I suspect such a device is considerably beyond my *practical* budget! :>
Yes. I do similarly when running the sheets through the document feeder. Once "prepared", I can do 5 or 6 pages a minute -- not too bad but, when you have tens of thousands of pages... :<
1) I didn't realize they could do this 2) it's probably not inexpensive 3) copyright issues
Exactly. It seems like the attitude towards this waxes and wanes. And, no doubt, varies based on who's working on that day, etc.
That is where the manual aspects come into play. You need to review the results of the scan to decide how best to proceed. I've not found any "magic bullet" -- unless you don't care about size (or quality).
It depends on the sizes of the typefaces used. Note that this can vary within a document.
And, whether there are illustrations, etc.
Sometimes, you get really grainy images -- as if there was dust on the scanner (though it is NOT the scanner that is the source of the problem).
For decent typeface sizes, I will use 1bpp at 400-600dpi. This is readable *and* OCR-able (not to be confused with ocre-able -- which is the ability to turn something into ocre!) Other times, I will use 8bpp and drop down to 300dpi (trying to balance the added image depth against the decreased resolution).
I wrote some utilities to create *4* bit TIFFs but very few programs will recognize this encoding (despite adhering to the letter of the spec).
I generally avoid the OCR stage as it requires *lots* of proofreading. Images often get mishandled. Text often gets misrecognized (remember, these are "computer manuals" so "pigx" and "pigy" might be real "words" despite the OCR packages attempts to "fix" them into "pigs" and "piggy", etc.). I figure just creating the (electronic) documents is enough of a "donation" so if folks want to grumble, they can go find better versions (hint: most of this stuff is simply NOT AVAILABLE). :>
"If you don't like what I'm serving for dinner, you're welcome to eat elsewhere..."