From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: TP Subject: Re: [OT] Scanning for archiving Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 22:14:54 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87vcqy6vtl.fsf@praet.org> <87hb2ghpzu.fsf@praet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:41251) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNIUI-0008UU-Ds for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 01:15:19 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNIUG-0008HK-Qn for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 01:15:18 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f41.google.com ([209.85.161.41]:64862) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNIUG-0008H5-MJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 01:15:16 -0500 Received: by faaf16 with SMTP id f16so6116865faa.0 for ; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:15:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87hb2ghpzu.fsf@praet.org> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Org Mode On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Pieter Praet wrote: > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:35:11 -0700, Samuel Wales wr= ote: >> I used to find that 8-bit 75dpi was legible and small. >> > > True. > > It all depends on why you're scanning them in the first place. > > 75dpi is fine when scanning with collaboration/quick-reference in mind, > but for archival/backup purposes (i.e. absolute peace of mind when your > whole collection of dead trees burns, drowns, or is simply disposed of) > or OCR, you'll want to go with 600dpi and beyond. One common technique is to always scan 300dpi grayscale (or color) and use clever software to upsample to 600dpi b&w (of course somehow segmenting scans into "picture" and "text" regions first. >> What ADF scanners are out there for Linux that have high quality >> reliable ADF, [...] > > I wish I knew... =A0If anyone on this list can think of a scanner whose > ADF doesn't require constant babysitting, I'm betting it won't have a > consumer-grade price tag. I've heard nice things about the Fujitsu ScanSnap S1500 (http://www.fujitsu.com/global/services/computing/peripheral/scanners/produ= ct/s1500/) and S1500M (http://www.fujitsu.com/global/services/computing/peripheral/sca= nners/product/s1500m/). About $450 or so from amazon. The S1300 is about half the price but also slower. Apparently the S1500's are supported on Linux via Sane (http://www.sane-project.org/sane-backends.html#S-FUJITSU). Don't see any mention of the S1300 (but it probably also works?).