Starsiege Tribes - Scanners (was: TOT- Snail Mail)

Author

Scanners (was: TOT- Snail Mail)

ScratchMonkey

2005-05-01, 8:40 pm

"Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in news:4272987d$1_7
@galaxy.uncensored-news.com:

quote:

> I'm also learning how to print photographs, using different
> papers and settings on the 2 newer printers, so I've got an
> abundance of cat photos to use up. Can I send you some? LOL

Speaking of which (sorta), I've got several boxloads of old family photos
that I want to digitize. Anyone here have recommendations on a good scanner
that you'd want to use for precious heirlooms?

The idea is to save the data from the evils of air on old paper, and to
also keep all the digitized results in a form that makes it easy to
annotate with who's in each photo and what they got caught doing. ;)

Miracle Smith

2005-05-01, 8:40 pm

ScratchMonkey wrote:

quote:

> Speaking of which (sorta), I've got several boxloads of old family
> photos that I want to digitize. Anyone here have recommendations on a
> good scanner that you'd want to use for precious heirlooms?
>
> The idea is to save the data from the evils of air on old paper, and
> to also keep all the digitized results in a form that makes it easy to
> annotate with who's in each photo and what they got caught doing. ;)

Ooh yeah, my newest scanner is really nice! I replaced my older
one last year, to get higher dpi resolutions. I recommend any newer
one highly!
Mine happens to be a Visioneer OneTouch 8920USB, and it can
scan up to 4800dpi. My old Mustek topped out at 1200dpi. So the
quality of the newer one is *so* much better.
They're pretty cheap now, too. I think I paid $59 for the new one!

--
{{{{{HUGZ!}}}}}

quote:

>^,,^< Miracle

_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

ScratchMonkey

2005-05-01, 8:40 pm

"Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in news:4272e420$1_6
@galaxy.uncensored-news.com:

quote:

> Mine happens to be a Visioneer OneTouch 8920USB, and it can
> scan up to 4800dpi. My old Mustek topped out at 1200dpi. So the
> quality of the newer one is *so* much better.
> They're pretty cheap now, too. I think I paid $59 for the new one!

Sounds good. I've seen a few that have different "X" and "Y" resolutions,
like 4800x9600, and I'm wondering why the asymmetry. I've also seen several
with film holders so I can feed negatives to them. There was a nice Epson
at Best Buy for around $300 but they were out of stock, with just the
display model. And I want to research more before I settle on The One.

Any idea what the color response is on the Visioneer? I think the Epson was
24-bit, but even that's not a whole lot of info, since it doesn't say much
about the optics or the quality and color accuracy of the CCD.

This is one of those things where I don't mind spending $500 if I get
something that beats everything else on the market, as what I'm scanning is
so valuable to me.

Randy Graham

2005-05-01, 8:40 pm

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:24:06 -0500, I heard the following crap spew
forth from ScratchMonkey <ScratchMonkey.blacklist@sewingwitch.com>:

quote:

>"Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in news:4272e420$1_6
>@galaxy.uncensored-news.com:
>
>
>Sounds good. I've seen a few that have different "X" and "Y" resolutions,
>like 4800x9600, and I'm wondering why the asymmetry.

Limitation of the stepping motor which controls the scanning motion, I
think.

RagManX
http://www.gamepatches.info/ - Are you up to date?

Miracle Smith

2005-05-01, 8:40 pm

ScratchMonkey wrote:

quote:

> "Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in news:4272e420$1_6
> @galaxy.uncensored-news.com:
>
>
> Sounds good. I've seen a few that have different "X" and "Y"
> resolutions, like 4800x9600, and I'm wondering why the asymmetry.

Because they have to make a microscopic "jump" to the next line,
but can pack in the pixels *in* the line.
Does that make sense? I know why, but I'm piss-poor at explaining it.

quote:

> I've also seen several with film holders so I can feed negatives to
> them.

Yes, even mine has that.

quote:

> Any idea what the color response is on the Visioneer? I think the
> Epson was 24-bit, but even that's not a whole lot of info, since it
> doesn't say much about the optics or the quality and color accuracy
> of the CCD.

Not off the top of my head, but if I find the manual....

quote:

> This is one of those things where I don't mind spending $500 if I get
> something that beats everything else on the market, as what I'm
> scanning is so valuable to me.

I hear that. I've got pictures of my babies that were printed on
lousy paper, and I sure wish this type of technology had been
around as they turned yellow.

Beware of those folks who show up at discount stores taking
"portraits".

--

quote:

>^,,^< Miracle, who learns the hard way every time

Miracle Smith

2005-05-01, 8:40 pm

Randy Graham wrote:

quote:

> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:24:06 -0500, I heard the following crap spew
> forth from ScratchMonkey ScratchMonkey.blacklist@sewingwitch.com:
>
> Limitation of the stepping motor which controls the scanning motion, I
> think.

You said that so much better than I did. Yes, the stepping motor
has to make those miniscule gaps between the lines. So the pixels
aren't packed as tightly as they are within the lines.

I learn a LOT about scanning in clipart groups. Don't always
*remember* the info...........

quote:

>^,,^< Miracle

ScratchMonkey

2005-05-01, 8:40 pm

"Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in news:42748ed3$1_7
@galaxy.uncensored-news.com:

quote:

> Because they have to make a microscopic "jump" to the next line,
> but can pack in the pixels *in* the line.

That makes sense, similar to the printing direction, with laser printers.
In one axis the resolution would be established by how closely you can
manufacture the elements in the "head", which itself can be done optically
and so can be made very fine-pitch. On the other axis resolution is
established by the positioning system, which must be done in the field on
each scan, not once at the manufacturer, and so will be more expensive. (I
do robotics, and we sneer at "cheap" stepper systems because they're coarse
and slow compared to the l33t servo systems we use, necessary for fast
fine-motion action when handling semiconductors in manufacturing. It
wouldn't surprise me if our stuff was used in making the scanner sensors.)

Hellmark

2005-05-01, 8:40 pm

ScratchMonkey's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
body were:

quote:

> "Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in news:42748ed3$1_7
> @galaxy.uncensored-news.com:
> That makes sense, similar to the printing direction, with laser printers.
> In one axis the resolution would be established by how closely you can
> manufacture the elements in the "head", which itself can be done optically
> and so can be made very fine-pitch. On the other axis resolution is
> established by the positioning system, which must be done in the field on
> each scan, not once at the manufacturer, and so will be more expensive. (I
> do robotics, and we sneer at "cheap" stepper systems because they're coarse
> and slow compared to the l33t servo systems we use, necessary for fast
> fine-motion action when handling semiconductors in manufacturing. It
> wouldn't surprise me if our stuff was used in making the scanner sensors.)

Robotics you say? Hmmm. One of the things I am wanting to do is take a
old machine I have, drop linux on it, and have it control movement of two
motors based on video (and possibly audio) input to make a robotic head.
Yeah I know I could use stamps, however, I want to network it so any of my
computers could be a terminal for me to manually control it. The sensors I
want to put into an old printer switch box (about 9" wide, 3" tall, and 6"
deep) along with a small speaker and a webcam (but not using the webcam
as a video sensor, unless I could do that effectively, because the
comp doesnt have USB support), and have that mounted on a base with a
motor to control motion to rotate it side to side, and tilt forward and
back. However, I don't have alot of electronics experience (Wiring guitars
and such is about it), so if you could point me in a direction, that'd be
cool). Keeping cost down to as cheap as possible

ScratchMonkey

2005-05-02, 8:34 pm

Hellmark <hellmark@gmail.XXXXSPAM.com> wrote in
news:pan.2005.05.01.17.23.27.343240@gmail.XXXXSPAM.com:

quote:

> Yeah I know I could use stamps, however, I want to network it so any
> of my computers could be a terminal for me to manually control it.

Does that mean you want wireless? If wired is good enough, check out the
Blackfin stamp:

http://blackfin.uclinux.org/

Also check out the main uClinux site for some other supported
architectures. I have some familiarity with Blackfin because I used to be
the DSP guru working closely with Analog Devices (maker of Blackfin) where
I used to work. It's a nice little processor.

Wireless is tough, esp. with Linux, because the chipset makers are saving
money by moving RF functions into the OS driver (like they did with
Winmodems), and it can't be open source for fear of the FCC or its foreign
equivalent. They don't want their chips used as high-power Swiss Army
Knives of radio.

Hellmark

2005-05-02, 8:34 pm

ScratchMonkey's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
body were:

quote:

> Hellmark <hellmark@gmail.XXXXSPAM.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2005.05.01.17.23.27.343240@gmail.XXXXSPAM.com:
> Does that mean you want wireless? If wired is good enough, check out the
> Blackfin stamp:
> http://blackfin.uclinux.org/

Wired is what I planned on. I just figured though that I have a 133mhz
laptop with a dead keyboard (but if I plug one in I can still use it) and
a baby AT 486 that I might as well put to use some how. Thats another
reason why I dont want to go the stamp route. Use as much of what I have
as possible.