long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) (12/27/90)
I often find myself in need of a photocopier at home, but the prices are a
little daunting for a single-purpose machine. So, I've been considering a
hand-held scanner for my Mac. What I hope to do:
1. Scan in things I'd like to save, like newspaper articles or parts of
magazines, and store them in a database for later retrieval, say by keyword.
Optical character recognition is not a requirement.
2. Scan in and print on an Imagewriter II (here's the photocopy part)
primarily 8-1/2 by 11" single sheets. although sometimes smaller items. With
a hand-held, I realize I would probably have to join multiple scans to
accomplish a full copy.
Given (2), I've been considering the Thunderworks scanner (about $385 from
MacConnection), since it seems to have the best facilities for joining
multiple scans. Is it reasonable for what I want to do? Any other suggestions
or warnings?
Thanks!
ps: I'm not interested in the Thunderscan, which uses the Imagewriter as the
scan mechanism.
Richard C. Long * long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com
* ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long
* long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com Rich.Long@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Rich Long) (12/28/90)
Reply-To: long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com
I often find myself in need of a photocopier at home, but the prices are a
little daunting for a single-purpose machine. So, I've been considering a
hand-held scanner for my Mac. What I hope to do:
1. Scan in things I'd like to save, like newspaper articles or parts of
magazines, and store them in a database for later retrieval, say by keyword.
Optical character recognition is not a requirement.
2. Scan in and print on an Imagewriter II (here's the photocopy part)
primarily 8-1/2 by 11" single sheets. although sometimes smaller items. With
a hand-held, I realize I would probably have to join multiple scans to
accomplish a full copy.
Given (2), I've been considering the Thunderworks scanner (about $385 from
MacConnection), since it seems to have the best facilities for joining
multiple scans. Is it reasonable for what I want to do? Any other suggestions
or warnings?
Thanks!
ps: I'm not interested in the Thunderscan, which uses the Imagewriter as the
scan mechanism.
Richard C. Long * long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com
* ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long
* long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com
+ Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
--
Rich Long - via FidoNet node 1:105/14
UUCP: ...!{uunet!glacier, ..reed.bitnet}!busker!226!20!Rich.Long
INTERNET: Rich.Long@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORGrich@sdchemf (Richard Kanner) (12/29/90)
In article <18490@shlump.nac.dec.com> long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: > hand-held scanner for my Mac. What I hope to do: > > 1. Scan in things I'd like to save, like newspaper articles or parts of > magazines, and store them in a database for later retrieval, say by keyword. > Optical character recognition is not a requirement. > Get yourself a big hard disk to boot. One 8 x 11.5 page will be about 500K in assuming a 1 bit/pixel scan and a page is about 640 x 800 pixels. R. Kanner UCSD Chem
Richard.Kanner@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Richard Kanner) (12/29/90)
Reply-To: rich@sdchemf In article <18490@shlump.nac.dec.com> long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: > hand-held scanner for my Mac. What I hope to do: > > 1. Scan in things I'd like to save, like newspaper articles or parts of > magazines, and store them in a database for later retrieval, say by keyword. > Optical character recognition is not a requirement. > Get yourself a big hard disk to boot. One 8 x 11.5 page will be about 500K in assuming a 1 bit/pixel scan and a page is about 640 x 800 pixels. R. Kanner UCSD Chem + Organization: Chemistry Dept, UC San Diego -- Richard Kanner - via FidoNet node 1:105/14 UUCP: ...!{uunet!glacier, ..reed.bitnet}!busker!226!20!Richard.Kanner INTERNET: Richard.Kanner@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (12/31/90)
I've thought about doing this as well for the twice a year I need to copy a single page. I haven't actually seen this produce for sale, but otherwise the Pagebrush hand scanner from Mouse Systems seems like the best of the hand scanners. Because it uses mouse technology you scan a page in the same way you would wipe fog off of a mirror. I saw it work at Macworld Boston and it was pretty smooth. I don't know why it isn't for sale obviously yet, but I'd call Mouse Systems and ask if I were you. Heck, I'm going to call them and ask even though I'm not you :-). good luck.... Adam In article <18490@shlump.nac.dec.com>, long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: > > I often find myself in need of a photocopier at home, but the prices are a > little daunting for a single-purpose machine. So, I've been considering a > hand-held scanner for my Mac. What I hope to do: -- Adam C. Engst (best) ace@tidbits.tcnet.ithaca.ny.us (also) ace@tidbits.uucp (if all else fails) pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu --------------------------------------------------------------- Editor of TidBITS, the weekly electronic Macintosh news journal
dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (01/01/91)
In article <959@chem.ucsd.EDU> rich@sdchemf (Richard Kanner) writes: >Get yourself a big hard disk to boot. One 8 x 11.5 page will be about >500K in assuming a 1 bit/pixel scan and a page is about 640 x 800 pixels. True, but what about compression? Simple compression (Lempel-Ziv or Huffman) probably wouldn't do much in this case, but what about FAX-style compression? Also, how good is OCR these days? My experiences with this area are 10 years old, but they involved very careful circumstances (OCR font belt printers, expensive scanners), and the results were pretty disappointing (scanner operators usually lasted about 4 months before they either quit or moved up). How easy is it now to recognize, for example, newspaper or magazine article characters scanned at reasonable resolution (high enough to get the dots, not so high that ink artifacts get in the way)?
bobo@pecan15.cray.com (Bob Kierski) (01/08/91)
In article <1990Dec31.173038.9729@smsc.sony.com>, dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) writes: |> Simple compression (Lempel-Ziv or Huffman) probably wouldn't do much |> in this case, but what about FAX-style compression? In a scanned image there is usually a lot of white space so Lempel-Ziv compression can save up to 75% maybe more. |> |> Also, how good is OCR these days? My experiences with this area are 10 |> years old, but they involved very careful circumstances (OCR font belt |> printers, expensive scanners), and the results were pretty |> disappointing (scanner operators usually lasted about 4 months before |> they either quit or moved up). How easy is it now to recognize, for |> example, newspaper or magazine article characters scanned at reasonable |> resolution (high enough to get the dots, not so high that ink artifacts |> get in the way)? I have an AppleScan and Omnipage and have been very happy with the performance. I have been able to read articles in less than 30 second with about 95% acuracy. As the print gets smaller however, it gets less acurate. -- Have a day,