shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) (07/13/88)
Fellow Netters,
A group here has been asked to look into the possibility of taking
boxes and boxes of medical records and documents and converting them
into some form of archival storage. They initially considered
microfilming them but I feel that using the document scanners with
perhaps WORM devices would be a better alternative. However, we do not
have any expeirience in this sort of actitivy at all.
What experiences do folks have using the scanners out there?
What kind of software is necessary? What is the minimum hardware
necessary say for a souped up PC or 386 system in terms of graphics
and image hardware (of course coupled with well regarded text software
which can incorporate these into word porcessing programs)? What companies
have good products and how much do they cost?
We are willing to delve into this seriously. Some guidance will be
most appreciated.
--
usenet ..!{uunet!umix, pur-ee!iuvax, ucbvax!mtxinu, rutgers!psuvax1}!mcf!shan
internet: shan%mcf.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu shan@mcf.uucp
"The answer is UNIX: now what was the question?" -- title of a technical
report published by some one in some university somewhere in the UK.msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) (07/14/88)
The office I work in is looking for a system based on an IBM PC or
clone to mechanically read text ridden sheets and collect data as a
tab house would normally collect the data. Can anyone give me
pointers to scanners or software to do this? We'd additionally like
to interface this data with SAS on a Novell network.
thanks
Mark
--
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
61 Tenafly Road that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
Tenafly, NJ 07670 {backbone}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu Bill and Opus in '88!!!evas@eurtrx.UUCP (Eelco van Asperen) (07/15/88)
in article <424@mcf.UUCP>, shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) says: > > A group here has been asked to look into the possibility of taking > boxes and boxes of medical records and documents and converting them > into some form of archival storage. They initially considered > microfilming them but I feel that using the document scanners with > perhaps WORM devices would be a better alternative. However, we do not > have any expeirience in this sort of actitivy at all. > Before you dive in and store it all on magnetic or optical storage, you might want to look at the durability of the media concerned. I recently saw a documentary about a big library in the UK facing similar problems and they decided _not_ to use any kind of magnetic (not sure about optical) storage just for this reason. I'm no expert in this field; just thought you might like to know. Eelco van Asperen ------------------------------ Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam T H E N E T H E R L A N D S ------------------------------ uucp: evas@eurtrx ..!mcvax!eurtrx!evas earn/bitnet: asperen@hroeur5 ------------------------------
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (07/15/88)
In article <424@mcf.UUCP> shan@mcf.UUCP (Sharan Kalwani) writes: | A group here has been asked to look into the possibility of taking | boxes and boxes of medical records and documents and converting them | into some form of archival storage. They initially considered | microfilming them but I feel that using the document scanners with | perhaps WORM devices would be a better alternative. However, we do not | have any expeirience in this sort of actitivy at all. We evaluated scanners and chose the HP Scanjet, as did InfoWorld last week. It will run on an AT class machine quite well, and has a reasonable set of features. Output to a LaserJet is really good, and quite fast if you use a *parallel* interface. This is reasonably labor intensive, and you may want to at least look at the system Plexus makes to do just what you want. It was demoed at the UNIFORUM in 87. One of my friends used to sell them and he won a contract based on cost vs microfilm, so systems like this are cost effective if you have a big application. Warning... the state of character recognition on PCs is such that you will probably not be able to convert to ASCII, since the error rates which are normally encountered are not acceptable for medical records (not mine anyway). I would be pretty happy with the Scanjet stuff, though, I done a lot of stuff and been very happy with the results. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me