jon said:
all I'm simply doing is suggesting DP's scan contributors to consider higher-rez/full color -- a few may choose to take this route as they assess it for themselves.
ok, that's cool. :+) the people who do a book every now and then might consider it. the vast majority of the books are scanned by a small group of people, who don't think of creating archival scans as something they want to do, so i don't think your suggestion will carry much weight with them. but it's fine for you to suggest it. even better to start scanning yourself. you've got too books under your belt now. and more on the way? :+)
I took advantage of the slower speed of scanning (and I have a slow scanner to begin with) to do filenaming and other tasks that needed to be done anyway. After all, each scan needed to be looked at to determine scan quality and to read off the publisher supplied page number, so that info could be written into the filename when the image was saved.
just as a quick note on your workflow -- most scanning programs will automatically name the scans, incrementing the filename as needed, so there's no need to do that manually. so if you _begin_ with page 1 (or simply reset the auto-naming basename when you get to page 1) and scan every page from there until the end of the book, a test to see if you missed a page is to see if the final filename is the right one. if it's not, you goofed. if it is, you still need to check all the scans -- as you might have missed one page, and scanned another one twice. you might also find it goes much faster -- if you want it to go faster -- to scan all the pages in the first pass _without_ checking the quality of the scan on each page, and instead do that en masse after the fact. then you can go back and re-scan the occasional page that needs that; in this second pass, you can also rescan any images and/or color pages. -bowerbird