Chris M chrism3667 at
Sat Jun 10 13:26:53 CDT 2006

Have you tried it? I'll post some examples
(somewhere?) one of these days. Any deficiencies it
might have, and IMHO small, are outweighed when you
consider having to flip a book or magazine over
several hundred times. All you need to do is
flip..flip..flip..flip. It works, and it's readable.
Nuph said.
 And regardless of what he uses/collects, there was a
better answer again IIMMHHOO. I offered an opinion
dopey-boy. Maybe you're the silly rube after all.

--- Patrick Finnegan <pat at> wrote:

> On Tuesday 06 June 2006 23:24, Chris M wrote:
> > now an even better idea then a scanner is a
> digital
> > camera. 2 - 3 megapixels (even 1.2!) is sufficient
> for
> > archiving text and graphics. 
> What are you smoking?
> Seriously, digital cameras make horrible tools for
> archiving text.  Slow, bad 
> resolution, and lens distortions, which you *can't*
> get away from, because of 
> the fact that you're taking the image from a single
> point vs a moving imaging 
> array like a scanner would have.
> And, telling a guy who collects PDP-11s that a
> flatbed scanner is "unweildly" 
> is just plain silly.
> Pat
> -- 
> Purdue University ITAP/RCAC       ---
> The Computer Refuge               ---

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the cctech mailing list