|
45worlds Forums » 78 RPM » View Topic
| How to scan a 78 the proper way. |
Add Reply
Page 1 of 3 : Previous : Next :
| 6th May 2015, 5:58 PM | #1 REPORT | |
 | dezwarteschijf Member since Jul 2014 268 Points | As we all knew 78 records are very fragile to handle. They are not as flexibel as vinyl is but they can bend a bit so it's not that difficult to make a good scan out of the labels. Most people (like I do) has a A4 scanner wich means that the record can only be placed on the glass plate with one end on and the rest over it wich makes the scan blury because it's lifted from the glass plate on one end .. how to overcome this ? One thing I discovered is that 78 records can indeed bend without breaking .. Just get the cover of or open from the scanner and place the 78 record over the glass plate .. you will notice now when you do a scan the whole image will be blury as I said ... Oke, .. What you need is .. One white inner sleeve from a vinyl album or some other large white paper. 2 bottles filled with water (70 CL). Place the record on the scanner. Place the white paper over the 78 .. because we need that white hole in the middle. Then place the 2 bottles of water gently on the 78 in the middle .. gently because we do not want to break them of course. Now do your scan and be amazed how wel placed the label is now onto the glass plate of your scanner.  These scans I did this way were added recently .. Click here Edited by moderator on 6th May 2015, 6:22 PM |
| 6th May 2015, 6:57 PM | #2 REPORT | |
 | gregs45s SUBS ● Member since Apr 2012 7501 Points | I have my scanner on the floor under my desk,and i generally find the weight of a foot will suffice,78's do have a bit of play,say 1 or 2 millimeters,and as they can only flex this much if you do it this way,it's pretty safe.I've added over 300 78's doing it this way,and haven't broken one (yet:). PS. When i say the "the weight of a foot",i do of course mean your own foot:),(no trips to a graveyard with a shovel;) Edited by gregs78s on 6th May 2015, 9:31 PM |
| 6th May 2015, 7:29 PM | #3 REPORT | |
| dezwarteschijf Member since Jul 2014 268 Points | well Greg, I tried it first with one bottle holding it down onto the 78 but I didn't want to end up like a Popey with one musculed arm (had to give it that much force holding the record down while scanning)  I decided to take 2 filled bottles instead so I didn't had to give the weight myself onto the record .. that worked just fine |
| 6th May 2015, 8:43 PM | #4 REPORT | |
 | nboldock Lend me ten pounds and I'll buy you a drink. Member since Feb 2012 7198 Points Moderator |
gregs78s wrote:
I have my scanner on the floor under my desk,and i generally find the weight of a foot will suffice,78's do have a bit of play,say 1 or 2 millimeters,and as they can only flex this much if you do it this way,it's pretty safe.I've added over 300 78's doing it this way,and haven't broken one (yet:).
PS. When i say the "the weight of a foot",i do of course mean your own foot:),(no trips to a graveyards with a shovel;) I use the "foot method" also! |
| 6th May 2015, 9:37 PM | #5 REPORT | |
| gregs45s SUBS ● Member since Apr 2012 7501 Points | well Greg, I tried it first with one bottle holding it down onto the 78 but I didn't want to end up like a Popey with one musculed arm (had to give it that much force holding the record down while scanning) I decided to take 2 filled bottles instead so I didn't had to give the weight myself onto the record .. that worked just fine Ha Ha,yes i understand,your idea is good if you have the scanner on top of the desk (as is usual).A good tip! |
| 6th May 2015, 9:39 PM | #6 REPORT | |
| gregs45s SUBS ● Member since Apr 2012 7501 Points |
nboldock wrote:
gregs78s wrote:
I have my scanner on the floor under my desk,and i generally find the weight of a foot will suffice,78's do have a bit of play,say 1 or 2 millimeters,and as they can only flex this much if you do it this way,it's pretty safe.I've added over 300 78's doing it this way,and haven't broken one (yet:).
PS. When i say the "the weight of a foot",i do of course mean your own foot:),(no trips to a graveyards with a shovel;) I use the "foot method" also! Edited by gregs78s on 6th May 2015, 11:04 PM |
| 7th May 2015, 12:56 AM | #7 REPORT | |
| dezwarteschijf Member since Jul 2014 268 Points | Think I'm gonna trade in the water bottles for some whiskey bottles .. when done with the scanning part I'll have at at least something to drink on  The food method is indeed a good idea but as you said mine (like most folks have) is on the top of the desc .. I did not try this on the 12inch 78's because I don't own one .. those are mainly classic and that's not my kind of thing ... |
| 7th May 2015, 5:27 AM | #8 REPORT | |
 | xiphophilos Member since Dec 2013 3351 Points Moderator | Foot or bottles, this would make me nervous. I'm glad I have access to a somewhat larger scanner. Maybe worth going to a commercial copy center? |
| 7th May 2015, 6:51 AM | #9 REPORT | |
 | George Slv This comment marked as Spam. Please press Not Spam Member since Aug 2012 498 Points | I was wondering if any scanners have auto-focus so they detect the surface. And I've been asking around a long time for a home scanner that's at least 12.5". But my latest has the stitch feature anyway. Edited by George Slv on 7th May 2015, 7:00 AM |
| 7th May 2015, 11:28 AM | #10 REPORT | |
| dezwarteschijf Member since Jul 2014 268 Points | well as for 33 RPM album stitching can be done with the free program "Image Composite Editor" from and only available for windows. As I have a A4 scanner that would made me 4 scans from one side then stiched together and that work very well for me. Auto-Focus is not something I have seen on scanners (yet) and to buy a A3 scanner that would cost me too much money for the little collection albums I've got (Few Hundreds) I'll stick with my A4 scanner for now and my method of scanning 78's .. if any of you got different idea's for scanning 78's or whatever piece of music feel free to comment  |
| 7th May 2015, 1:05 PM | #11 REPORT | |
| RogerFoster To ignore is human, to follow is divine. Member since Jul 2014 3084 Points | Or alternatively you can do as suggested in the guide to adding images and just take a photo (with or without bottles of water, whiskey etc. etc.) LOL |
| 8th May 2015, 6:58 AM | #12 REPORT | |
| Neil Forbes Rock, Country or R. & B. - Classic Hits for me! Member since Dec 2014 252 Points |
gregs78s wrote:
I have my scanner on the floor under my desk,and i generally find the weight of a foot will suffice,78's do have a bit of play,say 1 or 2 millimeters,and as they can only flex this much if you do it this way,it's pretty safe.I've added over 300 78's doing it this way,and haven't broken one (yet:).
PS. When i say the "the weight of a foot",i do of course mean your own foot:),(no trips to a graveyard with a shovel;)  |
| 17th May 2015, 7:49 PM | #13 REPORT | |
| RobertG Member since Mar 2014 92 Points | That linked-to scan is amazing in quality! Have been experimenting a bit - and now just taking pictures also. But had decent results from making a simple lightbox. A white paper cone that goes over the label and the camera pointing down at the label. Eliminates lighting glare and white paper still lets through enough diffuse light for a good image (if flat and in-focus). |
| 20th May 2015, 3:07 PM | #14 REPORT | |
| Neil Forbes Rock, Country or R. & B. - Classic Hits for me! Member since Dec 2014 252 Points |
dezwarteschijf wrote:
well as for 33 RPM album stitching can be done with the free program "Image Composite Editor" from and only available for windows.
As I have a A4 scanner that would made me 4 scans from one side then stiched together and that work very well for me. Auto-Focus is not something I have seen on scanners (yet) and to buy a A3 scanner that would cost me too much money for the little collection albums I've got (Few Hundreds) I'll stick with my A4 scanner for now and my method of scanning 78's .. if any of you got different idea's for scanning 78's or whatever piece of music feel free to comment Dezwarteschijf and I follow fairly similar processes, though for image editing(enhancement) after everything's been stitched together, I use Microsoft Office Picture Manager to adjust size, sharpness, brightness etc. If you're running Windows and haven't got it on your desktop, click on "Start", go to "All Programmes", then to Microsoft Office, Open that folder and you'll see another, Microsoft Office Tools, you'll find the picture manager programme there. Edited by Neil Forbes on 24th May 2015, 11:21 AM |
| 24th Jun 2015, 12:06 AM | #15 REPORT | |
| Break-In Master Member since Dec 2013 251 Points | How about if you get another sheet of glass the same size as the one on the scanner, lay the record on that and then put the lid down. |
| 25th Jun 2015, 2:10 PM | #16 REPORT | |
| Neil Forbes Rock, Country or R. & B. - Classic Hits for me! Member since Dec 2014 252 Points |
Break-In Master wrote:
How about if you get another sheet of glass the same size as the one on the scanner, lay the record on that and then put the lid down.
|
| 25th Jun 2015, 3:04 PM | #17 REPORT | |
 | getalife So many questions, so few answers Member since Nov 2010 877 Points Moderator | Or, how about a piece of 5m/m cardboard with the middle cut out. Update: Forget that idea, just tried it using an A4 Jiffy envelope, out of focus?.  Edited by getalife on 25th Jun 2015, 3:28 PM |
| 25th Jun 2015, 4:13 PM | #18 REPORT | |
| Neil Forbes Rock, Country or R. & B. - Classic Hits for me! Member since Dec 2014 252 Points |
getalife wrote:
Or, how about a piece of 5m/m cardboard with the middle cut out.
Update: Forget that idea, just tried it using an A4 Jiffy envelope, out of focus?. Aah, bummer! |
| 26th Jun 2015, 1:52 AM | #19 REPORT | |
| Break-In Master Member since Dec 2013 251 Points |
getalife wrote:
Or, how about a piece of 5m/m cardboard with the middle cut out.
Update: Forget that idea, just tried it using an A4 Jiffy envelope, out of focus?. I'm just guessing, but I'd think that with the cardboard being there, the scanner would focus to the cardboard rather than the label 1/8 of an inch away. With glass, it might not recognize the second layer. |
| 28th Jun 2015, 11:21 PM | #20 REPORT | |
| dezwarteschijf Member since Jul 2014 268 Points |
Break-In Master wrote:
How about if you get another sheet of glass the same size as the one on the scanner, lay the record on that and then put the lid down.
I don't think that would work, the light scanners are using would have go to two layers of glass before reaching the label .. no scanner beam is strong enough though to scan it without getting out of focus. Other problem is that 78's are thicker than vinyl and scanners only like object close to the glass plate. I'll stick to my bottles  |
Page 1 of 3 : Previous : Next :
Add Reply
45worlds website ©2025 :
Homepage :
Search :
Sitemap :
Help Page :
Privacy :
Terms :
Contact :
Share This Page
Vinyl Albums : Live Music : 78 RPM : CD Albums : CD Singles : 12" Singles : 7" Singles : Tape Media : Classical Music : Music Memorabilia : Cinema : TV Series : DVD & Blu-ray : Magazines : Books : Video Games : Create Your Own World
Latest » Items : Comments : Price Guide : Reviews : Ratings : Images : Lists : Videos : Tags : Collected : Wanted : Top 50 : Random
45worlds for music, movies, books etc : 45cat for 7" singles : 45spaces for hundreds more worlds
:
Like us on Facebook
Vinyl Albums : Live Music : 78 RPM : CD Albums : CD Singles : 12" Singles : 7" Singles : Tape Media : Classical Music : Music Memorabilia : Cinema : TV Series : DVD & Blu-ray : Magazines : Books : Video Games : Create Your Own World
Latest » Items : Comments : Price Guide : Reviews : Ratings : Images : Lists : Videos : Tags : Collected : Wanted : Top 50 : Random
45worlds for music, movies, books etc : 45cat for 7" singles : 45spaces for hundreds more worlds