3 ms·
That's a really cool technique! Though it looks like his scanner glass is scratched to hell and back (I wish they'd make the glass more scratch resistant.) My e
by byuu 12y ago
That's a really cool technique! Though it looks like his scanner glass is scratched to hell and back (I wish they'd make the glass more scratch resistant.) My exact scanner type, too. I would say it's definitely fast at 300dpi; but it takes well over 90 seconds for 600dpi (full scan, chip scan would be faster of course), never dared try 1200dpi.
Also too bad I can't use use this trick when scanning cardboard boxes and manuals.
- fennecfoxen 12y agoIs that his scanner glass that's scratched, or the chip?
- kamiheku 12y agoThe scratches don't seem to match between the scans, so it seems that it is indeed his scanner glass that is scratched.
- moron4hire 12y agoI just did an overlay of the two images and most of the visible scratches in the "before" version have matches in the "after" version. There are other scratches that are visible in the "after" image that often obscure the "before" scratches, so it can be difficult to tell. But maybe there are scratches on both the chip package and the glass?
- Luc 12y ago> Though it looks like his scanner glass is scratched to hell and back I don't think the scratches are on the scanner, since they're in the same location on both images and the CPU had to be moved to be placed in water.
- byuu 12y agoI tried to compare the two to rule that possibility out, but it's possible I'm mistaken. That would be good though, I'd hate to think they were scanning things with all that scratch damage getting on every picture.
- zokier 12y agoThe scratches are dominantly vertical in dry scan and horizontal in wet scan. This in my mind would indicate that scratches are on the scanner glass and the chip was rotated between the scans.