15 Feb
2002
15 Feb
'02
4:17 a.m.
I started playing with fiche scanning using an Intel QX3 microscope. This
microscope comes has three built-in objectives -- 10x, 60x and 200x. The
results are mixed, but tempting. I've put some sample images here:
http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche1.jpg 60x
http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche2.jpg 60x
http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche3.jpg 60x
http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche4.jpg 60x
http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche5.jpg 60x
http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche6.jpg 60x
http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche7.jpg 10x
http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche8.jpg 200x
At the 60x magnification, it takes about 9 images to capture a single frame
from a fiche. I've put together a web page at
http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche.htm that roughly arranges the sample to
show a sample frame from a VMS source listing fiche.
I like the resolution, but need to find a way to expand the field of
view. I'm sure I can rig up a scanning frame, but don't want to have to
stitch multiple captures per frame. If I can get this to work, it would be
a very affordable way to do high-quality fiche scans.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how this might be improved?
-- Tony
15 Feb
15 Feb
4:43 a.m.
New subject: Focal Listing/manual
Yo! Tony ... did you ever get the Focal Listing and manual I sent you scanned
so others can benefit from it? Have you been able to make those available to
the guys who wanted access?
I don't get lots of questions, but it does come up from time to time.
thanks,
Dick
6:52 a.m.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Tony Eros wrote:
At the 60x magnification, it takes about 9 images to
capture a single
frame from a fiche. I've put together a web page at
http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche.htm that roughly arranges the sample
to show a sample frame from a VMS source listing fiche.
I like the resolution, but need to find a way to expand the field of
view. I'm sure I can rig up a scanning frame, but don't want to have
to stitch multiple captures per frame. If I can get this to work, it
would be a very affordable way to do high-quality fiche scans.
Unless you can automate the scanning, it's a pretty painful proposition.
Or at least it is unless you've lots of time to burn. We've got a
software tool, Stitcher (made by Realviz http://www.realviz.com/), that
we use where I work for combining multiple images into panoramic
backgrounds. From what I can find online, it looks like Stitcher costs
about $800.
Are the resolutions capable with current generation mixed film format
slide and film scanners inadequate for capturing microfiche? Looking
on-line, I see lots of high-end microfiche specific scanners--but they
have that look about them which indicates "niche market" and hence "very
expensive". It seems like one of the Nikon Coolscan film scanners might
work well for this.
-brian.
7:19 a.m.
I would have to agree with Brian's comments. Piecing together the
various panels to create one page would be a pain. The slide scanners
are not that cheap either though and might be comparable to the anacomp
fiche scanners in price.
--tom
At 09:52 AM 2/15/02 -0800, you wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Tony Eros wrote:
At the 60x magnification, it takes about 9 images
to capture a single
frame from a fiche. I've put together a web page at
http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche.htm that roughly arranges the sample
to show a sample frame from a VMS source listing fiche.
I like the resolution, but need to find a way to expand the field of
view. I'm sure I can rig up a scanning frame, but don't want to have
to stitch multiple captures per frame. If I can get this to work, it
would be a very affordable way to do high-quality fiche scans.
Unless you can automate the scanning, it's a pretty painful proposition.
Or at least it is unless you've lots of time to burn. We've got a
software tool, Stitcher (made by Realviz http://www.realviz.com/), that
we use where I work for combining multiple images into panoramic
backgrounds. From what I can find online, it looks like Stitcher costs
about $800.
Are the resolutions capable with current generation mixed film format
slide and film scanners inadequate for capturing microfiche? Looking
on-line, I see lots of high-end microfiche specific scanners--but they
have that look about them which indicates "niche market" and hence "very
expensive". It seems like one of the Nikon Coolscan film scanners might
work well for this.
-brian.
8:34 a.m.
Aha - slide scanners comes to mind here....make your own using the info on
this site...
http://www.abstractconcreteworks.com/essays/scanning/Backlighter.html - has
other links as well on this. I did some of this 2 yrs agao and it worked
good but I forget exactly how I finally did it all.
=> -----Original Message-----
=> From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
=> [mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Tom Uban
=> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:19 PM
=> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
=> Subject: Re: Fiche scanning redux
=>
=>
=> I would have to agree with Brian's comments. Piecing together the
=> various panels to create one page would be a pain. The slide scanners
=> are not that cheap either though and might be comparable to the anacomp
=> fiche scanners in price.
=>
=> --tom
=>
=> At 09:52 AM 2/15/02 -0800, you wrote:
=> >On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Tony Eros wrote:
=> >
=> >> At the 60x magnification, it takes about 9 images to capture a single
=> >> frame from a fiche. I've put together a web page at
=> >> http://www.machm.org/fiche/fiche.htm that roughly arranges the sample
=> >> to show a sample frame from a VMS source listing fiche.
=> >>
=> >> I like the resolution, but need to find a way to expand the field of
=> >> view. I'm sure I can rig up a scanning frame, but don't want to
have
=> >> to stitch multiple captures per frame. If I can get this to work, it
=> >> would be a very affordable way to do high-quality fiche scans.
=> >
=> >Unless you can automate the scanning, it's a pretty painful proposition.
=> >Or at least it is unless you've lots of time to burn. We've got a
=> >software tool, Stitcher (made by Realviz http://www.realviz.com/), that
=> >we use where I work for combining multiple images into panoramic
=> >backgrounds. From what I can find online, it looks like Stitcher costs
=> >about $800.
=> >
=> >Are the resolutions capable with current generation mixed film format
=> >slide and film scanners inadequate for capturing microfiche? Looking
=> >on-line, I see lots of high-end microfiche specific scanners--but they
=> >have that look about them which indicates "niche market" and hence
"very
=> >expensive". It seems like one of the Nikon Coolscan film scanners might
=> >work well for this.
=> >
=> >-brian.
=> >
=> >
=> >
=>
9:41 a.m.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Tom Uban wrote:
I would have to agree with Brian's comments.
Piecing together the
various panels to create one page would be a pain. The slide scanners
are not that cheap either though and might be comparable to the
anacomp fiche scanners in price.
What does the Anacomp go for? The really nice Nikon Super Coolscan
8000 ED runs about $3000. Lower end models (limited to 35mm scanning)
can run less than $900. They aren't *cheap* exactly, but it might be
worthwhile to someone with mixed photography and vintage computing
hobbies.
I like the backlighter idea as well, but I've a feeling the resolution
wouldn't be adequate for microfiche.
Another possibility would be to setup a projection system to enlarge the
microfiche, and then capture that. For example, you might be able to
put the fiche in a photographic enlarger and project the image onto a
flatbed scanner. I guess this would be kind of like a backlighter with
magnification. Another possibility would be to project the enlarged
image onto a white opaque surface (i.e. a wall). Then use a tripod
mounted digital camera to record the projected image.
In either case, you take the resulting images and process them to be
high contrast b&w TIFFs for incorporating into a PDF file or for
further processing with OCR software.
-brian.
9:58 a.m.
At 12:41 PM 2/15/2002 -0800, Brian Chase wrote:
I like the backlighter idea as well, but I've a
feeling the resolution
wouldn't be adequate for microfiche.
I've always wondered about ways to connect an ordinary
microfiche reader to modern image capture. Why not?
The projected image is dim. I wonder what happens when
you scan it on a flatbed scanner whose lamp has been
disconnected.
Another possibility would be to setup a projection
system to enlarge the
microfiche, and then capture that.
I have a projection microscope. They typically have very
high-power mercury lights, which creates a fair amount of
heat on the stage. Not something I'd like to use to process
my precious antique fiche.
I also recently picked up a dental video scope. Really cool!
A true CCD on a cable, with very small optics you can stick
up your nose or down your throat or anything. :-) As for
the fiche, the CCD chip is quite exposed (with a glass cover)
in the neck of the wand. It make me wonder what sort of
results you'd get with "contact printing" of fiche right
up against the image chip, with back-lighting.
It's good to be the consultant at a dentist's office.
He lets me play with the digital X-ray machine, too.
But overall, why not just buy a real $4,000 fiche scanner,
scan everything in sight, and sell the damn thing on eBay
when you're done. If a list member anywhere in the world
did this once a year, I'm sure he could keep up with demand.
- John
10:45 a.m.
>I like the backlighter idea as well, but I've
a feeling the resolution
>wouldn't be adequate for microfiche.
True!
The HP photo scanner is available cheap. The current models are USB, so
the SCSI (discontinued!) shows up on e-bay and elsewhere. But it's only
2400 dpi (2K x 3K x 30 for 35mm slides). That is NOT enough to do most
fiche!
But overall, why not just buy a real $4,000 fiche
scanner,
scan everything in sight, and sell the damn thing on eBay
when you're done. If a list member anywhere in the world
did this once a year, I'm sure he could keep up with demand.
There is a Canon MS500 microfiche scanner on e-bay right now.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1705795495
It's at $1900 (reserve
not met), with a Buy-It-Now of $3900. It looks nice, but too expensive
for me. Why don't you buy it and rent it to me for a few minutes to do a
few pages?
Widening the search to "microfilm" turned up a fantastic sounding
Minolta DPCS3000 book scanner:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2002452258
It has face up scanning (great for page turning), and microprocessor
correction for the curvature of the gutter for books that won't open flat!
2:34 p.m.
--- "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com> wrote:
I have an older, SCSI, HP Photo Scanner. They were $400 new, I got mine
for $200 used, years ago. To further discourage speculation for their
use as a fiche scanner, they have two scan elements - one at 300 DPI
and one at 1200 DPI (optical, 2400 interpolated). The 1200 DPI scan
head has the backlight and is only as wide as the 35mm frame is tall
(25mm?)
In addition, the internal rollers move up and down to accomodate the
width of the item being scanned - snapshot (5" wide, not backlit),
slide (1"? wide, backlit, positive color collection) or negative
(1"? wide, backlit, negative color correction).
I suppose you could cut the fiche into 1" strips? ;-0
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
>I like the
backlighter idea as well, but I've a feeling the resolution
>wouldn't be adequate for microfiche.
True!
The HP photo scanner is available cheap. The current models are USB, so
the SCSI (discontinued!) shows up on e-bay and elsewhere. But it's only
2400 dpi (2K x 3K x 30 for 35mm slides). That is NOT enough to do most
fiche! 
16 Feb
16 Feb
1:43 a.m.
At 05:34 PM 2/15/02 -0800, you wrote:
--- "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com> wrote:
> > >I like the backlighter idea as well, but I've a feeling the resolution
> > >wouldn't be adequate for microfiche.
> True!
>
> The HP photo scanner is available cheap. The current models are USB, so
> the SCSI (discontinued!) shows up on e-bay and elsewhere. But it's only
> 2400 dpi (2K x 3K x 30 for 35mm slides). That is NOT enough to do most
> fiche!
OK I think I can help here. A couple of years ago I "rescued" a film
scanner from a scrapper. If I recall correctly it was a Nikon brand. I gave
it to a friend of mine that does photography and he did some checking on it
and found that it used the HP-IB to talk to the computer and that it needed
a National Instruments AT-GPIB card. I found one of the cards and gave it
to him but he never used the thing. Since then he's bought a 2400 dpi SCSI
scanner and is using it. BUT while he was checking it out, he called the
manufacturer (Nikon?) and they said that that model was THE highest
resolution scanner that they'd ever made and would scan 4000 dpi! Since my
friend isn't using it, I could probably get it back and loan/give it to
anybody that's serious about scanning microfiche. I think it had some kind
of metal clips for holding different size film or negatives. If anyones
seriously interested, contact me and I'll give you the guy's phone number
and you can call him and he should be able to tell you all about the thing.
It's located in Florida but it's small and could be easily shipped.
Joe
15 Feb
15 Feb
10:47 a.m.
John Foust wrote:
It's good to be the consultant at a dentist's office.
He lets me play with the digital X-ray machine, too.
And remember to that X-ray machine when scrapped has a good high voltage
supply that can be used for IEC fusion. Building your own fusion reactor
is one hobby that needs more money and skills than fixing old iron too
:) http://www.mathematik.uni-marburg.de/~kronjaeg/hv/fusor/construction/
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
10:52 a.m.
We do quite a bit of document imaging where I work (almost typed
"where I live"... ouch...). A lot of it is paper, for which they have
some cool high-speed double-sided scanners that I play with once in a
while. They also do some fiche, using something that looks like one
of us built it in his basement. It's called a "Screenscan", and it's
basically just the guts out of a flatbed scanner (just the scanning
element and mechanism) bolted to the front of a normal rear-projection
fiche/film reader. The reader has a ground-glass screen that it
projects the image onto. The operator lines up a fiche page, sets the
focus, etc, just as though they were going to view it normally, and
then hits a button. The scan bar then moves down the face of the
glass screen, capturing the image as though it were a brightly-lit
piece of paper. I would think it wouldn't be too hard to find an old
fiche/film reader and an old scanner and hack them to work this way.
The light source is provided by the reader, so you don't need the bulb
from the scanner. You might have to play with the
distance between
the scan bar and the screen to get good focus, but it should work.
Now we're looking at $200,000 automated fiche scanners because we just
got in a bunch of fiche from a company we bought and it would be
cheaper to buy the equipment and do it ourselves than to farm it out.
Those ought to be fun to play with too...
At 12:41 PM 2/15/2002 -0800, Brian Chase wrote:
Bill Richman
bill_r(a)inetnebr.com
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bill_r
Home of Fun with Molten Metal, technological
oddities, and the original COSMAC Elf
computer simulator!
I like the backlighter idea as well, but I've
a feeling the resolution
wouldn't be adequate for microfiche.
I've always wondered about ways to connect an ordinary
microfiche reader to modern image capture. Why not?
The projected image is dim. I wonder what happens when
you scan it on a flatbed scanner whose lamp has been
disconnected.
4:06 p.m.
--- Tony Eros <tony.eros(a)machm.org> wrote:
I started playing with fiche scanning using an Intel
QX3 microscope.
What a cool idea. I've seen them in the stores, but for $100, I've
resisted the temptation.
The results are mixed, but tempting. I've put
some sample images here:
At the 60x magnification, it takes about 9 images to capture a single
frame from a fiche.
That's a lot of work. If I were even going to consider a microscope, I'd
also consider a motorized table to move the image around.
I like the resolution, but need to find a way to
expand the field of
view.
Bigger optics.
I used to work for a company that produced the motor platform, the ISA
control boards and the scanning software for a company that made "remote
microscopes" - imagine a device that resembles a reflecting telescope,
but less than 2' long. It could resolve a 1mm^2 patch into a frame of
512 pixels by 512 pixels and could be moved around in a box several
inches on a side. We sold it as an inspection system that could zoom
in on defects. Customers used them to inspect hypodermics, optical
glass (to map the flaws to cut around them) and more.
No, I don't have one - the systems were $30K each. The company I worked
for closed when the optics maker stopped paying invoices. We got the
layoff notice on Monday evening (called at home); the company closed on
that Friday.
In any case, a back-lit fiche and a "remote microscope" might do the
trick, should you run across one. In the meantime, a scanning frame
with mechanical stops might be the simplest thing to do. If you have
a broken fiche reader, you might be able to find a way to mount your
microscope head where the mirror and screen go, and use the fiche holder
and positioning tray as is.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
4:35 p.m.
At 07:06 PM 2/15/2002 -0800, you wrote:
I've thought about trying to retrofit a 30x or 40x objective in place of
the 60x, but I don't know if that would work. It would be a great start if
I could get it down to one capture per frame. The QX3 software has a "time
lapse" function that does a capture at user-definable intervals. Combining
this with a motorized tray could allow me to scan an entire fiche without
having to "adjust, snap, adjust snap..."
Yup...
--- Tony Eros <tony.eros(a)machm.org> wrote:
Mine ran me about $40 on eBay.
I started playing with fiche scanning using an
Intel QX3 microscope.
What a cool idea. I've seen them in the stores, but for $100, I've
resisted the temptation. The results
are mixed, but tempting. I've put some sample images here:
At the 60x magnification, it takes about 9 images to capture a single
frame from a fiche.
That's a lot of work. If I were even going to consider a microscope, I'd
also consider a motorized table to move the image around. I like the
resolution, but need to find a way to expand the field of
view.
Bigger optics. I used to work for a company that produced the motor
platform, the ISA
control boards and the scanning software for a company that made "remote
microscopes" - imagine a device that resembles a reflecting telescope,
but less than 2' long. It could resolve a 1mm^2 patch into a frame of
512 pixels by 512 pixels and could be moved around in a box several
inches on a side. We sold it as an inspection system that could zoom
in on defects. Customers used them to inspect hypodermics, optical
glass (to map the flaws to cut around them) and more.
No, I don't have one - the systems were $30K each. The company I worked
for closed when the optics maker stopped paying invoices. We got the
layoff notice on Monday evening (called at home); the company closed on
that Friday.
In any case, a back-lit fiche and a "remote microscope" might do the
trick, should you run across one. In the meantime, a scanning frame
with mechanical stops might be the simplest thing to do. If you have
a broken fiche reader, you might be able to find a way to mount your
microscope head where the mirror and screen go, and use the fiche holder
and positioning tray as is.
Hmm -- food for thought.
-- Tony
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
16 Feb
16 Feb
5:21 p.m.
New subject: Effect of temperature cycles on electronics ?
What experience have people had with computer equipment being stored
in a unheated environment for 10-20 years, where the temperature runs
from -10 to 100 degrees at the extremes of the seasons?
Does this
tend to kill ICs, caps, etc?
--tom
6:20 p.m.
New subject: Effect of temperature cycles on electronics ?
Tom Uban wrote:
What experience have people had with computer equipment being stored
in a unheated environment for 10-20 years, where the temperature runs
from -10 to 100 degrees at the extremes of the seasons? Does this
tend to kill ICs, caps, etc?
--tom
Make that a tad colder -40F. The real problem is keeping the equipment
dry.
I don't expect HD's and Floppies would last too many seasons as bearings
would seize up. Rust and corrosion could also be a problem if near salt
water.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
6:37 p.m.
New subject: Effect of temperature cycles on electronics ?
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Tom Uban wrote:
What experience have people had with computer
equipment being stored
in a unheated environment for 10-20 years, where the temperature runs
from -10 to 100 degrees at the extremes of the seasons? Does this
tend to kill ICs, caps, etc?
The corollary dust, mice, leaking CMOS batteries and condensation are
worse.
Doc
2:40 p.m.
New subject: Effect of temperature cycles on electronics ?
tend to kill
ICs, caps, etc?
The corollary dust, mice, leaking CMOS batteries and condensation are
worse. 
7:29 p.m.
New subject: Effect of temperature cycles on electronics ?
For IC's generally no, at work we run continuous
temperature cycle tests from -55 to 75 deg C
(military stuff) for years on end with very little IC
failure rate (granted, this is screened industrial
parts). Commercial IC's won't have any problems at -10
F. Mostly the problems we see are with slight timing
problems as CMOS slows down at high temperatures.
The mechanical stuff is another story, depends on
moisture the computers are seeing(rust, corrosion etc)
steve
--- Tom Uban <uban(a)ubanproductions.com> wrote:
What experience have people had with computer
equipment being stored
in a unheated environment for 10-20 years, where the
temperature runs
from -10 to 100 degrees at the extremes of the
seasons? Does this
tend to kill ICs, caps, etc?
--tom
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
17 Feb
17 Feb
6:55 a.m.
New subject: Effect of temperature cycles on electronics ?
What experience have people had with computer
equipment being stored
in a unheated environment for 10-20 years, where the
temperature runs
from -10 to 100 degrees at the extremes of the
seasons? Does this
tend to kill ICs, caps, etc?
Those temperature ranges should not damage ICs, caps, etc.
BUT, ... with medium to high humidity, those temperature ranges could
result in condensation, with its related problems.
And some people have problems with ICs working loose from sockets due to
temperature changes. trivial to fix, but can prevent proper operation
until the chips are reseated.
4 a.m.
New subject: Effect of temperature cycles on electronics ?
Tom Uban wrote:
What experience have people had with computer equipment being stored
in a unheated environment for 10-20 years, where the temperature runs
from -10 to 100 degrees at the extremes of the seasons? Does this
tend to kill ICs, caps, etc?
--tom
I've found that vacuum tube electronics seemed to handle the temp
variations better than solid state. Nowdays I see mostly bad capacitors
taking out components. And they are most prone to temp variaations that
dry them out over time. I prefer to leave equipment on 24/7 as well.
I've seen more failures happen on power up from the surge than
anything. Silicon transsitors are more rugged than the early germaniums
too.
Gary Hildebrand
St. Joseph, MO
8186
days inactive
8188
days old
20 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bill_r＠inetnebr.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
erd_6502＠yahoo.com -
ghldbrd＠ccp.com -
gkicomputers＠yahoo.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jpero＠sympatico.ca -
rhb57＠vol.com -
rigdonj＠cfl.rr.com -
tony.eros＠machm.org -
uban＠ubanproductions.com -
vaxzilla＠jarai.org