5 ms·
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 fra
by 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 agoThe 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 agoWell 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 :) )