CRANER@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (01/14/91)
Here are the results of my request for information about scanners for x-ray transparencies. Thanks also to eplunix!das@das.harvard.edu (David Steffens) and jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko), who also mentioned Truvel and X-Ray Scanner Corp. ==== From: Jim Bethin bethin@gdstech.grumman.com Richard, I have not tried this, but the following company makes a product called OmniMedia, a series of scanners to do what you want: X-Ray Scanner Corp. 1687 E. Del Amo Blvd Carson, CA 90746 (213) 608-3711 OmniMedia 3c $4500 300-dpi, 24-bit color scanner: actually, black-cased Microtek MSF-300Z w/ a transparency scanning attachment. Inputs photos, 35mm slides, transparencies, X rays, etc. Use w/ highly reflective or diff.-to-digitize docs. Bndled w/ Photoshop for retouching images. For graphic arts environments. OmniMedia 3cx $5400 300-dpi, 24-bit color scanner bndled w/ Photoshop. Intended for medical-imaging applications. Bndled w/Photoshop for retouching images. ============= From: souka@msc.edu (Omar Souka) There is an x-ray scanner for the mac. It's made by a company call Truvel (I think they just went bankrupt and got bought up by someone else, so their name is probably different now). At my last job, I set up a x-ray scanning system with Truvel's scanner and a Mac II which worked very well. As far as using a camera and a light table or another type of scanner, I don't think you'll have much luck. Email or call me if you want more info. ============== From: morrow@enel.ucalgary.ca (William Mark Morrow) We use an Eikonix scanner, which functionally is the same as a video camera, just higher resolution (4096x4096 12-bit pixels). I haven't noticed the loss of quality you mention, although I haven't done any real careful studies. The Eikonix is not very convenient to use, being hard to focus and adjust for correct illumination, but seems to give good images once this is done. We are image processing mammograms, and require the high resolution to image microcalcifications properly. = = Richard S. Crane = InterNet: craner@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu = BITNET: CRANER@YALEVM QuickMail: Richard_Crane.MCSC@yccatsmtp.ycc.yale.edu ====================
Vivino@NIHDCRT (Mark Vivino) (01/17/91)
>We use an Eikonix scanner, which functionally is the same as a video >camera, just higher resolution (4096x4096 12-bit pixels). I haven't noticed >the loss of quality you mention, although I haven't done any real careful >studies. >The Eikonix is not very convenient to use, being hard to focus and adjust >for correct illumination, but seems to give good images once this is >done. >We are image processing mammograms, and require the high resolution to >image microcalcifications properly. Richard S. Crane I wouldn't count on the Eikonix single line CCD array (made by NEC) to give you 12 bits. I'd say you might have 9 significant, and 10 if you are lucky. Also the Nikon lens that comes with this system can't give you high positional accuracy, even if the stepper motor does. Nikon does not give out info on the Contrast Transfer Function of their lenses. Opinions are my own, I don't own an Eikonix but I am interested in their product. Mark Vivino mvivino@helix.nih.gov