[JeffreyQ]

Some time in the next ten days I'm gonna put up images, both front and back, of the complete 1970 Fleer World Series set-- that's 66 cards-- 132 scans.

There are only two or three scans in the Beckett database.

I've noticed that the IMAGE field within the organizer does not seem to standardize scans to a set width and height.

The size of many images are about 75% (Bowman '50 & '51), some smaller. User submitted images are all over the place-- sometimes as large as 180% (Topps '69 Mantle.)

I think I'll standardize the set's size at 150% @72dpi-- That provides enough juice to actually read the backs of the cards and see details.

Any comments on the IMAGE FIELD?

[filamuraireborn]

you sound very high tech. no other comments from me but great job when you have done it or finished it.

[JeffreyQ]

Ill take 'em to the office one day next week, and scan 'em after work.

I should be able to do 20 cards all at once; then scale them to 150%; then drop the dpi down to 72 in photoshop without changing the dimensions, then crop to individual cards-- That will provide a nice size.

Nothing beats trial and error.

[filamuraireborn]

I never used photoshop or even played with the dpi thingy. I've done some cropping and scaling to a certain percent. By the way, what is dpi? I never uploaded any image to the Beckett database.

[JeffreyQ]

DPI= Dots Per Inch

The higher the better.

I have access to a 9600 DPI scanner at work.

So I could take a 3.5 X 2.5 card and "technically" blow it up 7X (7 fold) to 224" x 160" at 72 DPI!

I think my maths right... but it does not matter Ill just post 5.25 x 3.75 images.

[filamuraireborn]

That must be a huge scanner. The industrial type or office type scanner. My scanner is currently broken. I think the hardware is okay but, I think the software needs some tweaking or something. Mine is 3 in 1 and the printer and photo copier works fine. I currently use my camera for all my images. At least I got some alternative.

Can you post a sample image here that is bigger than normal? Thanks.

[JeffreyQ]

Sure thing.

My office deals with all sorts of textile designs so we have a couple of different scanners that capture at different resolutions.

I have a few '50 Bowman's with me today, so I will scan one or two after 5pm (NYC time) and post 'em.

[filamuraireborn]

Great! My local time is Pacific.

[JeffreyQ]

Well, here is an example of a 600dpi scan...

This site will not let you upload any image over 500k.
So this is about as big as I can get it, 417k.
No use scanning any larger.

1950 Bowman -- #235 --Harold Gilbert

You can really see the defects, although this card has been rated NM!!

If you have a safari browser, you can blow it up to aprox 10" x 15" by double-clicking the image!!

Some of the flaws are simply because I scanned through a toploader and you can see a blue-tint, dust and especially a small red thread at top left corner.

Also the Black keyline has been overprinted by the image, see bottom right -- must be like that on all the #235s--??--!!

The card looks nice (OC, but nice) otherwise to the naked eye!

[filamuraireborn]

I can't see the attachment. Yup, I'm using Safari.

---

You may upload the image from your computer to photobucket.com and you can copy + paste the IMG code of the image that you want to post here. No need to test it in the test forum. The attachment works about 55% for me. Sometimes I see it...