Re: Bruce's self portrait

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Andy, you hit the nail on the head.... The slivers in the image are from when I moved back to my home position against the direction of the scan. I was scanning at 200 dpi, generating an 18MB bmp file. The time it takes for one capture is about 10 to 15 seconds. I think the buffer does get dumped in the middle of the scan, but I think it adds a unique signature to the image. Some thing that I like about all the images that I have created with the camera is that they are all different with their own unique qualities which are sometimes disturbing, and other times pleasing. The picture that I submitted is pretty normal looking, I have taken many pictures that are very distorted due to changes in scan speed.

More images can be viewed on my web page: http://beam.to/mrbruce
I'll put some more of my experiments online later tonight, with descriptions.


Thanks,
Bruce

On Sunday, June 29, 2003, at 12:07 PM, ADavidhazy wrote:

Bruce Weitzman - Speak-Hear-See, self-portrait Interesting technique and a
favourite theme. Very good choice to make the three portraits increase in
height across the frame. Given the method used, it would be small to complain
about the slivers to the left of each portraits (and the one to the right of
the final one), but I am curious as to why they are there. I am also curious
as to how long the exposure was. How many attempts did it take to get a
workable image from this Rube Goldberg-like set up?

Brian, I hope that Bruce will share more material regarding his experiments but
I can tell you that those "slivers" are nothing more than him rapidly getting
back to a starting position to be scanned again at a lower speed ... one more
likely to result in a "normal" reproduction of his head. Even so he was moving
just a bit too fast for the rate that his scanner required for proper height to
width ratio in the final reproduction compared to those same factors of his
head. You can get a better view of what he looked like by digitally stretching
(keep height fixed - increase width) the image by a factor of maybe 200 to
300%.


As he weaved back and forth in front of the camera he also changed his height
in front of the camera resulting in his image appearing higher/lower across the
frame.


The exposure was as long as it takes a flat bed scanner to make a scan of a
page I presume. This varies depending on the resolution chosen for the scane.
The higher values causing the scanner to scan slower. Depending on the scanner
he would have to worry (so to speak) about the scanner interrupting the
scanning process to dump its buffer - at low resolutions the buffer never gets
filled and the scan is continuous.


I have not myself worked much with flat bed scanners for this purpose (I've
concentrated on a Kodak snapshot scanner and a hand scanner) so am not
comfortable making definitive statements about this - maybe Bruce will tell us
more.


Andy  o o  0 0 o . o  Davidhazy, Imaging and Photo Tech
      \/\/\/\/\/\/    www.rit.edu/~andpph  716-475-2592
_______|        |_____________________________________



[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux