Since no one has apparently discussed these issues on this topic I will
point some things out.
Kevin, By BW do you mean gray scale (8 bits per pixel) or bitmapped (1 bit
per pixel)?
I assume you mean gray scale. You can very good documents this way. First
scan a document at 300 dpi or higher, then increase the contrast of the
image, then apply a good unsharp mask to the document. Then you can reduce
the resolution down to 150 dpi. If you take these steps you will end up
with documents that are *MORE* readable than documents scanned at 300 dpi
and left that way. The steps could be automated so that it works well.
Also jpeg compression can give you documents that are 10% of the size of the
uncompressed image with little loss in such "images".
Jim Gray
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Anthracite" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Imaging Disk requirements?
The OCR programs I have used require 300 dpi, and I suspect that might be
something that should be considered for the future as it may be that not
only
typed but hand written notes could be loaded right into the database in a
compact fashion and the scanned images archived for backup purposes only.
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 08:49 am, Mike Schrom wrote:
I think fax scans are lower about 150 dpi, but still, usually, readable.
That's a factor of four smaller file size, but even at 300, your figures
yield about 25,000 charts per terabyte. That's four 250 gig hard drives
at about $50 each (on sale).
Mike
Kevin Toppenberg wrote:
As I get close to completing a document imaging system that uses
standard VistA Imaging code, I have wondered what use of the system
will do to my disk space.
Does anyone know what typical scanning resolution is (300 dpi?), and
how much disk space this would take in BW, compressed as JPG file? I
am guessing about 150k per image (image size 8.5x11 inches). If I did
my math right, that would be about 6,600 images per gigabyte. Many of
my charts have about 200 pages in them, so this would be about 25
complete charts per gigabyte.
I am asking this because I am not planning on implementing the
background processor that archives images off of the magnetic disks
into an optical jutebox. It seems that disk drives are growing in
size fast these days.
Any thoughts?
Thanks
Kevin
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
--
Nancy Anthracite
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
