Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[geneb via cctalk]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:


On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, geneb via cctalk wrote:
I'm probably WAY over simplifying this because I don't have a grasp of the 
optics involved, but wouldn't it be possible to get a good image of 
individual pages on a microfiche by using a DSLR with the right lens and a 
CNC X/Y table made from one of the large (8x10) LED illuminators used to 
treat SAD?  The lights are pretty bright and are under $50.


Getting EVEN illumination throughout the frame will still be an issue. BIG 
issue for photographic images, but still a minor issue for bitonal text and 
schematics.
Theoretical ideal is a point source with collimating "condenser" lenses (like 
the top half of an enlarger).  BUT, for this, a diffuse light source or an 
added diffuser MIGHT be adequate.  Particularly for bitonal, where half-tone 
density, or color balance, is not significant.


The unit I saw last week was very even.  The person that owned it uses it 
for studio lighting for video production.





The X/Y table build would be very simple and cheap to build.


For you, maybe.  I'm a little overwhelmed contemplating that part of the 
project.  Even the film holder is a little work.
Which is why I was suggesting gutting a fiche reader for those mechanical 
parts, and then adding positioning mechanisms.


The X/Y table is probably the simplest part of the build - every part of 
it is a solved problem, from the motion gantry to the controller.  It 
could be driven by an Arduino Uno and a pair of Pololu Stepper Drivers 
connected to a pair of 1.8 degree NEMA17 steppers.  The gantry could be 
made from 3D printed carriages equipped with 608 skate bearings riding 
atop rails made from 1/2" EMT conduit.


The camera system is WAY outside my wheelhouse, but I'd be happy to work 
with someone to get an X/Y gantry built.  I've got plenty of idle 3D 
printers and tons of unused skate bearings. :)


g.


--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Antonio Carlini via cctalk]

On 28/03/18 22:02, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
On Mar 28, 2018, at 4:40 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk 
 wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Mazzini Alessandro via cctalk wrote:

Uh.. now the big question..  how big/heavy is a microfiche viewer ?

They vary.  I have one that fits in a pocket!
Usually, they are a tabletop box a few feet square.  Some used to have a 
printer in them.
Most tend not to be very extremely heavy, since a lot of that size is empty 
space between a projection lens and a screen.

I've seen some that are built into a field service tool case.
Mine's in the garage and it's raining otherwise I'd go and measure it, 
but that's exactly what mine is.
A small case that opens up to reveal a fiche reader. There's enough room 
for a box or two of fiche too.


Antonio


--
Antonio Carlini
arcarl...@iee.org

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Shaun Halstead via cctalk]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 2018-03-30 9:21 AM, emanuel stiebler via cctalk wrote:
> > On 2018-03-29 14:50, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> >
> > Just as we talk about scanning hundreds of them. How do you guys clean
> > the fiche before scanning? Some of mine spent some life in garages,
> > boxes wherever, and definitely have dust & dirt on them ...
>

  It is virtually guaranteed that what you have are diazo duplicates.  This
is fairly easy to determine.  First, are they blue or translucent black in
color?  (Or, is there a colored stripe behind the title?)  Second, are both
sides of the film relatively shiny, or is one side obviously dull?  If both
sides have a shine to them, this is diazo film.  If one side is dull, is it
black, or colored?  If it's black, you have silver film, which may be
cleaned with 99% isopropyl alcohol and air dried.  If it has color to it,
but is dull, it's probably vesicular film, which should be carefully
cleaned the same as diazo film.

  I would exercise extreme caution when cleaning duplicate film.  Diazo
film is not as stable as silver film in the presence of solvents.
Distilled water is much safer, and is what we used on diazo in the lab.
Also, you don't want to wipe film (dry or wet), as diazo duplicates are
fairly easy to scratch.  Wash with water, air dry.  (Source: >20 years in
the microfilm industry.)

--Shaun

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2018-03-30 9:21 AM, emanuel stiebler via cctalk wrote:
> On 2018-03-29 14:50, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> 
>> I would, of course, play with doing a few frames manually.
>> At least to get any idea of what SIZE the whole thing will need to be.
>> But, once that's working acceptably, a good mechanical system is
>> essential.  There are SO many cards to scan that an auto-loader becomes
>> worthwhile.  Otherwise, you are looking at MONTHS to scan a few hundred
>> cards.
> 
> Just as we talk about scanning hundreds of them. How do you guys clean
> the fiche before scanning? Some of mine spent some life in garages,
> boxes wherever, and definitely have dust & dirt on them ...

It should be possible to clean in the same way that oil-mounted film is
cleaned after scanning - often IPA (with minimal water content, say 99%!)

There are also some specialised products I found in a quick google:
* Kami http://www.aztek.net/kami-rc2001-film-cleaner-1-liter/
* Varn https://www.baypressservices.com/acatalog/Film-Cleaner-Varn.html
* Anchor
https://www.fujifilmdirect.com/index.php/offset-printing/prepress-1/film-chemistry/film-kleen-7065-anti-stat-5-gallon-pail.html
* https://www.rbpchemical.com/product/special-film-cleaner/
etc

--Toby

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[emanuel stiebler via cctalk]

On 2018-03-29 14:50, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

> I would, of course, play with doing a few frames manually.
> At least to get any idea of what SIZE the whole thing will need to be.
> But, once that's working acceptably, a good mechanical system is
> essential.  There are SO many cards to scan that an auto-loader becomes
> worthwhile.  Otherwise, you are looking at MONTHS to scan a few hundred
> cards.

Just as we talk about scanning hundreds of them. How do you guys clean
the fiche before scanning? Some of mine spent some life in garages,
boxes wherever, and definitely have dust & dirt on them ...

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

>>> ...
>>  " Three considerations suggest that he [Bush] was unaware of the detail
>>  of Goldberg's work when he [Bush] built his prototype in 1938-40: [. . 
>> .] "
>> and makes no conclusion of conscious influence (on Bush by Goldberg).
>> So when you say Bush "stole", and "claimed it as his own", etc., do you have 
>> some other reference or is this merely your pejorative accusation and 
>> hyperbole?
>>> Bush did not successfully build his machine.
>> (Not the Memex you mention, but, as discussed in the article, he did build 
>> the predecessor 'microfilm rapid selector'.)
> 
> Yes, my statement was overy harsh.

Maybe relevant here, maybe not, but it's worth keeping in mind that history is 
full of things that were "discovered" several times.  The name that is 
remembered tends to be the name associated with the instance that took hold, 
not necessarily the first one.  Examples include America, frequency modulation, 
telegraphy, and many others.

paul

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

If only that were 16mm or 35mm continuous rolls, instead of microfiche!
In 1931, Emanuel Goldberg, then a chief engineer at Zeiss built the "Statistical 
Machine". By recording bits optically in the margins of microfilm, and reading them 
with photocells, it could find appropriate frames!
For use in soundtrack for films, Mauer puts up to 8 parallel variable area 
optical tracks in the margin!
8 bit parallel!
Goldberg was also apparently responsible for the Contax camera.
BUT, in the days leading up to World War Two, he fled Dresden and Zeiss could 
not afford to have mention of a Jew in a high profile position, and by the time 
the war ended, they had systematically erased most clues that he had existed!
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/goldberg.html
A decade later, Vannevar Bush stole the idea, and without credit, claimed it as 
his own, as the foundation for his Memex device.

 [...]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Brent Hilpert via cctalk wrote:

An article ( http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/goldbush.html ) on 
your referenced site assesses the state of the art in between Goldberg and Bush 
(1931-1938).
Near the end the writer states:
" Three considerations suggest that he [Bush] was unaware of the detail
of Goldberg's work when he [Bush] built his prototype in 1938-40: [. . .] 
"
and makes no conclusion of conscious influence (on Bush by Goldberg).
So when you say Bush "stole", and "claimed it as his own", etc., do you have 
some other reference or is this merely your pejorative accusation and hyperbole?

Bush did not successfully build his machine.

(Not the Memex you mention, but, as discussed in the article, he did build the 
predecessor 'microfilm rapid selector'.)


Yes, my statement was overy harsh.
Yes, I knew Buckland's research well.  He was my PhD advisor.

No, there is no smoking gun.
(cf. no Gary Kildall easter egg in MS-DOS)
During the early stages, over 20 years ago, ran into a few references to 
others in the field who felt slighted over not being credited by Bush, 
including one who had met personally with Bush, and who made mention 
in passing of having discussed the prior work (inc. Goldberg) with Bush.



Bush's Atlantic Monthly article, "As We May Think" is sometimes considered the 
foundation of modern information science.
Bush did not understand nor accept the concepts of index nor hierarchical 
organization, so he pushed for linkage to go from one topic into another.
Ted Nelson credits it as the inspiration for Hypertext, and Cern credits Ted 
nelson.


Bush did do some important stuff.  Nobody else accomplished as much 
towards raising consciousness of the whole idea of Information Science.


Ted Nelson, when he coined the term "Hypertext", explicitly credits Bush 
with the concept.
He is far from the only person who prefer to think in terms of chained 
links rather than hierarchical structures for information.
There's a decent example of casual "surfing" in "Hyperland" (BBC; Douglas 
Adams, Ted Nelson, and Tom Baker in 1990 talking about the future of the 
internet.  I have made an SRT file for it.)

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Glen Slick via cctalk]

In other vintage microfiche scanning news:

The Vintage Tek Museum (www.vintagetek.org) has in its possession a
treasure trove of over 3 Million pages of microfiche...

https://www.youcaring.com/vintagetekmuseum-1085244

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AToH0P9D2IE

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, geneb via cctalk wrote:
I'm probably WAY over simplifying this because I don't have a grasp of the 
optics involved, but wouldn't it be possible to get a good image of 
individual pages on a microfiche by using a DSLR with the right lens and a 
CNC X/Y table made from one of the large (8x10) LED illuminators used to 
treat SAD?  The lights are pretty bright and are under $50.


Getting EVEN illumination throughout the frame will still be an issue. BIG 
issue for photographic images, but still a minor issue for bitonal text 
and schematics.
Theoretical ideal is a point source with collimating "condenser" lenses 
(like the top half of an enlarger).  BUT, for this, a diffuse light 
source or an added diffuser MIGHT be adequate.  Particularly for bitonal, 
where half-tone density, or color balance, is not significant.




The X/Y table build would be very simple and cheap to build.


For you, maybe.  I'm a little overwhelmed contemplating that part of the 
project.  Even the film holder is a little work.
Which is why I was suggesting gutting a fiche reader for those mechanical 
parts, and then adding positioning mechanisms.



The only "real" expense would be the right lens on the camera.


That's the part thet I consider cheap and simple.
Start out with a camera with interchangeable lenses.  I'm partial to 
"Micro-Four-Thirds" and Sony Nex E-mount.  There's enough different ones 
that you can start cheap, and upgrade later, if you need to, without 
starting over.   Accesory items, such as extension tubes and lens mount 
adapters, are VERY available and cheap.


Start with the lens that comes with it.  You will need more extension for 
close focussing.  Crappy, but usually USABLE, extension tubes are 
available on eBay "cheaper than postage".  Bellows are not common for 
digital cameras, but used film camera bellows are readily available cheap, 
and adapters for mounting to the camera are cheap.  If you're not sure 
what to get, simplest are "Pentax M42" (42mm x 1.0) or "Leica Screw 
Mount" (39mm x 26tpi).  Exacta bellows are extremely cheap, but the 
adapter is a little harder to find.
It costs a LOT extra to get extension tubes that will keep the auto-focus, 
so don't plan on that.  Some cameras hava a semi-auto "focus assist", that 
will simply have the camera TELL you when it thinks that the image is in 
focus.  Calculate the extension

distance lens to subject = (extension+focallength)*focallength/extension
or make a guess and then move back and forth until you find how close your 
guess was.  Remember that an extension equal to the focal length will give 
you 1:1, with the back of the camera about 4 times the focal length from 
the subject.


Once you've tried that out with the lens that came with, . . .
Do a few frames manually to see how the quality is.
I want "FLAT-FIELD" lenses for this kind of stuff.  The cheapest are 
enlarger lenses.  Those are usually L39/M39/Leica screw mount (39mm x 
26tpi).  SOME are Schneider (25mm x 0.5mm), in which case you need to find 
the adapter between that and L39. 
You want a relatively SHORT lens!  The 100mm used in the recently 
discussed DIY scanner will require 4 inches of additional extension to get 
1:1, so you are looking at a LONG bellows combination.
35mm or 25mm would be easier, although better lenses are available in 
50mm. 
If you use a lens that was not for that kind of camera, you may need to 
experiment.  Leica camera lenses were intended for 28.8mm lens mount to 
film.  Enlarger lenses, inspite of same mount are not, and you will need 
to play with it to get a starting point for extension/focus.  Find a 
bright outdoor scene, which we will call "infinity".  Holding a sheet of 
paper, move it around to find the focus.  (NOT sun, or the paper may 
ignite).  THAT is your mount to image infinity distance, and will help you 
calculate how much you need to add on to the calculated extension.


If you really need to "cheap-out", and not go with even an interchangeable 
lens camera, . . .
There are cheap used attachments for slide duplication that fit on the 
front of a lens for 1:1.  If you zoom the lens in further, you may get 
enough to work.  Or at least let you capture 24x36mm in each exposure.


If you really want to undertand this stuff, find an OLD edition of The 
Leica Manual by Morgan & Lester.



The process could be automated by using a cheap SMD part vacuum (the little 
hand-held one I have ran about $10) attached to an arm that was run by some 
R/C servos.
You could use a webcam to image the whole sheet in order to obtain the title 
of the sheet and that image along with the individual page images could be 
stored together.  The webcam could also be used in conjunction with OpenCL to 
ensure that the fiche positioner got it right every time.


I would, of course, play with doing a few frames manually.
At least to get any idea of what SIZE the whole thing will need to be.
But, once that's working acceptably, a good 

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Brent Hilpert via cctalk]

On 2018-Mar-28, at 6:52 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
  [...]
> If only that were 16mm or 35mm continuous rolls, instead of microfiche!
> 
> In 1931, Emanuel Goldberg, then a chief engineer at Zeiss built the 
> "Statistical Machine". By recording bits optically in the margins of 
> microfilm, and reading them with photocells, it could find appropriate frames!
> 
> For use in soundtrack for films, Mauer puts up to 8 parallel variable area 
> optical tracks in the margin!
> 8 bit parallel!
> Goldberg was also apparently responsible for the Contax camera.
> BUT, in the days leading up to World War Two, he fled Dresden and Zeiss could 
> not afford to have mention of a Jew in a high profile position, and by the 
> time the war ended, they had systematically erased most clues that he had 
> existed!
> 
> http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/goldberg.html
> 
> A decade later, Vannevar Bush stole the idea, and without credit, claimed it 
> as his own, as the foundation for his Memex device.


An article ( http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/goldbush.html ) on 
your referenced site assesses the state of the art in between Goldberg and Bush 
(1931-1938).
Near the end the writer states:

" Three considerations suggest that he [Bush] was unaware of the detail
of Goldberg's work when he [Bush] built his prototype in 1938-40: [. . 
.] "

and makes no conclusion of conscious influence (on Bush by Goldberg).

So when you say Bush "stole", and "claimed it as his own", etc., do you have 
some other reference or is this merely your pejorative accusation and hyperbole?


> Bush did not successfully build his machine.

(Not the Memex you mention, but, as discussed in the article, he did build the 
predecessor 'microfilm rapid selector'.)


> Bush's Atlantic Monthly article, "As We May Think" is sometimes considered 
> the foundation of modern information science.
> Bush did not understand nor accept the concepts of index nor hierarchical 
> organization, so he pushed for linkage to go from one topic into another.
> Ted Nelson credits it as the inspiration for Hypertext, and Cern credits Ted 
> nelson.

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Shaun Halstead via cctalk]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> Huh?  DEC service and software listings on Diazo?  Hmmm, you are right!  I
> always thought these were silver film, but just took a look and they are
> very dark blue Diazo.  On the other hand, these are VMS 4.2 fiche, so QUITE
> old, and look totally brand-new.  So, we have a few years yet to find a way
> to read them.
>

  Diazo duplicating film comes in a variety of dye colors.  Most of what we
used at my old shop was black, or the typical, recognizable blue.  Silver
duplicating film is far more resistant to fading, but is usually considered
to be too expensive for regular use, though some customers did specify
silver working copies.  Silver duplicating film is a little different from
silver original film, and it isn't always easy to tell whether a piece of
silver film is original or silver duplicate.
  As for diazo fade, there are several variables involved beginning before
the duplicates are ever created.  Age and storage conditions of the raw
film, light contamination (diazo is considered light-safe, but unprocessed
film will fade), heat and ammonia exposure prior to use and during
processing, storage conditions (heat, light, handling, humidity) after
processing.



> I am familiar with that frosty Diazo fiche that are very pale blue color,
> wouldn't be surprised if those faded.  They were never intended for
> archival storage.
>

  This is could be faded film, or it could have been a bad copy to start
with.  Insufficient ammonia during processing will cause a thin or pale
appearance.

  Another duplicate media I've encountered, though never in service
manuals, is vesicular.  It has a very distinctive appearance and texture,
and can be very difficult to scan, due to a low contrast.

--Shaun

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Ed Sharpe via cctalk]

still have   5x7  durst  amazing enlarger 8 feet  tall  with vacuum register   
easel...  before  I  owned it... it was  used for  making color separations  
500w  agfa   condenser color head...  what a machine I  kept it just  
cuz  Ed#  www.smecc.org
 
 
In a message dated 3/29/2018 4:26:59 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:

 
LOL! I wish I still had my De Vere 5x4 enlarger, but I've nowhere to 
put such a thing. Anyway, although I have access to some 5x4 Sinar 
equipment, the largest format I still have of my own is a couple of 
Mamiya 645s.

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 03/29/2018 09:54 AM, emanuel stiebler via cctalk wrote:

On 2018-03-28 22:26, Shaun Halstead via cctalk wrote:

All of the DEC film I
have (which I believe is already available) is diazo duplicates, which are
susceptible to fading over time, even when stored in proper conditions.

That's why we should do it now, not later ;-)

Huh?  DEC service and software listings on Diazo?  Hmmm, you 
are right!  I always thought these were silver film, but 
just took a look and they are very dark blue Diazo.  On the 
other hand, these are VMS 4.2 fiche, so QUITE old, and look 
totally brand-new.  So, we have a few years yet to find a 
way to read them.


I am familiar with that frosty Diazo fiche that are very 
pale blue color, wouldn't be surprised if those faded.  They 
were never intended for archival storage.


Jon

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 03/29/2018 06:25 AM, Pete Turnbull via cctalk wrote:

On 29/03/2018 05:26, Shaun Halstead via cctalk wrote:

Using the wrong filament orientation can cause some weird 
artifacts
to appear on scanned images, because of the high 
magnification. I
strongly suspect that an attempt using an LED source 
would face

similar (and possibly worse) issues.


Light source.  Due to lensing requirements, LED's are 
probably out, unless a way can be found to suitably 
diffuse or blend the source without losing significant 
light.  This requires a very strong light source.


Yet there are plenty of LED light sources used in 
photomicroscopy so I
don't believe it's that hard to do,which is why I 
suggested it. I've seen it done with a high-brightness 5mm 
LED, but if a bit more "oomph" or a larger emitting area 
is required, there are inexpensive 1W and 3W LEDs that 
look like they'd work.  I'm no expert, but the biggest 
problem in photomicroscopy seems to be the spectrum, which 
isn't really an issue for monochrome microfiche.


I built a laser photoplotter (see 
http://pico-systems.com/photoplot.html ) to make PC board 
master artwork.
it does very accurate plotting at 1000 x 1000 DPI.  The 
writing head uses a 5 mW red laser, and can focus to a spot 
smaller than .001". I actually defocus it slightly so the 
raster lines blend together.
It uses a microfiche objective lens plus a double-meniscus 
lens and a 2mm sphere lens right against the laser.  Similar 
optics could be used for a read head.  It would not be real 
hard to make a version like this to scan microfiche, 
scanning the entire card at once.


Not sure that LEDs would work, but red lasers are just a 
couple $ now.


Jon

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 3/29/18 7:54 AM, emanuel stiebler via cctalk wrote:

> That's why we should do it now, not later ;-)
> 

If people in the Bay Area has the time to work on this, they can have
access to my scanners in my lab. I brought one up a couple of years ago.
The problem with any micrographics equipment is that the documentation
(esp harware) sucks and the real service manuals are  impossible to get.

It is going to be a SERIOUS time commitment, though.

I will put some pictures of them up on bitsavers.org/projects/microfiche
later today.

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

also aperture cards, which are punched cards with a single 35mm image on them

On 3/29/18 8:49 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> yes, IBM fiche is the size of a punched card
> 
> In theory, the scanner I bought should be able to handle it if I
> can make custom carriers for it.
> 
> On 3/29/18 6:16 AM, emanuel stiebler via cctalk wrote:
>> Stupid question on the side, as I know/have DEC fiche only.
>> Are there any fiche out there, which are bigger than 8x6 inches?
>>
> 

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

yes, IBM fiche is the size of a punched card

In theory, the scanner I bought should be able to handle it if I
can make custom carriers for it.

On 3/29/18 6:16 AM, emanuel stiebler via cctalk wrote:
> Stupid question on the side, as I know/have DEC fiche only.
> Are there any fiche out there, which are bigger than 8x6 inches?
> 

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[geneb via cctalk]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, et...@757.org wrote:

I'm probably WAY over simplifying this because I don't have a grasp of the 
optics involved, but wouldn't it be possible to get a good image of 
individual pages on a microfiche by using a DSLR with the right lens and a 
CNC X/Y table made from one of the large (8x10) LED illuminators used to 
treat SAD?  The lights are pretty bright and are under $50.  The X/Y table 
build would be very simple and cheap to build.  The only "real" expense 
would be the right lens on the camera.


Yep. That is what I was thinking originally. I wasn't against the idea of 
projecting the slide to a surface then capturing that.


I wasn't thinking about projecting it, I was referring to direct imaging 
using a macro(?) lens on the camera.


g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Ethan via cctalk]

I'm probably WAY over simplifying this because I don't have a grasp of the 
optics involved, but wouldn't it be possible to get a good image of 
individual pages on a microfiche by using a DSLR with the right lens and a 
CNC X/Y table made from one of the large (8x10) LED illuminators used to 
treat SAD?  The lights are pretty bright and are under $50.  The X/Y table 
build would be very simple and cheap to build.  The only "real" expense would 
be the right lens on the camera.


Yep. That is what I was thinking originally. I wasn't against the idea of 
projecting the slide to a surface then capturing that.


There is a Canon 300 something or other Microfiche machine on eBay. 
They're like $200-300. It's a viewer that supports computer capture via 
what looks like SCSI and Twain driver. 5.5 seconds per grab:


Oh look here is a DIY one that is good enough to center it on each page. 
Impressive. I think he is scanning DEC information:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCRr9sbHBnM

Here is the Canon 300II:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro1pO5Zd9hI

I'm not sure how person from unit #1 centers it, but unit #2 with a 
autoloader and steppers to do X/Y I think might provide sexy output.


The process could be automated by using a cheap SMD part vacuum (the little 
hand-held one I have ran about $10) attached to an arm that was run by some 
R/C servos.


That is what I was thinking, but there might be cases where the slide 
sticks to the top of the glass holder. I think the holder is important for 
focus.




--
: Ethan O'Toole

Re: OT: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 28, 2018, at 11:39 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Bob Rosenbloom via cctalk wrote:
>> This thread reminded me of a DYI scanner I had read about. Found it with 
>> google:
>> http://retrocmp.com/projects/scanning-micro-fiches/235-the-homebuild-automatic-micro-fiche-scanner
> 
> I like his enthusiasm and the fact that he actually got it together and DID 
> it.
> 
> Hmmm.  If you gut the reader, and photograph the illuminated portion of the 
> fiche, rather than project and photograph the screen, image quality will be a 
> lot better.  Ambient light will cease to be a significant issue.
> 
> I don't think that ANY of them are color, so with bitonal, noise should not 
> be that much of a problem, unless that is being compounded by the long 
> exposure?  

That sounds right for documentation microfiche such as the DEC ones.

I've run into microfiche that is somewhat similar but for a very different 
purpose: the rear-projection microfiche used in PLATO terminals.  Those have 
square images, 256 of them (16 by 16).   And they often are in color.  They 
were used to provide photo images to go with the bitonal (orange/black) PLATO 
screens, for applications such as teaching botany.

paul

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[emanuel stiebler via cctalk]

On 2018-03-28 22:26, Shaun Halstead via cctalk wrote:
> All of the DEC film I
> have (which I believe is already available) is diazo duplicates, which are
> susceptible to fading over time, even when stored in proper conditions.

That's why we should do it now, not later ;-)

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[geneb via cctalk]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:


The Illumitran uses bellows, but for a lot of DEC fiche, the page size is 
constant so extension tubes might actually be better - they won't slip.


Initially I was going to suggest an Illumitran, but I don’t think it 
would work that well with trying to move the fiche around. You might 
have a point on the DEC fiche, though the bellows will allow you to 
maximize your page size.  Of course that may not be the greatest idea, 
as the more you maximize the size, the more attention you’ll have to pay 
to positioning each frame.


I'm probably WAY over simplifying this because I don't have a grasp of the 
optics involved, but wouldn't it be possible to get a good image of 
individual pages on a microfiche by using a DSLR with the right lens and 
a CNC X/Y table made from one of the large (8x10) LED illuminators used to 
treat SAD?  The lights are pretty bright and are under $50.  The X/Y table 
build would be very simple and cheap to build.  The only "real" expense 
would be the right lens on the camera.


The process could be automated by using a cheap SMD part vacuum (the 
little hand-held one I have ran about $10) attached to an arm that was run 
by some R/C servos.


You could use a webcam to image the whole sheet in order to obtain the 
title of the sheet and that image along with the individual page images 
could be stored together.  The webcam could also be used in conjunction 
with OpenCL to ensure that the fiche positioner got it right every time.


g.


--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[emanuel stiebler via cctalk]

Stupid question on the side, as I know/have DEC fiche only.
Are there any fiche out there, which are bigger than 8x6 inches?

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Pete Turnbull via cctalk]

On 29/03/2018 05:26, Shaun Halstead via cctalk wrote:


Using the wrong filament orientation can cause some weird artifacts
to appear on scanned images, because of the high magnification. I
strongly suspect that an attempt using an LED source would face
similar (and possibly worse) issues.


Light source.  Due to lensing requirements, LED's are probably out, 
unless a way can be found to suitably diffuse or blend the source 
without losing significant light.  This requires a very strong light 
source.


Yet there are plenty of LED light sources used in photomicroscopy so I
don't believe it's that hard to do,which is why I suggested it.  I've 
seen it done with a high-brightness 5mm LED, but if a bit more "oomph" 
or a larger emitting area is required, there are inexpensive 1W and 3W 
LEDs that look like they'd work.  I'm no expert, but the biggest problem 
in photomicroscopy seems to be the spectrum, which isn't really an issue 
for monochrome microfiche.


--
Pete
Pete Turnbull

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Pete Turnbull via cctalk]

On 29/03/2018 03:15, Zane Healy wrote:


More and more, I view my Classic Computer collection as a hinderance
to building a proper darkroom.  Oddly enough, the main purpose of my
PDP-11/44 these days is to hold a couple old enlargers that I don’t
use.


LOL!  I wish I still had my De Vere 5x4 enlarger, but I've nowhere to 
put such a thing.  Anyway, although I have access to some 5x4 Sinar 
equipment, the largest format I still have of my own is a couple of 
Mamiya 645s.


OT anecdote: Some years ago a colleague asked if I'd take her wedding 
photos.  I used to dislike doing that in the 70s and 80s so I wasn't 
keen on taking the hundreds of shots that seem to be the modern fashion. 
 She persisted, so I said I would if she bought me the 22 megapixel 
digital back for my Mamiya 645 Pro.  OK, she said, so I suggested she 
ought to check the price, after which she declined :-)


--
Pete
Pete Turnbull

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Liam Proven

> And yet, 3 generations later

Can we please keep _all_ politics off the list? It didn't go so well
last time.

Noel

Re: OT: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[emanuel stiebler via cctalk]

On 2018-03-28 20:59, Bob Rosenbloom via cctalk wrote:
> On 3/28/2018 6:00 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
 If you start with a fiche viewer, then a lot of the mechanical
 parts, such as the fiche holder, are well under way.  You need to
 modify the card movement mechanism to be able to automate it, but
 you could put that part off until you confirm that the optical
 portion is satisfactory.
> ...snip
> This thread reminded me of a DYI scanner I had read about. Found it with
> google:
> http://retrocmp.com/projects/scanning-micro-fiches/235-the-homebuild-automatic-micro-fiche-scanner

The last sentence says it all:
"And I'll think twice before I scan another batch of fiches!"

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On 29 March 2018 at 03:52, Fred Cisin via cctalk  wrote:
>
>
> If only that were 16mm or 35mm continuous rolls, instead of microfiche!
>
> In 1931, Emanuel Goldberg, then a chief engineer at Zeiss built the
> "Statistical Machine". By recording bits optically in the margins of
> microfilm, and reading them with photocells, it could find appropriate
> frames!
>
> For use in soundtrack for films, Mauer puts up to 8 parallel variable area
> optical tracks in the margin!
> 8 bit parallel!
> Goldberg was also apparently responsible for the Contax camera.
> BUT, in the days leading up to World War Two, he fled Dresden and Zeiss
> could not afford to have mention of a Jew in a high profile position, and by
> the time the war ended, they had systematically erased most clues that he
> had existed!
> http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/goldberg.html
>
>
> A decade later, Vannevar Bush stole the idea, and without credit, claimed it
> as his own, as the foundation for his Memex device.
> Bush did not successfully build his machine.
> Bush's Atlantic Monthly article, "As We May Think" is sometimes considered
> the foundation of modern information science.
> Bush did not understand nor accept the concepts of index nor hierarchical
> organization, so he pushed for linkage to go from one topic into another.
> Ted Nelson credits it as the inspiration for Hypertext, and Cern credits Ted
> nelson.

This is astonishing. What a tragic loss to the world.

And yet, 3 generations later, Fascist and Neo-Nazi thought is rising
again. From Brexit to "All lives matter" or "Blue lives matter", or
the marches in the US, the spectre of the Third Reich is rising again.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

RE: Looking for opinions...

[Kevin Parker via cctalk]

I previously worked for an insurance company and a very old issue reared its 
ugly head. Trouble was all the claim and policy info was on literally a 
truckload of microfiche and to find anything took three days (seriously) so ICT 
had them all scanned to PDF and OCR'd - it worked a treat but of course an 
expensive option depending on volume of course.


Kevin Parker



-Original Message-
From: cctech  On Behalf Of Paul Anderson via 
cctech
Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2018 19:00
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts 
Subject: Looking for opinions...

There are probably no perfect answers to this problem. I am looking for 
opinions, not criticism. I do not want to start arguments, nor get anyone here, 
especially Jay, pissed off.

I found a stack of DEC microfiche  a few nights ago. It's probably about 12 
inches tall, and contains PM Procedures, IPBs, Manuals, Tech Info, and several 
type of Logistics, BOMs, vendors, etc which I will deal with later.  Most of it 
is "company confidential", not that it matters anymore.  The bulk of my 
microfiche is still missing.

Several months ago there was a discussion here about breaking up sets. this is 
not a "set". It is made up of bunches found in different places at different 
times.  I'm guessing a "set" of this would be an inch or two thick.

My short list of options for disposal are as follows in order of current 
preference are:


1  Sort to get several sizable sets, sell the rest as partials.  A LOT of 
sorting

2  Take requests to cherry pick, and sell as few smaller sets. Still a LOT of 
sorting.

3  Call Al.  Oh, he gets a crack at whatever he needs anyway.

4   Sell it as a lot

5   Sell on e-pay.

6   Put it back where I found it.

The first 3 are going to take a lot of time.

Thanks in advance, Paul

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Shaun Halstead via cctalk]

[I'm intentionally not quoting anyone here]
Disclaimer:  I own a small company which provides microfilm and microfiche
scanning.

  A couple of problems anyone building a fiche scanner is going to run into
have already been addressed:  Moving film around to capture images and
resolution.  I use a Mekel M565 scanner.  It's roughly 3 feet long, 1.5
feet tall, and 2 feet deep, weighs around 80 pounds, and cost, used with
greyscale interface, $15k (ca 2007).  The length is to accommodate both the
internal control boards and the lenses required.  Image capture is
accomplished via a single-pixel-wide scan element, which is (from memory)
about a foot long.  The entire unit weighs around like 80 pounds.  While
running, it moves the desk it's sitting on.  It also uses (as I recall) a
65W lamp, which is also lensed, and all of the glass (lenses and film
carrier/platen) are photo-perfect, with zero defects.  The lamp itself is
interesting, as there are two versions available under the same ANSI
designation, one with a vertical filament, the other with a horizontal
filament.  Using the wrong filament orientation can cause some weird
artifacts to appear on scanned images, because of the high magnification.
I strongly suspect that an attempt using an LED source would face similar
(and possibly worse) issues.

  The system uses a dedicated interface card, with multiple FPGA's.
Typical scan times range from two to five seconds per frame, (including 0.5
to 1 second to reposition the platen).  The M565 has an auto-loader, though
I've seldom used it.  The auto-loader takes the form of an arm over the
platen, with a vacuum head and a solenoid to extend the head down to the
work table under the platen, pick up a fiche, hold it in place while the
platen is positioned and emptied (via pneumatic system), then drop the new
fiche onto the platen.  35mm images scanned at 300dpi equivalent are just a
hair over 40MP.  16mm images are, of course, smaller.

  A few issues that come to mind:
How to detect where the frames are on the microfilm sheet.  Some fiche
have a very consistent grid layout, which is nice, because you can work out
the math then feed the grid information into the scanner software.  In my
experience, most fiche will have a grid layout, but not a consistent one.
There will be blank frames, skew, even frame size changes from column to
column or row to row.
Film quality.  You're working with duplicate film, at least second,
probably 3rd, possibly even 4th generation, so quality was already an issue
20+ years ago, and it's an even bigger issue now.  All of the DEC film I
have (which I believe is already available) is diazo duplicates, which are
susceptible to fading over time, even when stored in proper conditions.
(In particular prolonged exposure to strong light, including sunlight and
the light from microfilm readers, accelerates fading of diazo films.)
Light source.  Due to lensing requirements, LED's are probably out,
unless a way can be found to suitably diffuse or blend the source without
losing significant light.  This requires a very strong light source.

  In short, this is no small task.  I've been looking for newer
alternatives, but the resolution requirement is a killer on its own, and
then when you factor in other challenges like platen movement, frame
detection, light source, etc, it's very easy to be overwhelmed.  I would
love to see a viable alternative produced, but the efforts I've seen over
the years all had significant problems in terms of quality and/or speed of
operation.

--Shaun

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Glen Slick via cctalk]

Is Joerg still active on this list? In this thread in 2015 he said he
scanned over 400 DEC sheets using a digital camera to capture the
image projected on a sheet reader. Don't know how long that took.

http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?24206-Digital-Equipment-Corporation-MicroFiche-Underground=346165#post346165

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCRr9sbHBnM

Re: OT: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Bob Rosenbloom via cctalk]

On 3/28/2018 6:00 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
If you start with a fiche viewer, then a lot of the mechanical 
parts, such as the fiche holder, are well under way.  You need to 
modify the card movement mechanism to be able to automate it, but 
you could put that part off until you confirm that the optical 
portion is satisfactory.

...snip
This thread reminded me of a DYI scanner I had read about. Found it with 
google:

http://retrocmp.com/projects/scanning-micro-fiches/235-the-homebuild-automatic-micro-fiche-scanner

Bob


--
Vintage computers and electronics
www.dvq.com
www.tekmuseum.com
www.decmuseum.org

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

> On Mar 28, 2018, at 6:23 PM, Pete Turnbull via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 29/03/2018 00:19, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:
> 
>> I think Bellows would be the only sane way to approach this.  You
>> could do it with extension tubes, but they’re a pain.  Another thing
>> to consider is a light source.  You’re going to need a fair amount of
>> light, given the necessary extension to get the magnification.
> 
> I was going to suggest a Bowens Illumitran (which I have) but that sort of 
> exercise wouldn't be kind to the flash tube.  LEDs would be my preferred 
> solution; given the small area you might only need one bright white 5mm LED.
> 
> The Illumitran uses bellows, but for a lot of DEC fiche, the page size is 
> constant so extension tubes might actually be better - they won't slip.

Initially I was going to suggest an Illumitran, but I don’t think it would work 
that well with trying to move the fiche around. You might have a point on the 
DEC fiche, though the bellows will allow you to maximize your page size.  Of 
course that may not be the greatest idea, as the more you maximize the size, 
the more attention you’ll have to pay to positioning each frame.

>> One of my favorite books, I think I’m up to 5 editions of it. :-)
>> You’d be hard pressed to find a photography book with more data in
>> it!
> 
> My favourite is L.P.Clerc "Photography" (six volumes), but second is
> either M.J.Langford's 3-volume "Photography" set, mainly because I got it for 
> college, or the "Ilford Photography Manual".
> 
> -- 
> Pete
> Pete Turnbull

My Circa 1945 copy of the “Ilford Manual of Photography” is another really 
useful book.  I have a newer version of the “Manual of Photography”, which 
superseded it, and I don’t find it as useful due to the quality of the 
troubleshooting photo’s.  I’ve not run across the two sets you mention.  
Another favorite of mine is Fred Picker’s "Zone VI Workshop”, I’ve read it, 
cover to cover, a couple times.

More and more, I view my Classic Computer collection as a hinderance to 
building a proper darkroom.  Oddly enough, the main purpose of my PDP-11/44 
these days is to hold a couple old enlargers that I don’t use.

Zane

RE: Looking for opinions...

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Kevin Parker via cctech wrote:
I previously worked for an insurance company and a very old issue reared 
its ugly head. Trouble was all the claim and policy info was on 
literally a truckload of microfiche and to find anything took three days 
(seriously) so ICT had them all scanned to PDF and OCR'd - it worked a 
treat but of course an expensive option depending on volume of course.


If only that were 16mm or 35mm continuous rolls, instead of microfiche!

In 1931, Emanuel Goldberg, then a chief engineer at Zeiss built 
the "Statistical Machine". By recording bits optically in the margins of 
microfilm, and reading them with photocells, it could find appropriate 
frames!


For use in soundtrack for films, Mauer puts up to 8 parallel 
variable area optical tracks in the margin!

8 bit parallel!
Goldberg was also apparently responsible for the Contax camera.
BUT, in the days leading up to World War Two, he fled Dresden and Zeiss 
could not afford to have mention of a Jew in a high profile position, and 
by the time the war ended, they had systematically erased most clues that 
he had existed!

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/goldberg.html


A decade later, Vannevar Bush stole the idea, and without credit, claimed 
it as his own, as the foundation for his Memex device.

Bush did not successfully build his machine.
Bush's Atlantic Monthly article, "As We May Think" is sometimes considered 
the foundation of modern information science.
Bush did not understand nor accept the concepts of index nor hierarchical 
organization, so he pushed for linkage to go from one topic into another.
Ted Nelson credits it as the inspiration for Hypertext, and Cern credits 
Ted nelson.



Alas, the volume of data involved precludes reels of microfilm, and the 
only hope for access is manually cataloging titles of the cards, followed 
eventually by linking to images on the web, and eventual OCR of the text 
portions.


How many page images will fit on a 3TB drive?

How many can we store and retrieve in the MTBF?

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Pete Turnbull via cctalk]

On 29/03/2018 00:19, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:


I think Bellows would be the only sane way to approach this.  You
could do it with extension tubes, but they’re a pain.  Another thing
to consider is a light source.  You’re going to need a fair amount of
light, given the necessary extension to get the magnification.


I was going to suggest a Bowens Illumitran (which I have) but that sort 
of exercise wouldn't be kind to the flash tube.  LEDs would be my 
preferred solution; given the small area you might only need one bright 
white 5mm LED.


The Illumitran uses bellows, but for a lot of DEC fiche, the page size 
is constant so extension tubes might actually be better - they won't slip.



One of my favorite books, I think I’m up to 5 editions of it. :-)
You’d be hard pressed to find a photography book with more data in
it!


My favourite is L.P.Clerc "Photography" (six volumes), but second is
either M.J.Langford's 3-volume "Photography" set, mainly because I got 
it for college, or the "Ilford Photography Manual".


--
Pete
Pete Turnbull

OT: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

If you start with a fiche viewer, then a lot of the mechanical parts, 
such as the fiche holder, are well under way.  You need to modify the 
card movement mechanism to be able to automate it, but you could put 
that part off until you confirm that the optical portion is 
satisfactory.


On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Zane Healy wrote:
This is the part I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around, but then 
I’ve not messed with that many fiche readers.  I’m far more familiar 
with film holders.  Too bad it isn’t a question a running 35mm film 
through, as Beseler Negatrans would work for that.
Or gate of a filmstrip projector, movie projector (I used to deal with 
16mm microfilm, as well as 35mm), or just sprocket spindle from camera, 
etc.
If you can take a fiche reader, and modify the fiche holder mechanism to 
handle this, then you’d be most of the way to doing this manually. 
Realistically a manual setup with a shutter release cable would still 
let you fly through the fiche pretty fast.


BUT, are we talking about a single exposure for the whole card, and then 
isolating pages/frames later?  That is certainly EASIER, but needs 
relatively hig resolution imaging device.
OR, are we talking about a servo/stepper controlled device that maneuvers 
the card around, to shoot a separate exposure for each frame/page? 
Excellent resolution, but lots of mechanical work to make the positioner.
I was suggesting getting the camera and optics working while manually 
positioning the fiche card.  THEN deciding whether to put in steppers.
Don't tell anybody :-), but if I were to do it, I'd probably use head 
positioner mechanisms from floppy drives.


I think Bellows would be the only sane way to approach this.  You could 
do it with extension tubes, but they’re a pain.  Another thing to 
consider is a light source.  You’re going to need a fair amount of 
light, given the necessary extension to get the magnification.


I disagree.  Or maybe I don't quite qualify as "sane" :-)
If this is a bespoke device sitting on a table, with a permanently mounted 
digital camera in it, then I would definitely go with extension tubes. 
Yes, you would need a way to handle fine focusing, but that could be a 
rack and pinion rail moving the camera.
I do occasionally set the focus on the camera, particularly if it is 
"closest" focus, and then move camera in and out to find the focus.
Extension tubes, once properly configured require no maintenance, 
re-adjustment, etc., and are available in even fairly thin forms.
My first use of a lathe (half a century ago) was to shorten an 
extension tube 1.5mm

Bellows go bad with age; the leather rots, pinholes develop, ...
I need to do a thorough checkout before I use my view cameras or bellows.
Or find some Ubik.
OTOH, if this is not a dedicated device, and is going to be used for a lot 
of other stuff, then bellows has versatility.
The minimum extension for a bellows is substantial, but well within range 
for THIS, so that isn't meant as an argument against for THIS.


I have a FULL MOVEMENTS Kenlock/Hama bellows, similar to:
http://forum.mflenses.com/spiratone-aka-hama-bellows-master-sst-with-bellows-lens-t76002.html
that I am trying to setup to play with.  I have a 47mm Super-Angulon that 
will cover 3.25x4.25 that will have PLENTY of image circle for 
exaggerated movements on a digital camera.  But, I need to machine 
some thnner adapters.

Yes, a "technical" view camera made with a Sony Nex is not "sane".


My favorite source for that kind of information is a 1936 edition of "The Leica 
Manual" by Morgan & Lester.
One of my favorite books, I think I’m up to 5 editions of it. :-) 
You’d be hard pressed to find a photography book with more data in it!


It's not quite the information density of Knuth, but half a century ago, 
it handled all of my photographic reference needs other than film. 20? 
years ago, an early 1950s edition reinforced my suspicion that Vannevar 
Bush's claim for readable stopped motion of fast streaming microfilm was 
NOT feasible with the hardware that Bush "used" when he implied/claimed to 
have built his memex.  Sure was handy that the library was stingy about 
updating their collection.   Munchausen learned from him.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Ethan via cctalk]

You figure if a couple of college kids can build a robot that can solve a 
Rubik's Cube in 380ms, a bunch of really smart old guys should be able to 
cobble together a DIY microfiche scanner.

g.


Mentioned it in an IRC channel.

Friends started talking about it.

The open source hughin software is what the people scanning microchip 
photos to reverse engineer them are using. Looks like it could handle that 
part.


http://hugin.sourceforge.net/

Friend was saying new Sony mirrorless (Sony has been a huge player in 
digital mirrorless cameras recently) have 42MP sensors. His approach was 
image the whole thing at once but I'm not sure the resolution would be 
good enough.


I was thinking more along the lines of something mirrorless and moving the 
film around capturing areas, pile the images in a dir for each fische, 
then stich and save.


- Ethan







--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!



--
: Ethan O'Toole

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[geneb via cctalk]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:



I wonder if you could use a photographic enlarger and a flatbed 
scanner to do this.


This is a rather interesting question, it’s highly impractical, BUT, it 
might be a way for someone like me to get copies of single pages.  A 
slightly more practical solution would be a DSLR setup with a bellows 
for Macro Photography.  Realistically someone with a proper setup (which 
would mean creating a holder for the film), could probably photograph 
the sheets quite quickly.


You figure if a couple of college kids can build a robot that can solve a 
Rubik's Cube in 380ms, a bunch of really smart old guys should be able to 
cobble together a DIY microfiche scanner.


g.


--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2018-03-28 3:37 PM, et...@757.org wrote:
 DOES ANYONE READ OLD POSTS HERE??
>>>
> >> Some of us...
 Do the math. Scanning all of that fiche is man-centuries of work
 with all but the most expensive equipment.
>>>
>>> Quite.  Maybe someday 9600 dpi scan heads will be cheap, but not soon
>>> enough for most of us here today to care.
> 
> We are like engineers or something. I think there is open source
> software for rebuilding images from shredded documents.Slide projector
> lens, LED array and diffuser and a digital camera. Stepper motors to
> move the thing around and load next fiche?
> 
> Let the robot do it?
> 

The problem with engineers is they sometimes reach to build something
from scratch (even if you have the tools and skill, who has the time,
really?) when off the shelf equipment can do this, and better.

Communalise that equipment. (See also: Book scanning.)

--T

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> source).  I doubt I have anything unique, but it's possible a handful
>>> of items are not easily found.
>>>
>>> For myself, it would be an enormous accomplishment just to make an
>>> index of the titles.  At least it fits in a couple of shoeboxes and
>>> takes up less room than paper.   The manual fiche reader itself is
>>> much larger than my pile of fiche, so there's that.
>>>
>>> -ethan
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> -- 
> : Ethan O'Toole
> 
> 
> 

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 28, 2018, at 4:40 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Mazzini Alessandro via cctalk wrote:
>> Uh.. now the big question..  how big/heavy is a microfiche viewer ?
> 
> They vary.  I have one that fits in a pocket!
> Usually, they are a tabletop box a few feet square.  Some used to have a 
> printer in them.
> Most tend not to be very extremely heavy, since a lot of that size is empty 
> space between a projection lens and a screen.

I've seen some that are built into a field service tool case.

paul

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Ethan via cctalk wrote:
We are like engineers or something. I think there is open source software for 
rebuilding images from shredded documents.Slide projector lens, LED array and 
diffuser and a digital camera. Stepper motors to move the thing around and 
load next fiche?

Let the robot do it?


In other words, a homemade fiche scanner.

If you start with a fiche viewer, then a lot of the mechanical parts, such 
as the fiche holder, are well under way.  You need to modify the card 
movement mechanism to be able to automate it, but you could put that part 
off until you confirm that the optical portion is satisfactory.


But, even when you put in the stepper motors to handle card motion for 
scanning, you still need to manually load each card into it, and THAT is 
one helluva lot of cards.  Enough to even discourage Al!  I s'pose there 
exists auto-feed fiche scanners, but prob'ly not cheap.


You would need to replace much of the optics with a short focal length 
flat-field lens with a lot of extension.  25mm enlarger lenses, which are 
usually the cheapest flat-field lenses, are usually pretty available. 
Most are L39/M39/Leica screw mount (39mm diameter by 26tpi Whitworth. YES, 
Oscar Barnack really did go metric for diameter but not thread pitch!) 
which is REAL easy to find adapters to almost any interchangeable lens 
camera.  Some enlarger lenses, however, are the Schneider mount which is 
25mm x 0.5mm; those adapters used to be readily available, both for 
enlarger lenses and Compur 00 shutter.  Now it takes a little more 
looking.


Added extension shortens the distance from lens to subject.  An added 
extension equivalent to the focal length of the lens will change the focus 
from infinity down to twice the focal length from the lens, which will 
give you one-to-one.  In other words, adding 2 inches of extension to a 
50mm lens will bring the focus to 4 inches from the lens.  You want a fair 
amount more than that.


If you will be doing a wide mix of frame sizes, then a bellows would be 
the right way to go.  Otherwise, extension tubes.  Both are available very 
cheap on eBay from China for most cameras with interchangeable lenses.
For a non-interchangeable lens camera (NOT RECOMMENDED!), you can add what 
uest to be called "Portra lens" that attaches like a filter, with added 
diopters.  They are additive, and you will need more than one.  They also 
further reduce the image quality.


If you want help with the formulas for extension, just ask.
My favorite source for that kind of information is a 1936 edition 
of "The Leica Manual" by Morgan & Lester.


Most important formula is that distance from lens (focal node, not surface 
of front element) is equal to distance of lens from "film" multiplied by 
focal length divided by amount of extension.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Ethan Dicks via cctalk]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Fred Cisin  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Ethan via cctalk wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Ethan Dicks wrote:
>>
>> These are not my questions.  I already know the answer to these.
>
> Ah, but we now have TWO Ethans on this list.
>
> THOSE questions were from
> "Ethan via cctalk" 
> aka:
> : Ethan O'Toole
> et...@757.org

Ah, yes.  Quite true.  I was a bit confused because we both had
responded on the same thread but the order of arrival made me think it
your response was trimmed from my reply.

Normally I catch it because we don't intertwine our responses on the
same topics.

My bad for getting befuddled here.

Cheers,

-ethan

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Mike Norris via cctalk]

Hi Paul,


I did have a go at scanning, but I could not get a good image.


Zane came up with the idea of using a DSLR, I have tried this with a very quick 
and dirty test and I think it could work, I used an original DEC microfiche 
viewer, which as it happens I am looking for a home for!

So if you  wants the viewer it's yours for the shipping - I am 
in UK (which might be the down side).

Regards Mike Norris

>>I found a stack of DEC microfiche  a few nights ago. It's probably about 12
>>inches tall, and contains PM Procedures, IPBs, Manuals, Tech Info, and
>>several type of Logistics, BOMs, vendors, etc which I will deal with
>>later.  Most of it is "company confidential", not that it matters anymore.  
>>The
>>bulk of my microfiche is still missing.

>>Thanks in advance, Paul

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Ethan via cctalk wrote:

Has all this data been converted to digital formats and posted online?
Can a flatbed scanner with high resolution (1200dpi) scan these directly
or does it require using a lens setup?


On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Ethan Dicks wrote:

These are not my questions.  I already know the answer to these.
-ethan


Ah, but we now have TWO Ethans on this list.

THOSE questions were from
"Ethan via cctalk" 
aka:
: Ethan O'Toole
et...@757.org

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

> On Mar 28, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> 
>> I wonder if you could use a photographic enlarger and a flatbed scanner to
>> do this.

This is a rather interesting question, it’s highly impractical, BUT, it might 
be a way for someone like me to get copies of single pages.  A slightly more 
practical solution would be a DSLR setup with a bellows for Macro Photography.  
Realistically someone with a proper setup (which would mean creating a holder 
for the film), could probably photograph the sheets quite quickly.

Zane

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Ethan via cctalk]

DOES ANYONE READ OLD POSTS HERE??



>> Some of us...

Do the math. Scanning all of that fiche is man-centuries of work with all but 
the most expensive equipment.


Quite.  Maybe someday 9600 dpi scan heads will be cheap, but not soon
enough for most of us here today to care.


We are like engineers or something. I think there is open source software 
for rebuilding images from shredded documents.Slide projector lens, LED 
array and diffuser and a digital camera. Stepper motors to move the thing 
around and load next fiche?


Let the robot do it?







source).  I doubt I have anything unique, but it's possible a handful
of items are not easily found.

For myself, it would be an enormous accomplishment just to make an
index of the titles.  At least it fits in a couple of shoeboxes and
takes up less room than paper.   The manual fiche reader itself is
much larger than my pile of fiche, so there's that.

-ethan






--
: Ethan O'Toole

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Ethan Dicks via cctalk]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
 wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Ethan via cctalk wrote:
>>
>> Has all this data been converted to digital formats and posted online?
>>
>> Can a flatbed scanner with high resolution (1200dpi) scan these directly
>> or does it require using a lens setup?

These are not my questions.  I already know the answer to these.

-ethan

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Ethan via cctalk wrote:

Has all this data been converted to digital formats and posted online?


A lot, but almost certainly not all.

Can a flatbed scanner with high resolution (1200dpi) scan these directly or 
does it require using a lens setup?

For microfiche, 1200dpi is NOT high resolution.

If we assume that each frame represents an 8.5x11 page, . . .
if the frame were an inch wide, that would be 1200 pixels for the width of 
the page, or the eguivalent of about 150dpi

Half inch frames would be the equivalent of 75dpi.

Better than nothing, but far from ideal.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 2018-03-28 1:51 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk
> >  wrote:
> >> The rock has been lifted (again)
> >>
> >> DOES ANYONE READ OLD POSTS HERE??
> >
> > Some of us...
> >
> >> Do the math. Scanning all of that fiche is man-centuries of work with
> all but the most expensive equipment.
> >
> > Quite.  Maybe someday 9600 dpi scan heads will be cheap, but not soon
> > enough for most of us here today to care.
> >
> >> That's why it hasn't been done.
> >
> > Indeed.
>
> I wonder if you could use a photographic enlarger and a flatbed scanner to
> do this.
>
>
>
>

Digitising collections of microfiche - Re: Looking for opinions...

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2018-03-28 1:51 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk
>  wrote:
>> The rock has been lifted (again)
>>
>> DOES ANYONE READ OLD POSTS HERE??
> 
> Some of us...
> 
>> Do the math. Scanning all of that fiche is man-centuries of work with all 
>> but the most expensive equipment.
> 
> Quite.  Maybe someday 9600 dpi scan heads will be cheap, but not soon
> enough for most of us here today to care.
> 
>> That's why it hasn't been done.
> 
> Indeed.

Topical issue. Dennis Tillman just posted this on TekScopes:
https://groups.io/g/TekScopes/message/146035



> 
> I too have a quantity of fiche - some IBM from the 1980s and lots of
> DEC (70s and 80s hardware - mostly Qbus and Unibus but some VMS
> source).  I doubt I have anything unique, but it's possible a handful
> of items are not easily found.
> 
> For myself, it would be an enormous accomplishment just to make an
> index of the titles.  At least it fits in a couple of shoeboxes and
> takes up less room than paper.   The manual fiche reader itself is
> much larger than my pile of fiche, so there's that.
> 
> -ethan
> 

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Ethan Dicks via cctalk]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk
 wrote:
> The rock has been lifted (again)
>
> DOES ANYONE READ OLD POSTS HERE??

Some of us...

> Do the math. Scanning all of that fiche is man-centuries of work with all but 
> the most expensive equipment.

Quite.  Maybe someday 9600 dpi scan heads will be cheap, but not soon
enough for most of us here today to care.

> That's why it hasn't been done.

Indeed.

I too have a quantity of fiche - some IBM from the 1980s and lots of
DEC (70s and 80s hardware - mostly Qbus and Unibus but some VMS
source).  I doubt I have anything unique, but it's possible a handful
of items are not easily found.

For myself, it would be an enormous accomplishment just to make an
index of the titles.  At least it fits in a couple of shoeboxes and
takes up less room than paper.   The manual fiche reader itself is
much larger than my pile of fiche, so there's that.

-ethan

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

> Can a flatbed scanner with high resolution (1200dpi) scan these directly or 
> does it require using a lens setup?

sigh..

The rock has been lifted (again)

DOES ANYONE READ OLD POSTS HERE??

Do the math. Scanning all of that fiche is man-centuries of work with all but 
the most expensive equipment.

That's why it hasn't been done.



Paul, sell it off however you see fit.

I don't want any more of it, I have thousands of sheets already, and can't even 
get enough cycles
to deal with the mountain of easy to scan paper filling my office, much less 
have time to set up
the fiche scanner I bought two years ago.

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 28, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Ethan via cctalk  wrote:
> 
>> I found a stack of DEC microfiche  a few nights ago. It's probably about 12
>> inches tall, and contains PM Procedures, IPBs, Manuals, Tech Info, and
>> several type of Logistics, BOMs, vendors, etc which I will deal with
>> later.  Most of it is "company confidential", not that it matters anymore.  
>> The
>> bulk of my microfiche is still missing.
> 
> Has all this data been converted to digital formats and posted online?
> 
> Can a flatbed scanner with high resolution (1200dpi) scan these directly or 
> does it require using a lens setup?

You need a lot better than 1200 dpi.  A transparency scanner at 9600 dpi (real, 
not "interpolated") might be good enough, but such things are not all that 
common.

paul

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Ethan via cctalk]

I found a stack of DEC microfiche  a few nights ago. It's probably about 12
inches tall, and contains PM Procedures, IPBs, Manuals, Tech Info, and
several type of Logistics, BOMs, vendors, etc which I will deal with
later.  Most of it is "company confidential", not that it matters anymore.  The
bulk of my microfiche is still missing.


Has all this data been converted to digital formats and posted online?

Can a flatbed scanner with high resolution (1200dpi) scan these directly 
or does it require using a lens setup?



--
: Ethan O'Toole

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Paul Anderson via cctalk]

I have some LCG and VAX, but mostly 8 and 11 items.  If I ever find it all
I should have a stack 2 meters or so.

I wish there was an easy way to sort it. I don't want to think about how
long it will take.

Paul

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:11 AM, Huw Davies <
huw.dav...@kerberos.davies.net.au> wrote:

>
>
> On 28 Mar 2018, at 18:59, Paul Anderson via cctalk 
> wrote:
>
> There are probably no perfect answers to this problem. I am looking for
> opinions, not criticism. I do not want to start arguments, nor get anyone
> here, especially Jay, pissed off.
>
>
> I too have a large stack of microfiche. These are mostly DEC KI-10 stuff -
> I’ve looked at a few of the fiche but there are probably a 1000 or so.
>
> I too would like some advice...
>
> Huw Davies   | e-mail: huw.dav...@kerberos.davies.net.au
> 
>
> Melbourne| "If soccer was meant to be played in the
>
> Australia| air, the sky would be painted green"
>
>

Re: Looking for opinions...

[Huw Davies via cctalk]

> On 28 Mar 2018, at 18:59, Paul Anderson via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> There are probably no perfect answers to this problem. I am looking for
> opinions, not criticism. I do not want to start arguments, nor get anyone
> here, especially Jay, pissed off.

I too have a large stack of microfiche. These are mostly DEC KI-10 stuff - I’ve 
looked at a few of the fiche but there are probably a 1000 or so.

I too would like some advice...

Huw Davies   | e-mail: huw.dav...@kerberos.davies.net.au
Melbourne| "If soccer was meant to be played in the
Australia| air, the sky would be painted green"