Message-Id: <200105302030.NAA15190@dns.ccit.arizona.edu> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:26:45 +0100 From: Luiz da Camara leme <mailto:camara.leme@MAIL.TELEPAC.PT> Subject: Re: Overhead scanners To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
<pre>
Anthony
Thank you very much for your info.
Its already a start
All the best
Luiz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Troncale" <mailto:troncale@AMNH.ORG>
To: <mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Overhead scanners
> 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 - 15:33:01 CDT