July 2005 - gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

re: [gutvol-d] Copyright Verification?
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

brent said: > Currently in america there is a decline in scanner use. giving the popularity of all-in-one printer/scanner/copier/fax machines, i don't see how this statement can be justified. and i _most_certainly_ do not see an increase in the numbers of "type-in" projects, not at all! but if _you_ personally wanna type in some books, be my guest! it's a wonderful way to become thoroughly immersed in a text... *** geoff said: > The last, oh, five or six books I've submitted to PGDP > have been photographed (on a 4 MP camera), not scanned. > It's a lot less rough on books, and the results were > as good as scanning once I figured out what I was doing. i'm skeptical of that claim. i think if we tested the quality of the o.c.r. recognition results, using the best-in-class o.c.r. app, we would find a significant difference between images from a 4-m.p. camera and the best-in-class scanners, such as the opticbook3600. and dollar-for-dollar scanners give better images than cameras, though i'm not disputing your assertion that cameras might be "less rough" on the books. just because most of the proofers over at d.p. are not aware that the images they are getting are less-than-the-best doesn't mean it isn't so.. but as long as they don't mind correcting errors that wouldn't even exist if the images were better, or if a better o.c.r. program would have been used, i guess it doesn't matter all that much... -bowerbird

5 7

Copyright Verification?
by Brent Gueth 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

I sent an email to the copyright branch of Project Gutenberg (and excuse me if this has been answered, this is my first email to the list), the email was asking for alternate methods of copyright verification submission? Currently in america there is a decline in scanner use. I had a scnaner once upone a time. I think it s still packed away, but there is no software for newer operating systems, and last time I tried to use it didn't work anyway. I do have access to copy machines and fax machines. I also have access to mail these copies in via snail mail. Finally I have access to an 8 megapixel digital camera that could capture the data in just as readable format as a scanner (higher I think then my scnaner could perform). I ahve some books I would love to type in and contribute to the list (I collect antique books) that were published pre 1923. Hence the copyright should be in the clear, though I know this is skepticical legal terriotory. Does anyone know gutenberg's plans going forward for volunteers that: A. Don't have access to a scanner? B. Have books that are important to them so will not mail them off to another volunteer with one c. Have alternate methods to capture the data in equally verifiable means. I think this is something that needs to be looked at going forward, I'm just wondering what my resources I have to look at are now?

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Copyright Verification?
by Joshua Hutchinson 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

As long as the images from a digital camera are clear, it will work just as well as a scanner. Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Gueth" <creeva(a)gmail.com> To: gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org Subject: [gutvol-d] Copyright Verification? Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:51:18 -0700 > Finally I have access to an 8 megapixel digital camera that could > capture the data in just as readable format as a scanner (higher I > think then my scnaner could perform).

2 1

happy birthday project gutenberg!
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 04 Jul '05

04 Jul '05

happy birthday project gutenberg! thank you michael, for waking up the world to new possibilities! -bowerbird

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] header detection revisited
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 01 Jul '05

01 Jul '05

so, lee, did i answer all of your questions? how 'bout anyone else? if not, let me know. if so, i can start in next week with the examples *** speaking of headers, i'm reminded that i ran all my thinking on them by greg newby back when project gutenberg was celebrating 10,000!, way back in december of 2003. calendar says that was 18 months ago. meaning that, according to michael's predictions from moore's law, we should be at 20,000 about today, as it's the first of july in 2005. right? but the count is more like sixteen-five right now. right? hmm... oh well, it was an interesting stat while it lasted... *** speaking of production, how is the new system working over at d.p.? for those who might not know, distributed proofreaders changed their system to have separate rounds for formatting and proofing, two rounds for each. the switchover was around the first of june. i haven't visited their forum-boards since then to see how it's going. does anyone have an update? is the new way of doing things working? have people gotten used to it yet? if so, do they prefer it over the old? have any new thoughts on the overall process emerged from the change? eventually i will get back to the boards over there, but if anyone would like to comment in the meantime, people here might be curious to know. -bowerbird

2 1