Darned nuisance. Found one that if free, has a spendy upgrade, will see if it works.

http://download.cnet.com/1770-20_4-0.html?query=scan+document&platformSelect=Windows&tag=srch&searchtype=downloads&filterName=platform%3DWindows&filter=platform%3DWindows

Somewhere along the line software will have to be purchased, but you’re right that there may be something cheaper out there. It might be worth exploring whether some office/printing place could do one-offs.

I got my original copy free with my first scanner. I have upgraded a couple of times but I only have maybe $50 in it. I also use it for organizing family documents and other things. I have used the form filler several times but certainly not worth my cost of upgrade much less $200.

I noticed a program called Form Pilot out there for less than 30 bucks and it probably works at least as well as Paperport.

I think these guys also sell the “Dragon” speech recognition program.

You scan the document and then drag and drop it into a tool bar icon for Form Typing. The document will be in a pdf format.

The program also allows you to convert to MS Word. I haven’t used that function much and as I recall, you lose some formatting by the conversion.

I have an older version that works great. The company has since been bought out and a newer version is available. With software, newer is not always better so you should check out the reviews.

Reviews are not always helpful to me but they are better than nothing, I suppose.

Celestron is a reputable vendor, too. I have an 80 mm f/5 combination rich-field and spotting scope of theirs that is an excellent performer. I would have no qualms about buying any of their products sight unseen.

Here is what I hope is some useful info from contributions to other chat rooms concerning monoculars and the Hawke.

Monocular essay
If you’re interested in buying a pair of binoculars, it might be worth your while to consider a monocular instead. A monocular is essentially half a binocular, or a binocular sawed in half. You use it like a small telescope, or a spyglass.

Binoculars have the advantage that both eyes are used, and the brain integrates both images together, allowing you to see finer detail and fainter images for a given level of optical quality. But the disadvantages are also considerable.

Binoculars fail to provide this enhanced performance unless the two halves are spaced and focussed for both your eyes, a time consuming procedure that must be learned and practiced, and frequently repeated, and one that depends heavily on the mechanical design and construction of the binocular and how well they are aligned and matched. Needless to say, optimizing these mechanical considerations add to the cost of the glass without improving its optical performance in the slightest.

Since for most applications, a glass is used quickly, the ability to quickly bring it to bear on its target is often more critical than optimizing the image to perfection. For use in sports, marine, or nature study, you may simply not have the time to be fumbling around with adjusting differential focus and inter-pupillary distance. In some applications, like astronomy or surveillance, binoculars are superior because of their optimal image-forming performance, and because time and convenience are not critical. But even by the telescope, sometimes you just need a quick look to familiarize yourself with a star field, and the monocular works better.

Because of the increased weight and bulk, binoculars are more of a hassle to carry in the field, harder to hold steady, and usually require both hands. Monoculars are lighter, more robust, and cheaper than similar quality binoculars, although the value may be less. A monocular has half the materials, half the optics, and has far less matching, alignment and mechanical issues at the factory, but they don’t cost half as much as optically equivalent binoculars. I suspect the ratio is closer to 3/4. So don’t let price alone influence your decision.

When I was a pre-teen, I bought a 7×50 monocular for astronomy. It was the perfect instrument and I still have it! I use it now primarily as a night glass for marine use because of its wider field of view and stability on a moving platform. My aged pupils don’t dilate as much in dim light as they used to and can’t take advantage of the full light cone in dim light, so for all-around use I now prefer a 10×50 binocular.

But the latter is a pain to carry around and use for nature study, concerts, or to sporting events, so I have just ordered a 10×50 monocular. There is no sense in owning a toy if it is just too much trouble to take along with you.

Product Review of the Hawke 10×50
I was originally interested in the Barr & Stroud Sprite 10×50 monocular because I read a glowing review of it on the internet. It sounded exactly like what I was looking for. I also read it was identical to the Bresser 10×50 monocular, although this is not unusual. In consumer optics, very often, the same chassis is marketed under different brand names, with the finished products similar in appearance and identical in specs. Unfortunately, neither of these items were available in the USA, as a communication with the Bresser company assured me.

I did notice that Hawke Sport Optics in the USA did offer a very similar product (HA 3935) in appearance and specs to these items, so I decided to go for that. It looked the same in the pictures, and it also came with a nice carrying pouch, a nifty little tripod, and an attached objective lens cap. If it wasn’t the same chassis, someone went to a lot of effort to copy it as closely as possible. The price was about comparable, too, about $90, although I ordered my unit from Wayfair for about $10 cheaper, free shipping. It got here in three days.

All three of these items are specced out as follows: 10x, 50mm objective diameter, and a close focus of 8.2 feet. This is good for birdwatchers, because sometimes you can creep up pretty close to those little buggers. They are equipped with roof prisms (the other alternative is Porro prisms, which I would have preferred) as are most compact binos and monos today. The Porro design is a bit bulkier, cheaper, and more robust, but the straight-through tube of the roof prism has become very popular. I also understand that the quality of the roof prism has gone up, and their price for a given quality come down, so I decided to take the chance.

The focussing mechanism is mounted on the side of the glass, so you can focus while you look through it, a very nice feature, focussing is smooth and easy and can be done with one finger. The objective lens cap is attached to the body with a rubber ring, but is easily removable if you don’t like it flapping around while you carry it. There is no lens cap provided for the eyepiece, but you should be able to improvise something to do the job easily. The eyepiece lens is partially protected by an extendable hood that can be pushed in and out to space your eyeball properly to the eye lens, and protect it from scratches from your spectacles, or eyelash grease. It also keeps stray light out of the line of sight. Eye relief (the distance your eye should be from the eyepiece) is 0.7″. That’s not very good for eyeglass wearers, but will be fine if you can view without your spectacles. The field of view is 304′ at 1000yd.

The unit is rubberized, green, light (about 14.6 oz), and compact ( 6.5″). It is advertised as waterproof and fogproof, fully-multicoated lenses with Bak-4 prisms. That is good. Whether it actually holds up under field use, I can’t tell. But just handling it and looking through it, it looks like a good value and solidly built, a nice little performer. A top-of-the-line, first rate monocular of similar specs would probably cost several times as much, but I was interested in something under a hundred $. I believe this unit will do the job. It’s not a precision piece of gear, but it is not a cheap toy, either. It feels right.

Next clear night, I’ll see how sharp the star images are, and check for pesky internal reflections by looking at the moon. That’s the acid test, but for under a c-note, I’m satisfied with what I’ve got. This model is also available in 15X, but I feel that’s a little too much power for night use, and for hand held work.

http://www.wayfair.com/Hawke-Sport-Optics-Nature-Trek-10×50-Monocular-in-Green-HA3935-HSO1244.html

Other correspondence re monoculars
I’m very happy with my Hawke 10×50. My only complaints with it are that it doesn’t have a place to hook up a strap so I can wear it around my neck, and that it doesn’t come with a lens cap for the eyepiece end. (I’ve gone through every spice jar in the pantry and every pill jar in the medicine cabinet looking for a lid that will do the job and found nothing the right size!)

However, I would not recommend this model for boating. I use it for astronomy, sporting events, concerts and nature study.

The ideal for boating is 7×50, which has a low enough power that it can be held steady on a rocking, rolling platform, and a wide enough field for quick target acquisition. It is the perfect combination for stability, field of view, low light performance and magnification. A 7×50 binocular would be preferable for a larger, more stable platform such as a large sailboat or cabin cruiser. You can fumble around with getting the two sides focussed and balanced properly because you can use both hands, and you probably have a shelf or lazarette handy where you can store the glass safely when not in use on a bigger boat. This application requires faint light performance more than it does higher magnification. If you are younger than say, 40, your pupils can probably open wider, too, so the lower power will give you a brighter image at night, which is what you really should optimize for.