In message of 22 Mar, Peter Amsden <amsden@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> > > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:53:25 GMT > > > I'm jealous then. My old camera (early last year) will only do > > colour and it was not cheap either. > > > > The perpetual problem Tim. Once off the forecourt it becomes next > years scrap! Well, I have done a further RTFM and the very fine print says it has a B&W mode... (Obviously I was using last year's glasses.) So I did a trial and yes it was indeed in black and white. But it was 24-bit black and white and the file size only came down from around 2.3 Mbytes to around 2.1 Mbytes. My trial was to photo a yellowed sheet of paper with poor type-writing from 1926. I tried quite a few tricks to get the file size down but could not get signficantly below 500K before significant detail was lost. Doubtless a better program could have done a better job. Anyhow the Plustek book scanner looks very interesting, though I suspect the sponsorship to The Society would need to be nearer £1,000 to provide the necessary PC with monitor and printer as well. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Phil, TNA do not allow tripods at all - even table mounted ones. Some other ROs do though - Surrey for instance and Bromley Local Studies will even provide one. On the topic of photography in ROs, I was at Berks RO at Reading today and they charge £2 per shot - good job that I didn't want to tale the 70 pictures that I did at TNA on Monday!! Peter Park. Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Warn" <philwarn@ntlworld.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:04 PM Subject: [SoG] Scanning an old book > Hi folks, > > Thank you for your thoughts, so far. > > I was intending to buy a desk top stand in order to hold the digital camera. > > It comes with a remote control which would cut out camera "wobble" > > It is an Olympus (mu) 410 which I chose because of its long life Li battery. > > Given it has a tripod threading, I wanted to avoid using anything which TNA > or any other repository would ban as being a tripod. > > It strikes me that they ban tripods as they could be tripped over! > > The Health & Safety Acts, etc, I guess. > > A table top "holder" which screws into the camera, would perhaps be allowed? > > When the lens is pointing downwards over a document, the thread is > horizontal, or rather something screwed into would be. > > I visualise some sort of g shape device like a lamp standard with a > heavyish base. > > I would talk to TNA staff etc before parting with my "readies" > > The Olympus allows me to switch to black/white or rather gray scales, so > that should reduce the resultant image size on the XD card. > > Many thanks, all > > Phil > > > >

Hi, I'm putting this on the list for Bob Newall, if this interests you you may contact him ~~ Cheers, Edna - Ottawa ----------------- Contact: - bob.newell@ntlworld.com I have a Certified Copy of an entry of Birth certificate for an illegitimate child born to my grandfather. It states Certified copy of an entry of birth. For the purposes of National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1920 or of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1920. On the reverse of this are the details of another person. I was wondering if it rings a bell with anyone. It is for a George Albert Henry what looks like SIVYER b 24 August 1912, place of birth 12 Warwick Street, Southsea. Fathers name Harry Ernest SIVYER occ Labourer. Mothers name Esther Clara SIVYER nee GOLDSMITH. If this person is related to anyone I could email a copy, it is a bit battered but readable. Regards, Bob Newell.

Hi John, No, I want to copy my book at home. Then, separately, use the same method at repositories for their documents and maybe maps. If they ban tripods, my method would be using a unipod or a quadrapod.......... I would just look for the most friendly member of staff prepared to accept that I am using a table top solution, which would not affect any one else. I gave been to the Jessops' web site and they seem to sell various holders or tripods, etc. I guess a trip to Bromley will have to be made. Thanks Phil. Orpington 22/03/2005, John Addis-Smith wrote: >I did not realise you wanted to copy the book in a repository . . .

The actual words used on the NA web site are: "Records copying by readers with own cameras The National Archives provides a service whereby readers are permitted to make copies of records using their own digital and Single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras. There is no charge for this service." So you can use a film camera if it is an SLR. Very odd - what is wrong with a none SLR camera? I shall find out. No flash, light or tripods of course. Peter Amsden Argyll, Scotland > From: Brian Randell <Brian.Randell@newcastle.ac.uk> > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:01:11 +0000 > To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SoG] Scanning an old book > Resent-From: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:14:16 -0700 > > Hi Tim: > > At 3:54 pm +0000 22/3/05, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: >> Yes. Many libraries will now allow you to photo pages of (old) books >> instead of paying for expensive photocopies. > > Intriguingly, the National Archives at Kew will allow you to > photograph documents as long as you use a *digital* camera (without > flash or tripod). Why the restriction to digital cameras is beyond > me, and beyond the member of their staff who remarked on it to me > when I was registering my digital camera with them. > > cheers > > Brian Randell > > > -- > School of Computing Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, > NE1 7RU, UK > EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 > FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/ >

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:01:11 -0000, Brian Randell <Brian.Randell@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote: > Intriguingly, the National Archives at Kew will allow you to photograph > documents as long as you use a *digital* camera (without flash or > tripod). Why the restriction to digital cameras is beyond me, and beyond > the member of their staff who remarked on it to me when I was > registering my digital camera with them. At a guess, motor noise from the auto-wind on, and even worse, the often uninhibitable auto-rewind whose duration is inversely proportional to the ambient noise level :-) - Malcolm. -- Malcolm Austen -- malcolm.austen.rw@weald.org.uk

> From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:53:25 GMT > I'm jealous then. My old camera (early last year) will only do colour > and it was not cheap either. > The perpetual problem Tim. Once off the forecourt it becomes next years scrap! We/you are now talking about our/my old camera - last years model! I don't know how to categorise my cameras that you have to put that stuff called film into. Sadly I take them out, pat them, and put them back. They still have there use, but Mr Digital is now the main tool in the box. Remember when 1 million pixels was a dream? You can now buy mini versions with eight million. Oh well! ---- Peter Amsden, Argyll, Scotland ASAT Productions: http://www.asat.biz Researching Amsden World Wide Outline History: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~amsden Books I have written: http://www.btinternet.com/~amsden AllExperts: http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=38044 Never dump originals - they may be all that is left after the computer age.

Hi folks, Thank you for your thoughts, so far. I was intending to buy a desk top stand in order to hold the digital camera. It comes with a remote control which would cut out camera "wobble" It is an Olympus (mu) 410 which I chose because of its long life Li battery. Given it has a tripod threading, I wanted to avoid using anything which TNA or any other repository would ban as being a tripod. It strikes me that they ban tripods as they could be tripped over! The Health & Safety Acts, etc, I guess. A table top "holder" which screws into the camera, would perhaps be allowed? When the lens is pointing downwards over a document, the thread is horizontal, or rather something screwed into would be. I visualise some sort of g shape device like a lamp standard with a heavyish base. I would talk to TNA staff etc before parting with my "readies" The Olympus allows me to switch to black/white or rather gray scales, so that should reduce the resultant image size on the XD card. Many thanks, all Phil

I did not realise you wanted to copy the book in a repository . . . If you have no joy with your method of camera support being accepted, you could try the old photographer's trick of using a string tripod! See: http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/ROCK/ROCK.HTM You may have to modify the method for vertical use of the camera. For example, bolt an L shaped aluminium plate into the camera's tripod thread. Either point the other part of the plate away from the camera, or better over the camera back with a hole to view the LCD screen. Fix two or three strings to the edges of the plate, secure under your own feet and/or table top and pull tight! Cheers, John John Addis-Smith Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, England

Well my fujifilm 410 has an option for black and white - there is also a chrome option which am not sure about - camera is well over a year old - will have to try it Ros ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [SoG] Scanning an old book > In message of 22 Mar, Jeanne Bunting UK <firgrove@compuserve.com> wrote: > > > >The problem with cameras is that they use full colour which makes the > > files 32 times larger than they need be.< > > > > Not entirely true! My new Sony camera has an option for grey-scale and > > sepia pictures. I must try it for text and OCRing! > > I'm jealous then. My old camera (early last year) will only do colour > and it was not cheap either. > > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org > For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org >

Hi Tim: At 3:54 pm +0000 22/3/05, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: >Yes. Many libraries will now allow you to photo pages of (old) books >instead of paying for expensive photocopies. Intriguingly, the National Archives at Kew will allow you to photograph documents as long as you use a *digital* camera (without flash or tripod). Why the restriction to digital cameras is beyond me, and beyond the member of their staff who remarked on it to me when I was registering my digital camera with them. cheers Brian Randell -- School of Computing Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/

In message of 22 Mar, Jeanne Bunting UK <firgrove@compuserve.com> wrote: > >The problem with cameras is that they use full colour which makes the > files 32 times larger than they need be.< > > Not entirely true! My new Sony camera has an option for grey-scale and > sepia pictures. I must try it for text and OCRing! I'm jealous then. My old camera (early last year) will only do colour and it was not cheap either. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Although the National Archivist were the first, I see that others in the UK have started to stock the Plustek Optibook 3600 book scanner at much cheaper prices. See First Call Photographic: http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/pp/Digital_Photography/Photo_Scanners/Plustek_Opticbook_3600_Book_Scanner.html who are only asking £169.99 incl VAT with free UK postage. (I have just done a dummy purchase to clarify this). Cheers, John John Addis-Smith Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, England

Another alternative would be the Plustek Optibook 3600 book scanner, which scans to the edge of the platen which can be placed up to the inner edge of a page. A little expensive at £233.83 (incl VAT) via the National Archivist web site: http://shop.nationalarchivist.com/acatalog/Products_Book_Scanner_37.html where there is a description and photograph. If the rest of the book was carefully supported and it was not too tightly bound, it should not be damaged . . . This would make a good addition to the SoG library if someone would sponsor it! Cheers, John John Addis-Smith Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, England

Some more observations:- Peter Amsden Argyll, Scotland > From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:54:07 GMT > > In message of 22 Mar, Phil Warn <philwarn@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> Hi gang, >> >> Generally, you are a very knowledgeable lot! > > Let's start the ball rolling and then the real experts will come on the > scene. > >> Could some one suggest whether a hand held scanner would the best bet >> for scanning an old book? >> >> I do not like the idea of using a flat bed scanner because of the >> fragility of this 94 year old book about the Warne Family in America. >> >> The devices I have seen contain some local memory and I do not mind >> having to "stitch" together images to from an A4 page before OCR'ing >> the image so formed. >> >> Apart from a few pictures and a couple of hand drawn Coats of Arms, >> the rest is text. >> >> I see a hand held device as not having any ill effect on the spine, >> etc. > > Hand held devices are not very good and work best on a flat surface. Depends on the device. > > I'm sure you are right not to want to use a flat-bed scanner. > > The best commercial book scanners do it from overhead and this is the > answer: use a digital camera. Commercial scanners are expensive - the digital camera idea is better. > >> I want to be able to produce a Word Document or PDF file from the >> scanned images of the pages. > > The problem with cameras is that they use full colour which makes the > files 32 times larger than they need be. All you need is single-bit > images, black and white only, though you may have to use two or even > four-bit grey-scale. There are digital camera that can shoot in monochrome. This is not a bad idea, but if you are shooting type face you may well need a tripod - not permitted in most archive resources. > > You will have to convert the images from your camera to fewer bits (per > pixel, thus reducing the colour content). Additionally you will want > to get rid of any shading to the paper. This may need some clever > software and I wonder if something like PhotoShop on the PC might do the > trick (I don't normally use PCs so don't know the software). PhotoShop Auto Level should iron out most of the problems. > > If you study CDROMs you will find that they get the average page into > about 30,000 bytes so that a book of 200 pages occupies 6 Megabytes, a > tiny proportion of a CDROM which will hold well over 600 Mbytes. The > images are usually pure black and white and at a good resolution of 200 > dots per inch, giving very clear printed pages at your end. You should > be able to achieve something near this. The fact is that most shots will be able to inserted into a PDF. > > The images from a camera will be in JPEG format. Not necessarily. Some cameras can save as Tiff and Raw files. >This is easily > convertible into PDF files. The normal process is to set up a > postscript printer driver on your machine then print to file. That > postscript file can then easily be converted into PDF. It is a little > more complicated to put all the pages into one PDF file but not > impossible. Don't forget to make some kind of index for your PDF. Without this, searching can take ages. >> >> Any thoughts would be most welcome. >> >> Has any one used a digital camera for this purpose, for example? > > Yes. Many libraries will now allow you to photo pages of (old) books > instead of paying for expensive photocopies. With the tripod reservations mentioned above. >

I have digitally photographed the pages of an old book and put the result though OCR software and finished up with an MSWord document, I hope this helps Richard -----Original Message----- From: Phil Warn [mailto:philwarn@ntlworld.com] Sent: 22 March 2005 14:37 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SoG] Scanning an old book Hi gang, Generally, you are a very knowledgeable lot! Could some one suggest whether a hand held scanner would the best bet for scanning an old book? I do not like the idea of using a flat bed scanner because of the fragility of this 94 year old book about the Warne Family in America. The devices I have seen contain some local memory and I do not mind having to "stitch" together images to from an A4 page before OCR'ing the image so formed. Apart from a few pictures and a couple of hand drawn Coats of Arms, the rest is text. I see a hand held device as not having any ill effect on the spine, etc. I want to be able to produce a Word Document or PDF file from the scanned images of the pages. Any thoughts would be most welcome. Has any one used a digital camera for this purpose, for example? Many thanks Phil.

In message of 22 Mar, Phil Warn <philwarn@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Hi gang, > > Generally, you are a very knowledgeable lot! Let's start the ball rolling and then the real experts will come on the scene. > Could some one suggest whether a hand held scanner would the best bet > for scanning an old book? > > I do not like the idea of using a flat bed scanner because of the > fragility of this 94 year old book about the Warne Family in America. > > The devices I have seen contain some local memory and I do not mind > having to "stitch" together images to from an A4 page before OCR'ing > the image so formed. > > Apart from a few pictures and a couple of hand drawn Coats of Arms, > the rest is text. > > I see a hand held device as not having any ill effect on the spine, > etc. Hand held devices are not very good and work best on a flat surface. I'm sure you are right not to want to use a flat-bed scanner. The best commercial book scanners do it from overhead and this is the answer: use a digital camera. > I want to be able to produce a Word Document or PDF file from the > scanned images of the pages. The problem with cameras is that they use full colour which makes the files 32 times larger than they need be. All you need is single-bit images, black and white only, though you may have to use two or even four-bit grey-scale. You will have to convert the images from your camera to fewer bits (per pixel, thus reducing the colour content). Additionally you will want to get rid of any shading to the paper. This may need some clever software and I wonder if something like PhotoShop on the PC might do the trick (I don't normally use PCs so don't know the software). If you study CDROMs you will find that they get the average page into about 30,000 bytes so that a book of 200 pages occupies 6 Megabytes, a tiny proportion of a CDROM which will hold well over 600 Mbytes. The images are usually pure black and white and at a good resolution of 200 dots per inch, giving very clear printed pages at your end. You should be able to achieve something near this. The images from a camera will be in JPEG format. This is easily convertible into PDF files. The normal process is to set up a postscript printer driver on your machine then print to file. That postscript file can then easily be converted into PDF. It is a little more complicated to put all the pages into one PDF file but not impossible. > > Any thoughts would be most welcome. > > Has any one used a digital camera for this purpose, for example? Yes. Many libraries will now allow you to photo pages of (old) books instead of paying for expensive photocopies. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

If all that you are interested in is collecting the text then a hand held would be fine. Not much good for pictures and so on, but good to know that people are careful with old books. It is worth remembering though that scanners have a 'fuzzy' focus, so you rarely need to crush something flat to get a reasonable picture - that's why some odd folk scan parts of their anatomy! ---- Peter Amsden, Argyll, Scotland ASAT Productions: http://www.asat.biz Researching Amsden World Wide Outline History: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~amsden Books I have written: http://www.btinternet.com/~amsden AllExperts: http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=38044 Never dump originals - they may be all that is left after the computer age. > From: Phil Warn <philwarn@ntlworld.com> > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:37:02 +0000 > To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SoG] Scanning an old book > Resent-From: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:37:17 -0700 > > Hi gang, > > Generally, you are a very knowledgeable lot! > > Could some one suggest whether a hand held scanner would the best bet for > scanning an old book? > > I do not like the idea of using a flat bed scanner because of the fragility > of this 94 year old book about the Warne Family in America. > > The devices I have seen contain some local memory and I do not mind having > to "stitch" together images to from an A4 page before OCR'ing the image so > formed. > > Apart from a few pictures and a couple of hand drawn Coats of Arms, the > rest is text. > > I see a hand held device as not having any ill effect on the spine, etc. > > I want to be able to produce a Word Document or PDF file from the scanned > images of the pages. > > Any thoughts would be most welcome. > > Has any one used a digital camera for this purpose, for example? > > Many thanks > > Phil. > >

Hi gang, Generally, you are a very knowledgeable lot! Could some one suggest whether a hand held scanner would the best bet for scanning an old book? I do not like the idea of using a flat bed scanner because of the fragility of this 94 year old book about the Warne Family in America. The devices I have seen contain some local memory and I do not mind having to "stitch" together images to from an A4 page before OCR'ing the image so formed. Apart from a few pictures and a couple of hand drawn Coats of Arms, the rest is text. I see a hand held device as not having any ill effect on the spine, etc. I want to be able to produce a Word Document or PDF file from the scanned images of the pages. Any thoughts would be most welcome. Has any one used a digital camera for this purpose, for example? Many thanks Phil.

In message of 22 Mar, Peter Rogers <newhurst@compuserve.com> wrote: > Obviously nobody has purchased recently an "up to date" PC! > > My new one has all the whistles and whats its that anyone could need > including a TV connection, and looking at other machines now on sale this > is becoming the norm. > > The point being that before the retailer would sell me the machine I had to > complete and sign a declaration that I had a current Television Licence. > > So without any new legislation there is already in place a method of > ensuring that the now emasculated BBC gets it "pittance". I'm not sure I understand this. The dealer would only have asked for a TV licence if you have a TV card in your machine, as I have in mine. This card is a TV receiver and needs an aerial to work. So it needs a licence. What is being talked of is streaming TV where the TV signal comeoes over the internet connection and not through an aerial. This can be done by computers that are not TVs, they are not receivers of broadcast transmissions in the TV frequencies, so no licence is needed. All that is needed is a mighty fast internet link and some complex software. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org