Re: Overhead scanners

From: Anthony Troncale (troncale@AMNH.ORG)
Date: Wed May 30 2001 - 14:15:48 CDT

  • Next message: Luiz da Camara leme: "Re: Overhead scanners"

    Message-Id: <200105301920.MAA14998@dns.ccit.arizona.edu>
    Date:         Wed, 30 May 2001 15:15:48 -0400
    From: Anthony Troncale <mailto:troncale@AMNH.ORG>
    Subject:      Re: Overhead scanners
    To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
    

    <pre> Luiz:

    If you are not familiar with Octavo, take a look at: http://www.octavo.com/

    Overhead scanners:

    Minolta 7000 http://www.minolta.com

    Bookeye http://www.bookeye.com/html/home_english.html

    Zeutschel http://www.zeutschel.de/frame_e.htm

    I do not endorse any of the above...

    Anthony Troncale American Museum of Natural History

    At 02:08 PM 5/30/01 -0400, you wrote:
    >I'm interested as well. Please reply to the list.
    >
    >John Warren
    >2601-A Wilson Blvd.
    >Arlington, VA 22201
    >
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: IMAGELIB [mailto:mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]On Behalf Of Luiz
    >da Camara leme
    >Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 12:51 PM
    >To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
    >Subject: Overhead scanners
    >
    >
    > Hello everybody:
    >
    > I am new to this list. The message bellow was the first I received so
    >far, and this is my first post.
    >
    > The reason I subscribe this list its because I have a very special
    >interest in overhead scanners.
    > I am thinking about preserving vasts amounts of data and making CD books
    >out of public domain printed books as well as publishing very rare books and
    >manuscripts.
    >
    > I don't know much about this but I will be reading quite a lot os
    >messages from this list archives to find out more about this.
    >
    > I would appreciate very much any info about solutions for what I need to
    >do. Types of available scanner (I only know 2) software needed, solutions
    >for this purpose.
    >
    > Also info about where I can retrieve related knowledge will also be
    >appreciated.
    >
    > I am sure this is of no interest to many more advanced members of this
    >list.
    > So I can be contacted in private not to disturb everybody else.
    >
    > Luiz da Camara Leme
    >
    >
    >
    >----- Original Message -----
    >From: "Mary Winter" <mailto:mary.winter@MAIL.STATE.KY.US>
    >To: <mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
    >Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 4:31 PM
    >Subject: Re: information contained in surrogates
    >
    >
    > > Our photographer, Nathan Prichard, has been looking over my shoulder on
    >this
    > > discussion. I include his thoughts on this below:
    > >
    > > Mary,
    > >
    > > Well, I see a Hollinger box of weasels has been opened.
    > >
    > > I derived my very approximate figures based on the normal
    > > levels of resolution for various film formats, if the
    > > photographer is doing his part. These are the resolutions
    > > on the film, which are almost always less than what the
    > > lenses are actually capable of producing, if that nasty old
    > > physical stuff with emulsion were not involved. Resolution
    > > is in line pairs per millimeter (often listed as lines per
    > > millimeter or lpm). The lines are separated by a space equal
    > > to the width of the line, so the pair actually made up of a
    > > black line and a white one (| (sp) | (sp) |). In digital
    > > terms, that means two pixels (one for the black and one for
    > > white/blank space). So a resolution in lpm's is doubled for
    > > pixels (or dots) per millimeter and then multiplied by 25.4
    > > (millimeters per inch) for dpi (dots per inch).
    > >
    > > lpm x 2 x 25.4 = dpi
    > >
    > > Film size Nominal lpm Approx. DPI
    > >
    > > 35mm 80 4,000
    > >
    > > 120 60 3,000
    > >
    > > 4x5 40 + 2,000
    > >
    > > [8x10 uses some of the same or similar lenses as 4x5.
    > > Resolution would be about the same, at least for many
    > > modern lenses. Some lenses can produce greater resolution
    > > on some formats, as with macro/copy applications.]
    > >
    > > Uncompressed file size can be calculated by multiplying the
    > > format dimensions (in inches) by the dpi squared for B & W.
    > > For color, multiply that result by three (assuming 8 bit
    > > color depth in both cases).
    > >
    > >
    > > Nathan
    > >
    > > I think this is pertinent to the original question about stitching files.
    > > Please note, however, that the issue of resolution was not the primary
    > > factor in our decision to incorporate analog surrogates into our
    > > preservation/access workflow. But then, we have Nathan . . .
    > >
    > >
    > > Thanks, Mary
    > >
    > > Mary E. Winter
    > > Special Collections Manager
    > > Kentucky Historical Society
    > > 100 W. Broadway
    > > Frankfort, KY 40601
    > > tel.: (502) 564-1792 ext. 4428; fax. (502) 564-4701
    > >

    </pre>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 30 2001 - 14:22:04 CDT