4 ms·

That's pretty insane. Oddly enough - the process in a library for digitising a copy of a book can be fairly destructive, as far as I understood from those doin

That's pretty insane. Oddly enough - the process in a library for digitising a copy of a book can be fairly destructive, as far as I understood from those doing it (at CUDL). The spine is chopped off, to make it easier to put it into a machine for scanning all the pages. The digital images can (should?) then be stored in a format that allows zooming, for example : https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-03967/1 https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-03967/1

notRobot 5y ago
Archive.org has a non destructive book scanning technique! http://blog.archive.org/2021/02/09/meet-eliza-zhang-book-scanner-and-viral-video-star/ http://blog.archive.org/2021/02/09/meet-eliza-zhang-book-sca...
- gilleain 5y ago
  Nice. I suppose it also depends on how rare the item being scanned is. For a recent printed work, with multiple copies it's less important, while scanning a fragment from a Genizah or a notebook is much more careful process.
  - sdoering 5y ago
    The first time I encountered a digital facsimile was when I studied medieval literature in Germany. There is the great "Codex Manesse" [1] (I once had the opportunity to see the real one in an exhibition) that is one of a kind. It is irreplaceable and there are but a selected few people who are even allowed to touch it (with gloves). It could not be damaged, but was digitized without harm nonetheless [2]. So I actually never thought of digitalisation as a destructive process. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Manesse?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Manesse?wprov=sfla1 [2]: https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg848 https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg848
    - gilleain 5y ago
      Well ideally digitisation would not be destructive, I suppose. With any preservation or analysis of historical artefacts there is some risk/reward calculation. Like some books are so delicate that there is an approach to scan them while still closed: https://news.mit.edu/2016/computational-imaging-method-reads-closed-books-0909 https://news.mit.edu/2016/computational-imaging-method-reads... not sure how much that is used, though (not my area :) )
SkeuomorphicBee 5y ago
> Oddly enough - the process in a library for digitising a copy of a book can be fairly destructive, as far as I understood from those doing it (at CUDL). The spine is chopped off, to make it easier to put it into a machine for scanning all the pages. The general consensus among modern librarians came around on that subject, and now this kind of destructive processes is rare and generally frowned upon. A librarian friend once explained to me there was always two "schools" among librarians: 1. Those who only value the content of books. For those, copying/digitalizing a rare book is all that is needed in order to preserve said book. 2. Those who also value the physical object of the book as a historical artifact. For those keeping rare books in good condition is also necessary for preservation. In the middle 1900s with the mass adoption of the microfilm, the first school gained the upper hand, and many libraries conducted mass projects of microfilming and destroying historical archives. Those were mostly motivated by a false belief that books were super fragile and wouldn't last anyway (I mean, if you believe the book will fall apart on its own, then you would be less reticent about using destructive methods to make the best copy possible). In the last few decades the tides changed, librarians realized that books are not that fragile, and can be kept pretty much indefinitely if closed and protected from humidity (and fire). Also they realized that microfilm is crap, and that copying/digitizing is a error prone process, so a lot of stuff was lost because someone skipped a page, or the film was damaged, and the original was destroyed. So the movement to keep originals grew in strength, being almost a consensus now a days, and modern digitizing processes/machines are specially designed to be gentle and non destructive.
maxwell86 5y ago
If you then destroy the physical copy, how can you validate if the digitalisation succeeded? For example, many Xerox scanners "switch" numbers when scanning: https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres... Those who used them to digitize, e.g, accounting documents, and then destroyed the originals, are proper screwed.
5040 5y ago
>Oddly enough - the process in a library for digitising a copy of a book can be fairly destructive Not that long ago, there was a very destructive push to convert old books to microfilm. I worry that not enough lessons were learned. Here's an interesting review of a book about the subject: https://thefateofbooks.wordpress.com/2021/11/29/a-classic-turns-20-reviewing-double-fold-by-nicholson-baker/ https://thefateofbooks.wordpress.com/2021/11/29/a-classic-tu...
tablespoon 5y ago
> Oddly enough - the process in a library for digitising a copy of a book can be fairly destructive, as far as I understood from those doing it (at CUDL). The spine is chopped off, to make it easier to put it into a machine for scanning all the pages. I don't think it necessarily has to be that way. I recall seeing a photo or video of a book-scanner that would project laser grid-lines onto the book, to non-destructively correct for the deformations caused by the binding in software. Edit: not sure if this is the one, but it shows the concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ccxwNssmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ccxwNssmo

notRobot 5y ago

Archive.org has a non destructive book scanning technique! http://blog.archive.org/2021/02/09/meet-eliza-zhang-book-scanner-and-viral-video-star/ http://blog.archive.org/2021/02/09/meet-eliza-zhang-book-sca...

gilleain 5y ago
Nice. I suppose it also depends on how rare the item being scanned is. For a recent printed work, with multiple copies it's less important, while scanning a fragment from a Genizah or a notebook is much more careful process.
- sdoering 5y ago
  The first time I encountered a digital facsimile was when I studied medieval literature in Germany. There is the great "Codex Manesse" [1] (I once had the opportunity to see the real one in an exhibition) that is one of a kind. It is irreplaceable and there are but a selected few people who are even allowed to touch it (with gloves). It could not be damaged, but was digitized without harm nonetheless [2]. So I actually never thought of digitalisation as a destructive process. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Manesse?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Manesse?wprov=sfla1 [2]: https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg848 https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg848
  - gilleain 5y ago
    Well ideally digitisation would not be destructive, I suppose. With any preservation or analysis of historical artefacts there is some risk/reward calculation. Like some books are so delicate that there is an approach to scan them while still closed: https://news.mit.edu/2016/computational-imaging-method-reads-closed-books-0909 https://news.mit.edu/2016/computational-imaging-method-reads... not sure how much that is used, though (not my area :) )

SkeuomorphicBee 5y ago

> Oddly enough - the process in a library for digitising a copy of a book can be fairly destructive, as far as I understood from those doing it (at CUDL). The spine is chopped off, to make it easier to put it into a machine for scanning all the pages. The general consensus among modern librarians came around on that subject, and now this kind of destructive processes is rare and generally frowned upon. A librarian friend once explained to me there was always two "schools" among librarians: 1. Those who only value the content of books. For those, copying/digitalizing a rare book is all that is needed in order to preserve said book. 2. Those who also value the physical object of the book as a historical artifact. For those keeping rare books in good condition is also necessary for preservation. In the middle 1900s with the mass adoption of the microfilm, the first school gained the upper hand, and many libraries conducted mass projects of microfilming and destroying historical archives. Those were mostly motivated by a false belief that books were super fragile and wouldn't last anyway (I mean, if you believe the book will fall apart on its own, then you would be less reticent about using destructive methods to make the best copy possible). In the last few decades the tides changed, librarians realized that books are not that fragile, and can be kept pretty much indefinitely if closed and protected from humidity (and fire). Also they realized that microfilm is crap, and that copying/digitizing is a error prone process, so a lot of stuff was lost because someone skipped a page, or the film was damaged, and the original was destroyed. So the movement to keep originals grew in strength, being almost a consensus now a days, and modern digitizing processes/machines are specially designed to be gentle and non destructive.

maxwell86 5y ago

If you then destroy the physical copy, how can you validate if the digitalisation succeeded? For example, many Xerox scanners "switch" numbers when scanning: https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres... Those who used them to digitize, e.g, accounting documents, and then destroyed the originals, are proper screwed.

5040 5y ago

>Oddly enough - the process in a library for digitising a copy of a book can be fairly destructive Not that long ago, there was a very destructive push to convert old books to microfilm. I worry that not enough lessons were learned. Here's an interesting review of a book about the subject: https://thefateofbooks.wordpress.com/2021/11/29/a-classic-turns-20-reviewing-double-fold-by-nicholson-baker/ https://thefateofbooks.wordpress.com/2021/11/29/a-classic-tu...

tablespoon 5y ago

> Oddly enough - the process in a library for digitising a copy of a book can be fairly destructive, as far as I understood from those doing it (at CUDL). The spine is chopped off, to make it easier to put it into a machine for scanning all the pages. I don't think it necessarily has to be that way. I recall seeing a photo or video of a book-scanner that would project laser grid-lines onto the book, to non-destructively correct for the deformations caused by the binding in software. Edit: not sure if this is the one, but it shows the concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ccxwNssmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ccxwNssmo