Printed test sheets:
http://www.diytrade.com/china/4/products/1707979/IEEE_Resolution_Chart.html?r=0
or
http://www.aig-imaging.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PRODStore_Code=AIIPIProduct_Code=QA-60Category_Code=Video-Scanner-Resolution-Charts
At 04:54 PM 5/2/2009 -0700, st...@archive.org wrote:
Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Lars Aronsson
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 8:27 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Recommend book scanner?
Mike Taylor wrote:
Or not. Cheap cameras may well produce JPEGs that contain eight
Joe Atzberger writes:
If you want real 300 dpi images, at anything like the quality you
get from a flatbed scanner, then you're going to need cameras
much more expensive than $100.
Or just wait, say, about 3 years.
Well, maybe. I guess not, though: the factor limiting image quality
On 5/1/09 8:27 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Does anybody have a printed test sheet that we can scan or photo,
and then compare the resulting digital images? It should have
lines at various densities and areas of different colours, just
like an old TV test image. Can you buy such calibration
st...@archive.org wrote:
archive.org scans typically include a color card target
image near the back (or front) of the book, e.g.
That's great. But where do you buy these target cards? And are
they useful for testing small compact cameras? An important
difference between the bkrpr.org
On the other hand, there are projects like bkrpr [2] and [3],
home-brew scanning stations build for marginally more than the cost of
a pair of $100 cameras.
Cameras around $100 dollars are very low quality. You could get no where
near the dpi recommended for materials that need to be OCRed. The
Amanda P wrote:
Cameras around $100 dollars are very low quality. You could get no where
near the dpi recommended for materials that need to be OCRed. The quality of
images from cameras would be not only low, but the OCR (even with the best
software) would probably have many errors. For someone
At Fri, 1 May 2009 09:51:19 -0500,
Amanda P wrote:
On the other hand, there are projects like bkrpr [2] and [3],
home-brew scanning stations build for marginally more than the cost of
a pair of $100 cameras.
Cameras around $100 dollars are very low quality. You could get no where
near the
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
If you want real 300 dpi images, at anything like the quality you get
from a flatbed scanner, then you're going to need cameras much more
expensive than $100.
Or just wait, say, about 3 years.
@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Recommend book scanner?
Yeah, I don't think people use cameras instead of flatbed scanners
because they produce superior results, or are cheaper: They use them
because they're _faster_ for large-scale digitization, and also make it
possible to capture pages from rare
My understanding is that a flatbed or sheetfed document scanner that
produces 300 dpi will produce much better OCR results than a cheap digital
camera that produces 300 dpi. The reasons have to do with the resolution
and distortion of the resulting image, where resolution is defined as the
William Wueppelmann writes:
Cameras around $100 dollars are very low quality. You could get
no where near the dpi recommended for materials that need to be
OCRed. The quality of images from cameras would be not only low,
but the OCR (even with the best software) would probably have
Yeah, I don't think people use cameras instead of flatbed scanners
because they produce superior results, or are cheaper: They use them
because they're _faster_ for large-scale digitization, and also make it
possible to capture pages from rare/fragile materials with less damage
to the
Mike Taylor wrote:
Or not. Cheap cameras may well produce JPEGs that contain eight
million pixels, but that doesn't mean that they are using all or
even much of that resolution.
Does anybody have a printed test sheet that we can scan or photo,
and then compare the resulting digital
At Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:32:08 -0400,
Christine Schwartz wrote:
We are looking into buying a book scanner which we'll probably use for
archival papers as well--probably something in the $1,000.00 range.
Any advice?
Most organizations, or at least the big ones, Internet Archive and
Google,
How good are the two-camera apparatuses for scanning things other than
books? The thing about the Google and Kirtas scanners is that they are not
particularly recommended for dealing with fragile books or otherwise special
collections materials. The University of Virginia Library is still using
Erik Hetzner wrote:
At Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:32:08 -0400,
Christine Schwartz wrote:
We are looking into buying a book scanner which we'll probably use for
archival papers as well--probably something in the $1,000.00 range.
Any advice?
Most organizations, or at least the big ones, Internet
17 matches
Mail list logo
