[X] My Assistant

Name: phone scan / camera scan

Type: Technical

Description: Scans done using phone camera instead of a flatbed scanner, producing visibly curved (non-flat) pages.

I was discussing the scan quality with some scanners recently and the tag was suggested. Might as well discuss it here?

And before the 'we don't want people edit warring over scan quality', identifying camera scans is easy, objective, and their quality is significantly different from flatbed scanners. Frankly, one of the purposes of this tag would be to help identify galleries that need to be rescanned properly since most camera scans are pretty much beyond salvaging and effectively they are just a type of a sample. Consider also https://ehwiki.org/wiki/watermarked tag and the https://ehwiki.org/wiki/scanmark tag

Examples:
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1616312/735de10b26/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/634583/9604b9670c/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/409782/1814e75bfe/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/932510/05eb3c74ad/ (note: incorrectly tagged with sample)
http://ehentaihip.com/g/641715/efad43bd57/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1457450/22abb1ba2e/
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1457439/4eeb545e82/

Related: If anyone wonders why we don't have tags for scan resolution (low res, high res, absurd res, whatever) see here. Frankly I'd rather see this fixed one way or another, ideally with a searchable option for average/median file resolution in a gallery, but that's not probably off topic.

Also mostly off topic, but I think sample tag is often mistagged, just look at some entries, particularly older, in http://ehentaihip.com/tag/sample/9 - lots of those are omakes or official drafts. Might as well think about some more tags to differentiate such stuff.

This post has been edited by Red_Piotrus: Aug 31 2020, 14:10

I think it's a good tag. Should probably use Camera Scan so people don't try to claim they used a professional camera or what have you and "Phone Scan" doesn't apply. There are tags for the type of censorship the galleries contain, seems like a similar logic to me.

With the app-based scanning tech available now, there's no reason for galleries like the ones you provided - they're just straight up photos.

I wonder how easy it would be to find an example of a work scanned with [play.google.com] Google's photo scan app for example, I'm curious to see how quality is affected.

This post has been edited by nasu_sensei: Jul 24 2020, 17:24

Eww, those galleries.
I think this tag could be useful indeed.

Semi-expunging, right?

Useful, so I'd support it.

Please don't exclude scans that look like camera scans but were made with a flatbed scanner. If the pages are not removed from the spine, this results in the page not being flat on the scanner glass, so the image may be slightly curved near the spine. There can also be dark shadowing at the sides, but some people get rid of it by turning up the contrast to a high level during the automated photoshop leveling process.

Because of this, I suggest that the tag description not say "camera only". The description could say "...or similar results such as curved images resulting from pressing a book down on the flatbed scanner or pages with dark shadows at one edge."

I wish we could ban those kind of galleries... I'm for that tag, very useful.

no objection to the idea.

Please don't exclude scans that look like camera scans but were made with a flatbed scanner. If the pages are not removed from the spine, this results in the page not being flat on the scanner glass, so the image may be slightly curved near the spine. There can also be dark shadowing at the sides, but some people get rid of it by turning up the contrast to a high level during the automated photoshop leveling process.

Because of this, I suggest that the tag description not say "camera only". The description could say "...or similar results such as curved images resulting from pressing a book down on the flatbed scanner or pages with dark shadows at one edge."

Hmmmm, doable, as in 'in spirit', and frankly, with very bad scans can we really tell the difference just visually? But let's see what Joe thinks about this extension?

If this tag is created, there's no point in differentiating between a phone, camera, or whatever.

If pages get curved one way or another, the same results occur.

I am in favor of this tag.

I guess I will set aside a Favorites tag for now in anticipation of this tag being approved. I'll mark any gallery I see as a "favorite" since using Favorites to tag those will let me find them again. I otherwise can't remember.

It's too bad I saw two days ago a subtle example of the flatbed scanner being used on a doujin whose pages had not been removed from the spine. I didn't save the e-hentai URL so it is totally lost to me in the blur of a gazillion items appearing on the front page shoving items down. The uploader tried to smush it down on the glass, but there was still a slight bit of curve. There was a picture that was split across two pages. I could only make them sort of match up by rotating one of the images 2 degrees. The curvature of the pages + spine caused that to happen during scanning. After rotating, I could see all the lines match up except the top fifth of the image still didn't match due to the curvature. At that point, I had to junk it as being too flawed to upload.

Why bother reassembling an image? Well, I like to join adjacent pages (in the cases of split-apart images) and then upload those to the doujinshi database as one of the example images.

This post has been edited by Anime Janai: Aug 24 2020, 09:13

I'm all in for this tag.

The tag description should be written such that the gallery below is taggable.
http://ehentaihip.com/g/1716504/c32a10880e/

Gallery Description:
This is an artbook type gallery. But it was scanned without removing the pages from the spine. Thus, the infamous "dark shadows" appear on the part of the scanned page near the spine.

Agreed. Revised def:

Description: Scans done using phone camera instead of a flatbed scanner, or without debinding the pages, producing visibly curved (non-flat) pages.

I guess the name should be changed too. Any suggestions? Curved pages? But would http://ehentaihip.com/g/409782/1814e75bfe/ fit then?

Any suggestions? Curved pages?

Image Defects - this tag also avoids the use of "poor" or "bad" in order to avoid any type of blame upon the person who made the scan. I don't want to inadvertently insult someone that spend a bunch of money to scan something without destroying the $60 to $120 book artbook.

- = - = - = - = -

As the CON argument against the tag, what counts as the defect should be explicitly described as Red Piotrus did in the prior post. Otherwise, other items may creep into the tag such as "excessive photoshop" or excessive image processing usage which resulted in blooming colors, color shifts, or more commonly the overly contrasted B/W image which lost a lot of shading detail due to the automated leveling script that people use with photoshop.

I've wanted an "Excessive Photoshop" tag for a long time. Sure, the word photoshop is being abused as a generic term for image processing here.

Excessive photoshop wouldn't be good givne the "photoshop" part tbh.
Low scan quality?

Image defects could go, but there is always the possible, but rare?, case of a wells scanned book but having some paper tears (notably near the joint).

Excessive photoshop wouldn't be good givne the "photoshop" part tbh.
Low scan quality?

Image defects could go, but there is always the possible, but rare?, case of a wells scanned book but having some paper tears (notably near the joint).

Perhaps "Image Defects" isn't such a good tag when it "entices" people to use the tag for paper tear defects, poorly leveled images, and scans from newbie scanner users who make nice large resolution scans, but the scan is wasted due to the printed image on the other side showing through the paper. An example of this image scan defect is at:

http://ehentaihip.com/g/1725976/1adbef5fd9/

It's easiest to see on the last page where the author makes comments. You can see the printed image showing through. I put in a gallery comment and hope the scanner person won't take offense and release a bunch of low quality scans afterwards. But someone scanning can easily take offense if they spent $50 to buy and import the doujinshi, then make a high res scan only to have some twerp like me comment on a scan error. Well, I tried to make a constructive criticism based upon my past years of scanning manga and doujins.

Yeah that's a good example, not sure if this new tag should apply to this too?

From the wording of the OP, it sounds like bleedthrough wasn't an intended part of the tag, which I'd be inclined to say should be the case. I'd prefer a second tag for that.