lilbees wrote: |
Nuccia, at out center you cannot do any adjustments to anything when scanning. It is all done for you. No one can scan by themselves. You can sit with them but it is strictly hands off. You get what they decide is okay. Frustrating! By the way, the cost of each scan is 25 cents. |
lilbees wrote: |
While searching the Internet for any help in dong the photographing of microfilm I found this website which is Eastman's Online Genealogy Forum blog.eogn.com/eastmans...onver.html The forum has much information about the use of digital imaging addressing my needs and what to do. Give it a read if you like. The link below takes you directly to the forum. www.eogn.com/forum/ Registration is Free! lilbees |
lilbees wrote: |
I understand there are several members who photograph the microfilm records I don't believe the cameras they use are that expensive. I could be wrong. But on the forum I mentioned, the discussion has mentioned many brands of cameras most of which are rather inexpensive. They do mention what you would need on a camera to do a successful job but most $100 cameras (or less on sale) seem to be able to work. From what I have read, but not practiced yet, is the longer exposure time and the use of no flash. I know there is more involved but I am beginning to have faith I can do it with my little digital camera and a whole lot of patience. lilbees |
Eleven wrote: |
I have been watching this thread carefully. I have interest in using these methods, only, when I think of those weekly trips to the FHL, I cringe. Mine was a bit behind the times 16 years ago, when none of their readers even had a lens to view these italian films, so they allowed me to use their reader, printer. It took them 2 years to get the proper lens and by then I was done with what I had been doing. I was honestly happy, that I had to use the printer, because unlike others..I didnt have to take the film off one machine, to get a copy off another..and the other people couldnt do that with me on the printer. I had to get off the last 15 minutes so people could use it. If I were those people, I wouldnt have been a happy camper. That said...I never thought there would be a day, when we would see any of these records, online. The only problem is..indexing these records goes slow as snails and the italian records are almost at a standstill. I can honestly say, that at ancestry...only myself and another woman are typing them. This would be fine, if there was the needed 3rd person to arbitrate them. We cant arbitrate our own, so those typed records are just sitting there. I know this, because..in the list that I see when I go to choose something to arbitrate..no italian records show. (I cant see my own), but in their forums, I have people telling me how many sets they see. Because of this..the lack of people willing to work on italian records..it severely stalls this process. (If anyone is interested in working on this there, I can give you a quick tip on how you can rise to arbitrator in about 2 days). Anyway.......in viewing the site of James Bianco..and the way he setup his records..which needed no indexing..I dont know why these places dont do that. It would just be a matter of them taking them off the film (which they are doing anyway) and setting them up the way his are set up. But..I guess you cant teach old dogs new tricks. In genealogy searching (prior to computers) they always needed indexes. With computers, and James idea, you dont need them..nor all of the work and frustration it is taking to make them. |
BillieDeKid wrote: |
Hi alanmercieca You do get great images from that but I can't do it..........I'm too shaky when I take the photo's so mine turned out really bad. A gentleman at my center uses his camera and his images are wonderful but he built himself an apparatus that clamps on to the sides of the reader and his camera sits on that (so no movement). Fortunately for me I can scan and save my images to my usb stick. |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours