I'm think that comparing the cost of scanning to the cost of microfilming is
also very dependent on the original documents that you are processing and
the quality of the image that you are willing to accept. If your documents
are all the same size and color you can set up either a camera or a scanner
once and virtually walk away and let it do it's thing. You'll get final
images of a consistent acceptable quality and the production time is mostly
dependent on the throughput speed of the camera or scanner. However, if
your source documents are all over the map as to sizes, colors, etc it
really can change the equation. From what I have seen, microfilm cameras
can be set to capture a reasonably legible image of most of the documents in
a project. On the other hand, the scanners that I've seen are much more
sensitive to changes in paper colors, shades, contrast, etc. and require
much more operator intervention to adjust for image readability.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bennett" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 9:21 AM
Subject: Scanning vs. Filming
>I have done an extensive study, and as you stated, there are many variables
> including cost of machinery. I can give you complete details, if you need
> them, but for now, just the time involved, here it is....
> The type and size of the scanner and camera is needed for an accurate
> calculation, and if you are planning on "writing" the scans to film via
> Archive Writer would be another variable. The study I did concluded, for
> just the scanning of pages, just under 1 second per page, whereas filming
> takes approximately 3 seconds per page. Keep in mind, if the goal is to
> ultimately store on film, many other steps in the scanning need to be
> performed. The end result was scanning and writing to film takes between
> - 21 % less time.
> One other note, the benefit of the scan will include the option of having
> the hardcopy on the computer in a given folder, whereas the filmed version
> off a camera would not be so readily available.
> Hope this helps.
> The information contained in this message is intended only for the
> and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of
> message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
> delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
> have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately,
> and delete the original message.
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance