From: G6JPG@255soft.uk
On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 11:29:52, knuttle
wrote:
>On 5/29/2020 10:21 AM, MB wrote:
>> On 13/05/2020 17:24, knuttle wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2020 11:13 AM, Geoff Pearson wrote:
>>>> I have a pile of documents, some on very frail paper, from my
>>>>father's youth and early war time adult years 1934-1955. My mother
>>>>had them in an envelope. What is the best way to store these so I
>>>>can read them without risk (and on both sides)? Poly-pockets don't
>>>>seem quite right?
Not sure what poly-pockets are, but assuming you mean open transparent
sleeves, your documents are not above that size, and you have storage
boxes (or whatever) that are big enough, then I can't see any problem.
As others have said, laminating them - i. e. _sealing_ them into plastic
- is probably unwise. But as long as they can "breathe" ...
[]
>>> HOWEVER, I have a similar situation with documents that were
>>>created as between 1817 and 1917, I carefully scanned them all and
>>>saved them as PDF files to my computer. I scan them in color on a
>>>flatbed scanner. The color image more accurately represents the
>>>document as the subtle differences on the paper surface can be more easily
seen.
Yes. It's also aesthetically more satisfying. (I have one or two - not
produced by me, downloaded from Ancestry or similar - from the 1841
census, that are actually colour images of the original census books -
and they are gorgeous to look at. I _imagine_ that the microfilms
thereof, which is what is normally available, were either missing, or
completely illegible.)
>>>
>>> I can read them as often as I like with out worrying that I will
>>>damage one. I can easily share them with cousins whose ancestors are
>>>in the document, by just sending the PDF.
(See below for thoughts on PDF.)
>> I think that is the first thing to do, scan at as high a
>>resolution as you and then save in uncompressed files, usually TIFs.
>>You can end up with very large files but that is not problem nowadays
>>when storage is cheap.
Though they can still take a long time to load and navigate.
>> Keep several copies in different locations.
(Always good advice.)
>>
>I started out saving the scan at as high of resolutions as the scanner
>was capable of. Then I realize I only need to scan to the resolution
>of text on the paper, anything higher was a waste of disk space.
A _little_ higher is usually a good idea unless you've read all the text
- looking at your scan, not the original - and are sure it's all
legible.
>
>My standard is about 1280X720 to 1920X1080. If it is a typewritten
Those are common screen resolutions; scans are usually quoted in dots
per inch. (Even by metric people!) For typed or printed material, 300 or
600 DPI usually suits me.
>document I will use a lower resolution. I use a higher resolution for
>handwritten documents where you are trying to determine which character
>was written first, or which lines are part of which character.
Indeed, the higher the better if there's any doubt. Though not above the
optical resolution of the scanner (which scanner manufacturers often
make hard to discover!); any more serves _no_ useful purpose.
>
>I also scan documents in color, as even on black & white the color. In
>the color scan you differentiate "coffee Stains" from subject matter.
>Black is not a color but a mixture of all colors, scanning in color
>help see the subtle differences in the ink making up the characters.
Especially if the ink is added at different times. (The 1939 register's
annotations are a good example; fortunately, that _has_ been scanned in
colour, and at a fair resolution.)
>
>When it comes to pictures, I let the picture determine the resolution.
>You can not scan resolution into a picture that natively is of low
Though err on the generous side.
I've recently been doing some, and have found it's important to ensure
they're flat against the scanner glass, or the focus - and thus
_apparent_ resolution - of the original suffers. Especially if in an
album or other such mount: take them out if you can without damaging
them. [This also sometimes lets you find something useful written on the
back!]
>resolution. (I watch use to watch a lot of detective shows. One of
>the jokes was when they would take a snap shot of a car turning a
>corner, and blow the picture up and read the license number.)
(Just about plausible in some respects in the age of actual photographs;
even more hilarious when it is video material that's being used!)
>
>I use the PDf format as I find it is easier to navigate the page. And
>it is easier to zoom part of it while still retaining the original size
>for reference.
>
I think it depends very much on what viewer you are using. I use
IrfanView for almost everything to do with images, and find navigating
easy in it. YMMV as they say. What are you using to view PDFs? How do
you "retain[ing] the original size for reference" - are you opening two
copies of whatever you're using (which I suppose I could do with IV)?
(Plus I just don't _like_ PDF for images, I'm not sure I could explain
why.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I can prove anything with statistics - except the truth.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
