Low Cost Well Log Scanners

Following is a copy of an extended thread that I previously started on
sci.geo.petroleum with regard to the need for a low cost scanner for
well logs (basically extremely long continuous strip chart recordings).
I am reposting the thread here in the hopes that someone on this list
may know of or be willing to consider development of such a scanner.
More information regarding the scanner hardware and software requirements
is included in this thread, and I can provide any necessary additional
information
upon request.

Right now there is only a single scanner in this market, which is
outrageously
over-priced at over $8000 (see the NeuraScanner at www.neuralog.com).
There is a significant opportunity here for someone who could develop a
reasonably
competitive product with a much lower price tag. The required scanner
capabilities
do not exceed those of a typical portable sheet-fed consumer grade scanner,
except for primarily the maximum scan length issue.

My purpose in posting this? Like many others in my industry who do NOT work
for a major oil corporation (along with others with similar needs in mining,
hydrology,
environmental, and medical fields), I simply cannot afford to shell out
$8000 for the
NeuraScanner, even though I have great need for a scanner with similar
capabilities. So, I simply want to encourage competing development of a
much
less expensive scanner (or driver), and to be the first of many customers...

s/KAM


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since nobody else has yet offered anything in response, I'll follow up my
own post with a few ideas that perhaps someone else might care to follow up
on:

1. The only presently manufactured portable scanner on the market that is
really acceptable for well log scanning is the $8000+ NeuraScanner
(www.neuralog.com).

2. Although the NeuraScanner seems to be a very good unit, there are
literally thousands of oil and gas industry folks such as myself who don't
work for major companies and simply can't afford a scanner in this seemingly
unreasonable price range. There are also numerous folks in mining,
hydrology, environmental, and medical fields with similar needs.

3. A log scanner has no unusual requirements in terms of image quality,
pixel depth, resolution, or scanning speed.

4. There are only two significantly exceptional requirements for a log
scanner: A) First and most importantly, essentially unlimited image length
(up to hundreds of feet) is an absolute requirement. B) Many hardcopy logs
are 9 to 10 inches in width, with some up to 12 inches, which means that
those larger format logs can't be scanned on devices with an 8.5 inch
maximum document throat width.

5. Except for the preceding two requirements, there are *numerous* sheet
fed, consumer grade scanners on the market that would otherwise work as log
scanners.

6. A very large number of well logs are available in "half-scale" format,
which generally does not exceed 6 inches in width. Such reduced scale logs
generally constitute the vast majority of logs that independent petroleum
industry personnel work with. Consumer grade scanner *hardware* is
perfectly capable of scanning these logs. Only the unnecessarily limited
*software* that is provided with these scanners prevents them from being
used effectively.

THEREFORE, I would like to propose the following two product development
ideas for a large potential customer base with very little competition, with
the thought that a much more realistically priced alternative could be
produced:

1. Take an existing consumer level sheet fed scanner such as one of the
Visioneer models or the older Storm/Logitech models, and develop an enhanced
scanner driver that can perform unlimited length scanning. Possibly follow
that up with a custom application that is designed to facilitate gathering
typical identifying information for the scanned images. It should easily be
possible to sell thousands of copies of such software. Furthermore, if this
software could be used to provide Windows 2000/XP compatibility for older
scanners that are no longer manufactured (e.g. Logitch PageScan, FreeScan)
then there would also be a very significant consumer level market for the
software. I see a lot of demand for such updated drivers on the twain.org
lists, for example, and the scanner manufacturers are *not* meeting this
demand.

2. Get with a scanner OEM, and develop a scanner similar in concept to the
NeuraScanner. Since most of the parts for such a scanner should be availabe
as off the shelf parts for existing sheet fed consumer level scanners
(perhaps with some minor modifications), it should be relative cheap to
design and manufacture such a scanner. It should be easily possible to sell
such a scanner at a *MUCH* lower price than the NeuraScanner and still make
an excellent profit far exceeding development costs.

Personally, I would like to take on these projects myself, except that I'm
already tied up in too many other projects to tackle the software
developement, and don't have enough development capital to get the custom
scanner idea off the ground...yet. Meanwhile, there are lots of us out here
who really NEED these capabilities *RIGHT NOW*. So, I'm hoping that maybe
someone else can run with these ideas instead.

If so, then please put me down on your waiting list as customer number one!

s/KAM


"Kevin Myers" <KevinMyers@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1055m3jsv1j5r35@corp.supernews.com...
> Hello,
>
> We would like to purchase some low cost scanners capable of scanning oil
and
> gas well logs. Currently, we own a couple of Contex TDS8000 scanners,
which
> get the job done for the most part, but they are old, slow, bulky, heavy,
> only do gray scale, are somewhat flakey under Windows 2000 and XP, and are
> no longer supported by Contex. The ideal product for our needs would be a
> NeuraScanner (http://www.neuralog.com), but those are priced completely
out
> of our current reach (if anyone has used NeuraScanners for sale, then we
> would love to know about it!!!).
>
> Absolute requirements that we must have are as follows:
>
> 1. ability to scan entire length of logs in a single pass, not just pieces
>
> 2. low price, preferably under $500
>
> 3. portability (must be at least "luggable")
>
>
> Additional highly desirable features include:
>
> 4. color scanning capability
>
> 5. ability to scan logs up to 12 inches in width
>
> 6. Windows 2000 and/or XP compatibility
>
> 7. currently supported product
>
>
> We are familiar with the Fujitsu M309x series scanners, but they are only
> grayscale, relatively bulky, now out of production, and require an
extremely
> expensive Dunord interface card for use with well logs. We have tested
and
> researched a number of small, portable, sheet-fed scanners (e.g.
Visioneer),
> but every one that we have evaluated so far has built-in maximum page
length
> restrictions (dumb!) that can't be overcome at reasonable cost. Closest
> thing that we have found so far is Logitech's old FreeScan unit, but (most
> importantly) it can't scan complete logs beyond 10 feet or so in length,
is
> no longer supported, and won't run under Windows 2000 or XP. We have
heard
> rumors that Logitech's old PageScan (or PageScan Plus or PageScan Pro?)
> scanners were capable of true unlimited length scanning, but have not yet
> been able to confirm that.
>
> Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Kevin A. Myers
> Myers Oil Company
> Odessa, Texas
>
>
>

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:53:10 -0600, "Kevin Myers"
<KevinMyers@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>Following is a copy of an extended thread that I previously started on
>sci.geo.petroleum with regard to the need for a low cost scanner for
>well logs (basically extremely long continuous strip chart recordings).
>I am reposting the thread here in the hopes that someone on this list
>may know of or be willing to consider development of such a scanner.
>More information regarding the scanner hardware and software requirements
>is included in this thread, and I can provide any necessary additional
>information
>upon request.

How about something like a hand scanner of the old days? You aren't
looking for high resolution and all you need is the ability to scan a
*long* image.

Some one might have to do a bit of programming to get the thing to
work on long scans.

Depending on the chart width (I'm assuming 4 to 6 inches which are
what I'm used to in the chemical industry.

There is no real reason a scan has to stop at a specific length except
either due to the scanner telling it reached the end, or a page length
marker.

Programs exist that will stitch images into panoramas as large as you
can fit into memory, or even page memory.

Good luck

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Right now there is only a single scanner in this market, which is
>outrageously
>over-priced at over $8000 (see the NeuraScanner at www.neuralog.com).
>There is a significant opportunity here for someone who could develop a
>reasonably
>competitive product with a much lower price tag. The required scanner
>capabilities
>do not exceed those of a typical portable sheet-fed consumer grade scanner,
>except for primarily the maximum scan length issue.
>
>My purpose in posting this? Like many others in my industry who do NOT work
>for a major oil corporation (along with others with similar needs in mining,
>hydrology,
>environmental, and medical fields), I simply cannot afford to shell out
>$8000 for the
>NeuraScanner, even though I have great need for a scanner with similar
>capabilities. So, I simply want to encourage competing development of a
>much
>less expensive scanner (or driver), and to be the first of many customers...
>
>s/KAM
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Since nobody else has yet offered anything in response, I'll follow up my
>own post with a few ideas that perhaps someone else might care to follow up
>on:
>
>1. The only presently manufactured portable scanner on the market that is
>really acceptable for well log scanning is the $8000+ NeuraScanner
>(www.neuralog.com).
>
>2. Although the NeuraScanner seems to be a very good unit, there are
>literally thousands of oil and gas industry folks such as myself who don't
>work for major companies and simply can't afford a scanner in this seemingly
>unreasonable price range. There are also numerous folks in mining,
>hydrology, environmental, and medical fields with similar needs.
>
>3. A log scanner has no unusual requirements in terms of image quality,
>pixel depth, resolution, or scanning speed.
>
>4. There are only two significantly exceptional requirements for a log
>scanner: A) First and most importantly, essentially unlimited image length
>(up to hundreds of feet) is an absolute requirement. B) Many hardcopy logs
>are 9 to 10 inches in width, with some up to 12 inches, which means that
>those larger format logs can't be scanned on devices with an 8.5 inch
>maximum document throat width.
>
>5. Except for the preceding two requirements, there are *numerous* sheet
>fed, consumer grade scanners on the market that would otherwise work as log
>scanners.
>
>6. A very large number of well logs are available in "half-scale" format,
>which generally does not exceed 6 inches in width. Such reduced scale logs
>generally constitute the vast majority of logs that independent petroleum
>industry personnel work with. Consumer grade scanner *hardware* is
>perfectly capable of scanning these logs. Only the unnecessarily limited
>*software* that is provided with these scanners prevents them from being
>used effectively.
>
>THEREFORE, I would like to propose the following two product development
>ideas for a large potential customer base with very little competition, with
>the thought that a much more realistically priced alternative could be
>produced:
>
>1. Take an existing consumer level sheet fed scanner such as one of the
>Visioneer models or the older Storm/Logitech models, and develop an enhanced
>scanner driver that can perform unlimited length scanning. Possibly follow
>that up with a custom application that is designed to facilitate gathering
>typical identifying information for the scanned images. It should easily be
>possible to sell thousands of copies of such software. Furthermore, if this
>software could be used to provide Windows 2000/XP compatibility for older
>scanners that are no longer manufactured (e.g. Logitch PageScan, FreeScan)
>then there would also be a very significant consumer level market for the
>software. I see a lot of demand for such updated drivers on the twain.org
>lists, for example, and the scanner manufacturers are *not* meeting this
>demand.
>
>2. Get with a scanner OEM, and develop a scanner similar in concept to the
>NeuraScanner. Since most of the parts for such a scanner should be availabe
>as off the shelf parts for existing sheet fed consumer level scanners
>(perhaps with some minor modifications), it should be relative cheap to
>design and manufacture such a scanner. It should be easily possible to sell
>such a scanner at a *MUCH* lower price than the NeuraScanner and still make
>an excellent profit far exceeding development costs.
>
>Personally, I would like to take on these projects myself, except that I'm
>already tied up in too many other projects to tackle the software
>developement, and don't have enough development capital to get the custom
>scanner idea off the ground...yet. Meanwhile, there are lots of us out here
>who really NEED these capabilities *RIGHT NOW*. So, I'm hoping that maybe
>someone else can run with these ideas instead.
>
>If so, then please put me down on your waiting list as customer number one!
>
>s/KAM
>
>
>"Kevin Myers" <KevinMyers@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:1055m3jsv1j5r35@corp.supernews.com...
>> Hello,
>>
>> We would like to purchase some low cost scanners capable of scanning oil
>and
>> gas well logs. Currently, we own a couple of Contex TDS8000 scanners,
>which
>> get the job done for the most part, but they are old, slow, bulky, heavy,
>> only do gray scale, are somewhat flakey under Windows 2000 and XP, and are
>> no longer supported by Contex. The ideal product for our needs would be a
>> NeuraScanner (http://www.neuralog.com), but those are priced completely
>out
>> of our current reach (if anyone has used NeuraScanners for sale, then we
>> would love to know about it!!!).
>>
>> Absolute requirements that we must have are as follows:
>>
>> 1. ability to scan entire length of logs in a single pass, not just pieces
>>
>> 2. low price, preferably under $500
>>
>> 3. portability (must be at least "luggable")
>>
>>
>> Additional highly desirable features include:
>>
>> 4. color scanning capability
>>
>> 5. ability to scan logs up to 12 inches in width
>>
>> 6. Windows 2000 and/or XP compatibility
>>
>> 7. currently supported product
>>
>>
>> We are familiar with the Fujitsu M309x series scanners, but they are only
>> grayscale, relatively bulky, now out of production, and require an
>extremely
>> expensive Dunord interface card for use with well logs. We have tested
>and
>> researched a number of small, portable, sheet-fed scanners (e.g.
>Visioneer),
>> but every one that we have evaluated so far has built-in maximum page
>length
>> restrictions (dumb!) that can't be overcome at reasonable cost. Closest
>> thing that we have found so far is Logitech's old FreeScan unit, but (most
>> importantly) it can't scan complete logs beyond 10 feet or so in length,
>is
>> no longer supported, and won't run under Windows 2000 or XP. We have
>heard
>> rumors that Logitech's old PageScan (or PageScan Plus or PageScan Pro?)
>> scanners were capable of true unlimited length scanning, but have not yet
>> been able to confirm that.
>>
>> Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Kevin A. Myers
>> Myers Oil Company
>> Odessa, Texas
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Responses interleaved below...

"Roger Halstead" <Delete-Invallid.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
newshmi50df32ljfqs557tl93s8klddk1kb6c@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:53:10 -0600, "Kevin Myers"
> <KevinMyers@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Following is a copy of an extended thread that I previously started on
> >sci.geo.petroleum with regard to the need for a low cost scanner for
> >well logs (basically extremely long continuous strip chart recordings).
> >I am reposting the thread here in the hopes that someone on this list
> >may know of or be willing to consider development of such a scanner.
> >More information regarding the scanner hardware and software requirements
> >is included in this thread, and I can provide any necessary additional
> >information
> >upon request.
>
> How about something like a hand scanner of the old days? You aren't
> looking for high resolution and all you need is the ability to scan a
> *long* image.

Hand scanners on images of the length that we are working with introduce far
too many problems in the form of image slip and skew, which are serious
problems for log images even with sheet fed scanners that can do a much
better job. This is an important issue because log scales must be
maintained as accurately as possible for several different reasons.

>
> Some one might have to do a bit of programming to get the thing to
> work on long scans.

Yes, unfortunately that is the main problem with the other types of scanners
that we are looking at as well.

>
> Depending on the chart width (I'm assuming 4 to 6 inches which are
> what I'm used to in the chemical industry.

We commonly work with two scales: 3 to 6 inches in width, and 8 to 12
inches.

>
> There is no real reason a scan has to stop at a specific length except
> either due to the scanner telling it reached the end, or a page length
> marker.

Right, but that is also true of sheet fed scanners.

>
> Programs exist that will stitch images into panoramas as large as you
> can fit into memory, or even page memory.

Manual stitching of images is *far* too slow, and automated stitching is
both slow and error prone, especially for log images. Log scanning is
typically done in batches of tens, hundreds, or even thousands of logs at
once.
>
> Good luck

Thanks for the suggestions anyway! Keep 'em coming...

>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> >
> >Right now there is only a single scanner in this market, which is
> >outrageously
> >over-priced at over $8000 (see the NeuraScanner at www.neuralog.com).
> >There is a significant opportunity here for someone who could develop a
> >reasonably
> >competitive product with a much lower price tag. The required scanner
> >capabilities
> >do not exceed those of a typical portable sheet-fed consumer grade
scanner,
> >except for primarily the maximum scan length issue.
> >
> >My purpose in posting this? Like many others in my industry who do NOT
work
> >for a major oil corporation (along with others with similar needs in
mining,
> >hydrology,
> >environmental, and medical fields), I simply cannot afford to shell out
> >$8000 for the
> >NeuraScanner, even though I have great need for a scanner with similar
> >capabilities. So, I simply want to encourage competing development of a
> >much
> >less expensive scanner (or driver), and to be the first of many
customers...
> >
> >s/KAM
> >
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >Since nobody else has yet offered anything in response, I'll follow up my
> >own post with a few ideas that perhaps someone else might care to follow
up
> >on:
> >
> >1. The only presently manufactured portable scanner on the market that is
> >really acceptable for well log scanning is the $8000+ NeuraScanner
> >(www.neuralog.com).
> >
> >2. Although the NeuraScanner seems to be a very good unit, there are
> >literally thousands of oil and gas industry folks such as myself who
don't
> >work for major companies and simply can't afford a scanner in this
seemingly
> >unreasonable price range. There are also numerous folks in mining,
> >hydrology, environmental, and medical fields with similar needs.
> >
> >3. A log scanner has no unusual requirements in terms of image quality,
> >pixel depth, resolution, or scanning speed.
> >
> >4. There are only two significantly exceptional requirements for a log
> >scanner: A) First and most importantly, essentially unlimited image
length
> >(up to hundreds of feet) is an absolute requirement. B) Many hardcopy
logs
> >are 9 to 10 inches in width, with some up to 12 inches, which means that
> >those larger format logs can't be scanned on devices with an 8.5 inch
> >maximum document throat width.
> >
> >5. Except for the preceding two requirements, there are *numerous* sheet
> >fed, consumer grade scanners on the market that would otherwise work as
log
> >scanners.
> >
> >6. A very large number of well logs are available in "half-scale" format,
> >which generally does not exceed 6 inches in width. Such reduced scale
logs
> >generally constitute the vast majority of logs that independent petroleum
> >industry personnel work with. Consumer grade scanner *hardware* is
> >perfectly capable of scanning these logs. Only the unnecessarily limited
> >*software* that is provided with these scanners prevents them from being
> >used effectively.
> >
> >THEREFORE, I would like to propose the following two product development
> >ideas for a large potential customer base with very little competition,
with
> >the thought that a much more realistically priced alternative could be
> >produced:
> >
> >1. Take an existing consumer level sheet fed scanner such as one of the
> >Visioneer models or the older Storm/Logitech models, and develop an
enhanced
> >scanner driver that can perform unlimited length scanning. Possibly
follow
> >that up with a custom application that is designed to facilitate
gathering
> >typical identifying information for the scanned images. It should easily
be
> >possible to sell thousands of copies of such software. Furthermore, if
this
> >software could be used to provide Windows 2000/XP compatibility for older
> >scanners that are no longer manufactured (e.g. Logitch PageScan,
FreeScan)
> >then there would also be a very significant consumer level market for the
> >software. I see a lot of demand for such updated drivers on the
twain.org
> >lists, for example, and the scanner manufacturers are *not* meeting this
> >demand.
> >
> >2. Get with a scanner OEM, and develop a scanner similar in concept to
the
> >NeuraScanner. Since most of the parts for such a scanner should be
availabe
> >as off the shelf parts for existing sheet fed consumer level scanners
> >(perhaps with some minor modifications), it should be relative cheap to
> >design and manufacture such a scanner. It should be easily possible to
sell
> >such a scanner at a *MUCH* lower price than the NeuraScanner and still
make
> >an excellent profit far exceeding development costs.
> >
> >Personally, I would like to take on these projects myself, except that
I'm
> >already tied up in too many other projects to tackle the software
> >developement, and don't have enough development capital to get the custom
> >scanner idea off the ground...yet. Meanwhile, there are lots of us out
here
> >who really NEED these capabilities *RIGHT NOW*. So, I'm hoping that
maybe
> >someone else can run with these ideas instead.
> >
> >If so, then please put me down on your waiting list as customer number
one!
> >
> >s/KAM
> >
> >
> >"Kevin Myers" <KevinMyers@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:1055m3jsv1j5r35@corp.supernews.com...
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> We would like to purchase some low cost scanners capable of scanning
oil
> >and
> >> gas well logs. Currently, we own a couple of Contex TDS8000 scanners,
> >which
> >> get the job done for the most part, but they are old, slow, bulky,
heavy,
> >> only do gray scale, are somewhat flakey under Windows 2000 and XP, and
are
> >> no longer supported by Contex. The ideal product for our needs would
be a
> >> NeuraScanner (http://www.neuralog.com), but those are priced completely
> >out
> >> of our current reach (if anyone has used NeuraScanners for sale, then
we
> >> would love to know about it!!!).
> >>
> >> Absolute requirements that we must have are as follows:
> >>
> >> 1. ability to scan entire length of logs in a single pass, not just
pieces
> >>
> >> 2. low price, preferably under $500
> >>
> >> 3. portability (must be at least "luggable")
> >>
> >>
> >> Additional highly desirable features include:
> >>
> >> 4. color scanning capability
> >>
> >> 5. ability to scan logs up to 12 inches in width
> >>
> >> 6. Windows 2000 and/or XP compatibility
> >>
> >> 7. currently supported product
> >>
> >>
> >> We are familiar with the Fujitsu M309x series scanners, but they are
only
> >> grayscale, relatively bulky, now out of production, and require an
> >extremely
> >> expensive Dunord interface card for use with well logs. We have tested
> >and
> >> researched a number of small, portable, sheet-fed scanners (e.g.
> >Visioneer),
> >> but every one that we have evaluated so far has built-in maximum page
> >length
> >> restrictions (dumb!) that can't be overcome at reasonable cost.
Closest
> >> thing that we have found so far is Logitech's old FreeScan unit, but
(most
> >> importantly) it can't scan complete logs beyond 10 feet or so in
length,
> >is
> >> no longer supported, and won't run under Windows 2000 or XP. We have
> >heard
> >> rumors that Logitech's old PageScan (or PageScan Plus or PageScan Pro?)
> >> scanners were capable of true unlimited length scanning, but have not
yet
> >> been able to confirm that.
> >>
> >> Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
> >>
> >> Kevin A. Myers
> >> Myers Oil Company
> >> Odessa, Texas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Interestingly at one time I was able to use a fax machine as a scanner. I had upgraded the memory enough so it would scan about 15 feet. It was only 200 dpi and had to be connected to the computer thru a telephone line and a modem on the other end. It seems that when windows standardized the drivers for scanners they built in the size limitation. It should not be to hard to use a scanner with a not unreasonably large memory to do this if there were drivers written to do so.

Kodak is currently manufacturing the i280 which is a continuous feed
scanner. The cost is slightly less than NeuraLog....about $6500.

We have never used them so I cannot offer a review of the product. We
do log scanning on a massive scale for oil and gas companies and
depend on NeuraScan despite the cost. What choice do we have?

I understand your concern and yes the price is exorbitant. Kodak is
not far behind in the "higher than a mad cat's back-price
range". The housing on the i280 is plastic and that turned us
away from it. Our employees still manage to bang-up, mangle, and tear
up our NeuraScanners even though they are built like little tanks. We
do pay for the extra maintenance and parts coverage though.

If you need a small amount of logs scanned; just send a CA over, we
will sign it, send it back, and you can courier you logs to us.
Confidentiality is big with us and we work with major hitters. If we
did not hold proprietary data in confidence and securely; we would
have been out of business 15 years ago. Your data security is
guaranteed.

www.DigitalRelayGeologix.com

On May 21, 7:25 pm, n...@spam.invalid (KachinaPeak) wrote:
> Kodak is currently manufacturing the i280 which is a continuous feed
> scanner. The cost is slightly less than NeuraLog....about $6500.
>
> We have never used them so I cannot offer a review of the product. We
> do log scanning on a massive scale for oil and gas companies and
> depend on NeuraScan despite the cost. What choice do we have?
>
> I understand your concern and yes the price is exorbitant. Kodak is
> not far behind in the "higher than a mad cat's back-price
> range". The housing on the i280 is plastic and that turned us
> away from it. Our employees still manage to bang-up, mangle, and tear
> up our NeuraScanners even though they are built like little tanks. We
> do pay for the extra maintenance and parts coverage though.
>
> If you need a small amount of logs scanned; just send a CA over, we
> will sign it, send it back, and you can courier you logs to us.
> Confidentiality is big with us and we work with major hitters. If we
> did not hold proprietary data in confidence and securely; we would
> have been out of business 15 years ago. Your data security is
> guaranteed.
>
> www.DigitalRelayGeologix.com

Latest updates...

Recently purchased a Kodak i280, and have been quite disappointed so
far. Tech support was terrible. They had no clue how to set up the
scanner for log scanning. Finally had to figure it out myself.
Required high dollar add-on Kodak software in addition to the already
high dollar scanner. Once finally figured out how to use it, results
were rather disappointing. Log is scanned in separate sections which
are subsequently stitched together to construct a continuous image.
The stitching software performs relatively well as far as stitching
software goes, but it still slows things down significantly and
introduces some image imperfections. Additionally, when scanning logs
with this approach, the software forced each individual log to be
placed in its own separate sub-directory (folder). All in all, not a
pleasant experience for an extremely high priced scanner.
Fortunately, bought this one used (WITH addition of full after-market
warranty), so cost less than it might have otherwise, but was still
over $4000. NOT recommended. If you're gonna spend the big bucks,
the NeuraScanner is a better option.

Occasionally have used Storm PageScan USB with Win2K drivers. Paper
feed is very weak and slips a lot if you aren't careful. Doesn't come
with any kind of paper path guide, so must kludge one (doesn't help
with the paper slip problem). Paper path will only feed about 8.6"
max width, so can't scan most older full scale well logs. Driver
appears to be slightly buggy, and occasionally messes up, resulting in
blocky horizontal shifting of scanned image. Bug seems to be
encountered more frequently with longer logs. Don't recall right now
whether we ran into a max length limit, but know that it could at
least handle more than ten feet.

Currently using two old Contex TDS 8000 scanners purchased off eBay
for most of our log scanning work. They still work, but are slow,
heavy, don't do color, and are somewhat worn out from use and age.
Drivers are also somewhat buggy when using under XP and 2K, though do
work well enough to get by with if you are persisitent (sometimes
takes multiple tries to get a log to start scanning).

Also occasionally use a Contex 3050 wide format color scanner. Works
fine, but way too much overkill for scanning much narrower well logs.
Some problems with half scale logs not feeding properly (don't catch
enough drive wheels).

End result: Still looking for a better solution!

s/KAM