Close Topic Options

... XD!

Yeps, I'll get around to re-doing the discs, currently doing Jewelry. I wanna scan 'em all so I can finally do that WLTP Collection Thread™ cause the old one is dead & lol Avex totally gave up on Hyper Techno + the WLTP anthology. I'm re-rip'ing & scanning everything, so it can have the logs et al... proper enough for K1RZA to make a Hyper Techno folder on his server. ☆彡

I'd take the second over the first since there's way less dust.

There's dirt, dust and, hair on the CD's.
That's 100% unacceptable when presenting a physical product in the professional world. Items should be 100% free of debris.

What have I told you everyone, how hard is it to wipe your CD's and scanningbed before you scan them!



This post has been edited by Sensation! on Jul 10 2016, 12:44 PM

This whole thread is like What.cd on crack.

.


This post has been edited by xiao on Jul 21 2016, 09:56 AM

Heh. That's why I hate black. Unless you have a dust free house (which is impossible), you can't get perfect black scans. Imo, I prefer seeing dust and hairs over edited content.

Btw, What.CD doesn't have rules over scans. So, yeah. It's entirely up to you. Just FYI.

.


This post has been edited by xiao on Jul 21 2016, 09:56 AM

Two things:
1. I talked about my 238 scan.
2. I talked about the inner black ring and how it makes any debris visible.

.


This post has been edited by xiao on Jul 21 2016, 09:55 AM

Holy shit I cannot even handle this bigotry right now, what the FUCK.

That's my reaction.

.


This post has been edited by xiao on Jul 21 2016, 09:55 AM

I declare you a very bad scanner, xiao. No matter how much you scan the CDs, you can't stop editing them more than they need to.

Image size reduced, original size: 4032 x 2268. Click here to view the image in its original dimension.

XD

Hi, I'm an actual scanner and you're on crack. I downloaded his scan of Juliana's Toho 1 and checked through it. The one fault I can find is that he didn't descreen the scan, instead choosing to leave the scan at 600 dpi. I personally would never do this--I'd run the scan through a gaussian blur of radius 5, downscale, then unsharp mask to try to restore a little detail--because I hate moire with a passion, but I can understand why someone would want to. Whether it's for 'purity' (even though your eye cannot perceive the moire thus making a moire scan 'impure' anyway) or simply on the merit of your scanner lacking a descreen filter and being unable to scan at 1200dpi while being asked to provide a 600dpi minimum scan, there are reasons to leave scans like this.

However, aside from the moire, I can see nothing wrong with his scans. Would you care to try again? I can always provide my scanning portfolio as credentials if you're so inclined to question them.

There is a looooooooooong history of conversations between Lebon and Xiao that fleshes out the superfight over these scans.

One of these people is fucking batshit crazy. The other is trolling. Take your pick.

Love you, Xiao, but god damn, you're going to hell for what you're doing.

.


This post has been edited by xiao on Jul 21 2016, 09:55 AM

The only that's really bad imo are the discs. I could understand the extra steps in order to descreen and remove moiré but removing the shadows around is just a big no. It looks so bad. I've tried to tell him 100 times already, he just doesn't listen. It's that SINGLE thing. And he's the only one doing this. From all the scans that were included in downloads, that I downloaded, I never saw this. Never. Because it doesn't look natural or good.

Not even takumi333 does this. And he's quality centered too.

And I'm not trolling, it's just that I want a minimum of quality and usuing the Magic Wand Tool for this is not a sign of quality.

It's easier to rotate & align if you just cut the circumference of a disc, instead of the whole picture & crop since it uses more RAM. I really don't see the importance of shadows tho~ ??

Solid white background vs. grainy textured shadows. I can keep the background transparent too for all the PNG purists.

Okay, so we're ignoring everything except the discs. All right, then here we go. The disc scans for the same one--Juliana 1--look perfectly fine. The only complaint I would have, as a scanner, is that the scanbed was not cleaned properly prior to scanning. There are hairs present which, barring cleaning the scanbed and doing it over, could be removed through careful application of healing tools. It's still better to get the scan right the first time, but if there's a speck of dust or something that can be post-processed out. I do it all the time for minor imperfections in my doujinshi scans and, funny, no one seems to notice.

You also claim that you have never seen anything like this ever. Well, kiddo, I've got his scan open in GIMP, and I picked a random rip from my old hard drive that included scans of the disc. Ya ready for this?

Image size reduced, original size: 1024 x 1024. Click here to view the image in its original dimension.

The scan is from "Omokage Warp" by nano.RIPE, in case you were curious, and you can click the image above to be taken to a sendspace link where you can download the full comparison image. I think anyone with eyes in their skull that have optical nerves connecting said eyes to a functioning brain can see that Xiao's scan of the disc is infinitely superior despite the scans sharing the same resolution (I actually had to scale Xiao's down by only 10px to fix the scan for Omokage Warp). I have plenty more examples of disc scans showing similar results. Now, is there more Xiao could do? Sure! Again there's the whole screening issue, and he could've been a little more aggressive about removing hairs and such (though, again, the best way is to just clean your damn scanbed and retake the scan). However, clarity-wise, it's still superior.

So, your claim that 'no one does (anything that makes the disc scan look subjectively bad to you)' is false, and your claim that his scan is bad is false. Is there anything else you'd like to bring to the table? How about some objective facts and evidence? 'Cause from where I'm sitting, you're full of shit right now.

This post has been edited by Nomake Wan on Jul 18 2016, 10:24 AM

You are telling me that you are doing that simply it uses a lot of RAM? If you told me that 15 years ago, I would have said "OK". But today, it's irrevelent. We have, what? 6-8GB of RAM? 16 even? And what if GIMP or Photoshop use 2 of it while you work? It won't slow the rest of the computer, You might have 4GB left for doing any other task you are doing. If it's because it lags while you are doing the operations, it's because of your CPU mostly. It does that too on my side and I don't fret on it.

As for the use, I repeat. The shadows make it look more natural. As for the grains/noise, if we see some on the outside, just remember that the outside is not the target of the picture. The disc is.

As for N1... One last try to make my point. If nobody understands this, I'm closing shop.

Image size reduced, original size: 1515 x 1012. Click here to view the image in its original dimension.

Image size reduced, original size: 1665 x 1015. Click here to view the image in its original dimension.

It's not the center of the CD (ie. artwork). It's the edges. If you don't see that there are remnants of the shdows around the discs and jagged edges. I don't know what will. This is zoomed at 100%.

Oh and why the fuck not... let's make it clearer...

Image size reduced, original size: 1684 x 1037. Click here to view the image in its original dimension.

Image size reduced, original size: 1685 x 1039. Click here to view the image in its original dimension.

And then, if I don't make my point, I don't know what will. Oh and be sure to enlarge.

EDIT

Just to make sure: The last two screens are both his scans. One is the PNG from the MEGA folder, the other is when I request him to rescan it and sent me the BMPs. FYI.

This post has been edited by Lebon14 on Jul 18 2016, 12:54 PM

I have a 16GB system, and running photoshop with a high-resolution image with various working layers will push my system right up to the edge. I have actually had my browser (which usually uses ~1-2GB of RAM on its own) be forcefully exited so that Photoshop can use its RAM so as not to lose work. I'm thankful that Photoshop is now 64-bit code and can so resourcefully prevent lost work, but I sure would like a warning or something first. Ah well, beggars can't be choosers I suppose. Short version, don't tell me that Photoshop only uses 2GB. Maybe back in the days of 32-bit Windows XP it did, but nowadays we have much larger workflows thanks to 64-bit microcode.

As for your argument, holy shit I cannot believe you're making it. So much so that I bolded the part of your statement where it appears even you can't believe you're making such a nonsensical argument. The disc itself is the target. The art on the disc is the target. A disc is just a coaster much like a page is just a piece of paper. The art on it, however, is what's critical--and these scans nail it. To suggest that the stupid shadow on the edges which is wholly irrelevant to the artwork is somehow of a magical grandiose importance is the epitome of hilarity. It'd be like someone coming into my doujinshi scans and going, "Hey, asshole, stop cropping the damn pages and fixing that ~1 degree of tilt! Why can't you just scan everything at 600dpi and not do any editing at all!?"

You cannot be serious, Lebon. Please either tell me this has been one grand joke or close up shop like you promised.

This post has been edited by Nomake Wan on Jul 18 2016, 01:52 PM

1. Yes, I can understand that if you are working severall extremely hi-res pictures. I know the feel. Except that here we have a single image that needs cropping and rotating. There's no special effects. So, this argument is not a good one on computers today and I know for a fact that xiao's PC is not that old. In fact, it's more recent than mine.

2. Err... I think you misunderstood? I was talking of the white/grey areas around the disc. If there's artifacts there, it's less of an issue if it was say... over the disc's artwork because the artwork is the main subject, not the empty white/grey. Talk about over-reacting. But I'll add that the shadows created by the scanning smooth things out and make it nicer to look at.

EDIT

I'm kind of contradicting on the second point but, to put into perspective: seeing a hair in the middle of the artwork is more "eyes rolling" than finding it in the white/grey areas.

This post has been edited by Lebon14 on Jul 18 2016, 02:44 PM

So, what is your point, then? It seemed that you were making a mountain out of a molehill over the outer edges of a CD where no artwork is present. You seem to say that at the start here, but then you go ahead and try to say that it's all about the artwork.

I have no idea what your point is anymore, and in fact am led to believe that in order to not look like a complete fool you have given up trying to defend whatever it used to be now that you're faced with someone who actually knows what they're talking about rather than someone who rolls over just because you breathed in his direction.

Please, feel free to prove me wrong. Tell me clearly what your point is. Tell me clearly what your evidence is. Either that, or, as before...time to close up shop.

I can also just upload the BMP scans with no editing...

With alt accounts, Mega is no longer an issue! ☆彡

Google Fiber is GOD!! (I don't have it yet thoー orz)