Isn't it great that we no longer have to deal with those documents written by hand in the public records? I mean 19th-century handwriting was so ideosyncratic, some writers forming letters in a way that was as much a product of their country of origin as anything. It does take skill to read many old documents written by an actual human hand instead of the perfect and legible print that machines produce 24/7, such as this example that appears in the public records, reproduced in all its marvellous clarity:
Kent McMillan, post: 394952, member: 3 wrote: ...reproduced in all its marvellous clarity:
I was going through some old family photos the other day and decided I might try and have a few of them reproduced photographically. You know, where you take a picture of a picture. I soon discovered that most commercially available photo reproduction winds up merely as a scan. You can still seek out actual photographers that continue their alchemy, but they're few and far between.
This got me pondering the "degradation of technology" that is occurring all around us simply because "digital" IS the media now. One young mindless clerk at the photo counter of the local drug store was trying to impress me with the leaps and bounds that have been made recently with photo reproduction. I left our conversation disappointed with the human race in general.
While 4800 or even 9600 dpi is available (somewhere beneath Cheyenne Mountain) most photo shops consider 1200 dpi to be "high quality". And I will admit that 1200 dpi scans of a photo can exhibit fine clarity to the human eye. But let's back up a couple of steps back to a world with which I might be more familiar. A standard old Kodak Brownie camera took some fine B&W photos. Back then when you paid for quality, you paid for the optics. The film was fine. Why? Because its reproducible resolution back then was a million times better than our 1200 dpi scans...simply because the "dots per inch" on an old B&W photo were almost infinite; the "dots" being molecules of the gelatin-silver compound excited by photons on the photographic paper. Try as we may to approach that sort of resolution, we only keep needing larger and larger storage devices for our "photos".
And don't even get me started about music reproduction. Our old direct current carbon granule telephone receiver back in the day at the Cash homestead had finer reproduction quality that these phones we walk around with nowadays.....
Kent, I'm glad I'm not the only one that has noticed quality is getting sacrificed for the sake of this digital era.
For the rest of you all..."Get off my lawn..."
Fax is a specific case of the more general low-resolution scanning problem. In my home county, First American Title (operating as DataTree and/or DocEdge) scanned all of the record maps at some piss-poor resolution until the late 1990s. I can buy a digital copy of pretty much any local map from them, but if it was scanned before the late '90s the odds are that the dimensions and other text won't be legible. Eventually I expect the county to find enough funding to do the job properly and make the maps available without charge, but in the mean time I either try DataTree and hope I get lucky, or drive 13 miles to the county seat to pay $11.00 per sheet.
paden cash, post: 394954, member: 20 wrote: While 4800 or even 9600 dpi is available (somewhere beneath Cheyenne Mountain) most photo shops consider 1200 dpi to be "high quality". And I will admit that 1200 dpi scans of a photo can exhibit fine clarity to the human eye. But let's back up a couple of steps back to a world with which I might be more familiar. A standard old Kodak Brownie camera took some fine B&W photos. Back then when you paid for quality, you paid for the optics. The film was fine. Why?
If you go to a specialized professional photo lab, you should be able to get anything scanned at excellent resolution. A typical 35mm slide will produce a 32Mb scan in RGB that is about 2700x4100 pixels. The next time you're in Austin, I'd be glad to take you to to visit one near me and have lunch around the corner. :>
Jim Frame, post: 394955, member: 10 wrote: Fax is a specific case of the more general low-resolution scanning problem. In my home county, First American Title (operating as DataTree and/or DocEdge) scanned all of the record maps at some piss-poor resolution until the late 1990s.
Yes, isn't it amazing that scanning projects seem to be dictated by file sizes rather than actual practical criteria such as legibility? It's as if the person responsible decided that the most important element to the project was to be able to say "it's all been scanned", with the actual quality being secondary.
The wonderful part is that what you show is all the information that is provided.
No name of owner or any tax information, simply I am sending you this description and will it be $500 and ready day after tomorrow.
20+ years ago I used a legal size scanner and a $15 program called PCFax with great success for receiving and sending fax.
It would do color fax at 1200dpi if you wanted to wait half an hour.
The scanner is still operational, problem is the modern computers data flow fly past its little processing board too fast and nothing happens.
I still use my brother all in one fax function about 10 times a year just to satisfy a few clients.
The CamScanner app on my phone will produce 3984x2988 quality pdf and send it out by text or email or to the cloud and by whatever means your smart phone is capable of in less than a minute.
When I create a pdf it is at Press Quality and it can be printed at magazine quality if the client has a printer capable to do so just as quickly as to 100dpi.
The only difference is the amount in the data file.
:p
Kent McMillan, post: 394957, member: 3 wrote: If you go to a specialized professional photo lab, you should be able to get anything scanned at excellent resolution. A typical 35mm slide will produce a 32Mb scan in RGB that is about 2700x4100 pixels. The next time you're in Austin, I'd be glad to take you to to visit one near me and have lunch around the corner. :>
The 2700x4100 pixel scan I'm sure is great resolution I'm sure. My next question is how can you print the scan to maintain the resolution? Even viewing high-res scans on most folks' lcd monitors limits the what viewer's actually seeing. It's a deep pit we've fallen into I'm afraid...
I would like to take you up on your lunch offer if I ever get down Austin way. Although a good deal of my family was from San Anton', they are all gone now.
A Harris, post: 394959, member: 81 wrote: The wonderful part is that what you show is all the information that is provided.
Where that one gets even better is when you decipher the garble and realize that it calls for absolutely no monuments found or set, aside from calls for "points" in a particular branch, with a tie to locate the POB from a corner that itself was unmarked. Naturally, there is no statement as to basis of bearings. It's the product of a fellow who received his license to survey by virtue of the fact that he was licensed as a civil engineer in 1980 and had been engaged in what he described as the practice of surveying prior to that date.
Kent McMillan, post: 394962, member: 3 wrote: Where that one gets even better is when you decipher the garble and realize that it calls for absolutely no monuments found or set, aside from calls for "points" in a particular branch, with a tie to locate the POB from a corner that itself was unmarked. Naturally, there is no statement as to basis of bearings. It's the product of a fellow who received his license to survey by virtue of the fact that he was licensed as a civil engineer in 1980 and had been engaged in what he described as the practice of surveying prior to that date.
So basically it's a 'chitty' description reproduction from a survey of equal quality...in that case I suppose it really doesn't matter if it's legible or not!
paden cash, post: 394961, member: 20 wrote: The 2700x4100 pixel scan I'm sure is great resolution I'm sure. My next question is how can you print the scan to maintain the resolution? .
Those same professional photo labs can produce prints that are virtually indestinguishable from the scanned originals. They can also make adjustments to the image to do what amounts to a restoration, but be sure to give them explicit instructions to LEAVE the tattoos on Aunt Pearl.
I would like to take you up on your lunch offer if I ever get down Austin way. Although a good deal of my family was from San Anton', they are all gone now.
Well, I'm going to mark you down as an honorary Texan, then.
paden cash, post: 394963, member: 20 wrote: So basically it's a 'chitty' description reproduction from a survey of equal quality...in that case I suppose it really doesn't matter if it's legible or not!
It does matter in the sense that the shape and location of the land is defined by the description and the surrounding circumstances. Just because it wasn't actually surveyed doesn't mean that the conveyance is void.
Kent McMillan, post: 394965, member: 3 wrote: ...Just because it wasn't actually surveyed doesn't mean that the conveyance is void.
You're so right. Sadly you are now probably stuck with not only trying to decipher the written word, but also what-in-the-hell the fella that prepared it was actually trying to describe.
That's why we get the big bucks I guess.
@padencash
"how can you print the scan to maintain the resolution"
select injet or photo paper and photo quality print and it will be the best print your printer will produce.
If possible save the scan on you computer and write the file name on your hard copy.
paden cash, post: 394966, member: 20 wrote: You're so right. Sadly you are now probably stuck with not only trying to decipher the written word, but also what-in-the-hell the fella that prepared it was actually trying to describe.
That's why we get the big bucks I guess.
Fortunately, this one will probably be solved by a reformation of the deed. The lack of a bearing basis is corrected, in my view, by the fact that the same fellow who wrote the description of the tract I've reproduced above also wrote a description of an access easement to the tract that does call for identifiable markers and from which the relationship of record "North" to some reproducible North can be determined. It is also possible that the records of the deceased licensee responsible for the misadventure will contain the sketch or other calculations from which the description was produced.
There is not a register of deeds in the country that is required to record an illegible document.
Tommy Young, post: 394982, member: 703 wrote: There is not a register of deeds in the country that is required to record an illegible document.
It does not stop it happening.
Our newest County Clerk is on a crusade and has given notice she will not accept poor quality originals.
My favorite is a description that simply says, "Parcel No.1, as depicted and shown on a map by ???, as attached hereto and made a part hereof." The map referred to is attached, all right, but it's an E size plan that's been reduced to 8.5 x 11 and scanned by the co. clerk's minions @ 200 dpi. But, hey - it's on record, right?
Sergeant Schultz, post: 395005, member: 315 wrote: My favorite is a description that simply says, "Parcel No.1, as depicted and shown on a map by ???, as attached hereto and made a part hereof." The map referred to is attached, all right, but it's an E size plan that's been reduced to 8.5 x 11 and scanned by the co. clerk's minions @ 200 dpi. But, hey - it's on record, right?
I just recently cut a 6 acre lot off of a much larger parcel. The subdivision plat was 24"x36" and was recorded in the land records. I supplied a description to the attorney that was preparing the deed that referenced the record location of the plat. The attorney didn't use the description I provided or even reference the plat record location. His paralegal reduced my 24"x 36" plat to legal size which rendered it completely illegible and referenced " as attached hereto and made a part hereof.".
Luckily the client saw a draft of the deed and informed me before it was recorded. I contacted the attorney and convinced them to fix it.
Tommy Young, post: 394982, member: 703 wrote: There is not a register of deeds in the country that is required to record an illegible document.
I don't think that is true in Texas. Here, when the County Clerk is presented with an illegible document for record, this is what gets recorded:
hey, looks better than the GLO notes from Montana 😎
Wonder if they faxed them, then scanned them?
