Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #37342 > unrolled thread
| Started by | pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-03-01 23:22 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-03-02 17:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 71 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Dumb Pinter Question pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2023-03-01 23:22 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2023-03-02 01:59 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "28A.I873" <28A.I873@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-01 22:45 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2023-03-02 07:04 +0100
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 09:58 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2023-03-02 10:34 +0100
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 09:53 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "28A.I873" <28A.I873@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-01 22:40 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2023-03-02 05:17 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Michael Uplawski <michael.uplawski@uplawski.eu> - 2023-03-02 07:14 +0100
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Michael Uplawski <michael.uplawski@uplawski.eu> - 2023-03-02 13:56 +0100
Re: Dumb Pinter Question John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2023-03-03 05:34 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "28A.I873" <28A.I873@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-02 23:47 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2023-03-03 05:52 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-03 09:00 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "28A.I873" <28A.I873@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-04 02:36 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2023-03-04 10:33 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-04 10:42 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-04 11:30 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-04 11:56 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-04 13:57 +0100
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-04 20:58 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2023-03-05 08:16 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2023-03-06 08:36 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2023-03-05 16:47 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2023-03-06 08:16 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-06 00:20 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2023-03-06 16:03 +1000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2023-03-06 08:44 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-06 08:46 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-07 08:58 +0100
Re: Dumb Pinter Question John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2023-03-07 08:36 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-07 11:39 +0100
Re: Dumb Pinter Question not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2023-03-08 08:09 +1000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2023-03-08 08:13 +1000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2023-03-08 05:42 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2023-03-08 16:09 +1000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-08 01:38 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2023-03-08 08:25 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2023-03-08 19:28 +1000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-08 10:24 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2023-03-09 08:23 +1000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-09 10:02 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2023-03-10 08:16 +1000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "28C.I874" <28C.I874@noabgba.net> - 2023-03-09 20:46 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-10 11:25 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2023-03-08 15:02 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2023-03-07 07:45 +1000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-06 20:20 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2023-03-07 02:11 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-07 00:54 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-07 10:45 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-07 10:31 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2023-03-06 08:30 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 18:46 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2023-03-02 10:44 +0100
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 09:56 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 09:55 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2023-03-02 07:04 +0100
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 09:57 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2023-03-02 21:50 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-03 09:03 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2023-03-02 16:44 +1000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 10:00 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 09:50 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2023-03-02 21:56 -0500
Re: Dumb Pinter Question Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2023-03-02 22:14 -0800
Re: Dumb Pinter Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-03 09:08 +0000
Re: Dumb Pinter Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-02 14:44 +0100
Re: Dumb Pinter Question pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2023-03-02 17:52 +0000
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-04 13:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <errbdjxa8n.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #37404 |
On 2023-03-04 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 04/03/2023 10:33, Mike Scott wrote: >> On 04/03/2023 07:36, 28A.I873 wrote: >>> Anyway, this is all why I don't rec inkjets anymore. >>> If you aren't printing all day the heads WILL gum up >>> and you'll have to go thru 10 "purge" cycles (there >>> goes most of yer expensive ink) to MAYbe clear all >> >> A sad story: years ago, I had a nice printer, Canon IIRC. Fairly >> speedy, duplex, print onto CD. separate cartridges for colours and >> black. Yes, nice. >> >> One day, the yellow, I think it was, ran out. I replaced it, and the >> printer ran its load/clean cycle. Now the magenta was out... You can >> see where this went..... I ended up putting a complete set of >> cartridges in purely because one had run out, and now yellow was low >> again. £50 down the drain in short order. >> >> I scrapped the printer (refused even to give it away) and bought a >> laser. Yes, I miss colour on the very odd occasion, but almost all our >> printing is in b/w and the running costs are so much lower. And no >> gumming up just because it's been idle for a week. >> >> > My HP color laserjet runs on 3rd party cartridges at around £200 a full > set, but does about 1000 color pages for that. More if its just a bit of > color - like documents with a few illustrations > It came with cartridges that do around 200 pages and the whole shebang > was not much more than £200 > > > > Generally only one cartridge runs out at a time. I had one issue with a > bad cartridge that went stripey way before it was empty, A new one fixed > it. I also had a Canon inkjet printer (BJC4200, I think), and I got tired of it. The colour cartridges were expensive (50€, maybe), and did not last long. I learned how to refill them relatively cheap, but that non original ink tended to clog. Cleaning was easy in theory, just remove the cartridge, put a few drops of alcohol on the head, wipe it, then blow a bit with my mouth with the heads on a paper tissue. Repeat till the three colours came out. And refill. And clean cycle, test. This meant that every time I needed to print something important after two weeks of not using the printer I had to waste an hour or two till the thing would work and work well. Eventually I bought an HP colour laser printer. Toner is expensive, yes, but it works every time I power it up, even after months of not using it. Considering the number of ink cartridges I wasted, I'm not sure the laser is more expensive. And my heart health improved, no more swearing :-D -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-04 20:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-MKdnaGEcp-jap75nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #37403 |
On 3/4/23 5:33 AM, Mike Scott wrote: > On 04/03/2023 07:36, 28A.I873 wrote: >> Anyway, this is all why I don't rec inkjets anymore. >> If you aren't printing all day the heads WILL gum up >> and you'll have to go thru 10 "purge" cycles (there >> goes most of yer expensive ink) to MAYbe clear all > > A sad story: years ago, I had a nice printer, Canon IIRC. Fairly speedy, > duplex, print onto CD. separate cartridges for colours and black. Yes, > nice. > > One day, the yellow, I think it was, ran out. I replaced it, and the > printer ran its load/clean cycle. Now the magenta was out... You can see > where this went..... I ended up putting a complete set of cartridges in > purely because one had run out, and now yellow was low again. £50 down > the drain in short order. > > I scrapped the printer (refused even to give it away) and bought a > laser. Yes, I miss colour on the very odd occasion, but almost all our > printing is in b/w and the running costs are so much lower. And no > gumming up just because it's been idle for a week. Many have similar tales - yet people STILL buy lots of inkjets. The up-front price IS lower, which I think is the main attraction, but the downstream ink/gumming issues ruin it all quickly. The guy who invented the Schick razor so so long ago made a smart decision - sell the actual razor body real cheap ... and make it up on the BLADES afterwards. His patents meant he could keep clones away for a very long time so ... well ... the company is STILL in biz :-) Anyway, lasers ARE the way to go these days. Reliable and ultimately much cheaper to operate. Of note, most color laser drivers DO have an option for printing black ONLY with black toner - so you can NOT use up the color cartridges except when you really need color. Win-win.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-05 08:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tu1j53$ned$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #37416 |
28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote: > <<snip>> > Anyway, lasers ARE the way to go these days. Reliable > and ultimately much cheaper to operate. Of note, most > color laser drivers DO have an option for printing > black ONLY with black toner - so you can NOT use up > the color cartridges except when you really need > color. Win-win. Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks. -- John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-05 13:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tu25l2$vlig$16@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37419 |
On 05/03/2023 08:16, John Forkosh wrote: > 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote: >> <<snip>> >> Anyway, lasers ARE the way to go these days. Reliable >> and ultimately much cheaper to operate. Of note, most >> color laser drivers DO have an option for printing >> black ONLY with black toner - so you can NOT use up >> the color cartridges except when you really need >> color. Win-win. > > Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already > convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the > problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid > with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what > I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation > that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good > linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks. 11x17" - that's a bit non standard That's A3 (11.7 in x 16.5 in) isn't it? Completely outside the 'consumer' and into the 'professional' , To get a colour laser that does that new will not be cheap, HP want £1000+ ...you might be better looking at a used one out of a bankrupt company Ebay has a few at the sort of £500 level, In the UK -- “A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say, “We did this ourselves.” ― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-06 08:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tu48lk$777$2@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #37422 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > John Forkosh wrote: >> 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote: >>> <<snip>> >>> Anyway, lasers ARE the way to go these days. Reliable >>> and ultimately much cheaper to operate. Of note, most >>> color laser drivers DO have an option for printing >>> black ONLY with black toner - so you can NOT use up >>> the color cartridges except when you really need >>> color. Win-win. >> >> Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already >> convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the >> problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid >> with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what >> I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation >> that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good >> linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks. > > 11x17" - that's a bit non standard That's A3 (11.7 in x 16.5 in) isn't > it? Completely outside the 'consumer' and into the 'professional' , > > To get a colour laser that does that new will not be cheap, HP want > $1000+ ...you might be better looking at a used one out of a bankrupt > company. Ebay has a few at the sort of $500 level, In the UK 11x17" scanning was my only real requirement; printing just a bonus. And the all-clogged-up MFC-J6920DW is still scanning fine, so I'll probably just stick with what I already have. Thanks. -- John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-05 16:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tu2h3p$1ctna$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37419 |
On 05/03/2023 08:16, John Forkosh wrote: ... > Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already > convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the > problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid > with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what > I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation > that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good > linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks. Word of warning: I've had trouble with PPDs supplied by the auto-discover printer install stuff. It seems "True" and "true" are not interchangeable in PPDs, and someone somewhere used the wrong one, the result being that multi-copy printing doesn't "just work" for my Brother. I've had to manually install the printer and fix the PPD. I'm still hazy as to how and where the auto-detect PPDs are generated. -- Mike Scott Harlow, England
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-06 08:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tu47gj$mpt$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #37429 |
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote: > John Forkosh wrote: > ... >> Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already >> convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the >> problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid >> with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what >> I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation >> that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good >> linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks. > > Word of warning: I've had trouble with PPDs supplied by the > auto-discover printer install stuff. It seems "True" and "true" are > not interchangeable in PPDs, and someone somewhere used the wrong one, > the result being that multi-copy printing doesn't "just work" for my > Brother. I've had to manually install the printer and fix the PPD. > > I'm still hazy as to how and where the auto-detect PPDs are generated. Yeah, I'd recommend that you >>do not<< use the default PPDs supplied with the slackware distro, at least not for Brother. For my Brother HL-L2395DW laser, and also MFC-J6920DW inkjet, I just googled linux HL-L2395DW install [substitute your own model] and the very first hit (for the HL-L2395DW) took me to https://support.brother.com/g/b/downloadtop.aspx? c=us&lang=en&prod=hll2395dw_us_as that lets you download "Driver Install Tool" scripts for that printer which set up everything correctly. Sets up /etc/cups/ and the various cups-related directories under /usr, and also creates an /opt/Brother/ directory with various other stuff. -- John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-06 00:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <17ydnXi6-MG65Zj5nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #37419 |
On 3/5/23 3:16 AM, John Forkosh wrote: > 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote: >> <<snip>> >> Anyway, lasers ARE the way to go these days. Reliable >> and ultimately much cheaper to operate. Of note, most >> color laser drivers DO have an option for printing >> black ONLY with black toner - so you can NOT use up >> the color cartridges except when you really need >> color. Win-win. > > Okay, you've maybe convinced me. Actually, I was already > convinced before buying the Brother MFC-J6920DW, but the > problem (at that time, ~2016) I needed an 11x17" tabloid > with an 11x17" scanner. Indeed, the scanner's still what > I really need. So, you got a color laser recommendation > that satisfies that requirement? And, of course, a good > linux (slackware, in particular) driver. Thanks. Ummm ... larger-format paper IS an issue. Most semi-cheap lasers and all-in-ones, (I know HP) can feed 'legal' paper. 11x17 and above .... well ... separate large-format scanner + large-format printer. That's $$$ no matter how you do it. Anything wider than 11" and you'll likely need to take a stick to a print shop - or spend kilobucks on like a huge 'office' Kyocera laser. I saw a sort of 'inkjet' at an archetect's ... it looked like a long rectangle. You put BIG sheets of paper, like 48"x48", into it one sheet at a time and it pulled it past the printhead(s?). I rather doubt it was cheap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-06 16:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6405822a@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #37432 |
28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote: > Ummm ... larger-format paper IS an issue. Most semi-cheap > lasers and all-in-ones, (I know HP) can feed 'legal' > paper. 11x17 and above .... well ... separate large-format > scanner + large-format printer. That's $$$ no matter how > you do it. Anything wider than 11" and you'll likely need > to take a stick to a print shop - or spend kilobucks on > like a huge 'office' Kyocera laser. I just do multiple scans and stitch the images together manually. Or I use a digital camera, and say I'll get around to fixing the lens distortion in software one day... I do have a digital A3 scanner on top of a broken photocopier/office-printer, but of course the software refuses to work if the printer part doesn't pass its self-test. > I saw a sort of 'inkjet' at an archetect's ... it looked > like a long rectangle. You put BIG sheets of paper, like > 48"x48", into it one sheet at a time and it pulled it > past the printhead(s?). I rather doubt it was cheap. They're ink-jets, newer models often use UV-curable ink. Once the cartridges go out of production those large format printer models go from expensive to cheap extremely quickly. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-06 08:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tu4963$777$3@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #37435 |
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: > 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote: >> Ummm ... larger-format paper IS an issue. Most semi-cheap >> lasers and all-in-ones, (I know HP) can feed 'legal' >> paper. 11x17 and above .... well ... separate large-format >> scanner + large-format printer. That's $$$ no matter how >> you do it. Anything wider than 11" and you'll likely need >> to take a stick to a print shop - or spend kilobucks on >> like a huge 'office' Kyocera laser. > > I just do multiple scans and stitch the images together manually. At the moment, I've got 5,000+ pages to scan from large-format paper notebooks. So "multiple scans" per page would be really inconvenient. I already have to manually turn the pages, can't use autofeed for bound notebooks, and each 152-page notebook takes ~2.5hours to scan. Definitely a pain in the elbow. > Or I use a digital camera, and say I'll get around to fixing the > lens distortion in software one day... > > I do have a digital A3 scanner on top of a broken > photocopier/office-printer, but of course the software refuses to > work if the printer part doesn't pass its self-test. The Brother MFC-J6920DW does complain about the "printer part" every time I power it up, but it's easy to proceed past the warning. >> I saw a sort of 'inkjet' at an archetect's ... it looked >> like a long rectangle. You put BIG sheets of paper, like >> 48"x48", into it one sheet at a time and it pulled it >> past the printhead(s?). I rather doubt it was cheap. > > They're ink-jets, newer models often use UV-curable ink. Once the > cartridges go out of production those large format printer models > go from expensive to cheap extremely quickly. -- John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-06 08:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ELKcndesYYxIc5j5nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #37441 |
On 3/6/23 3:44 AM, John Forkosh wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >> 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote: >>> Ummm ... larger-format paper IS an issue. Most semi-cheap >>> lasers and all-in-ones, (I know HP) can feed 'legal' >>> paper. 11x17 and above .... well ... separate large-format >>> scanner + large-format printer. That's $$$ no matter how >>> you do it. Anything wider than 11" and you'll likely need >>> to take a stick to a print shop - or spend kilobucks on >>> like a huge 'office' Kyocera laser. >> >> I just do multiple scans and stitch the images together manually. > > At the moment, I've got 5,000+ pages to scan from large-format > paper notebooks. So "multiple scans" per page would be really > inconvenient. I already have to manually turn the pages, can't > use autofeed for bound notebooks, and each 152-page notebook > takes ~2.5hours to scan. Definitely a pain in the elbow. > >> Or I use a digital camera, and say I'll get around to fixing the >> lens distortion in software one day... >> >> I do have a digital A3 scanner on top of a broken >> photocopier/office-printer, but of course the software refuses to >> work if the printer part doesn't pass its self-test. > > The Brother MFC-J6920DW does complain about the "printer part" > every time I power it up, but it's easy to proceed past the warning. > >>> I saw a sort of 'inkjet' at an archetect's ... it looked >>> like a long rectangle. You put BIG sheets of paper, like >>> 48"x48", into it one sheet at a time and it pulled it >>> past the printhead(s?). I rather doubt it was cheap. >> >> They're ink-jets, newer models often use UV-curable ink. Once the >> cartridges go out of production those large format printer models >> go from expensive to cheap extremely quickly. Well, that's "cost of doing business" I suppose ... For 5000+ big pages, maybe you should consider a decent print shop instead of do-it-yourself. They may have a 4x5 digital cam, or even a really large format scanner. That you say these are bound books is a real problem - can't use a pull-page-thru kind of scanner, it'd have to be a huge flatbed. If you are a a biz, also consider that you can sometimes LEASE equipment like this rather than buying. Somewhere I mentioned those big chest-high Kyocera 'office' all-in-ones (that WILL do 11x17) ... but few biz ever BUY them. 20 years ago I'd have suggested medium or large format Technical Pan, and then get the negs scanned. But they don't make that film anymore (and it was B&W).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-07 08:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <od7jdjx7l7.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #37444 |
On 2023-03-06 14:46, 28B.I874 wrote:
>
> For 5000+ big pages, maybe you should consider a
> decent print shop instead of do-it-yourself. They
> may have a 4x5 digital cam, or even a really large
> format scanner. That you say these are bound books
> is a real problem - can't use a pull-page-thru kind
> of scanner, it'd have to be a huge flatbed.
There are scanners for bound books, even automatic.
I saw a video, long ago, of a bed in V shape, and two cameras above:
cam cam
* *
* *
* *
*
And another glass in V above, to hold the book in between "flat" against
the V table. Take the photos, lift glass, pass next page. It was fast.
Maybe moving to next page was manual, I don't remember. Something like 4
seconds per page.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-07 08:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tu6t2s$474$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #37459 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > 28B.I874 wrote: >> ?? For 5000+ big pages, maybe you should consider a >> ?? decent print shop instead of do-it-yourself. They >> ?? may have a 4x5 digital cam, or even a really large >> ?? format scanner. That you say these are bound books >> ?? is a real problem - can't use a pull-page-thru kind >> ?? of scanner, it'd have to be a huge flatbed. > > > There are scanners for bound books, even automatic. > I saw a video, long ago, of a bed in V shape, and two cameras above: > cam cam > * * > * * > * * > * > And another glass in V above, to hold the book in between "flat" against > the V table. Take the photos, lift glass, pass next page. It was fast. > Maybe moving to next page was manual, I don't remember. Something like 4 > seconds per page. Yup, now that you mention it, I also recall coming across that V-shaped kind of device while googling for alternative solutions (back in 2015) like you and 28B are suggesting. But after my really bad experience with that Plustek scanner (described in an upthread post, but not worth searching for, just details of "bad experience") I decided to stick with standard off-the-shelf, run-of-the-mill equipment. And the Brother MFC-J6920DW both (a)"just works", and (b)cost just $250 back in 2016, whereas alternatives cost like an order-of-magnitude more, and I was very wary whether they'd "just work" with standard PCs and peripherals. -- John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-07 11:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6sgjdjx7de.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #37461 |
On 2023-03-07 09:36, John Forkosh wrote: > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> 28B.I874 wrote: >>> ?? For 5000+ big pages, maybe you should consider a >>> ?? decent print shop instead of do-it-yourself. They >>> ?? may have a 4x5 digital cam, or even a really large >>> ?? format scanner. That you say these are bound books >>> ?? is a real problem - can't use a pull-page-thru kind >>> ?? of scanner, it'd have to be a huge flatbed. >> >> >> There are scanners for bound books, even automatic. >> I saw a video, long ago, of a bed in V shape, and two cameras above: >> cam cam >> * * >> * * >> * * >> * >> And another glass in V above, to hold the book in between "flat" against >> the V table. Take the photos, lift glass, pass next page. It was fast. >> Maybe moving to next page was manual, I don't remember. Something like 4 >> seconds per page. > > Yup, now that you mention it, I also recall coming across > that V-shaped kind of device while googling for alternative > solutions (back in 2015) like you and 28B are suggesting. > But after my really bad experience with that Plustek scanner > (described in an upthread post, but not worth searching for, > just details of "bad experience") I decided to stick with > standard off-the-shelf, run-of-the-mill equipment. And the > Brother MFC-J6920DW both (a)"just works", and (b)cost just > $250 back in 2016, whereas alternatives cost like an > order-of-magnitude more, and I was very wary whether > they'd "just work" with standard PCs and peripherals. Of course, the scanner I described is likely to be found on a library. Someplace with lots of books to scan properly. It is likely to be quite expensive. Googling for "book scanner in V shape" https://book2net.net/en/produkte/a3-format,archive-scanners,book-scanners,v-shape/falcon/ Has photos. <https://book2net.net/en/produkte/a1-format,archive-scanners,book-scanners,v-shape/dragon/> Impressive machine. <https://www.i2s.fr/en/heritage-digitization/v-shape-book-scanners/copibook-v-shape> <https://www.i2s.fr/en/heritage-digitization/v-shape-book-scanners> -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-08 08:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6407b5fd@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #37463 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > Of course, the scanner I described is likely to be found on a library. > Someplace with lots of books to scan properly. It is likely to be quite > expensive. As with most gear sold to such organisations. However in this case there isn't any particularly special tech behind it. DIY constructions are relatively easy projects, and you've got a huge selection of projects to be copied by searching "DIY book scanner" or just going to this dedicated website: https://diybookscanner.org/ The Internet Archive even built their own scanner rigs using off-the-shelf cameras, rather than buying the professional devices: https://dltj.org/article/internet-archive-scanning-gallery/ Google has/had designs for an automated book scanner online, although it required a lot of big laser-cut pieces which might be expensive to have made. It was sort of upside-down, where the book lies down on top of a triangular frame. But as I suggested before, for notebooks it may be practical to just rig up one flat piece of glass that can be lifted up and sit down on both exposed pages of the notebook's to keep them flat. Then just have a camera on a tripod over-hanging and pointing down at the pages, and ideally a remote trigger so you don't have to touch it to take a photo. Personally I just do it with the tripod and the camera, without the glass or the remote trigger, but if you're doing lots then it would make things easier. Then a full dual-camera, angled frame rig would make it easier again. I certainly think of those while I'm fiddling with tensioning pages that won't stay flat. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-08 08:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6407b6eb@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #37477 |
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: > But as I suggested before, for notebooks it may be practical to > just rig up one flat piece of glass that can be lifted up and > sit down on both exposed pages of the notebook's to keep them > flat. Oh, looks like I snipped that bit out of my earlier post before sending it because I decided I was rambling, so don't bother going back to look for it. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-08 05:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tu977l$r3m$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #37477 |
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> Of course, the scanner I described is likely to be found on a library. >> Someplace with lots of books to scan properly. It is likely to be quite >> expensive. > > As with most gear sold to such organisations. However in this case > there isn't any particularly special tech behind it. DIY > constructions are relatively easy projects, and you've got a huge > selection of projects to be copied by searching "DIY book scanner" > or just going to this dedicated website: > https://diybookscanner.org/ Sounded interesting, though probably more time/work constructing a good one than I'd be willing to invest. And the kicker was clicking that "Get Started" link at the bottom of the page: "404 Not Found error". > The Internet Archive even built their own scanner rigs using > off-the-shelf cameras, rather than buying the professional devices: > https://dltj.org/article/internet-archive-scanning-gallery/ Well, the second "bullet" item describes Archive's "scribe station", including two Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II digital cameras, costing ... $7100 each (though that was apparently in 2006). > Google has/had designs for an automated book scanner online, > although it required a lot of big laser-cut pieces which might be > expensive to have made. It was sort of upside-down, where the > book lies down on top of a triangular frame. > > But as I suggested before, for notebooks it may be practical to > just rig up one flat piece of glass that can be lifted up and > sit down on both exposed pages of the notebook's to keep them > flat. Then just have a camera on a tripod over-hanging and > pointing down at the pages, and ideally a remote trigger so you > don't have to touch it to take a photo. > > Personally I just do it with the tripod and the camera, without > the glass or the remote trigger, but if you're doing lots then it > would make things easier. Then a full dual-camera, angled frame > rig would make it easier again. I certainly think of those while > I'm fiddling with tensioning pages that won't stay flat. -- John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-08 16:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <64082685@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #37484 |
John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> Of course, the scanner I described is likely to be found on a library. >>> Someplace with lots of books to scan properly. It is likely to be quite >>> expensive. >> >> As with most gear sold to such organisations. However in this case >> there isn't any particularly special tech behind it. DIY >> constructions are relatively easy projects, and you've got a huge >> selection of projects to be copied by searching "DIY book scanner" >> or just going to this dedicated website: >> https://diybookscanner.org/ > > Sounded interesting, though probably more time/work constructing > a good one than I'd be willing to invest. Well you see I'd do pretty much anything in preference to scanning in hundreds (let alone thousands) of pages from books into a flat bed scanner manually, especially as I always bump something and mess up the alignment on one page in five when trying to scan from something like a book. I don't know how that option can be workable for someone in the first place. > And the kicker was > clicking that "Get Started" link at the bottom of the page: > "404 Not Found error". Try the "Getting Started" link at the top then: https://diybookscanner.org/en/intro.html >> The Internet Archive even built their own scanner rigs using >> off-the-shelf cameras, rather than buying the professional devices: >> https://dltj.org/article/internet-archive-scanning-gallery/ > > Well, the second "bullet" item describes Archive's "scribe station", > including two Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II digital cameras, > costing ... $7100 each (though that was apparently in 2006). As you already read, that's for the sake of getting 16.7 megapixel photos in 2006. Surely you've noticed that megapixels have got much cheaper since then. In fact if you'd got through to the "Getting Started" page at the DIY website, you'd see that they're using consumer model Canon cameras because you can run custom firmware on them easily. At this point you can probably get suitable models very cheaply second-hand. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-08 01:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <85ycnQZwKuzisJX5nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #37485 |
On 3/8/23 1:09 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> wrote: >> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> Of course, the scanner I described is likely to be found on a library. >>>> Someplace with lots of books to scan properly. It is likely to be quite >>>> expensive. >>> >>> As with most gear sold to such organisations. However in this case >>> there isn't any particularly special tech behind it. DIY >>> constructions are relatively easy projects, and you've got a huge >>> selection of projects to be copied by searching "DIY book scanner" >>> or just going to this dedicated website: >>> https://diybookscanner.org/ >> >> Sounded interesting, though probably more time/work constructing >> a good one than I'd be willing to invest. > > Well you see I'd do pretty much anything in preference to scanning > in hundreds (let alone thousands) of pages from books into a flat > bed scanner manually, especially as I always bump something and > mess up the alignment on one page in five when trying to scan from > something like a book. I don't know how that option can be workable > for someone in the first place. > >> And the kicker was >> clicking that "Get Started" link at the bottom of the page: >> "404 Not Found error". > > Try the "Getting Started" link at the top then: > https://diybookscanner.org/en/intro.html > >>> The Internet Archive even built their own scanner rigs using >>> off-the-shelf cameras, rather than buying the professional devices: >>> https://dltj.org/article/internet-archive-scanning-gallery/ >> >> Well, the second "bullet" item describes Archive's "scribe station", >> including two Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II digital cameras, >> costing ... $7100 each (though that was apparently in 2006). > > As you already read, that's for the sake of getting 16.7 megapixel > photos in 2006. Surely you've noticed that megapixels have got much > cheaper since then. In fact if you'd got through to the "Getting > Started" page at the DIY website, you'd see that they're using > consumer model Canon cameras because you can run custom firmware on > them easily. At this point you can probably get suitable models > very cheaply second-hand. Canon digital cameras ??? There ARE "flat-field" lenses intended for copy work. No distortion-correction work needed. However RESOLUTION may be an issue. Depends on the posters source material. Text is easy, but detailed artsy pix/drawings are another thing entirely. Hasselblad sells 100+ MP digital backs. Ain't cheap (sometimes you can rent/lease) but they WILL deliver superior product combined with proper lenses. Somebody suggested using two good flatbed scanners fixed in a "V" formation for the abovementioned "bound notebooks". Not the worst idea - and perhaps cheaper than the Hassleblad solution depending.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-08 08:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tu9gpk$dn7$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #37487 |
28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote: > <<snip>> > Somebody suggested using two good flatbed scanners > fixed in a "V" formation for the abovementioned > "bound notebooks". Not the worst idea - and perhaps > cheaper than the Hassleblad solution depending. That sounds like a really good idea, which some manufacturer could produce pretty easily and affordably. The typical off-the-shelf scanners, that I'm aware of, are too "thick" to place in an (inverted) V formation, and have borders around the edges whereby stuff near the spine of a book or notebook placed on them would be missed. But I'd guess some easy-for-manufacturers (but maybe not for individuals) modifications to existing and inexpensive retail scanners could do the trick. But I'm further guessing there's just not enough demand for this kind of device. -- John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web