 |
 |
Just to be clear, I'm not able to donate much time to scanning, but I do have some already-scanned material that would be good for discography and other researchers. Agree with Richard about the utlity of sheet-feed scanners. We have a maw at the office that can handle a hefty stack of sheets and scan right into Adobe Acrobat software. For things like LP covers, I love the Epson large-format scanner. Nowadays, I'm more likely to scan into Photoshop, and then just save as a PSD or TIFF file so as to avoid any time doing "processing." Let the downloader process to his own taste. -- Tom Fine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Need for document posting place > Hi, Tom and Steve, > > Just to kick this off, while I am not interested in doing much scanning, I can heartily recommend > as a minimum, the Xerox Documate 3115 scanner as an input device. > > It is strictly sheet fed, but it captures both sides in one pass -- it has dual scan heads. > > The sheet feed is pretty reliable. > > There are more upscale models, but this was in the $300 or so price range, if I recall correctly. > These are made by Visioneer but marketed under the Xerox name. I generally use 300 dpi greyscale > or colour (depending) and do run the de-moire routines in the scanner software. I did not bother > to do text capture, but that might be nice. > > Last summer, my older son scanned about 11,000 pages of documents using this for the bulk. We > started with an HP5590, but its duplexing sheet feeder is a headache in that its slow and the > document goes through twice. > > Doing single page scans is painful. Of course, you have to make the decision to cut a > book/magazine if you use this scanner. We have an Epson V700 and a Brother 11x17 multifunction to > handle items larger than 8.5x14 sheets. > > There are book scanners that do not require cutting, but they are high-end, I believe. I'm not > aware of any home-enthusiast type pricing. Fucitsu ScanSnap has more of a meme about it, but it is > more expensive. HP also makes scanners of this ilk. If you're doing a real heap of this stuff, a > neat feature is the ultrasonic double-feed detector. I don't think mine has it, but so far, so > good. > > I now have the Xerox scanner in the studio and do a lot of scanning of track sheets and that type > of thing to return with projects and also for tax purposes. I don't mind doing a project on paper, > though I prefer doing a project in the computer. What I hate is when some parts of a project are > on paper and other parts are in the computer. University applications come to mind, so all the > paper-only stuff gets scanned and deposited in the computer. > > More on the scanning project here: > http://richardhess.com/notes/2011/11/05/personal-image-scanning-project/ > > Cheers, > > Richard > > On 2012-02-29 2:33 PM, Tom Fine wrote: >> Hi Steve: >> >> You can use Archive.org, but I found their interface terrible and inconvenient for the would-be >> contributor of knowledge. The end result I got was, all of the Audiotape Tape Recorder Directory >> issues that I had scanned ended up as one page: >> http://www.archive.org/details/AudioDevices-TapeRecorderDirectory1960-1961 >> which makes it somewhat hard to sift through, although not completely non-inutitive. >> >> I plan to upload more stuff like this, including scans of old record-company catalogs. I very >> much agree with and commend your comment about information being available to all researchers. >> >> Agree that ARSC would be an appropriate "mother ship" for record company lists, catalogs and >> other promotional material, as well as some antique playback equipment information. However, to >> be useful it would need to be curated and there would need to be standards as far as scan >> quality, etc. We've batted this around at AES and never come to firm conclusions, although there >> has been much information sharing and the AESHC website grows each year with more material and >> more variety of subjects. I am a strong advocate for an established decent quality level for >> scans, but I don't think they need to be works of art, just good resolution on images and clearly >> readable text. >> >> -- Tom Fine >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:14 PM >> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Need for document posting place >> >> >>> I have many documents that are good source material for researchers. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd like to get some of these onto a site, preferably ARSC-hosted, >>> >>> >>> >>> I have strong feelings that these and others that others may have should be >>> available to all researchers. >>> >>> >>> >>> The site should be vetted by an ARSC member or committee to avoid >>> perpetuation of junk data. >>> >>> >>> >>> It should be available past the lifetime of those contributing documents. >>> >>> >>> >>> The recent HRS-IRCC questions can be answered from the thick files I have on >>> both organizations, but I see no reason to send them around and be dependent >>> on other's interpretations of the data when it is feasible to let all see >>> the same info and cross-check. This holds true for a lot of other stuff as >>> well. >>> >>> >>> >>> This is a project I feel is of great importance. How about it, ARSC? >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve Smolian >>> >> > > -- > Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask] > Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX > http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm > Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. >