Scanning images of parts?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Daniel, Mar 29, 2005.

  1. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    I was planning on doing this for a quicker reference guide (for chip & board
    readings & serial #s & stuff). Is there any problem with this? Any reason
    today's boards shouldn't be exposed to the extreme light produced by a
    standard scanner, the light moving over it long enough for say a 400-600 dpi
    scan? (front & back) I'd expect there not to be a problem, but wanted to
    find out if anyone else was aware of a reason not to do this (any risk
    involved).

    --

    --

    There are 10 types of people in this world...
    ....those who understand binary & those who don't.
     
    Daniel, Mar 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Daniel

    Toolman Tim Guest

    Nope - go for it. Even with old EEPROMS you didn't have to worry about
    something as innocuous as the fluorescent light in a scanner...it took UV
    (IIRC) to erase it. And that was after you took the protective label off the
    little glass window...

    "Daniel" <daniel_h_wATyyahooDOTccom> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I was planning on doing this for a quicker reference guide (for chip &
    >board
    > readings & serial #s & stuff). Is there any problem with this? Any
    > reason
    > today's boards shouldn't be exposed to the extreme light produced by a
    > standard scanner, the light moving over it long enough for say a 400-600
    > dpi
    > scan? (front & back) I'd expect there not to be a problem, but wanted to
    > find out if anyone else was aware of a reason not to do this (any risk
    > involved).
    >
    > --
    >
    > --
    >
    > There are 10 types of people in this world...
    > ...those who understand binary & those who don't.
    >
    >
     
    Toolman Tim, Mar 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    "Toolman Tim" <> wrote in message
    news:nI22e.4879$%...
    > Nope - go for it. Even with old EEPROMS you didn't have to worry about
    > something as innocuous as the fluorescent light in a scanner...it took UV
    > (IIRC) to erase it. And that was after you took the protective label off

    the
    > little glass window...
    >

    OK, that type of action was what I was concerned of. I knew it was UV light
    but wasn't sure if strong concentrated visible light of any kind was also
    enough. (Want to do an experiment & see how low levels of UV light effect
    CD-Rs? Leave one laying inside where the light through the window hits it &
    it turns it copper-gray over a period of a few months. Looks kind of cool).
    Also I had heard of light as being used for processor glitching, though was
    sure that only effected the inner core of the chip & only when in use (&
    probably only UV or IR light anyway), but wanted to make sure no other bad
    effects COULD be done.

    > "Daniel" <daniel_h_wATyyahooDOTccom> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I was planning on doing this for a quicker reference guide (for chip &
    > >board
    > > readings & serial #s & stuff). Is there any problem with this? Any
    > > reason
    > > today's boards shouldn't be exposed to the extreme light produced by a
    > > standard scanner, the light moving over it long enough for say a 400-600
    > > dpi
    > > scan? (front & back) I'd expect there not to be a problem, but wanted

    to
    > > find out if anyone else was aware of a reason not to do this (any risk
    > > involved).
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > There are 10 types of people in this world...
    > > ...those who understand binary & those who don't.
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Daniel, Mar 29, 2005
    #3
  4. Daniel

    Toolman Tim Guest

    >> >I was planning on doing this for a quicker reference guide (for chip &
    >> >board
    >> > readings & serial #s & stuff). Is there any problem with this? Any
    >> > reason
    >> > today's boards shouldn't be exposed to the extreme light produced by a
    >> > standard scanner, the light moving over it long enough for say a
    >> > 400-600
    >> > dpi
    >> > scan? (front & back) I'd expect there not to be a problem, but wanted

    > to
    >> > find out if anyone else was aware of a reason not to do this (any risk
    >> > involved).
    >> >


    >> Nope - go for it. Even with old EEPROMS you didn't have to worry about
    >> something as innocuous as the fluorescent light in a scanner...it took UV
    >> (IIRC) to erase it. And that was after you took the protective label off

    > the
    >> little glass window...
    >>

    > OK, that type of action was what I was concerned of. I knew it was UV
    > light
    > but wasn't sure if strong concentrated visible light of any kind was also
    > enough. (Want to do an experiment & see how low levels of UV light effect
    > CD-Rs? Leave one laying inside where the light through the window hits it
    > &
    > it turns it copper-gray over a period of a few months. Looks kind of
    > cool).
    > Also I had heard of light as being used for processor glitching, though
    > was
    > sure that only effected the inner core of the chip & only when in use (&
    > probably only UV or IR light anyway), but wanted to make sure no other bad
    > effects COULD be done.
    >


    As long as you don't see any little glass windows on any chips <g>

    The scanner might not do as well as a digital camera though - too much
    'relief' on the component side.
     
    Toolman Tim, Mar 29, 2005
    #4
  5. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    "Toolman Tim" <> wrote in message
    news:x_22e.4981$...
    > >> >I was planning on doing this for a quicker reference guide (for chip &
    > >> >board
    > >> > readings & serial #s & stuff). Is there any problem with this? Any
    > >> > reason
    > >> > today's boards shouldn't be exposed to the extreme light produced by

    a
    > >> > standard scanner, the light moving over it long enough for say a
    > >> > 400-600
    > >> > dpi
    > >> > scan? (front & back) I'd expect there not to be a problem, but

    wanted
    > > to
    > >> > find out if anyone else was aware of a reason not to do this (any

    risk
    > >> > involved).
    > >> >

    >
    > >> Nope - go for it. Even with old EEPROMS you didn't have to worry about
    > >> something as innocuous as the fluorescent light in a scanner...it took

    UV
    > >> (IIRC) to erase it. And that was after you took the protective label

    off
    > > the
    > >> little glass window...
    > >>

    > > OK, that type of action was what I was concerned of. I knew it was UV
    > > light
    > > but wasn't sure if strong concentrated visible light of any kind was

    also
    > > enough. (Want to do an experiment & see how low levels of UV light

    effect
    > > CD-Rs? Leave one laying inside where the light through the window hits

    it
    > > &
    > > it turns it copper-gray over a period of a few months. Looks kind of
    > > cool).
    > > Also I had heard of light as being used for processor glitching, though
    > > was
    > > sure that only effected the inner core of the chip & only when in use (&
    > > probably only UV or IR light anyway), but wanted to make sure no other

    bad
    > > effects COULD be done.
    > >

    >
    > As long as you don't see any little glass windows on any chips <g>
    >
    > The scanner might not do as well as a digital camera though - too much
    > 'relief' on the component side.
    >

    Should a 3MP (2048x1536) image zoomed enough to have the board taking up at
    least 75% of the width & height be enough (that's only 200dpi for
    devices/cards, & would need to do 2 halves of the motherboard to get it at
    that resolution)?
     
    Daniel, Mar 29, 2005
    #5
  6. Daniel

    Toolman Tim Guest

    "Daniel" <daniel_h_wATyyahooDOTccom> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Toolman Tim" <> wrote in message
    > news:x_22e.4981$...
    >> >> >I was planning on doing this for a quicker reference guide (for chip
    >> >> >&
    >> >> >board
    >> >> > readings & serial #s & stuff). Is there any problem with this? Any
    >> >> > reason
    >> >> > today's boards shouldn't be exposed to the extreme light produced by

    > a
    >> >> > standard scanner, the light moving over it long enough for say a
    >> >> > 400-600
    >> >> > dpi
    >> >> > scan? (front & back) I'd expect there not to be a problem, but

    > wanted
    >> > to
    >> >> > find out if anyone else was aware of a reason not to do this (any

    > risk
    >> >> > involved).
    >> >> >

    >>
    >> >> Nope - go for it. Even with old EEPROMS you didn't have to worry about
    >> >> something as innocuous as the fluorescent light in a scanner...it took

    > UV
    >> >> (IIRC) to erase it. And that was after you took the protective label

    > off
    >> > the
    >> >> little glass window...
    >> >>
    >> > OK, that type of action was what I was concerned of. I knew it was UV
    >> > light
    >> > but wasn't sure if strong concentrated visible light of any kind was

    > also
    >> > enough. (Want to do an experiment & see how low levels of UV light

    > effect
    >> > CD-Rs? Leave one laying inside where the light through the window hits

    > it
    >> > &
    >> > it turns it copper-gray over a period of a few months. Looks kind of
    >> > cool).
    >> > Also I had heard of light as being used for processor glitching, though
    >> > was
    >> > sure that only effected the inner core of the chip & only when in use
    >> > (&
    >> > probably only UV or IR light anyway), but wanted to make sure no other

    > bad
    >> > effects COULD be done.
    >> >

    >>
    >> As long as you don't see any little glass windows on any chips <g>
    >>
    >> The scanner might not do as well as a digital camera though - too much
    >> 'relief' on the component side.
    >>

    > Should a 3MP (2048x1536) image zoomed enough to have the board taking up
    > at
    > least 75% of the width & height be enough (that's only 200dpi for
    > devices/cards, & would need to do 2 halves of the motherboard to get it at
    > that resolution)?
    >

    Most likely - especially if you can make it a TIFF instead of JPEG. The
    compression of JPEGs could render small numbers unreadable. Try both -
    scanner and camera - and see what you like. That's the nice thing about
    memory and computer files - you haven't wasted any film ;o)
     
    Toolman Tim, Mar 29, 2005
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. 123
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    536
    Petit Alexi
    Sep 22, 2003
  2. Michael

    Scanning Film Images into Digital Files

    Michael, Sep 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    488
    Michael
    Sep 18, 2004
  3. jersie0

    "Chicken skin" effect when scanning b/w images

    jersie0, Feb 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    656
    Frank ess
    Feb 10, 2005
  4. dstvns

    Parts parts....PARTS!!! ARGHHH

    dstvns, Dec 29, 2003, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    595
  5. Mentalguy2k8

    Merging parts of 2 images to make 1 image

    Mentalguy2k8, Sep 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    699
    Savageduck
    Sep 16, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page