Slashdot...
I don't know about any of you - aside from your witty sigs - but I do know that I looked at every shot posted on the linked website, and I found them to be encaptivating. This project is both creative and thought-provoking, and I wish I'd thought of it first. Bravo, I say.
These shots should be on dorm room walls in no time...
Mid-1980s low-rez bw consumer computer-tethered cameras worked the same way.
It was fun to appear on one part of the image, run around the camera, and be scanned a second time.
Look ma, I've got a twin brother!
Interestingly, most 35mm SLR cameras work the same way in high-speed mode:
The shutter in effect has a slit that slides across the film. The speed is way too fast for most artistic use, but you can see it for yourself by taking a flash photo with the film speed set too high - only part of your photo will be "flashed" - the rest wasn't "in the window" until after the flash ended.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
35mm SLRs have mechanical shutters. Most (not all) work by releasing two curtains in sequence. The first retracts from one side to the other, letting light reach the film. The second extends in the same direction shortly thereafter, covering the film again. What you get, then, especially for short exposures, is a negative which was exposed at different times from one edge to the other. Normally you can't see this effect, but it is possible to capture (or miss, depending on the direction of motion) highspeed events in the field of view.
Essentially the shutter mechanism is acting like a mechanical line-scan.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
This kind of distortion is actually not new, it has been known to happen on some traditional film cameras with sliding shutter.
The sliding shutter always moves with the same speed, and high speed (short time) shutter is created by narrowing the openning slit in the shutter that passes in front of the film, usually in horizontal direction. This has exactly the same effect as the scanner, for exactly the same reason. The only difference is that the shutter moves very fast, which makes the effect noticable only when taking picture of very fast moving objects with very fast "shutter speed" (meaning the slit is very narrow). There are some pretty famous shots using this effect.
Cool pictures, though.
AccountKiller
Meh, offtopic? Have you looked at the Oddities Gallery page on TFA?
the motion of the scanner was meshing with the motion of the recorded scene, creating unexpected, yet predictable, results -- TFA
That's what these images are all about, though the scanner is used without modification. He just emphasizes movement more than the author of TFA.
...[T]he objects that were moving were twisted and distorted into wonderful shapes. At first, I thought that this was a mistake, that something was wrong with my new contraption. But I soon realized that the motion of the scanner was meshing with the motion of the recorded scene, creating unexpected, yet predictable, results.
Someone needs to tell him that slit-scan photography has already been invented.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
combine this with some really wild slit/film configurations, and you can get some interesting images... check out what andrew davidhazy is doing with moving slit photography, especially some of this stuff. he even has some articles discussing scanner derived camera backs here and here
three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
"The objects in the scene that were stationary photographed normally, while the objects that were moving were twisted and distorted into wonderful shapes. At first, I thought that this was a mistake, that something was wrong with my new contraption." He can't be serious. He goes through all the trouble of constructing a method for scanning the real world and doesn't even realize the fact that he's going to have an incredibly long, non-uniform exposure? Does he lack a fundamental grasp on how scanners and photography work?
http://www.panoscan.com/Advantage/index.html
"These Sony sensors were originally designed for inexpensive doccument scanners. "
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random