Hi all,
Jon touched on a couple of good points -- some of which I'm interested in a
clarification:
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Roland <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 9:28 PM
Subject: RAM and Storage (was: question on scanned images )
> I have found the most important investment for scanning, besides the
computer,
> is removable media, especially magneto-optical, such as those used with
the
> Fujitsu 640SE DyanMO drive (640MB capacity, about $15/disk). No matter how
> much hard drive capacity you get, it will not be enough, and 32MB RAM is
> probably sufficient for most scanning, which is less than most systems
come
> with standard now, unless you do batch recognition, in which case it is
the
> speed of the processor and RAM and the size of the cache that affects
> performance more than the total amount of RAM.
We've opted to use CD-RW drives -- the drives these days are relatively
cheap ($300) and give you the option of volatile and non-volatile storage.
Traditionally, people have shied away from CD-RW drives as they are not as
simple to use as removable media. However, Adaptec's DirectCD does make
using CD-RWs considerably easier. I'd also recommend a tape backup system.
While these cost more, the savings in soft resources (ie. people time) are
substantial when you can backup 10 to 20 GB of data overnight while you
sleep. With the proper storage conditions, the tapes should be viable
without refreshing for at least 6 months if not more.
32MB of RAM is certainly usable for scanning but my comparisons between
systems generally has weighed in favor of more RAM for a slower processor
rather than less RAM for a faster processor; if one is particularly
constrained by funding.
> If they
> aren't fast enough, then the upgrade is not to a slightly faster flatbed
> (because most of your time will be turning the pages and placement on the
> flatbed, not waiting for the scanhead), but to a snap scanner that takes
the
> entire image in a single shot (no moving scan head), and those cost a lot
now
> (until inexpensive digital cameras have about 32 megapixels, probably
about
> two years).
I would definitely recommend that you opt for a flatbed scanner with either
a SCSI or a USB interface; the transfer speeds are much faster than those
with a parallel port interface. For greyscale scanning, HP's scanners are
very quick but I'd recommend Epson or Agfa if colour fidelity is more of an
issue.
Jon, with regards to digital cameras, when you are referring to 32
megapixels -- do you mean storage or that they can generate a 32 MB image?
Tim
--------
Tim Au Yeung
Manager of Digitization Initiatives
Information Resources (Press)
University of Calgary
voice: 403.220.8975
email: ytau (at) ucalgary.ca
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|