View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's January 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-War's January 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-War home page.
1. Colin Graham <firstname.lastname@example.org> 2. email@example.com 3. Jacqueline Wilson <firstname.lastname@example.org> 4. Jacqueline Wilson <email@example.com> 5. CC136@aol.com 6. "Claasen, Adam" <A.Claasen@massey.ac.nz> 7. "McIntyre, James" <McIntyreJ@morainevalley.edu> 8. Jakob Whitfield <jakob.whitfield@POSTGRAD.MANCHESTER.AC.UK> 9. Leland Ness <firstname.lastname@example.org> 10. email@example.com -----Message from: Colin Graham <firstname.lastname@example.org>----- Although I have no experience with scanners I would recommend using a digital camera (assuming they are permitted in the archives you will be visiting). They can take a lot of images (depending, of course, on the size of the memory card but these are rather cheap lately) and those images are easily transferred to a laptop computer. You can control the quality of the image by using larger file size settings. Also, once on the laptop, you can use Adobe Acrobat to convert them into .pdf files - while a tiny bit time consuming this isn't that big a deal and gives you an extra chance to look through the documents while performing the conversion. When viewing the .pdf copies of your documents you can easily increase the size of the image on the screen thus making the documents even easier to read (this is especially helpful when looking at copies of originals that had faint or blurry type). Finally, these images are much more portable than would be hard copies produced on a scanner and can thus be located in more than one location (eg. home, campus office, anywhere you take your laptop). I have used a digital camera at the National Archives in London on more than one occasion and can't imagine copying documents for research any other way. In addition, a digital camera is far easier to carry around than even a small scanner would be. Hope this helps. Colin Graham -- PhD Candidate Department of History McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario Colin Graham <email@example.com> -----Message from: firstname.lastname@example.org----- I have had good scanning results from a Canon LIDE 30 USB scanner. It is small enough to be put into a laptop computer bag, has good resolution, connects to the USB port on almost any computer (but not 64-bit models) and doesn't require an external power supply (making it ideal for international use without the hassle of having to worry about voltage conversion, electrical adapters, and so on.) David Anderson says he wants to scan thousands of pages---this would be a tall order for any consumer-quality scanner, including the Canon LIDE 30. Brian Gordon email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org -----Message from: Jacqueline Wilson <email@example.com>----- In the world of genealogy, a lot of researchers are using digital cameras set up on gorilla pad legs to look straight down on the item. There was a recent discussion about this very subject and the consensus was that this was the best way to do documents and microfilm. One of the reasons is no flash or direct light is used and therefore can not hurt the photos and documents. Also contact NARA and ask what there rules are for scanning. I have also used a Docupen from Planon but it costs about $250 and now has a printer which I have not seen before. Good luck with you research and Happy New Year ~Jackie Jacqueline Wilson firstname.lastname@example.org Deputy Sheriff for Publications Jacqueline Wilson email@example.com -----Message from: CC136@aol.com----- David, All Sorts of scanners exist the portability issue depends on your definition. Normally I use and Epson V750 pro and its cost is for many prohibitive. For field work I have used the Visioneer brand their web site is _www.visioneer.com/onetouch_ (http://www.visioneer.com/onetouch) . They can be locked and put in a satchel or medium size backpack. The cost is around a hundred dollars you may be able to find deals on Amazon and other sites. Check the included software for what it should be able to do, most can scan to pdf. format as well as tiff or jpg. Happy New Year, T.G. Toth CC136@aol.com -----Message from: "Claasen, Adam" <A.Claasen@massey.ac.nz>----- Why not simply go for a camera? They are far quicker, extremely portable and very cheap. Dr Adam Claasen Massey University New Zealand "Claasen, Adam" <A.Claasen@massey.ac.nz> -----Message from: "McIntyre, James" <McIntyreJ@morainevalley.edu>----- This is a not a product endorsement, however, I have a Canon LiDE 60 desktop scanner that fits all of the criteria listed in the querry. I have used it for all the purposes listed, and it does an admirable job. It was about $120 three years ago, so I would suspect it has dropped in price and/or may be found used for a reasonable amount. It is 16 x 11 and can therefore fit in most larger laptop cases. Good luck! Jim Mc Intyre Moraine Valley Community College Palos Hills, Illinois "McIntyre, James" <McIntyreJ@morainevalley.edu> -----Message from: Jakob Whitfield <jakob.whitfield@POSTGRAD.MANCHESTER.AC.UK>----- > I want to know if there exists a portable scanner that is > capable of scanning documents into pdf format AND photographs > into jpeg or TIF format, and is around $100 or less. The > scanner also needs to be able to connect to a laptop computer > and rugged enough for carrying in a case. Does such a scanner > exist? Alas, no; certainly not with pdf conversion. As ever, you can pick two of cheap, portable, and fit for purpose. Any portable scanner I've seen has been a sheet-feeder, which is of limited use for photos and archival documents. Many archives are also a little leery of letting you use scanners at all, as the bright light of the lamp can fade documents. If you really need publication-quality copies of photos, you can get reasonably lightweight flatbed scanners, but they're not particularly fast or hugely portable. The tool I'd recommend is a point-and-shoot digital camera. I recently used my 5-year-old model to take images of about three and a half thousand pages in an archive over the course of a week. I turned the flash off and used the close-up mode; although the odd image was slightly blurred, the documents were all legible and perfectly suitable for my research needs. This seems to be the favoured solution at the UK National Archives these days, where most of the researchers use digital cameras. The archives also have camera stands in the reading rooms, allowing you to get high-quality pictures if this is important to you. I've kept all my images as the jpegs the camera produces, keeping an index in an excel file. If pdfs are important to you, there are a number of free or cheap tools to produce them from multiple jpegs. If you need OCR capability, I know Omnipage will take jpegs as input, but as with most decent OCR software it doesn't come cheap. Hope this helps, Jakob Whitfield PhD student, CHSTM, University of Manchester Jakob Whitfield <jakob.whitfield@POSTGRAD.MANCHESTER.AC.UK> -----Message from: Leland Ness <firstname.lastname@example.org>----- I assume there is a good reason why you want to break away from the herd using digital cameras for their archival research. But I would urge you to reconsider. If you plan on using a scanner for text documents you will be there for a very long time. Obviously, no archive will permit people to push their fragile, old and irreplaceable documents through an automatic document feeder. That means you will have to manually place each sheet on the platen, close the lid, hit the scan button and wait 20-30 seconds while the machine does its thing. That is necessary for photos, where image quality counts, but is simply a waste of time for documents. My personal record for scanning (photographs) in an archival day is about a hundred. My record for photographing in a day is slightly over eleven hundred. Leland Ness Leland Ness <email@example.com> -----Message from: firstname.lastname@example.org----- From: Aaron Elson World War II Oral History Audiobooks @ audiomurphy.com email@example.com > " I want to replace photocopying efforts of documents and > paying high charges for scanned photographs with my own > portable scanner. > I want to know if there exists a portable > scanner that is capable of scanning documents into pdf format > AND photographs into jpeg or TIF format, and is around $100 > or less." Check out the Canon LIDE series, such as the LIDE 100. It's not officially portable, but is very slim, connects to a USB port and doesn't require an outside power source, I got one for $29 on Black Friday at Office Depot but it's usually around $79. It may be a bit too long to fit into a laptop case but is easy to pack, maybe with bubble wrap. I did some research at the Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell Field in Montgomery, Ala., last summer and they allowed researchers to use their scanners for free. Have you checked to see if NARA has the same policy? Aaron Elson Author, "Tanks for the Memories: An Oral History of the 712th Tank Battalion in World War II" World War II Oral History Audiobooks @ audiomurphy.com firstname.lastname@example.org ----- For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/ To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war -----