From: ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article
, Jim Beard wrote:
>Moe Trin wrote:
>>> For me, camera work is slow and subject to all sorts of futzing to
>>> get the thing stable, proper distance from the thing you want an
>>> image of, proper lighting, proper focus, all that stuff.
>> Part of that would be experience - I got into 35 mm film in the late
>> 1950's.
>The last time I was "involved" with imaging was circa 1977, and I
>did not have to operate the machinery. I did have to specify
>what had to be imaged, and give the ok when an image appearing on
>the screen (prior to the snap-shot) was fully legible.
That's a lot like what it is with the less expensive digital cameras
today - pretty much "point and shoot". I mentioned the "Sony Cybershot"
and it's fairly automated. It's about the size of a pack of cigarettes
with a "viewfinder" on the entire back. For photographing documents,
I'd probably go with a camera tripod to hold the camera in a more/less
consistent position relative to the paper, using it where there is
"reading" levels of light. At that point, you're pretty well finished
the setup - position the document so that it's appropriately centered
in the screen on the back of the camera (WYSIWYG), and press the
trigger. Next! Have a look at one at Walmart or equal - you should
be able to try it right there in the store.
>I am not confident I could use a camera and match what was done with
>what was then a rather expensive piece of scanning equipment.
I honestly don't recall how much the Sony cost (Walmart and Target
websites say $200), but as I say it has other uses. The big advantage
of the digital cameras over the older film (including Polaroids) is
that the images are free of developing cost and can be viewed right
now. That helps the learning times.
>"Carry-on" is not a problem. When the airlines banned smoking on
>planes, I quit traveling on them except when there was no
>practical alternative.
The old Cunard ad was that "getting there is half the fun", and at
least you don't have to worry about jet-lag ;-) I find it takes about
one day per time-zone crossed to "recover", and prefer if possible to
at least over-night every 4 or 5 zones. Last fall, I spent a week in
Singapore. LAX-SIN was a non-stop (definitely NOT my choice) of about
16 hours. (My body was out-of-wack for the entire week I was there, and
almost a week after I got back.) The return flight (SIN-HKG-SFO) with
an hour in Hong Kong wasn't much better. Then you clear customs...
>I have driven East Coast to Oklahoma or Texas rather than fly, and
>East Coast to Colorado has been a toss-up, depending on how much time
>I could devote to the trip. Now retired, I can take as much time for
>a trip as needed.
That's about 1400 miles - call it 2 1/2 days? I just don't like
driving that long. An eighth that distance is more like my limits.
>I have no plans to visit the UK or other overseas locations to
>look at or image original documents. The QE II was a bit
>expensive for my budget, even when I would have been reimbursed
>what the airline ticket would have cost.)
I'd hate to tell you how many decades ago it was when I was last on a
blue-water ship. But I was in the service, and it was Newcastle (UK)
to Bergen (NO) and back - skiing vacation. Other than cargo ships, is
anyone still offering service across the North Atlantic? (I also did
a couple of trips on a Japanese Gray-Funnel ship, but that was work!)
Old guy
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
