I stick with my original comment...... Scan at 300dpi in landscape mode
if you are worried about scan time.

GT

Graham Kitchen
Corporate Records Manager
Unified Western Grocers
5200 Sheila Street
Commerce, California 90040
Telephone:  (323)264-5200 Extension 4560
Cell:  (323)243-1865
email:  [log in to unmask] 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Records Management Program 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Flynn
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 3:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: electronic imaging question
> 
> Have you been smoking that whacky tabacky that grows in the 
> ditches of ND?
> 200 dpi? clearly there is no sense of reason associated with 
> your thinking
> process.
> Well OK, there might be case made that the testing for 
> resolution was done
> decades ago and the scan vendors set the machines to scan at 
> 300 hundred
> based on ald tresting, but aside from that. I suppose you 
> cold claim that
> the advances made in print technology over the last ten years 
> makes 300 dpi
> an extra expense. I don't t=know where you come up with these 
> crazy ideas
> Bill. Is hte ND heat gettting to you? Can't you just go out and shoot
> something instead of trying to improve the wold? We like 
> scanning at 300
> dpi. I can see no reason to change. The reducitons in scan 
> time alone will
> mean that manageres have miscalulated the amount of work that 
> can be done in
> an hour. THINK what this will mean. {eople standing around, 
> smoking will
> become popular again, cancer will increase, last hours due to 
> illness will
> lead to lost man hours. the economy will suffer. There will 
> be chaos in the
> cities (OK there already is but you get my point).ARMAGEADON 
> is what you are
> preaching. Be not surpised if the Feds aren't on your doorstep in the
> morning. Sheesh, I worry about you sometimes (not often, but 
> sometimes)..
> Tell me Bill how will the macrocompression tools deal 
> withthis lower scan
> relosution. Just how many hardware manufaturers are you 
> trying to put out of
> work?
> 
> 
> Chris Flynnp
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Records Management Program 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
> Of Roach, Bill J.
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 7:55 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [RM] electronic imaging question
> 
> 
> >>Digital Imaging Guidelines available online<<
> 
> Greetings all,
> 
> Just a quick question.  Most of the guidelines I have read suggest
> scanning and storing documents at 300 dpi.  Just a thought, but I find
> this a bit excessive unless there is a good chance that the documents
> will be OCR'd in the future.
> 
> We are revising our standard to a standard 200 dpi with even lower dpi
> permitted on high quality text documents.  Bandwidth and storage
> considerations are two reasons for the move.  Quality of the images is
> still very sufficient to meet any evidentiary requirements.  Our forms
> processing solution is based on the TIFF G3 standard of 200 
> dpi and does
> an outstanding job of OCR, ICR, OBR and OMR at the 200 dpi 
> range so not
> sure I even can justify the 300 dpi setting for OCR purposes. 
>  We write
> images from our ECM to a Kodak DAW at both 200 and 300 dpi without
> noticing a difference.
> 
> Any discussion?
> 
> Bill R
> 
> Bill Roach, CRM
> Enterprise EDMS Coordinator
> State of North Dakota
> ITD/Records Management
> 701-328-3589
> 
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release 
> Date: 8/11/06
> 
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.1/421 - Release 
> Date: 8/16/06
> 
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
> 

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance