Print

Print


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.
>