On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:31:21 +0100, Mike Williams <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Wasn't it Dave Hinz who wrote: >> >>Raw scans in TIFF format take a lot more room than .jpg but, it's not a >>lossy format like jpg is. > > You might consider PNG format. It's not lossy, is reasonably compact > particularly when compared to uncompressed-TIFF, and is far more widely > supported than compressed-TIFF. I use PNG often, just not for archival purposes. TIFF for archives, PNG or JPG for webpages when size of images actually matters. And, with ImageMagick (free anywhere, and standard on most or all *nix distros these days), format support is pretty good and interchangable.

In article <pan.2007.10.11.23.52.32@gmail.com>, John Aldrich <maxxexcaliber@gmail.com> writes: > Thanks to all who made suggestions. I am going to try Gramps, I believe. > Unfortunately, I'll probably lose it pretty soon as I'm getting ready to > wipe the system to install Fedora 7. :-) > > Hopefully this time I'll not have to mess with as many different repos to > get stuff I want/need that isn't packaged with Fedora. :-) > > Anyhow, thanks for the "heads-up" on Gramps, everyone! I just hope it'll > export something that fellow genealogists can use under Windows. :-) It exports a gedcom file as one of the options. Also xml, web family tree, GeneWeb and it's "proprietary" GRDB database. Gedcom's the important piece here since most, if not all, genealogy software recognize it - some better than others. Enjoy. Swell Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- "People unfit for freedom---who cannot do much with it---are hungry for power." ---Eric Hoffer

Thanks to all who made suggestions. I am going to try Gramps, I believe. Unfortunately, I'll probably lose it pretty soon as I'm getting ready to wipe the system to install Fedora 7. :-) Hopefully this time I'll not have to mess with as many different repos to get stuff I want/need that isn't packaged with Fedora. :-) Anyhow, thanks for the "heads-up" on Gramps, everyone! I just hope it'll export something that fellow genealogists can use under Windows. :-)

From what I've read on this forum and others, upgrading is likely to be a step you will sorely regret. Charliec wrote: > I have FTW 2006 and am looking at upgrading to FTW 2008. But I can't > seem to find an "upgrade" path on their site. Is there not a reduced > upgrade price for previous users of FTW or do you have to pay the > entire purchase price as any new user would? > > Thanks > Charlie > ****************************************************** > Charliec

I have FTW 2006 and am looking at upgrading to FTW 2008. But I can't seem to find an "upgrade" path on their site. Is there not a reduced upgrade price for previous users of FTW or do you have to pay the entire purchase price as any new user would? Thanks Charlie ****************************************************** Charliec

Wasn't it Dave Hinz who wrote: > >Raw scans in TIFF format take a lot more room than .jpg but, it's not a >lossy format like jpg is. You might consider PNG format. It's not lossy, is reasonably compact particularly when compared to uncompressed-TIFF, and is far more widely supported than compressed-TIFF. -- Mike Williams Gentleman of Leisure

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:46:45 +0100, William Kirk <nospam@home.com> wrote: > Thanks Lars. I had not realised that scanners designed to cope with film as > well as ordinary documents were now so cheap. The CanoScan 4200F only costs > about 60 to 80 pounds in the UK (about 90 to 115 euros). I assume the F in > 4200F signifies that it can scan film. As time goes on, good scanners keep getting cheaper. My Epson 3200 DPI film scanner works OK for written but not so good for technical microfiche of typed characters (engineering drawings, etc). > Has anyone had any luck scanning microfiche of printed/typed material with > optical character recognition (e.g. typed monumental inscription > transcripts)? Some commercial pdf copies of old published transcripts have > very poor OCR and are hardly worth searching because so many words have been > misinterpreted, so I am not optimistic. OCR is one of those things that seems like would be easy to get good but, it doesn't seem to be getting there. I'd rather have an image of the type sampled as well as you can, to give me the best chance of reading it. Takes up more room to store but, storage is cheap these days. Raw scans in TIFF format take a lot more room than .jpg but, it's not a lossy format like jpg is.

> > Paul, > > Shame on you! After getting your feet wet with phpGedView ..? > > Snarky Ol' Bob > >> Cheers >> >> Paul Blush.....

Thanks Lars. I had not realised that scanners designed to cope with film as well as ordinary documents were now so cheap. The CanoScan 4200F only costs about 60 to 80 pounds in the UK (about 90 to 115 euros). I assume the F in 4200F signifies that it can scan film. Has anyone had any luck scanning microfiche of printed/typed material with optical character recognition (e.g. typed monumental inscription transcripts)? Some commercial pdf copies of old published transcripts have very poor OCR and are hardly worth searching because so many words have been misinterpreted, so I am not optimistic. William "Lars Erik Bryld" <larserik@dadlnet.invalid> wrote in message news:k0r0srof1uoz.dlg@lebryld.fqdn... > Scripsit William Kirk: > >> it works well with a high resolution scanner that has the option of >> scanning negatives and transparencies and provides light from >> above.I use an Epson Perfection V700, which costs just over 300 >> pounds in the UK > > You *can* obtain quite useful results with a considerably cheaper > scanner. I have made very legible scans using a CanoScan 4200F. It > only scans up to 3200 ppi, but it's often adequate. > > -- > Regards > Lars Erik Bryld

Robert Melson wrote: > In article <47099c41$0$31115$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, > Paul Blair <pblair@pcug.org.au> writes: >> Hi folk.... >> >> Appreciate any views on use of this system. >> >> Paul > > I looked a couple of months back when a cousin saw it > mentioned in, I think, "Smithsonian" - the magazine of > the Smithsonian Institution. Wasn't terribly impressed as > there seem to be few, if any, controls over what's added to > your tree by others. Granted, those others have to be there > by invitation, but that's no guarantee that what they might > enter will pass the sniff test. > > I went. I looked. I said "ehhhhhhh!". Haven't been back > 'til tonight. > > Ehhhhhhhhh! > > Bob Melson > Thanks, Bob. Some Danish friends, scattered to the four ends, are trying it. My only advice was to take regular copies for themselves. Cheers Paul

In article <470d463e$0$14405$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Paul Blair <pblair@pcug.org.au> writes: > Robert Melson wrote: >> In article <47099c41$0$31115$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, >> Paul Blair <pblair@pcug.org.au> writes: >>> Hi folk.... >>> >>> Appreciate any views on use of this system. >>> >>> Paul <snip> >> I went. I looked. I said "ehhhhhhh!". Haven't been back >> 'til tonight. >> >> Ehhhhhhhhh! >> >> Bob Melson >> > > Thanks, Bob. Some Danish friends, scattered to the four ends, are trying > it. My only advice was to take regular copies for themselves. > Paul, Shame on you! After getting your feet wet with phpGedView ..? Snarky Ol' Bob > Cheers > > Paul -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- "People unfit for freedom---who cannot do much with it---are hungry for power." ---Eric Hoffer

Scripsit William Kirk: > it works well with a high resolution scanner that has the option of > scanning negatives and transparencies and provides light from > above.I use an Epson Perfection V700, which costs just over 300 > pounds in the UK You *can* obtain quite useful results with a considerably cheaper scanner. I have made very legible scans using a CanoScan 4200F. It only scans up to 3200 ppi, but it's often adequate. -- Regards Lars Erik Bryld

John Aldrich wrote: > I was thinking of trying to pick up where my mom left of several years ago > when she passed away. I much prefer linux to Windows, not to mention my > wife gripes if I try to install anything on "her" PC, so I was wondering > if there is any good software out there like Family Tree Maker? I like Gramps ... http://www.gramps-project.org/ HTH Peter

I have found an easy way to convert microfiches of parish registers etc. to files that can be viewed on a PC. I thought I would share my experience as it has taken me a while to work out how to do it! You cannot do it easily or well with an ordinary scanner, but it works well with a high resolution scanner that has the option of scanning negatives and transparencies and provides light from above. I use an Epson Perfection V700, which costs just over 300 pounds in the UK, but the V500 which costs about 175 pounds is probably as good. The fiches do not fit any of the supplied negative holders, but they can be placed directly on the platen. I use the "Epson Scan" software which comes with the scanner. I scan for "B/W negative file" at 8-bit grey scale and 6400 dpi. I save as jpeg at compression level 16 to make the files reasonably small. The quality is still very good. I write the files to a DVD for storage. Some programs have difficulties with files over 30,000 pixels in any direction (e.g. many versions of Adobe Photoshop), so I only scan a strip of about 6 pages on the microfiche to each file. This gives about 12 files for each microfiche. The Epson Scan software allows multiple selections from a microfiche that are then scanned automatically in turn and the series of files is automatically numbered. The scanning process then takes about 8 minutes per microfiche because of the high resolution, but you can do something else meanwhile. The advantages are: - I do not need a microfiche reader - I can have backups - Images can be enhanced considerably to increase legibility - If your eyesight is poor you can enlarge as necessary - The image contrast is very much better than on most microfiche readers - I can select and print out relevant material such as parish register entries - When microfiche readers die out in a few years time you will still be able to read the microfiches! Genealogical societies could convert their microfiches to DVDs this way. Remember to observe relevant copyright rules! William

Lesley Robertson wrote: > "singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote in message > news:p-Wdnbzdvfxz3pfanZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@rcn.net... > >>Quintin Publications wrote: >> >> >>>www.QuintinPublications.com >>> >>>Quintin Publications has been providing genealogy publications and >>>well as many different vital statics for over 17 years. Carrying >> >>What, please, ARE vital statics? >> > > Sgt Cagney to perp "Freeze or I'll fire!" > ;) > Lesley Robertson > (PS It's also just possibly a typo???) > > Typo? I guess, maybe, but don't those usually just involve one letter? (g) Cheryl

"singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote in message news:p-Wdnbzdvfxz3pfanZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@rcn.net... > Quintin Publications wrote: > >> www.QuintinPublications.com >> >> Quintin Publications has been providing genealogy publications and >> well as many different vital statics for over 17 years. Carrying > > What, please, ARE vital statics? > Sgt Cagney to perp "Freeze or I'll fire!" ;) Lesley Robertson (PS It's also just possibly a typo???)

Dave Hinz wrote: > One spam post per seller? Sorry, that's one too many. You are, of course, correct technically. But, I must admit I don't mind seeing a very short announcement, especially as I never go to the soc.gen.marketplace NG. However, that's a personal quirk of mine and I can't really argue with your position. What I really detest are the messages beginning "I just came across this useful site....." when almost always thirty seconds of research indicates it is the poster's own site.

>Dave Hinz wrote: >> One spam post per seller? Sorry, that's one too many. > >You are, of course, correct technically. > >But, I must admit I don't mind seeing a very short announcement, >especially as I never go to the soc.gen.marketplace NG. No way. There are millions of genealogy pages and advertising the commercial pages in this and other not commercial newsgroups is a very bad idea. >However, that's a personal quirk of mine and I can't really argue with >your position. > >What I really detest are the messages beginning "I just came across this >useful site....." when almost always thirty seconds of research >indicates it is the poster's own site. Previous spam was sent in June in alt.genealogy, WHICH IS ALSO NOT COMMERCIAL newsgroup. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.genealogy/browse_thread/thread/89e0e64a8933999e/92fc99771abe68fb Anyway, you may ask to living authors what they think about reselling photocopies of their work when selling the legitimate copies are helping genealogical societies to produce more booka and to continue to deserve their community.

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:51:26 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > Quintin Publications wrote: > >> www.QuintinPublications.com >> >> Quintin Publications has been providing genealogy publications and >> well as many different vital statics for over 17 years. Carrying > > What, please, ARE vital statics? Good catch, Cheryl - I was overpowered by the smell, and missed the smelliest bit.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:23:40 -0700, the_verminator@comcast.net <the_verminator@comcast.net> wrote: > As was said- the marketplace group is where you should be posting. > Unless, of course, you are making a one time announcement of a > particular book that deals with using computers in genealogy. One spam post per seller? Sorry, that's one too many.