6 ms·

Google Books team open sources a book scanner

151 points by cleverjake 14y ago

Simucal 14y ago
I thought the design of their book scanner was very creative. It was also really interesting to see how they were basically able to prototype the entire thing in a day using cardboard they found around the office and a vacuum cleaner. I read through their design document and I'm considering trying to model all the various parts in CAD software for others to use. However, the figure they posted of 45% of books tearing a page was a little troubling. I'm hoping the design can be improved to be gentler on the books. I read someone else mention that if you wanted to use this scanner on a book then you likely don't care about possibly damaging it. If that is the case, then why not just cut off the binding and feed the pages into a sheet fed scanner? If you do care about the books being damaged then you would likely use one of the more expensive automated scanners or a manual scanner.
- Someone 14y ago
  I think the use of air pressure to pick up individual sheets of paper goes back to card readers (as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card_reader http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card_reader). See for example http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/documation/M300_TechMan_Jan72.pdf http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/documation/M300_TechM... (page 9): "The riffle air acts on the first half inch of cards in the input hopper so that they stand apart [...] This prevents the cards from sticking together" "The picker mechanism utilizes a strong vacuum to grasp the bottom card" So, this might seem creative, but programmers over the age of 50 or so will find it old-fashioned :-) Also 45% chance of a page with a teared page to me sounds much and much better than 100% of chance of having the back completely cut away from your book.
  - jimktrains2 14y ago
    It was also 45% chance that a book would end up with a tear, not a 45% chance per page.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
stevenrace 14y ago
To be clear, 'their book scanner' refers to a '20% project' by an employee - not the actual hardware behind Google Books.
- cypherpunks01 14y ago
  Is there any public knowledge about what the hardware behind Google Books looks like?
  - DanBC 14y ago
    There's this snippet showing that humans are involved. (http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/03/18/google-books-scanning-errors-turned-into-works-of-art/ http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/03/18/google-books-scannin...)
    - swohns 14y ago
      I'd like a comparison between human tearing of books and the machine. 45% seems way too high.
NatW 14y ago
I hope innovations like this could reduce the price of book scanning. I recently used a book service in San Jose to scan all my books: http://1dollarscan.com http://1dollarscan.com. It was good experience, with good support, but a bit pricey with their extras.
- SiVal 14y ago
  Sounds great until you look more closely. Here's the plan: 1) Gather up all your treasured books and send them to us 2) We'll make scans of them 3) We'll then grind your favorite books into compost, so you can Save The Planet! Yay! $1500 Google design I still have to build myself that only damages 45% of my books? No, thanks. Scanning service that only charges me 1$/book to destroy my books for me? No, thanks. I think I'll just look around, thank you.
  - stfu 14y ago
    It depends on the circumstances. This service is brilliant for people outside of the US who are interested in books published in the US. You can send books directly from Amazon,com or from one of the used sellers. Therefore you only pay regular postage and find most of the time used versions of a book (which not always ship international). When I was in Europe, I would have paid $15 for the only available used version of a book on the local Amazon, with 1dollarscan I payed $1 book + $3 shipping + $2 for the scan.
  - goldenchrome 14y ago
    I think you're being overly critical of the Googler's design. It's only a prototype after all. I think it's more like a proof of concept at this point - that you can have your own book scanner that is much cheaper than professional versions.
- Groxx 14y ago
  holy cow those extras could add up quickly. If you OCR'd, how were the results?
  - NatW 14y ago
mrinterweb 14y ago
A prime example of a difference between Google and Apple both on HN front page at the same time. "Apple patents the page turn": http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/apple-now-owns-the-page-turn/?smid=tw-nytimesbits&seid=auto http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/apple-now-owns-the-... Then Google open sources a book scanner.
- dboat 14y ago
  Not sure I see what you're getting at here. Care to elaborate?
  - jonknee 14y ago
    Google open sourced something related to books and Apple patented something ridiculous related to books. Not a direct comparison as both companies have patents, but Google does share with the community a ton more than Apple.
- obtino 14y ago
  Did you care to read the comments in the associated HN thread?
cmsmith 14y ago
For reference, here is a camera-based DIY automatic book scanner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PE1Z4wl9fk&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PE1Z4wl9fk&feature=relmf... As far as I can tell, the main advantage of the google device over this one is the ability to keep the book open to less than 90 degrees. Though I think his (close to) 45% damage rate is worse for the books in the aggregate. I'm sure that it could be refined to get the error rate down, but I think that mechanically handling the pages right near the spine (as the google scanner does) may never be that safe.

151 points by cleverjake 14y ago

I thought the design of their book scanner was very creative. It was also really interesting to see how they were basically able to prototype the entire thing in a day using cardboard they found around the office and a vacuum cleaner. I read through their design document and I'm considering trying to model all the various parts in CAD software for others to use. However, the figure they posted of 45% of books tearing a page was a little troubling. I'm hoping the design can be improved to be gentler on the books. I read someone else mention that if you wanted to use this scanner on a book then you likely don't care about possibly damaging it. If that is the case, then why not just cut off the binding and feed the pages into a sheet fed scanner? If you do care about the books being damaged then you would likely use one of the more expensive automated scanners or a manual scanner.

Someone 14y ago
I think the use of air pressure to pick up individual sheets of paper goes back to card readers (as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card_reader http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card_reader). See for example http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/documation/M300_TechMan_Jan72.pdf http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/documation/M300_TechM... (page 9): "The riffle air acts on the first half inch of cards in the input hopper so that they stand apart [...] This prevents the cards from sticking together" "The picker mechanism utilizes a strong vacuum to grasp the bottom card" So, this might seem creative, but programmers over the age of 50 or so will find it old-fashioned :-) Also 45% chance of a page with a teared page to me sounds much and much better than 100% of chance of having the back completely cut away from your book.
- jimktrains2 14y ago
  It was also 45% chance that a book would end up with a tear, not a 45% chance per page.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

stevenrace 14y ago

To be clear, 'their book scanner' refers to a '20% project' by an employee - not the actual hardware behind Google Books.

cypherpunks01 14y ago
Is there any public knowledge about what the hardware behind Google Books looks like?
- DanBC 14y ago
  There's this snippet showing that humans are involved. (http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/03/18/google-books-scanning-errors-turned-into-works-of-art/ http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/03/18/google-books-scannin...)
  - swohns 14y ago
    I'd like a comparison between human tearing of books and the machine. 45% seems way too high.

NatW 14y ago

I hope innovations like this could reduce the price of book scanning. I recently used a book service in San Jose to scan all my books: http://1dollarscan.com http://1dollarscan.com. It was good experience, with good support, but a bit pricey with their extras.

SiVal 14y ago
Sounds great until you look more closely. Here's the plan: 1) Gather up all your treasured books and send them to us 2) We'll make scans of them 3) We'll then grind your favorite books into compost, so you can Save The Planet! Yay! $1500 Google design I still have to build myself that only damages 45% of my books? No, thanks. Scanning service that only charges me 1$/book to destroy my books for me? No, thanks. I think I'll just look around, thank you.
- stfu 14y ago
  It depends on the circumstances. This service is brilliant for people outside of the US who are interested in books published in the US. You can send books directly from Amazon,com or from one of the used sellers. Therefore you only pay regular postage and find most of the time used versions of a book (which not always ship international). When I was in Europe, I would have paid $15 for the only available used version of a book on the local Amazon, with 1dollarscan I payed $1 book + $3 shipping + $2 for the scan.
- goldenchrome 14y ago
  I think you're being overly critical of the Googler's design. It's only a prototype after all. I think it's more like a proof of concept at this point - that you can have your own book scanner that is much cheaper than professional versions.
Groxx 14y ago
holy cow those extras could add up quickly. If you OCR'd, how were the results?
- NatW 14y ago

mrinterweb 14y ago

A prime example of a difference between Google and Apple both on HN front page at the same time. "Apple patents the page turn": http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/apple-now-owns-the-page-turn/?smid=tw-nytimesbits&seid=auto http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/apple-now-owns-the-... Then Google open sources a book scanner.

dboat 14y ago
Not sure I see what you're getting at here. Care to elaborate?
- jonknee 14y ago
  Google open sourced something related to books and Apple patented something ridiculous related to books. Not a direct comparison as both companies have patents, but Google does share with the community a ton more than Apple.
obtino 14y ago
Did you care to read the comments in the associated HN thread?

cmsmith 14y ago

For reference, here is a camera-based DIY automatic book scanner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PE1Z4wl9fk&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PE1Z4wl9fk&feature=relmf... As far as I can tell, the main advantage of the google device over this one is the ability to keep the book open to less than 90 degrees. Though I think his (close to) 45% damage rate is worse for the books in the aggregate. I'm sure that it could be refined to get the error rate down, but I think that mechanically handling the pages right near the spine (as the google scanner does) may never be that safe.