ScanPro3000 microfilm scanners


Case Study.

This case study illustrates how false and misleading conclusions can result when non imaging experts in the field of digital photography incorrectly apply technical terminology. The letter to Jaclyn Baker identifies and explains the imaging technical terminology and identifies how a false and misleading conclusion can result if the terminology is not applied correctly.

LETTER TO JACLYN BAKER, Esq. Special County Counsel County of Monmouth:

Dear Jaclyn Baker, I am writing to you as president of e-ImageData Corp, the company that manufactures and distributes the ScanPro 3000 microfilm scanner. DRS Imaging Services is our reseller in New Jersey that provided the ScanPro 3000 bid to Monmouth County. That contract was subsequently awarded to MTS for a ViewScan lll as meeting the specification, DRS Imaging Services then protested that award and I received a copy of your response to that protest. I believe that the County’s megapixel/camera requirements were clear which is why DRS did not seek clarification. I believe the problem that arose was the result of the confusion over terms camera resolution and image size. The county has made its decision and I am not writing to you to request a protest reconsideration. However, I would like to respectfully provide additional information for the record: The ScanPro 3000 does have a 6.6 megapixel sensor. It is also true that the ScanPro 3000 does have a true 26 megapixel camera. See an explanation of imaging technology and how it is being used at the following links.

http://e-imagedata.com/Resolution.html

Scans of the same microfilm image from the ViewScan lll and from the ScanPro 3000 confirm the superior image quality from the ScanPro 3000 26 megapixel camera. See the following link for actual scan comparisons.

http://e-imagedata.com/ScanPro3000_Image_Readability.html

At that same link, there is a caution about seeing the terms camera resolution and image size together. They are both measured in megapixels but they are entirely different things. Not being aware of that fact can result in a false and misleading conclusion:

This is the Important Point to know:

It is important to realize the camera resolution (measured in megapixels) is not the same as image size (also measured in megapixels). Camera resolution is a major component of optical resolution and readability of an image (and requires the use of hardware). Image size is a measure of how large the image is (and can be accomplished using just software). What is misleading is combining these two statements so that the reader concludes that the two are the same and that the large image size number identifies the best image readability

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information and please keep this information on file for future reference.

Best Regards,
James Westoby, President

Read the Deliberation and Decision and see how false and misleading conclusions can result :

http://e-imagedata.com/1_ DeliberationAndDecision.pdf