On 24/07/2019 09:45, Dave Wade via cctalk wrote:
I think you folks are forgetting that often the choice is scan and have a
record, or just put it in for pulping.
Storing paper is not easy and not cheap. I deeply regret binning my Wireless
World magazines from the 1970's or 1980's but there is no
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk On Behalf Of Paul Koning via
> cctalk
> Sent: 24 July 2019 01:30
> To: Jon Elson ; General Discussion: On-Topic and
> Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Scanning question (Is destruction of old tech docs a moral
> crime?)
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 2019,
At 07:07 PM 23/07/2019 -0700, you wrote:
>Nonetheless, comparing some small amount of lost information
It's not a 'small amount of lost information', because destroying rare
technical works in order
to scan them, or afterwards because "now they are scanned there's no need to
keep the paper
On Jul 20, 2019, at 8:00 PM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk
wrote:
>> While I agree that making a non-optimal digital copy in such cases, is,
>> well, non-optimal (because for _many uses_, the basic information is still
>> available, wheras for many important documents, not even that remains),
>>
Paul etc said
>> On Jul 21, 2019, at 12:16 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/21/2019 05:16 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk wrote:
>>> What dpi qualifies as not "crappy"? 300dpi? 400? 600?
>>>
>>>
>> Most of the text of these documents don't need super high resolution. But,
>>
> On Jul 21, 2019, at 12:16 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 07/21/2019 05:16 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk wrote:
>> What dpi qualifies as not "crappy"? 300dpi? 400? 600?
>>
>>
> Most of the text of these documents don't need super high resolution. But,
> some contain
Guy Dunphy wrote:
> Ditto for a service/schematics manual for the Documation
> TM200 punch card reader. No copy can be found.
I don't know about the TM200, but I have the technical manual
for the Documation M-200 card reader. If that will help you,
I would be happy to scan it for you. It is
It might be worth trying to talk to the IBM Museum at Hursley.
https://slx-online.biz/hursley/contact_us.asp
Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk On Behalf Of Guy Dunphy via
> cctalk
> Sent: 23 July 2019 04:28
> To: Mattis Lind ; General Discussion: On-Topic and
> Off-Topic Posts
At 07:16 PM 22/07/2019 +0200, Mattis Lind wrote:
>> BTW. I have three IBM 026 card punch machines as a future restoration
>> project. But can I find
>> a service manual? No. None online, only one for the later 028. And even if
>> there was a PDF
>Have you seen these:
> On Jul 21, 2019, at 6:20 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 07/21/2019 04:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
>> It is not the DPI that is problem on some scans, but they used
>> a LOSSY format to store the data. JPEG IS NO!
> Yes, ABSOLUTELY! JPEG is designed for things that have smooth
> >> BTW. I have three IBM 026 card punch machines as a future restoration
> project. But can I find
> >> a service manual? No. None online, only one for the later 028. And even
> if there was a PDF
Have you seen these:
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/punchedCard/Keypunch/A24-
On 07/22/2019 10:55 AM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk wrote:
> At 10:41 AM 21/07/2019 -0600, you wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 4:16 AM Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk
> wrote:
>> I'd suggest that in 2019 when bits are cheap and high-quality scanners
>> nearly as cheap, "crappy quality digital image"
At 10:41 AM 21/07/2019 -0600, you wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 4:16 AM Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk
wrote:
>I'd suggest that in 2019 when bits are cheap and high-quality scanners
>nearly as cheap, "crappy quality digital image" is a bit of a straw man.
>Yes, I've seen plenty of
At 12:48 AM 22/07/2019 -0600, you wrote:
>On 7/21/2019 8:07 PM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk wrote:
>
>> BTW. I have three IBM 026 card punch machines as a future restoration
>> project. But can I find
>> a service manual? No. None online, only one for the later 028. And even if
>> there was a PDF
>> I
> On Jul 21, 2019, at 6:16 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> I'd suggest that in 2019 when bits are cheap and high-quality scanners
> nearly as cheap, "crappy quality digital image" is a bit of a straw man.
> Yes, I've seen plenty of barely-readable or practically unreadable
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:27 AM Guy Dunphy via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> At 07:58 PM 21/07/2019 -0700, you wrote:
> >> Even if the digital version _did_ fully capture the information
> content, I
> >> strongly dispute that the physical item/document has lost it's value.
> >> That
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019, 1:28 AM Christian Corti via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I just scanned my Rainbow 100 User's Manual at 300, 600 and 1200dpi using
> > the scansnap default settings. You see a jump between 300 and 600, but
> > little
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Warner Losh wrote:
I just scanned my Rainbow 100 User's Manual at 300, 600 and 1200dpi using
the scansnap default settings. You see a jump between 300 and 600, but
little difference going on up to 1200 for this material. I posted the
That tells me that you need to scan at
On 7/21/2019 8:07 PM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk wrote:
BTW. I have three IBM 026 card punch machines as a future restoration project.
But can I find
a service manual? No. None online, only one for the later 028. And even if
there was a PDF
I expect it would be the usual terrible quality.
Does
At 07:58 PM 21/07/2019 -0700, you wrote:
>> Even if the digital version _did_ fully capture the information content, I
>> strongly dispute that the physical item/document has lost it's value.
>> That 'digital is all we need' viewpoint is a trap for the naive, because:
>
>. . . and does it FULLY
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Guy Dunphy via cctalk wrote:
Most of us probably wouldn't destroy a Cultural Artifact (e.g., Taliban
destruction of Buddha of Bamiyan statue) but many might destroy a Technical
Artifact in the belief that its overt information content defines its value,
and that one that
Send an email to a11anmah0...@gmail.com for the 026 manual. He has 029s,
as well as the service manual for the 029.
He has a friend who worked on all these machines until the early 2000s.
He will give you the fellow's email address for the 026 info you want.
Cindy
On 7/21/19 9:07 PM, Guy
At 01:48 AM 21/07/2019 -0400, Paul Birkel wrote:
>If I may summarize/generalize, Guy, I think that your point is that there
>are Technical Artifacts and there are Cultural Artifacts -- and the two sets
>overlap to some degree. Where the overlap lies is subject to great debate,
>IMO.
Indeed.
Yes, the variable sized dots was a significant upgrade from the oversized
fixed dots.
The oversized fixed dots (LJII) were a significant upgrade from the
undersized fixed dots (LJ, LJ+), and made it possible to finally get a
solid black. THAT had been a major problem. See the illustrations
not concerned about scanning
just how the output looked for setting type... the variable sized dots
were a real winner. AND A GREAT SELLER!
In a message dated 7/21/2019 3:34:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
Yes, and although it rarely happens, and is just
Addendum: that particular source of artifacts won't happen if scanning the
300DPI original with a scan resolution other than 300DPI.
Yes, and although it rarely happens, and is just shrugged off as "something
didn't go right with that scan", ARTIFACTS can sometimes occur.
Yes, and although it rarely happens, and is just shrugged off as
"something didn't go right with that scan", ARTIFACTS can sometimes occur.
Oversimplifying a bit, . . .
consider the output of a Laserjet "MINUS" or a Laserjet-Plus (CX engine)
as being a grid of squares with a circular dot
we save to 3 formats and sometimes add a text file format too
the 3 for each and ALL scans are
tiffjpegpdf with embedded textand sometime a text file
ed#
In a message dated 7/21/2019 3:20:53 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
On 07/21/2019 04:48 PM, ben via cctalk
On 07/21/2019 04:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
It is not the DPI that is problem on some scans, but they
used
a LOSSY format to store the data. JPEG IS NO!
Yes, ABSOLUTELY! JPEG is designed for things that have
smooth tones, like people and outdoor photographs. It is
horrible with anything
On 7/21/2019 4:16 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk wrote:
I'd suggest that in 2019 when bits are cheap and high-quality scanners
nearly as cheap, "crappy quality digital image" is a bit of a straw man.
Yes, I've seen plenty of barely-readable or practically unreadable scans,
but they were
correction--- be aware the variable dot size was on fonts not
graphical text
In a message dated 7/21/2019 2:24:58 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
although at 300dpi on HP laser-jet 3 there were variable sizes dots giving
better curve fit.
a great
although at 300dpi on HP laser-jet 3 there were variable sizes dots giving
better curve fit.
a great selling feature!
Made me $$ (grin)!
Ed#
In a message dated 7/21/2019 12:13:14 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
It's like the difference between laser printing
IN SCANNING PHOTOS FOR SMECC IF LARGE, I SCAN AT 300, IF SMALL AND IN
CASE WE WANT TO MAKE LARGER, SOMETIMES 600. ED#
ps 1200 SEENS TO GO NO WHERE EXCEPT SOMETIME AD WEIRDNESS
In a message dated 7/21/2019 1:58:45 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
On
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:13 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Jason T via cctalk wrote:
> > I don't know about the ScanSnap specifically, but I suspect that
> > 1200dpi mode may be interpolated, not true optical 1200. In either
> > case, I've rarely seen any great benefit
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Jason T via cctalk wrote:
I don't know about the ScanSnap specifically, but I suspect that
1200dpi mode may be interpolated, not true optical 1200. In either
case, I've rarely seen any great benefit to using >600, at least on
any scanner I've used (my main workhorse now
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 12:35 PM Jason T via cctalk
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM Warner Losh via cctalk
> wrote:
> > 600dpi. The file is 22MB vs 12MB, so that's worth it. The 1200dpi version
> > was almost 70MB which is starting to get a bit large for a 60 sheet
> > document. The
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM Warner Losh via cctalk
wrote:
> 600dpi. The file is 22MB vs 12MB, so that's worth it. The 1200dpi version
> was almost 70MB which is starting to get a bit large for a 60 sheet
> document. The sweet spot seems to be 600dpu, at least for this material.
I don't know
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 4:16 AM Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> I'd suggest that in 2019 when bits are cheap and high-quality scanners
> nearly as cheap, "crappy quality digital image" is a bit of a straw man.
> Yes, I've seen plenty of barely-readable or
On 07/21/2019 05:16 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk wrote:
What dpi qualifies as not "crappy"? 300dpi? 400? 600?
Most of the text of these documents don't need super high
resolution. But, some contain hand-drawn schematics where
an 11 x 17 original has been shrunk to 8.5 x 11" and
I am so tempted to claim that I had a signed first edition copy of
*Canticle* but that I tossed it when I got my kindle.
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 12:36 AM U'll Be King of the Stars via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On 21/07/2019 06:48, Paul Birkel via cctalk wrote:
> > I'm reminded a
I'd suggest that in 2019 when bits are cheap and high-quality scanners
nearly as cheap, "crappy quality digital image" is a bit of a straw man.
Yes, I've seen plenty of barely-readable or practically unreadable scans,
but they were made years or decades ago.
What dpi qualifies as not "crappy"?
-Original Message-
From: U'll Be King of the Stars [mailto:ullbek...@andrewnesbit.org]
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 3:36 AM
To: Paul Birkel; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Sci-fi and science fiction [was Re: Scanning question (Is destruction
of old tech docs a
On 21/07/2019 06:48, Paul Birkel via cctalk wrote:
I'm reminded a bit of "A Canticle for Leibowitz"!
Thank you for the reference.
Sci-fi and science fiction are very broad genres that I don't have any
particular active fondness for. I want to explore these genres more
deeply because I am
-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Guy Dunphy
via cctalk
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 11:00 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: Scanning question (Is destruction of old tech docs a moral
crime?)
I'm posting
I'm posting a private email (anonymized) and my reply because it's a
significant issue.
>{Note private reply}
>
>> When the scanning process involves destruction of the original work
>> ... But if it's a rare document, or even maybe so rare that it's the
>> last one, then destroying
45 matches
Mail list logo
