Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digit.camera for macro?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 3:03:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Hi! I am considering getting a digital camera and my main
consideration is to use to snap at close range A4 documents
then saving them to pc running on win.XP.

The image must be clear enough and comparable to using a
flatbed scanner. ( I have tried using a flatbed scanner but I find
that it is very slow in scanning an A4 documents -upto 3minutes
or more for a plain text.- using Mustek 2400.

Will the image capture on a digital camera be sharp and speedy?
Is a 3.2 mega pizel good enough?
I am looking at Kodak, Fuji.
Please advise.

More about : digit camera macro

December 28, 2004 3:03:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

alvin.g wrote:
> Hi! I am considering getting a digital camera and my main
> consideration is to use to snap at close range A4 documents
> then saving them to pc running on win.XP.
>
> The image must be clear enough and comparable to using a
> flatbed scanner. ( I have tried using a flatbed scanner but I find
> that it is very slow in scanning an A4 documents -upto 3minutes
> or more for a plain text.- using Mustek 2400.
>
> Will the image capture on a digital camera be sharp and speedy?
> Is a 3.2 mega pizel good enough?
> I am looking at Kodak, Fuji.
> Please advise.
>
>
>

The consensus is that the Nikon cameras have the best macro lenses. But
if you are trying to image a whole page, you don't need ot get very
close, and moast digicams with manual controls will serve.

You need enough pixels to image with at least 300 pixels per inch in the
width and height of the pagefor OCR. 150 to 200 ppi is enough to read
the text visually.

If your scanner is slow because it cannot connect through a USB port,
and oyu have a computer with USB ports, it may be time to get a new
scanner. Even one yu cabn buy for $100 will do the job well. If you
don;t have a USB port on your computer, downloading the pictures from
the camera will also be very slow.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 3:03:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"alvin.g" <alvin.G@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41d03568_1@news.tm.net.my...
> Hi! I am considering getting a digital camera and my main
> consideration is to use to snap at close range A4 documents
> then saving them to pc running on win.XP.
>
> The image must be clear enough and comparable to using a
> flatbed scanner. ( I have tried using a flatbed scanner but I find
> that it is very slow in scanning an A4 documents -upto 3minutes
> or more for a plain text.- using Mustek 2400.

If scanning at 2400 dpi you are wasting time and it is unnecessary to scan
at that much resolution.
For most OCR you scan at 300-400 dpi.

The Mustek is slow. There are faster scanners now.

>
> Will the image capture on a digital camera be sharp and speedy?
> Is a 3.2 mega pizel good enough?
> I am looking at Kodak, Fuji.
> Please advise.
>
A 300 dpi document on computer screen is huge. Computer screens are pixels
only.
That means that to read a whole document on screen needs (depends on your
screen resolution) 1024 x 768 pixels. For that purpose, a 3.2 Megapixel
camera is good.

8.5 x 11 inch (A4) document to get 300 dpi for OCR needs 2550 x 3300 pixels
= 8.415 Megapixels. A4 is 210 x 297 mm or 8.25 x 11 3/4 inches= 2475 x 3525
pixels=8.725 Megapixels.
There is not a cheap digital camera that can do that.
A 4 Megapixel camera is less than half of the resolution image that is
needed for good OCR.

A 3.2 Megapixal camera is not good enough for OCR.

It can be done with a 35 mm camera and scan the film on a film scanner.

A good low cost flatbed scanner is much cheaper and faster. And is designed
to scan flat sheets of paper.
All flatbed scanners are not created equal. Some of the newer one are much
faster per page.

Epson 2480 is from the spec:
2400 dpi high-speed mode: Monochrome 11 msec/line; Full color 11 msec/line

Which translates to 3300 lines per 11 inch page at 300 dpi.
3300 lines x 11 msec per line=36.3 seconds.

A epson 2480 costs about $100 and should scan one page every 37 seconds or
as fast as you can put the paper on the glass.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--
Related resources
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 7:02:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Sorry for the late reply, been out of town.
So it means that getting a 3.2 mega.digital camera will not
help me to capture the image of doc / business cards?
For downloading to pc?

Thank-you in advance
Alvin.G
***********
"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:m%Xzd.3399$F67.2830@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "alvin.g" <alvin.G@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:41d03568_1@news.tm.net.my...
>> Hi! I am considering getting a digital camera and my main
>> consideration is to use to snap at close range A4 documents
>> then saving them to pc running on win.XP.
>>
>> The image must be clear enough and comparable to using a
>> flatbed scanner. ( I have tried using a flatbed scanner but I find
>> that it is very slow in scanning an A4 documents -upto 3minutes
>> or more for a plain text.- using Mustek 2400.
>
> If scanning at 2400 dpi you are wasting time and it is unnecessary to scan
> at that much resolution.
> For most OCR you scan at 300-400 dpi.
>
> The Mustek is slow. There are faster scanners now.
>
>>
>> Will the image capture on a digital camera be sharp and speedy?
>> Is a 3.2 mega pizel good enough?
>> I am looking at Kodak, Fuji.
>> Please advise.
>>
> A 300 dpi document on computer screen is huge. Computer screens are pixels
> only.
> That means that to read a whole document on screen needs (depends on your
> screen resolution) 1024 x 768 pixels. For that purpose, a 3.2 Megapixel
> camera is good.
>
> 8.5 x 11 inch (A4) document to get 300 dpi for OCR needs 2550 x 3300
> pixels = 8.415 Megapixels. A4 is 210 x 297 mm or 8.25 x 11 3/4 inches=
> 2475 x 3525 pixels=8.725 Megapixels.
> There is not a cheap digital camera that can do that.
> A 4 Megapixel camera is less than half of the resolution image that is
> needed for good OCR.
>
> A 3.2 Megapixal camera is not good enough for OCR.
>
> It can be done with a 35 mm camera and scan the film on a film scanner.
>
> A good low cost flatbed scanner is much cheaper and faster. And is
> designed to scan flat sheets of paper.
> All flatbed scanners are not created equal. Some of the newer one are much
> faster per page.
>
> Epson 2480 is from the spec:
> 2400 dpi high-speed mode: Monochrome 11 msec/line; Full color 11 msec/line
>
> Which translates to 3300 lines per 11 inch page at 300 dpi.
> 3300 lines x 11 msec per line=36.3 seconds.
>
> A epson 2480 costs about $100 and should scan one page every 37 seconds or
> as fast as you can put the paper on the glass.
>
> --
> CSM1
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
> --
>
>
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 7:02:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

A 3.2 MP camera will work, if you only view the image on your computer
screen. Not good enough for OCR.
If all you want to do is have them readable on the computer screen, then
shoot away with a 3.2 MP digital camera. You will want a tripod and lights
to get a good steady well lit image.

http://www.carlmcmillan.com/how_to_copy_with_digital_ca...
and
http://www.carlmcmillan.com/lightingforcopying.htm

There are programs to catalog images. Programs that search by keyword, user
fields and annotations.


--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--
"alvin.g" <alvin.G@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41d507ac$1_2@news.tm.net.my...
> Sorry for the late reply, been out of town.
> So it means that getting a 3.2 mega.digital camera will not
> help me to capture the image of doc / business cards?
> For downloading to pc?
>
> Thank-you in advance
> Alvin.G
> ***********
> "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:m%Xzd.3399$F67.2830@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "alvin.g" <alvin.G@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:41d03568_1@news.tm.net.my...
> >> Hi! I am considering getting a digital camera and my main
> >> consideration is to use to snap at close range A4 documents
> >> then saving them to pc running on win.XP.
> >>
> >> The image must be clear enough and comparable to using a
> >> flatbed scanner. ( I have tried using a flatbed scanner but I find
> >> that it is very slow in scanning an A4 documents -upto 3minutes
> >> or more for a plain text.- using Mustek 2400.
> >
> > If scanning at 2400 dpi you are wasting time and it is unnecessary to
scan
> > at that much resolution.
> > For most OCR you scan at 300-400 dpi.
> >
> > The Mustek is slow. There are faster scanners now.
> >
> >>
> >> Will the image capture on a digital camera be sharp and speedy?
> >> Is a 3.2 mega pizel good enough?
> >> I am looking at Kodak, Fuji.
> >> Please advise.
> >>
> > A 300 dpi document on computer screen is huge. Computer screens are
pixels
> > only.
> > That means that to read a whole document on screen needs (depends on
your
> > screen resolution) 1024 x 768 pixels. For that purpose, a 3.2 Megapixel
> > camera is good.
> >
> > 8.5 x 11 inch (A4) document to get 300 dpi for OCR needs 2550 x 3300
> > pixels = 8.415 Megapixels. A4 is 210 x 297 mm or 8.25 x 11 3/4 inches=
> > 2475 x 3525 pixels=8.725 Megapixels.
> > There is not a cheap digital camera that can do that.
> > A 4 Megapixel camera is less than half of the resolution image that is
> > needed for good OCR.
> >
> > A 3.2 Megapixal camera is not good enough for OCR.
> >
> > It can be done with a 35 mm camera and scan the film on a film scanner.
> >
> > A good low cost flatbed scanner is much cheaper and faster. And is
> > designed to scan flat sheets of paper.
> > All flatbed scanners are not created equal. Some of the newer one are
much
> > faster per page.
> >
> > Epson 2480 is from the spec:
> > 2400 dpi high-speed mode: Monochrome 11 msec/line; Full color 11
msec/line
> >
> > Which translates to 3300 lines per 11 inch page at 300 dpi.
> > 3300 lines x 11 msec per line=36.3 seconds.
> >
> > A epson 2480 costs about $100 and should scan one page every 37 seconds
or
> > as fast as you can put the paper on the glass.
> >
> > --
> > CSM1
> > http://www.carlmcmillan.com
> > --
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 11:57:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Geeez. Math not a strong suit? 3.2 Megapixel is what?...about 2K by 1.5K
pixels.

Shoot the damn business card...all of 3.5" wide with 2K+ pixels of
resolution. If OCR doesn't work at 600 pixels/inch it whould never have
worked at 300 dpi years ago.

"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:BMcBd.9809$wi2.3131@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> A 3.2 MP camera will work, if you only view the image on your computer
> screen. Not good enough for OCR.
> If all you want to do is have them readable on the computer screen, then
> shoot away with a 3.2 MP digital camera. You will want a tripod and lights
> to get a good steady well lit image.
>
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com/how_to_copy_with_digital_ca...
> and
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com/lightingforcopying.htm
>
> There are programs to catalog images. Programs that search by keyword,
user
> fields and annotations.
>
>
> --
> CSM1
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
> --
> "alvin.g" <alvin.G@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:41d507ac$1_2@news.tm.net.my...
> > Sorry for the late reply, been out of town.
> > So it means that getting a 3.2 mega.digital camera will not
> > help me to capture the image of doc / business cards?
> > For downloading to pc?
> >
> > Thank-you in advance
> > Alvin.G
> > ***********
> > "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:m%Xzd.3399$F67.2830@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "alvin.g" <alvin.G@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:41d03568_1@news.tm.net.my...
> > >> Hi! I am considering getting a digital camera and my main
> > >> consideration is to use to snap at close range A4 documents
> > >> then saving them to pc running on win.XP.
> > >>
> > >> The image must be clear enough and comparable to using a
> > >> flatbed scanner. ( I have tried using a flatbed scanner but I find
> > >> that it is very slow in scanning an A4 documents -upto 3minutes
> > >> or more for a plain text.- using Mustek 2400.
> > >
> > > If scanning at 2400 dpi you are wasting time and it is unnecessary to
> scan
> > > at that much resolution.
> > > For most OCR you scan at 300-400 dpi.
> > >
> > > The Mustek is slow. There are faster scanners now.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Will the image capture on a digital camera be sharp and speedy?
> > >> Is a 3.2 mega pizel good enough?
> > >> I am looking at Kodak, Fuji.
> > >> Please advise.
> > >>
> > > A 300 dpi document on computer screen is huge. Computer screens are
> pixels
> > > only.
> > > That means that to read a whole document on screen needs (depends on
> your
> > > screen resolution) 1024 x 768 pixels. For that purpose, a 3.2
Megapixel
> > > camera is good.
> > >
> > > 8.5 x 11 inch (A4) document to get 300 dpi for OCR needs 2550 x 3300
> > > pixels = 8.415 Megapixels. A4 is 210 x 297 mm or 8.25 x 11 3/4 inches=
> > > 2475 x 3525 pixels=8.725 Megapixels.
> > > There is not a cheap digital camera that can do that.
> > > A 4 Megapixel camera is less than half of the resolution image that is
> > > needed for good OCR.
> > >
> > > A 3.2 Megapixal camera is not good enough for OCR.
> > >
> > > It can be done with a 35 mm camera and scan the film on a film
scanner.
> > >
> > > A good low cost flatbed scanner is much cheaper and faster. And is
> > > designed to scan flat sheets of paper.
> > > All flatbed scanners are not created equal. Some of the newer one are
> much
> > > faster per page.
> > >
> > > Epson 2480 is from the spec:
> > > 2400 dpi high-speed mode: Monochrome 11 msec/line; Full color 11
> msec/line
> > >
> > > Which translates to 3300 lines per 11 inch page at 300 dpi.
> > > 3300 lines x 11 msec per line=36.3 seconds.
> > >
> > > A epson 2480 costs about $100 and should scan one page every 37
seconds
> or
> > > as fast as you can put the paper on the glass.
> > >
> > > --
> > > CSM1
> > > http://www.carlmcmillan.com
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
!