Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners

Daniel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I got to photograph a series of big size documents (60 X 80 cm) in 300 dpi.
> What'ss the most appropriate equipment: a digital back or a scanner? The
> scanners (Scando of Kaiser for instance) are much cheaper but what are their
> scan time for A1 in 300 dpi? Has someone any experience with that
> kind of scanner?

What are your throughput requirements?

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

Daniel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I got to photograph a series of big size documents (60 X 80 cm) in 300 dpi.
> What'ss the most appropriate equipment: a digital back or a scanner? The
> scanners (Scando of Kaiser for instance) are much cheaper but what are their
> scan time for A1 in 300 dpi? Has someone any experience with that
> kind of scanner?

The site is down, but google's cache gives:

Scanning time up to approx. 200 sec. for full frame depending on selected resolution

Pixels 3648 x 4625
Camera resolution approx.16.8 million pixels

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

bugbear wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I got to photograph a series of big size documents (60 X 80 cm) in 300
>> dpi.
>> What'ss the most appropriate equipment: a digital back or a scanner? The
>> scanners (Scando of Kaiser for instance) are much cheaper but what are
>> their
>> scan time for A1 in 300 dpi? Has someone any experience with that
>> kind of scanner?
>
> The site is down, but google's cache gives:
>
> Scanning time up to approx. 200 sec. for full frame depending on
> selected resolution
>
> Pixels 3648 x 4625
> Camera resolution approx.16.8 million pixels

Ah OK I didn't read the OP carefully, sorry.
http://www.kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/produkte/2_1_produktanzeige.asp?nr=5122
86MP, 8192 x 10550 (71cm on the short side at 300dpi)
This seems like the same as a scanning back but it's the whole camera
minus the lens. No idea how slow it is, they don't say so it's probably
not an impressive speed.
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:11:08 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-.DeleteThis@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>Daniel wrote:
>>
>> I got to photograph a series of big size documents (60 X 80 cm) in 300 dpi.
>> What'ss the most appropriate equipment: a digital back or a scanner? The
>> scanners (Scando of Kaiser for instance) are much cheaper but what are their
>> scan time for A1 in 300 dpi? Has someone any experience with that
>> kind of scanner?
>>
>> Thank you for your information about this.
>
>Sounds like you have a large format camera? If just a few, having the
>film scanned would be a lot cheaper. Nobody makes flatbed scanners big
>enough for that but it would be possible to stitch the scans with
>panotools or similar. That's 25MP if my math is right, so you'd want
>something like the $10,000 'affordable' scanning back here:
>http://www.betterlight.com/eModels.html

I actually typed up a solution to the problem last night. Even providing
examples of how it is done and how I have done it many times in the past. The
reply is still sitting in my "drafts" folder. But at the very moment before
hitting "Send Now" I thought it might be more fun to just sit back and watch the
advice of people who have a lot of money, no experience, and little to no
brains.

Resident-trolls do have their entertainment value at times.
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

DaveX <nocontact RemoveThis @addressunknown.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:11:08 -0800, Paul Furman <paul- RemoveThis @-edgehill.net> wrote:

>>Daniel wrote:
>>>
>>> I got to photograph a series of big size documents (60 X 80 cm) in 300 dpi.
>>> What'ss the most appropriate equipment: a digital back or a scanner? The
>>> scanners (Scando of Kaiser for instance) are much cheaper but what are their
>>> scan time for A1 in 300 dpi? Has someone any experience with that
>>> kind of scanner?
>>>
>>> Thank you for your information about this.
>>
>>Sounds like you have a large format camera? If just a few, having the
>>film scanned would be a lot cheaper. Nobody makes flatbed scanners big
>>enough for that but it would be possible to stitch the scans with
>>panotools or similar. That's 25MP if my math is right, so you'd want
>>something like the $10,000 'affordable' scanning back here:
>>http://www.betterlight.com/eModels.html

> I actually typed up a solution to the problem last night. Even providing
> examples of how it is done and how I have done it many times in the past. The
> reply is still sitting in my "drafts" folder. But at the very moment before
> hitting "Send Now" I thought it might be more fun to just sit back and watch the
> advice of people who have a lot of money, no experience, and little to no
> brains.

> Resident-trolls do have their entertainment value at times.

They certainly do! Imagine expecting us to believe that posting a
correct and practical solution to anything ever had the slightest
effect on the flood of nonsense from trolls!

--
Chris Malcolm cam RemoveThis @infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:24:24 +0000, DaveX wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:11:08 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-.DeleteThis@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>>Daniel wrote:
>>>
>>> I got to photograph a series of big size documents (60 X 80 cm) in 300 dpi.
>>> What'ss the most appropriate equipment: a digital back or a scanner? The
>>> scanners (Scando of Kaiser for instance) are much cheaper but what are their
>>> scan time for A1 in 300 dpi? Has someone any experience with that
>>> kind of scanner?
>>>
>>> Thank you for your information about this.
>>
>>Sounds like you have a large format camera? If just a few, having the
>>film scanned would be a lot cheaper. Nobody makes flatbed scanners big
>>enough for that but it would be possible to stitch the scans with
>>panotools or similar. That's 25MP if my math is right, so you'd want
>>something like the $10,000 'affordable' scanning back here:
>>http://www.betterlight.com/eModels.html
>
> I actually typed up a solution to the problem last night. Even providing
> examples of how it is done and how I have done it many times in the past. The
> reply is still sitting in my "drafts" folder. But at the very moment before
> hitting "Send Now" I thought it might be more fun to just sit back and watch the
> advice of people who have a lot of money, no experience, and little to no
> brains.
>
> Resident-trolls do have their entertainment value at times.

So, in other words, you have no clue.
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

DaveX wrote:
<snip>
But at the very moment before
> hitting "Send Now" I thought it might be more fun to just sit back and watch the
> advice of people who have a lot of money, no experience, and little to no
> brains.
>
More likely, Captain Easy couldn't think of a new nom du moment at the time.
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:09:54 -0700, ray <ray RemoveThis @zianet.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:24:24 +0000, DaveX wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:11:08 -0800, Paul Furman <paul- RemoveThis @-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Daniel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I got to photograph a series of big size documents (60 X 80 cm) in 300 dpi.
>>>> What'ss the most appropriate equipment: a digital back or a scanner? The
>>>> scanners (Scando of Kaiser for instance) are much cheaper but what are their
>>>> scan time for A1 in 300 dpi? Has someone any experience with that
>>>> kind of scanner?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your information about this.
>>>
>>>Sounds like you have a large format camera? If just a few, having the
>>>film scanned would be a lot cheaper. Nobody makes flatbed scanners big
>>>enough for that but it would be possible to stitch the scans with
>>>panotools or similar. That's 25MP if my math is right, so you'd want
>>>something like the $10,000 'affordable' scanning back here:
>>>http://www.betterlight.com/eModels.html
>>
>> I actually typed up a solution to the problem last night. Even providing
>> examples of how it is done and how I have done it many times in the past. The
>> reply is still sitting in my "drafts" folder. But at the very moment before
>> hitting "Send Now" I thought it might be more fun to just sit back and watch the
>> advice of people who have a lot of money, no experience, and little to no
>> brains.
>>
>> Resident-trolls do have their entertainment value at times.
>
>So, in other words, you have no clue.

Apparently the only ones who have no clue are all the resident trolls. I'm still
waiting to see if any of them would come up with a viable solution. For all they
type they've still not formed their "I'm a photographer!" delusions into
anything even remotely acceptable as an option.

Very often I would have to secure the trust of park officials and small-town
government personnel to allow me access to copy old and one-of-a-kind
topographic maps, geologic maps, old mining maps, hydrology maps, etc. Sometimes
they might span 2 tables. Sometimes they were contained only in basements of
small museums, safely secured behind glass on a wall for archival reasons. Since
most of these places were in remote regions, small towns and settlements, they
had no access to any large scanning services. Even if they did most would not
allow those documents to be taken off the premises or out of their sight. But I
required access to that information long after I left the area so that I might
pursue a photo of a subject that nobody else has ever seen. I needed to bring a
copy of those documents with me so I might more easily find what I sought.
(What? Do you think if you just beg, whine, and childishly manipulate others
enough that someone is just going to bring photography subjects to you? It seems
to be the case in this newsgroup.)

So yes, I know exactly how to do it. Do you?

If not, then shut your ignorant and stupid trolling trap.

Go whine to your mommy. I hear her calling you. It's from the floor upstairs of
the basement where she keeps you.
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

> So yes, I know exactly how to do it. Do you?

Time to 'put up or shut up'.
I don't think you know what you're talking about and you present no
evidence to the contrary.

>
> If not, then shut your ignorant and stupid trolling trap.
>
> Go whine to your mommy. I hear her calling you. It's from the floor upstairs of
> the basement where she keeps you.
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

DaveX wrote:
>
> Very often I would have to secure the trust of park officials and small-town
> government personnel to allow me access to copy old and one-of-a-kind
> topographic maps, geologic maps, old mining maps, hydrology maps, etc. Sometimes
> they might span 2 tables. Sometimes they were contained only in basements of
> small museums, safely secured behind glass on a wall for archival reasons. Since
> most of these places were in remote regions, small towns and settlements, they
> had no access to any large scanning services. Even if they did most would not
> allow those documents to be taken off the premises or out of their sight. But I
> required access to that information long after I left the area so that I might
> pursue a photo of a subject that nobody else has ever seen. I needed to bring a
> copy of those documents with me so I might more easily find what I sought.
> (What? Do you think if you just beg, whine, and childishly manipulate others
> enough that someone is just going to bring photography subjects to you? It seems
> to be the case in this newsgroup.)

Would this be "relevant" ?

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/bugbear33/pano_head.jpg
(sorry about the clue in the path)

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

On Nov 23, 6:35 am, "Daniel" <daniel.frydman_no_s....DeleteThis@metacrawler.com>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I got to photograph a series of big size documents (60 X 80 cm) in 300 dpi.
> What'ss the most appropriate equipment: a digital back or a scanner? The
> scanners (Scando of Kaiser for instance) are much cheaper but what are their
> scan time for A1 in 300 dpi? Has someone any experience with that
> kind of scanner?
>
> Thank you for your information about this.
>
> Daniel
> Paris

If the documents are mobile and flexible and in decent shape, your
best solution might to go to an engineering or architectural office
(or what they call a "service company" or "blue print shop") and have
the docs scanned. They have the equipment to do it quickly,
efficiently, and at great resolution. For them, what you are
proposing is fairly routine.

They use equipment like this:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?E...o=24522

which isn't exactly something that most people would have laying
around in their basement.

If you're doing it a lot, buying one might be a solution. You can
probably pick up a used one somewhere.

Gee, let's see, 24" @ 500 dpi would make a 60cm scan something like a
900mp camera? That's pretty cool. Oh, that reminds me, time to buy a
new hard drive.
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

DaveX wrote:
>
> I actually typed up a solution to the problem last night. Even providing
> examples of how it is done and how I have done it many times in the past. The
> reply is still sitting in my "drafts" folder. But at the very moment before
> hitting "Send Now" I thought it might be more fun to just sit back and watch the
> advice of people who have a lot of money, no experience, and little to no
> brains.

I would welcome your comment on my suggestion in this thread.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners 

bugbear wrote:
> DaveX wrote:
>>
>> I actually typed up a solution to the problem last night. Even providing
>> examples of how it is done and how I have done it many times in the
>> past. The
>> reply is still sitting in my "drafts" folder. But at the very moment
>> before
>> hitting "Send Now" I thought it might be more fun to just sit back and
>> watch the
>> advice of people who have a lot of money, no experience, and little to no
>> brains.
>
> I would welcome your comment on my suggestion in this thread.
>
> BugBear

I Have used your method, no real limit on resolution and very cheap.
Just not good if you need large throughput.

As for what DaveX (as he is posting now) has come up with, who cares?

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Big size documents: digital backs vs scanners