ugrasse2 wrote:1. To frame a letter-sized page on the average digital camera, you won't need macro.
2. You'll need a *very good* digital camera to have issues with shallow depth of field. Those cameras will let you adjust the aperture to avoid that.
3. Get good light... especially if you're doing 100s of pages (which is illegal anyway).
4. What's more tedious? Flip page, frame, take picture, or... align scanner, press-and-hold button, slowly scan, holding the scanner steady, confirm it's done... and do again for the next page.
5. What? These things produce PDF files containing a bitmap. There's no OCR built into these.
6. The B/W files are usually TIFF, which are generally larger than a compressed JPG with the same pixel-count.
7. Resizing doesn't degrade anything, as long as the resolution is there. But that brings me to the point you missed:
8. A 300dpi 8.5x11 scan is the equivalent of 8.5 megapixels. 600dpi would be 34 megapixels. The average digital camera can effectively scan at 300-400dpi. Your results will vary based on how much practice you have. I personally found that pencil drawings and writing comes out better using a digital camera than a scanner, as graphite is reflective and most scanners simply wash it out. For everything else, I use scanners.
1) Macro mode is not for framing It's for focusing on nearby objects.
2) You may have the time to manually adjust the apeture but I rather spend my time on my research. When you deal with medical micrographs as I do, yes, sharpness is important and a camera just doesn't do it unless conditions are well controlled. And those conditions don't exist in the public area of a library. FYI, we do have a camera mount in the lab to photograph specimens, etc but who wants to do that with journals?
3) Illegal? Hardly. Why are you assuming that all 100+ pages are from the same journal or book? When I do research, I often have 10+ journals or books in front of me, with the average article being 10-15 pages. What law makes it illegal to copy those pages? Fair Use laws certainly has no problems with it, and it's common practice in academia.
How do you "get good light" in the public area of a library? Sorry, I have no control over ambient conditions and I can assure you that we're not allowed to plug in our own lights.
4) As someone who has done both many times, I can definitely say that using the scanner is less tedious and tiring. Using the camera involves a lot more movement, i.e. standing up, holding out the camera, framing, making sure things are focused, snapping the photo, and then checking again and redo if things weren't right. And without a flash, you can be sure that small hand movements will result in blurred images, usually requiring a re-do. Because there are no guides in the air, each framing is a new adventure. If you do use a flash, there is often glare on glossy pages. With this scanner, it's similar to using a photocopier. There are physical guides, and nothing to preview or adjust. Just pull the scanner across the page. No standing, not holding the camera, no bending.
As a professional researcher who has been doing this for years, I can definitively say that using this scanner is A LOT less tedious. Especially if you're doing 100+ pages.
5) Not sure what your objection is. I wasn't referring to OCR. JPGs, by definition, were made for images, where blurred edges are not that important. Just look at the blocky algorithm used for compression. PDFs, on the other hand, were originally designed for text, so have less of impact on edges. Sharp text means sharp edges. Do an actual comparison and you'll see what I mean. Or look at the storage algorithms. PDF is my preferred format for scanning text.
6) What are you talking about? Have you even tried this scanner? TIF is not an option. In fact, I would love to have a 2-bit TIF option, but it only allows PDF or JPG. I'm not sure what you're talking about but b/w files are smaller because they use fewer bits (8 bits as opposed to 16 for color).
7) Wrong. When you enlarge, you also exaggerate flaws. With the scanner, the resulting file is 8.5x11, no need to resize unless you want to crop. With the camera, you often don't know what you end up with. YOu may have the time to resize 100+ pages. I don't. With this scanner, I just send all the files to the printer for batch printing. And FYI, I've tried batch resizing with bad results.
8) I don't really understand your point -- especially why you're redefining my situation, which I defined pretty explicitly. Why would I have to scan pencil drawings, etc? I specifically said that I use this in a library scanning journals and books. If I wanted to scan a pencil drawing or other special circumstances, I merely have to get up and go to the photocopier or flatbed scanner they have nearby.
I never said this scanner was ideal or gave great quality (see my other posts). I said that it is good for my purposes, which is scanning many pages in a library. I'm not sure why you had to redefine my environment with good lighting, etc which are simply not options for me. It sounds like you've never even actually used this scanner, or been in the situation I described.