While we don't plan on leasing the ScanPro 3000, we received a quote from
DRS Imaging in NYC for renting the unit. It was $45.60 per month for a
3-year lease, and $306.33 per month for a 5-year lease. The purchase price
is $10,895, excluding installation, training and maintenance at $1,200 and
the $3,500 AutoScan software (which apparently only works when there are
well-defined and consistent page breaks on the microfilm).
Our local history librarian looked into digitization services, but he said
that they would have been prohibitively expensive. We plan on having
carefully vetted and trained volunteers do most of the work when it comes
to digitizing our local newspaper microfilm collection.
If you want contact info for DRS, write me offline. I'll be meeting with
their VP tomorrow regarding our 2-week trial of the scanner.
Coordinator of Computer Systems
100 Martine Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
*When you think about it, *all* security is ultimately security by
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Matt Sherman <[log in to unmask]>
> Thanks for the info John, Jim, and Art.
> As a follow up to the list, does anyone know of any scanner rental
> services? Or a decent service to do the digitization work for a reasonable
> price? I need to provide all the options to my boss and sadly this
> information is a real pain to sort through via web searches.
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Art Rhyno. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hi Matt,
> > If you are pressed for funds, you can do a lot with a standard camera, a
> > light table, and a macro lens. We have a set of about 15 reels of 19th
> > century local newspapers where the microfilm was produced in the 1950s
> > they were sent back by a commercial scanner as being "unworkable".
> > a sample here  of what we can get from the camera, and a video of the
> > process . These papers are still a challenge but I think the camera
> > itself fares well. I borrowed a $600 macro lens from a friend to compare
> > to the much cheaper Raynox macro lens ($60 or so), and I found that it
> > didn't make any difference. For that matter, a $7 magnifying glass did
> > same thing but it would drive you crazy trying to keep things in focus.
> > I suspect a mirrorless camera would be the way to go for high volumes,
> > many cameras have a "preview" function that has slightly less overhead
> > a regular camera shot, but the mirrors inside cameras are held by fairly
> > flimsy plastic and are probably a weak point. Where this approach might
> > have the greatest advantage is with microfiche, a format that does not
> > to respond well to scanning methods. Ping me if you are interested in
> > kind of setup, it's definitely not something that could be put out for
> > public to use without a lot of refinement, but you can probably assemble
> > the pieces for less than $1000, excluding a machine to run the process.
> > art
> > ---
> > 1. http://ink.ourdigitalworld.org/sample.jpg
> > 2. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-PK1n92dlzwaXVFVjNuM3hXc2c
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > Matt Sherman
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 9:43 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [CODE4LIB] Good Tools for Microfilm Scanning
> > Hi all,
> > Does anyone on the list have much experience with microfilm scanning? We
> > have some old student newspapers and dissertations that we want to get
> > a digital format and while I do have a lot of expreience with photos,
> > negatives, and large format media, I have not done microfilm. As such I
> > wondering if there is a good tool or set of tools to use when scanning
> > microfilm? Either tools to scan with a standard bed-scanner or some kind
> > microfilm scanner? Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> > Matt Sherman