Itís interesting to me to see people question the long term viability of an open source project. Not because it isnít a valid concern, but because, especially with scanners, the same issue arises with the commercial stuff. Just recently we have had to do some finagling with two very expensive ILL scanners so that we can isolate them from the network. Minolta doesnít make any Windows 7 or later drivers for them (nor does anyone else), effectively anchoring them to XP. Iíve seen this a few times now with scanners (probably because they tend to be longer term investments than other peripherals). The same seems to happen a lot with medical imaging devices. If I were a cynic I might suspect that Minolta and friends wanted to ensure turnover. Iím viewing the current situation as a stopgap until we can look at replacing the scanners, but, when we do that, I intend to move forward on much lower-priced alternatives. Given that, for a variety of reasons, weíre pretty much a Windows shop, and given what seems to be the increasing pace of Windows releases, I feel like we have to consider that our scanners will have an highly indeterminate but likely limited shelf life. Itís too bad . . . some company could probably do well by creating and selling third party drivers for some of these old imaging machines.
Jason Bengtson, MLIS, MA
Head of Library Computing and Information Systems
Assistant Professor, Graduate College
Department of Health Sciences Library and Information Management
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
405-271-2285, opt. 5405-271-3297 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by replying to the original message at the listed email address. Thank You.
On Mar 19, 2014, at 5:50 AM, Johannes Baiter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> spreads developer chiming in here :-)
> I'm curious - how does the shooting time per page compare to something like
>> a Minolta PS7000? We've got an old PS7000, buit my experience with the one
>> I've used before was that it took sooo long to shoot each page. Also, the
>> PS7000 model didn't accommodate a bound volume that wouldn't open flat all
>> that well. Would this be an improvement over that?
> With my Canon A2200s I can currently shoot at 1400-1500 pages per hour,
> although the bottleneck is probably my lifting the cradle/flipping the
> It seems like the software piece is a big variable with the DIYBookScanner.
>> It's interesting to hear about various setups, I just wonder about the
>> long(ish) term viability of some of these open source projects. Obviously,
>> the software is essential for an efficient system and I'm not sure we're
>> interested in building/maintaining our own suite of tools.
> While I can't give any guarantees, I'm very optimistic that I'll continue
> development for the foreseeable future.
> I'm very passionate about the software and the project (DIYBookScaner) as a
> whole and
> my list of things I'd like to do in the software should probably suffice
> for at least the next two years :-)
> And even in the case that I should be hit by a bus, I've tried to make the
> code as clear and idiomatic as possible,
> so an experienced Python developer should be able to get up to speed pretty
> Additionally, as Raffaele already mentioned, spreads is very modular, you
> can add your own functionality very easily
> through the Plugin API.
> If you are playing with the thought of using spreads in your institution,
> please drop me a message, I would love to hear
> about your workflow and what kinds of things you'd like the software to do.
> All the best,