4 ms·
>My suggest as to the expense of archiving it was that a student could be hired at minimum wage to photograph them, page by page, with a phone camera. I'm not
by AussieWog93 5y ago
>My suggest as to the expense of archiving it was that a student could be hired at minimum wage to photograph them, page by page, with a phone camera.
I'm not sure you'd need a trained archivist, but my 15 year-old Brother multifunction laser allows you to scan around 20 pages in a minute through an automatic document feeder at 600dpi.
From a quick look it seems like modern, dedicated scanners in the sub-US$500 range (brand new) have even larger feeders and faster scan rates - being able to chew through a 50 page feeder in around a minute.
- pgeorgi 5y agoIf you have such a device at hands, go ahead and use it. I understand the suggestion to go "minimum wage + phone camera" as "do whatever is prudent so stuff is archived _now_ in whatever quality, it doesn't even cost the world."
- AussieWog93 5y agoI agree with you in principle - my comment was just that for anything except the smallest jobs, it would probably be more economical to get some dedicated hardware to assist the worker.
- kwhitefoot 5y agoYes, but starting from there will generate resistance because of the initial expense and lack of percieved value. If you can get the role of archivist created then later on there can be an argument to increase the budget without so much risk of the project being cancelled altogether.
- WalterBright 5y agoMy sheet feeding scanner always jams when it has anything other than perfect copier paper in a stack. For folded, odd sizes, fragile, dirty, stapled, glued, torn, other paper, etc., it just doesn't work. Ya also have to constantly clean the platen with alcohol, or your scans get vertical lines on them. (It's the same problem with a sheet feeding printer. If the printer paper isn't perfect, it jams.) I agree that a dual side sheet feeder is awesome when it works.
- rainbowzootsuit 5y agoThe Fujitsu ScanSnap sheet fed scanner we have is pretty forgiving with what will successfully run through it. It was about $550 with a full version of acrobat. I see the commercial version of these at drug stores and hospitals, so I'm guessing that the robust flexibility for scanning isn't unique to my experience.
- ghaff 5y agoI don't know. Our (I'm sure multi-K$) Xerox copier/scanners in the office are pretty temperamental if you don't give them fairly clean stacks of paper to scan--especially double-sided.
- WalterBright 5y agoI'm using the Fujitsu ScanSnap sheet fed scanner :-)
- ghaff 5y agoYeah, I have a ton of stuff I'd like to scan and have scanned some of it. But very little of it is in the category of just load in the hopper and you're done. And once you're looking at scanning hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of stuff and attaching metadata to it, it's pretty much a matter of laying down until the desire to digitize it goes away. As a side note, I've been involved in a project to digitize the back issues of a student newspaper I was involved with. It's all a combination of very labor intensive and expensive (given the issues that they only have bound copies of are a real pain to scan even with an expensive large format flatbed scanner).
- tablespoon 5y ago> I'm not sure you'd need a trained archivist, but my 15 year-old Brother multifunction laser allows you to scan around 20 pages in a minute through an automatic document feeder at 600dpi. Document feeders can and do eat documents.