Re: Researching scanners - and colour depth

From: David Adams (David.Adams@NATLIB.GOVT.NZ)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 13:45:51 CST

  • Next message: Andrew Stawowczyk Long: "Re: Researching scanners - and colour depth" 

    Message-Id: <200011061948.MAA25590@dns.ccit.arizona.edu>
Date:         Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:45:51 +1300
From: David Adams <mailto:David.Adams@NATLIB.GOVT.NZ>
Subject:      Re: Researching scanners - and colour depth
To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU

    <pre> I have been researching scanners recently and just learnt that Microtek are releasing a newer model called the Atixscan 100, which is physically the same as the ScanMaker 5 but has a higher dynamic range, this is 'claimed' as being 4.0Dmax the ScanMaker 5 is 3.6Dmax) It is also 42bit (14bits per pixel) the ScanMaker 5 is 36bit

    WHAT BIT DEPTH? This leads me to another question for the 'forum':

    For long term digital preservation and image management what is the recommended 'colour depth' or 'bits per pixel'? Currently we use 8bits per pixel for our scanning (equates to 8bits greyscale and 24bits RGB) and saved as TIFF files. I have heard that some software programmes may have difficulty with the higher bit depth. (48bit is not recommended) Is there advantage in scanning to a higher bit depth then sampling back down?

    David Adams Team Leader Copying Services National Library of New Zealand
    +64 4 4743151 Visit "Timeframes" New Zealands leading source of heritage images http://timeframes.natlib.govt.nz/

    >>> mailto:kamorgan@UNITY.NCSU.EDU 11/07/00 04:01 >>>
    on 11/2/00 12:30 PM, Judith Terpstra at mailto:terpstja@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:

    > Hi
    >
    > I am new to the list, and after scanning the recent logfiles in the archives
    > I don't see any discussion of the relative merits of the current batch of
    > flatbed scanners.

    For our new digital media lab I purchased a Microtek Scanmaker 5 (already recommended here) and recently an Epson Expression 1600. I also have a Umax Powerlook III on my desk. All do reflective and transparency scanning and I'm happy with each. The Epson has a nice software interface and is remarkably quite. The Umax was really easy to set up, plug and play, with a very sophisticated interface.

    Keith Morgan 

    --
Keith Morgan - Digital Library Initiatives
North Carolina State University Libraries
Raleigh, NC 27695-7111 Phone: 919.515.4221
mailto:Keith_Morgan@ncsu.edu
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/dli/

    </pre>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 06 2000 - 13:57:34 CST