preserving / ressurecting old docs?

From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis_at_mcmanis.com>
Date: Fri Jun 29 20:24:26 2001

At 01:30 AM 6/30/01 +0100, Lee wrote:

> > > Scanning printed material much above 150dpi is usually a waste
> > > as most printing is done at about 70dpi.
> >
> > What are you smoking, and is there enough for the rest of us?
> >
>We're talking old manuals here. Remember? OLD manuals.

70 DPI would be something like a 9 pin dot matrix printer. True, some
manuals were that poor but certainly not a majority of them. Many old
manuals were photo-typeset and then offset printed.


> > 600 Dpi with resolution enhancement is very old technology
> > for laserprinters
> >
>Nobody, commercially, makes books on laserprinters.

You see "nobody" defines the empty set, and that is patently untrue as to
risk making all other statements you offer to be rejected out of hand.
Laser printers, known as "digital printers" in the publishing world, are
used for short run publications (less than say 2,500 copies) and they are
not uncommon.


> > If you can manage it, i would say scan at 600 Dpi.
> >
>Waste of time, effort and storage space.

Hmmmm.


> > scanning at 1/2 the target printer resolution is probably
> > the best you can hope for.
> >
>Scanning at just over twice the source resolution is the best you
>will ever get. More than that's a waste.

If a manual was phototypeset on a CAT phototypesetter (most popular
phototypesetter in the publishing industry in the mid 70's.) then the
resolution is 2000dpi (they spec it in lines/millimeter but my recollection
is that it was about 2000lines/inch after conversion) so those manuals
should be scanned at 4800 dpi right?

Basically, I think you may be mistaken on a few of your numbers.
--Chuck
Received on Fri Jun 29 2001 - 20:24:26 BST