-
1. Re: Filter required to clean up scan of music
Bart Cross Dec 14, 2010 10:13 AM (in response to jt77474)This issue it that you scanned it as a 2 bit bitmap, instead of a grayscale.There isn't any satisfactory answer to this, it will just look worse. You'll have to rescan to get a satisfactory result. You should always check your first scan before doing anymore scans.
-
2. Re: Filter required to clean up scan of music
Mike Gondek2 Dec 14, 2010 10:15 AM (in response to jt77474) -
3. Re: Filter required to clean up scan of music
Noel Carboni Dec 14, 2010 10:53 AM (in response to jt77474)One thing you can do is to blur the image a little to smooth the pixels, then use Threshold:
1. Blur - Gaussian Blur. At the size you posted (with the large pixels), try a radius of 3 pixels perhaps.
2. Image - Adjust - Threshold, use 128 or a setting to your liking.
Often running a sequence like the above several times can smooth an otherwise jaggy result, though you may lose some details. It's kind of like using a Xerox machine to make a copy of a copy.
-Noel
-
4. Re: Filter required to clean up scan of music
Dennis 1111 Dec 14, 2010 11:00 AM (in response to jt77474)Have you actually tried to print a sample yet? Since you scanned at fairly high resolution, a same-size print should not look that bad, particularly if you are printing on an inkjet (the ink absorption in the paper will blend the jaggies a little).
You might also want to try down-sampling to half the resolution using bi-cubic smoother and then up-sampling back to the original resolution, again using bi-cubic smoother. It won't be perfect but it will smooth the edge jaggies a little without causing too much blur. Again, judge the final print-out rather the "actual pixel" results on screen.
As mentioned, scan in greyscale in the future. Doing it in greyscale will probably even let you use a LOWER resolution if you need to.
-
5. Re: Filter required to clean up scan of music
jt77474 Dec 16, 2010 2:37 PM (in response to Dennis 1111)Thanks everyone. I print with a very old but very good laserjet, so it really shows up. I have made a mistake using 300dpi bitmap.
Over the summer I scanned a lot of stuff at 600 dpi bitmap, and it prints great on my laserjet. I guess doubling the horizontal resolution really helps a lot, and I should stick to 600 dpi in future. I like bitmap because the file sizes are good.
I only recently realised how bad laser printers are at reproducing greyscale, so it was nice to learn how to threshold monochome graphics so now they print beautifully. Unfortunately the same can't be said for my 300 dpi music.
-
6. Re: Filter required to clean up scan of music
FontRider Dec 16, 2010 3:18 PM (in response to jt77474)Of the suggestions proffered, Mike Gondek's is the most practical; especially if you need to reuse the image at different sizes (business card, letterhead, web site, etc.)
Live trace is one way to begin cleaning up the graphic. Another approach is after the graphic is imported into AI, reduce the layer's opacity to 40% and then lock it. That will make it easier to use it as a template so you can recreate the graphic with AI's tools.








