this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2026
426 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

86537 readers
3331 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 56 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Digitized for private consumption.

Nobody cares when Google did this or when archive.org does this, because they’re sharing the results with the world. (Idiotic shortsighted lawsuits from the authors guild notwithstanding)

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Google (and/or the libraries that collaborate with Google Books) and Archive.org usually scan non-destructively. Some of Google's book scans still show the fingers holding the corners of the pages, some of them were taken mistakenly mid-flip, etc. So they clearly used whole, normally bound books.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

in this case they often are actually destroying them. they take them apart, beause it's easier to scan than to use a proper book scanner

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah that’s true of Google as well I believe. I think Archive is more careful, but I’m sure some books get damaged in the process there as well.

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Having done a lot of scanning in the past, no matter how gentle you are, the book will be damaged; at least a little bit. Even if you do it manually, by hand, really slowly.

It's the unfortunate reality, because books are not designed to be held open and pressed flat onto an unyielding surface. If you don't press flat, you'll get curved pages and bad quality (dark) images, which is sometimes ok and fixable by software, but often not. You can get really fancy expensive machines, but they still don't fully solve the problem.

I did scanlation editing stuff for a while, and half my job was making the raw page scans look presentable, because the scanners didn't want to destroy their manga (understandable).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_scanning#Methods

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

This matches my experience. My college archive digitizes a few yearbooks a year (for whatever classes are having as big reunion) and it's a pain. For modern yearbooks (70s and later) we have a dozen or more copies, so we take one apart and feed it through the feed scanner, which works well. We then store the loose pages in a folder, in case we need to rescan anything.

Older yearbooks (where we don't have so many copies) we use the flatbed scanner and the pages come out warped, so we hand fix each page in Photoshop.

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 1 points 18 hours ago

Yepp… memories of using the light level curve tool and white point and black point and the perspective tool. Then going in with the white brush and deleting any specks of dust that remained, and comparing to the original to make sure no lines got deleted