4 ms·

You're assuming the worst without knowing the situation. It's not my area at all but - 650 year old books may be fragile, both in paper (or whatever) and in th

You're assuming the worst without knowing the situation. It's not my area at all but - 650 year old books may be fragile, both in paper (or whatever) and in the bindings. - old books/codices/etc often displayed under low light conditions because light damages them. A phone light may not be healthy. - how does it feel when someone clearly with less knowledge than you pops up to tell you where you're going wrong with D? Don't assume people are being stupid and you're the only smart one.

nitrogen 6y ago
> Don't assume people are being stupid and you're the only smart one. Sometimes really smart people do things in really suboptimal ways because of tradition or other blindspots, and an outside perspective can break a person or a field out of a local minimum. Maybe it's already being done, but installing a low-light camera above whatever workbench they use to analyze these ancient books with a footpedal or something to capture an image would provide some insurance against loss before proper archival, even if they don't open every page due to fragility. > A phone light may not be healthy. Modern cell phone cameras are quite capable of taking images without the flash in very low light conditions, either through high ISO or long exposures.
WalterBright 6y ago
> fragile Sure. But you're still gonna have to open it and turn the pages whatever scanner you use. And the book is open in the photo of it. If the photographer had moved a little closer, I bet you could read the text. > A phone light may not be healthy The thing is, you and I have phones in our pockets and can test this theory. It's an overcast day in Seattle. I turned out the room lights. It's too dark for me to read comfortably, in fact, I have to struggle to read. Took out my phone, took a picture (phone light off). I can read the text in the photograph just fine (though it's not as sharp as taking it with more light). I didn't even use a stand, I held the phone in my shaky hand. I only took one snap, not a bunch and select the best. You and everyone else can do this experiment yourself. But instead, you assumed it wouldn't work. > pops up to tell you where you're going wrong with D? Sometimes they're right. How do I feel about it? I feel embarrassed. But it's hard to deny reality, and I accept my lumps and move on. > Don't assume people are being stupid and you're the only smart one. Don't assume I'm wrong about the phone camera without trying it yourself. I have tried it myself. I use my phone all the time to make copies of things it is inconvenient or impractical to scan, like oversize scrapbooks. I challenge you to point your phone at documents you have at your desk and try it. BTW, the phone camera also works great at literally taking "screenshops" of my computer screen. I do it because it's faster/easier than doing screen grabs.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  To you, and @nitrogen, you make your points well, I retract all mine. Thanx & upvoted.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Wow, that's never happened to me before here! You da man!

nitrogen 6y ago

> Don't assume people are being stupid and you're the only smart one. Sometimes really smart people do things in really suboptimal ways because of tradition or other blindspots, and an outside perspective can break a person or a field out of a local minimum. Maybe it's already being done, but installing a low-light camera above whatever workbench they use to analyze these ancient books with a footpedal or something to capture an image would provide some insurance against loss before proper archival, even if they don't open every page due to fragility. > A phone light may not be healthy. Modern cell phone cameras are quite capable of taking images without the flash in very low light conditions, either through high ISO or long exposures.

WalterBright 6y ago

> fragile Sure. But you're still gonna have to open it and turn the pages whatever scanner you use. And the book is open in the photo of it. If the photographer had moved a little closer, I bet you could read the text. > A phone light may not be healthy The thing is, you and I have phones in our pockets and can test this theory. It's an overcast day in Seattle. I turned out the room lights. It's too dark for me to read comfortably, in fact, I have to struggle to read. Took out my phone, took a picture (phone light off). I can read the text in the photograph just fine (though it's not as sharp as taking it with more light). I didn't even use a stand, I held the phone in my shaky hand. I only took one snap, not a bunch and select the best. You and everyone else can do this experiment yourself. But instead, you assumed it wouldn't work. > pops up to tell you where you're going wrong with D? Sometimes they're right. How do I feel about it? I feel embarrassed. But it's hard to deny reality, and I accept my lumps and move on. > Don't assume people are being stupid and you're the only smart one. Don't assume I'm wrong about the phone camera without trying it yourself. I have tried it myself. I use my phone all the time to make copies of things it is inconvenient or impractical to scan, like oversize scrapbooks. I challenge you to point your phone at documents you have at your desk and try it. BTW, the phone camera also works great at literally taking "screenshops" of my computer screen. I do it because it's faster/easier than doing screen grabs.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
To you, and @nitrogen, you make your points well, I retract all mine. Thanx & upvoted.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Wow, that's never happened to me before here! You da man!