robert said:

In practice, though, it doesn't catch the outer half-centimeter of the glass anyway.

thanks, robert, for getting that feedback from people from distributed proofreaders on the opticbook3600... the outer half-centimeter? that's cutting things very close, isn't it? :+) the point is, no other scanner does better today.

With an ordinary flatbed, the book it pretty much held in place by its own weight, although you can get better results by applying some pressure from above.

and even when you _do_ apply some pressure from above to an ordinary flatbed, you will not get results that are as good as those you get from the opticbook3600, right? so this is the same point as above.

And you only have to reposition the book for every other page. With the opticbook, you have to turn the book every page, and, for the half of the book where the heavy side is hanging off the end, you have to hold the book in position more physically than for the usual flatbed configuration.

ok, that's true. but you get a better scan. so this, too, is the same point as above. there is a problem with the software that comes with the 3600, in that it won't flip _half_ of the pages, which is what you want. you either have to flip _all_ of them, or _none_ of them, neither of which is a suitable option. so you need to do the image-flip in a separate program, after you've done the scanning. (you can also scan the odd pages in a separate pass from the even ones.) there are other shortcomings in the software; i can't remember what they are now; the hope is that they will be fixed over time. and when it comes to its hardware, the scanner shines. carlo had a web-page with a pair of scans, of the same picture, one from the opticbook3600, the other from his other scanner. the difference was quite striking. this is an excellent scanner.

If you have the money and want to have another tool in your scanner arsenal, it's not a waste. But it's not a magic bullet, either.

whether or not it's worthwhile to buy the opticbook3600 if you already have another scanner might be questionable. depends on how much your time is worth, because you'll be spending it correcting of scannos that you wouldn't have to. for anyone setting out to buy a scanner, or wanting the best, the consensus from everyone i know is that this is the one... this is really the crux of the matter. if anyone wants to say that highly-accurate o.c.r. is not possible, the first question i would have for them is whether they're using the optic3600; if they aren't, then i would chalk up their inferior results to the use of inferior hardware, and give their claim no credence. at least one highly-experienced person that i know says that, with the opticbook3600, careful attention to the scanning, proper correction of the images, abbyy finereader v7.x, and a beta version of one of the post-o.c.r. correction-programs that will be coming out soon, he's getting excellent results, ones that are superior to what he got with previous scanners, to the point he is within sight of _approaching_ perfection. as far as i'm concerned, as i've said here many times before, an accuracy-rate of 1 error every 10 pages is "good enough" to put an e-text out to the general public for "final" proofing. i am sure we can attain, and surpass, that level of accuracy... (in the past year, i heard the first report of a person who had actually achieved perfection in the scanning of an entire book; spellcheck did find one word, but it was wrong in the original.) so even if the opticbook3600 isn't "a magic bullet" by itself, it might well be the important piece of _hardware_ within a _system_ that could be described as "a magic bullet" in toto. it is too soon to _assert_ that, especially with any certainty, but it's not too soon to consider the possibility it might be so. but even _that_ is largely beside the point, which i will state once again in closing: no other scanner does better today. again, robert, thanks for getting all that feedback! -bowerbird