For me, the key reason why I'll never totally abandon scanners is "the maw." This the Ricoh
copier/scanner/printer we have networked at my office. It's cheap to lease, prints up to 12x18 in
good color, and has a reliable document feeder. An example of where this was a great benefit was an
AES project spearheaded by Jay McKnight to scan a couple of years of the Journal that for whatever
reason weren't in the CD-ROM collection and weren't issued as PDFs to subscribers. I was sent these
issues with the left edges (binding) cut off. I fed them into "the maw" and could set-and-forget
scanning, simply re-loading "the maw" with each issue. I think I had one misfeed in two years worth
You just can't do that with a camera.
My main interest in the camera is for larger-than-scannable documents. I'm also interested to know
if that HP device is faster than a scanner with equally good results.
I wonder if the organizers of ARSC 2015 could ask HP to send a salesman and demo that thing in the
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] potentially interesting new computer/scanner concept
> On 2014-11-05 12:05 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> I wonder if it's possible to rig up a mechanism whereby a digital camera
>> "flies" over large
>> documents like posters or schematics and uses built-in panorama software
>> to stitch the segments
>> together? The segments should stitch easily due to rigging a mechanism
>> where the camera is kept at a
>> static height and static vertical angle to the document, moving on a
>> controlled horizontal path.
> Hi, Tom,
> A friend (Christopher Campbell) has a camera stand in his basement that goes from floor to
> ceiling. He built it out of aluminum extrusions and stuff. He also uses four studio strobes and he
> found someone had carefully worked out the angles. He gets within less than a half stop difference
> in illumination.
> From what I read on the Nikon DSLR mailing list I'm on, it seems that the copying that the people
> there are doing is mostly done with vertical images and horizontal lens axis alignment.
> They also do this with transparencies. I'm a lone voice there in favor of scanners. Throughput is
> the name of their game.
> Current photo processing software (Lightroom and Photoshop are the two applications I use) have
> simple perspective correction. Leave enough "air" around the image if you're going to do that.
> Lightroom's is especially nice. I use it frequently to correct horizon lines.
> As to your blurry photographs, there are image stabilization lenses. In fact the two lenses that
> cover almost all my shooting these days both employ that feature. My son Robert's new Samsung
> Galaxy S5 has image stabilization built into the phone--too rich for my blood, I think I'll get an
> S4 for half the price.
> The book scanners that use two DSLRs seem to have all their geometry worked out.
> Have you seen the page at AmericanRadioHistory.COM? I'm sending him Neil Muncy's old Allied Radio
> catalogs (he's paying shipping). There is also a site
> Anyway, David Gleason's page at ARH on scanners is
> He discusses the Kodak (now Konica-Minolta, I think) 1200-series scanners, but his link is to the
> 3000 series, as are the images. He has a link to the book scanner he uses. If he can cut a book,
> the Kodak is his first choice. As an aside, I like my duplex Xerox/Visioneer page scanner.
> I've always thought the nice thing about scanners is that they have most of the error-prone areas
> covered and can provide a good image with little work by an inexperienced operator. Photographing
> images requires more and higher-end input to set up.
> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.