I would have to agree with Brian's comments. Piecing together the
various panels to create one page would be a pain. The slide scanners
are not that cheap either though and might be comparable to the anacomp
fiche scanners in price.
--tom
At 09:52 AM 2/15/02 -0800, you wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Tony Eros wrote:
>
>> At the 60x magnification, it takes about 9 images to capture a single
>> frame from a fiche. I've put together a web page at
>> http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche.htm that roughly arranges the sample
>> to show a sample frame from a VMS source listing fiche.
>>
>> I like the resolution, but need to find a way to expand the field of
>> view. I'm sure I can rig up a scanning frame, but don't want to have
>> to stitch multiple captures per frame. If I can get this to work, it
>> would be a very affordable way to do high-quality fiche scans.
>
>Unless you can automate the scanning, it's a pretty painful proposition.
>Or at least it is unless you've lots of time to burn. We've got a
>software tool, Stitcher (made by Realviz http://www.realviz.com/), that
>we use where I work for combining multiple images into panoramic
>backgrounds. From what I can find online, it looks like Stitcher costs
>about $800.
>
>Are the resolutions capable with current generation mixed film format
>slide and film scanners inadequate for capturing microfiche? Looking
>on-line, I see lots of high-end microfiche specific scanners--but they
>have that look about them which indicates "niche market" and hence "very
>expensive". It seems like one of the Nikon Coolscan film scanners might
>work well for this.
>
>-brian.
>
>
>
Received on Fri Feb 15 2002 - 12:19:25 GMT