Sadly the other end of the country in Connecticut.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Alyssa Loera <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Matt, where are you located? I have some options for places in
> California.
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Matt Sherman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > and
> > > they were sent back by a commercial scanner as being "unworkable".
> > There's
> > > a sample here [1] of what we can get from the camera, and a video of
> the
> > > process [2]. 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
> > it
> > > 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
> > the
> > > 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
> > than
> > > 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
> > tend
> > > to respond well to scanning methods. Ping me if you are interested in
> > this
> > > kind of setup, it's definitely not something that could be put out for
> > the
> > > 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
> > into
> > > a digital format and while I do have a lot of expreience with photos,
> > text,
> > > negatives, and large format media, I have not done microfilm. As such I
> > am
> > > 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
> > of
> > > microfilm scanner?  Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Matt Sherman
> > >
> >
>