3 ms·

For a far more impressive scanner, developed by a Google engineer and including automated page turning see: http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/13/3639016/google-bo

by SeanDav 11y ago

For a far more impressive scanner, developed by a Google engineer and including automated page turning see: http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/13/3639016/google-books-scanner-vacuum-diy http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/13/3639016/google-books-scan... I believe there is a far more detailed breakdown of the project floating around somewhere. It is possible, but not clear to me, that Google use this for their own book scanning project - Google Books.

oDot 11y ago
Jason Scott says it destroys books: http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4695 http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4695
- dkonofalski 11y ago
  Ok... and is there some place where he explains why he believes that to be the case? The Google presentation explicitly mentions that a feature of the scanner is that it doesn't destroy books.
  - csydas 11y ago
    There's really nothing to go on except the small quip from the author, but it's not hard to imagine a scenario in which the machine has no way of adjusting for more delicate sources. Watching the video from http://linearbookscanner.org http://linearbookscanner.org on how the scanner works, I'm guessing the "doesn't destroy books" pitch is a response to other scanners where you're supposed to slice off the spine of the book and feed the cut pages into it. Given that it's just a vacuum pulling the pages through a slit in the apparatus, I can easily imagine much more delicate texts getting torn pretty easily using the device. The FAQ on the Linear Book Scanner page itself admits that it does have restrictions on the type of pages and book dimensions it can work with, and that it has a relatively high damage rate (from the aforementioned website FAQ, "Out of 50 books tested, 45% had one or two of their pages either torn or folded.") The LBS is probably fine for more modern texts that just haven't been digitized, but I too would be wary about automating any rare or delicate text.

by SeanDav 11y ago

oDot 11y ago

Jason Scott says it destroys books: http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4695 http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/4695

dkonofalski 11y ago
Ok... and is there some place where he explains why he believes that to be the case? The Google presentation explicitly mentions that a feature of the scanner is that it doesn't destroy books.
- csydas 11y ago
  There's really nothing to go on except the small quip from the author, but it's not hard to imagine a scenario in which the machine has no way of adjusting for more delicate sources. Watching the video from http://linearbookscanner.org http://linearbookscanner.org on how the scanner works, I'm guessing the "doesn't destroy books" pitch is a response to other scanners where you're supposed to slice off the spine of the book and feed the cut pages into it. Given that it's just a vacuum pulling the pages through a slit in the apparatus, I can easily imagine much more delicate texts getting torn pretty easily using the device. The FAQ on the Linear Book Scanner page itself admits that it does have restrictions on the type of pages and book dimensions it can work with, and that it has a relatively high damage rate (from the aforementioned website FAQ, "Out of 50 books tested, 45% had one or two of their pages either torn or folded.") The LBS is probably fine for more modern texts that just haven't been digitized, but I too would be wary about automating any rare or delicate text.