Scanning (was Re: recent acquisitions for the House of VAX

From: Tom Uban <>
Date: Fri Sep 14 09:16:53 2001

Hi Clint,

Thanks for the info. The 500FB sounds like a good choice, but I've
only been able to find one company selling them (doing a web search)
and it was for about $2500...


At 06:55 PM 9/13/01 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi Tom,
>I have a Bell&Howell 500FB 11x17 scanner with ADF that I a pretty
>happy with. It'll do 400DPI native, and 600DPI interpolated, up
>to 256 grayscale (no color). I've used it to scan a small number
>of 11x17 schematics, and the results are reasonable, the main
>problem is page skew. I've been working on a program to automatically
>deskew pages (which works ok), and recenter the image in the page
>(which doesn't). IIRC, I paid ~$1200US for it.
>I also have a Microtek MRS-800AJ which is 11x17 color (i forget the
>resolution) but flatbed only. This scanner is too slow to use for
>any sort of document scanning. You will die of boredem waiting to
>switch pages and start the next scan. I'm happy with the color
>reproduction however. Lots cheaper, ~$600US.
>Both are SCSI, which I consider to be a requirement because of the
>amount of time required to transfer an image across USB. A zippy
>machine to drive it (600MHZ/PIII) is also very desirable...
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Tom Uban wrote:
>> I started looking for an 11x17 scanner (also called A3 or tabloid, from
>> I can gather). They are hard to find and I was wondering if you have
>> suggestions
>> for a quality flat bed scanner which can handle the larger format, but
is not
>> to pricey. The ones which I have found also appear to be SCSI, is OK, but
>> would not be my first choice.
>> --tom
>> At 02:16 PM 9/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
>> >This topic has gone over the list a few times, from experience, the
>> >scans are 600 DPI black and white compressed into PDF files. This
>> >exactly what is needed, get the data without a lot of excess. The KA655
>> >that is on the DFWCUG site appears from the PDF to be 100 DPI/8 bit (note
>> >that's 800 bits per inch net and the result is harder to read) I'll add
>> >scanning this manual to my list. They don't appear to have come up with a
>> >'standard' for their scans. That would help too.
>> >
>> >--Chuck
>> >
>> >At 01:01 PM 9/10/01, you wrote:
>> >> > However, someone decided to scan some of the manuals as low
>> >> > resolution 8 bit grey scale (what a waste of someone's scanning time!)
>> >>
>> >>Do you mean low or high resolution? There's no need for 48 or even 16
>> >>bit for anything not continuous tone. I got three manuals from DFWCUG
>> >>and am very happy with the quality. Perhaps they could look into more
>> >>efficient compression, though.
>> >>
>> >>John A.
>> >
>> >
Received on Fri Sep 14 2001 - 09:16:53 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:25 BST