Digitizing Old Magazines?

"I have a lot of old video game magazines, they're nice for playing 'classic games' because a lot of classics are impossible without the manual, and hard without a magazine (the magazine obviously negates the need for a manual usually). But they'd get damaged with a flatbed scanner, and digital cameras are hard to set up right for capturing old magazines. I know that old documents are digitally archived with very high-res cameras..." So, the question is, what is the best way to capture all the information in old magazines in digital format? Does anyone have a home-built rig taking after the angled-pair-of-scanners setup that Project Gutenburg uses?

Comments

Wouldn't that be copyright infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just asking...

Re:Wouldn't that be copyright infringement?

[neomunk]

Nope, not even close...

Next question?

Re:Wouldn't that be copyright infringement?

[palegray.net]

He's making a fair use copy.

Re:Wouldn't that be copyright infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing Sections 107 (Fair Use) and 108 (Concerning the Rights of Libraries and Archives) of the U.S. Copyright Code. The right of an individual to make an "archival copy" of copyrighted material is a very broad interpretation of Fair Use - which covers reproduction chiefly for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Preservation copies are protected by Section 108, but only for libraries and archives. The courts have yet to decisively rule on a case involving the extension of Fair Use to cover something like an individual's right to digitize an old magazine collection.

Same with old photographs

[warrior_s]

I have the same question but for my old photographs. We have a lot of old (non digital) pictures when I was a kid (when there were no digital cameras). And it would really help if someone have some good suggestions on converting those to digital formats.
I am scanning few of them from time to time, but there are way too much to manually scan each one of them. TIA

Re:Same with old photographs

[Simonetta]

I suggest paying someone $5-$10 US an hour to scan the photos on a 300DPI flatbed scanner. Try an ad on CraigsList for your area. There are a lot of unemployed people with tech skills and no unemployment checks coming in that would appreciate a job like this for a day or two. How many photos would need to be scanned? Several dozen? Several hundred? Several thousand?

    Usually adjusting the brightness, contrast, and gamma setting on black/white scan makes the image look good. I recently scanned all the images of my high school yearbook, put it on the web, and received thank yous from former classmates that I hadn't heard from in forty years.

Re:Same with old photographs

[Ilgaz]

There are scanners which got feeder unit or there are some pro companies who can do such a thing with a price.

Software is important for such a project. For such a job, I recommend Hamrick's Vuescan, it has executables for Windows, OS X and Linux. Thing is, it will make things automatically.

http://hamrick.com/

As I am perfectly happy with my el-cheapo Canoscan Lide 25 (upgraded from Lide 20 which had some accident), I went to Canon USA site to recommend such a scanner but it seems they have some mad invention there which they really failed to advertise.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=122&modelid=9888

It installs to a Canon printer (which looks cheap) like a inkjet ink and printer becomes auto feed scanner. As I assume you got a scanner already, that solution could be a better thing. I am not sure about the quality though. I also don't know if Hamrick Vuescan or even Sane would ever support such a thing too. It is really worth looking into, perhaps see some demo or review from a trustable source.

Other solution is Xerox or HP multiple document scanners (with feeder). I would go with Xerox, I keep reading about HP driver horror stories.

Re:Same with old photographs

[palegray.net]

Wow. That's one of the coolest posts I've seen on this site in a very long time. Mod parent up!

Re:Same with old photographs

[hadesan]

warrior s,

My wife is in the same boat as you - she had lots of slides (~3000) from her parents, lots of 35mm negatives (too many to count), and a bunch of photos (again thousands) from all different formats.

I ended up buying her a Nikon Coolscan V ED for her to scan in the 35mm negatives she has and her parent's slides. She has been very happy with it. I already had an Epson 2450 flatbed scanner...

She scans the slides, photos, and negatives while working on other projects in her office. The easiest tool I found for the photos is Adobe Photoshop CS (a bit expensive, but worth every penny - you could download a trial version from Adobe.) You put as many photos as can fit on your flatbed scanner (no need to straighten them perfectly), scan the photos, and then click on File --> Automate --> Crop and Straighten Photos - this will break up all the scanned photos into individual files, arrange them so they are straight, after which you can then edit and save each one.

Someone else wrote some instructions at http://photoshop911.typepad.com/help/2006/01/automating_crop.html/

There are probably some scanners where you can feed photos in - but some of the photos we have are irreplaceable (no negatives or copies.) We would not want to see them lost due to a scanner feed malfunction.

Also, do yourself a favor, and make backups of the work that you do. You would hate to lose all that effort due to a hard drive failure.

Best of luck!

Re:Same with old photographs

[Milkyman]

you might try these guys,
http://www.scancafe.com/works.php
basically you mail them all your negatives (i think they take prints too) and they scan em in india, put em online and you can choose which scans to keep, then you get your originals back in the mail with a disc containing your scans.

Re:Same with old photographs

[jedidiah]

There were some old photos laying around that I thought would be cool to scan
on the recently acquired flatbed scanner. However, I found they were in thoseold style glue and cellophane pages. Attempting to remove the photos from the
album would have likely destroyed them.

So... I just scanned the whole album as is.

It yielded some nice "better-image-quality-than-original-photos" jpegs
as well as a kinkos ready PDF of the whole thing.

It really wasn't that big of a deal to do. Just had a stack of pages
that I would cycle through the scanner every so often as I was doing
something else (wasting time on Slashdot) with the PC.

Re:Same with old photographs

[cranky_slacker]

http://www.scanmyphotos.com/

Re:Same with old photographs

[Registered Coward v2]

The easiest tool I found for the photos is Adobe Photoshop CS (a bit expensive, but worth every penny - you could download a trial version from Adobe.)

Checkout Vuescan http://www.hamrick.com/ - a very flexible tool for scanning; it supports Mac and Windows as well as wide range of scanners. Outstanding technical support as well.

I second the Nikon Scanner - I have a 5000 that I really like.

Re:Same with old photographs

[JasonB]

I have used and been very happy with the bulk scanning service offered by Digital Pickle in San Francisco. There are other services like them, so take a look around.

http://www.digitalpickle.com/

You can see some of their work here:

http://photos.buberel.org/p1001342731/?photo=907773107

jason

Re:Same with old photographs

[Kral_Blbec]

Or even the free irfanview has a batch process for scanning if you have the hardware.

Re:Same with old photographs

[HughsOnFirst]

I recently rephotographed over six and a half thousand Polaroid photographs, google jamie livingston photo of the day if you are interested in the details, and scanning that many photographs on a flatbed scanner is crazy. Using a DSLR on a copystand I spent about 3 or 4 seconds per photo. Using a flatbed I could never get down to much less than a minute per photo, and a machine fed scanner was out of the question for 30 year old Polaroids. This was in 2004 , maybe scanners are faster now , but I doubt it.

Post processing is about the same for both , photoshop scripts to crop , straighten , remove dust and scratches , and open up the shadows could run in batch mode. I also wrote a batch that assembled them into 61 files to be printed out and assembled into a 8 foot by 120 foot display.

I also put the assembled version up on gigapan.org Search for it on for it on gigapan, it's interesting how different it looks assembled.

Re:Same with old photographs

[that this is not und]

It yielded some nice "better-image-quality-than-original-photos" jpegs

Well, not really. But this probably isn't the place to start a digital/analog imaging flameware.

Simply put, you can't get a better image out of digitizing than you started out with. And silver-halide based photographic images have incredible high resolution.

Re:Same with old photographs

[faragon]

$5-$10 US an hour? That seems pretty low, also for non US salary standards. In Spain, where I live, entering in recession, many unemployed people make 10 euro/hour for unqualified cleaning/brushing, while qualified black market (without paying taxes) is between 15 and 30 euro/hour.

Re:Same with old photographs

[fraktus]

And more than that with Vuescan you can output pdf files in one go. Very useful if you want to scan a magazine.

More than that if you run into trouble you can mail them and they do reply and try to solve your problems. Highly recommended.

Re:Same with old photographs

[IWasNotMe]

I always assumed that scanning yearbook photos and putting them on the web would violate copyright law. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html Am I missing something?

Re:Same with old photographs

[The Second Horseman]

Minimum wage in the US (Federal) won't be $7.25 until next year. At it's inception in the early 70's, it wasn't indexed to inflation. If it had been, it'd be over $12 an hour. Some states set theirs higher than the federal and one or two are already a bit over $8. And on a "real" job, there are taxes - social security, medicare, workers comp, etc. come out of it. If you're paying someone $10 an hour, cash, they're essentially getting the equivalent of $15 or more on an over the table job. No benefits, which sucks, but if it's a part-time thing (like babysitting) someone's using to make ends meet or make a little extra money, it's not a bad deal.

Sure, paying someone under the table isn't legal, but for small stuff it happens all the time.

Re:Same with old photographs

[crashfortytwo]

A friend of mine is in the same boat. He has thousands of slides from a career in the military. He discovered two methods for scanning them in bulk. One is a negative feeder for his scanner. It digitizes directly from the negative so you can scan in all the images on the negative at once. The other method he used was a specially designed framework for the slides themselves that allowed him to scan several slides at once. Both methods are still time intensive, but they're quicker than the one-at-a-time-method.

Re:Same with old photographs

[Bigman]

I photographed a load of pictures for a friend with my digital camera. What you need is a digital camera with a connection for an external flash (i.e. don't use the one built in). Use a tripod with a boom arm to hold the camera over a table pointing straight down onto it. Have the seperate flash positioned to one side and angled at 45 degrees so that the centre of the flash area is in the centre of the cameras view area. The angling at 45 degrees is to stop light reflecting off the subject going directly into the camera. Place the picture under a sheet of glass to keep it flat, frame and take the picture. if you fix the glass on a hinge, it can make the operation very quick, much faster than a flatbed scanner - you could do 6 a minute if they're all the same size (i.e. you don't need to reframe them).

Re:Same with old photographs

[RockDoctor]

I am scanning few of them from time to time, but there are way too much to manually scan each one of them. TIA

Define "way to much".
My problem is two-fold - a few thousand photographs of my family's, plus approximately 40,000 slides of my father's. I also have a couple of thousand pre-digital slides of my own.
OK, Dad has got a competent database of the slide collection, so that's most of the hard work taken care of. But despite having had a slide scanner for several years now, he's never scanned in more than a few hundred of the damned things. Which means that I either have to encourage him to get down to it (can I borrow a taser?) or I'll have to do the damned job myself when they die. [SIGH] 40 kiloslides should only take a couple of months. Assuming that he's being competent with his digital pictures now.

Re:Same with old photographs

[negRo_slim]

I'm assuming what he meant was that the scans ended up having a more pleasing look to the eye.

Re:Same with old photographs

[zennyboy]

Adjusting colour / contrast would improve over the original

Re:Same with old photographs

[toddestan]

You put as many photos as can fit on your flatbed scanner (no need to straighten them perfectly), scan the photos, and then click on File --> Automate --> Crop and Straighten Photos - this will break up all the scanned photos into individual files, arrange them so they are straight, after which you can then edit and save each one./i.

After scanning in nearly 7000 photos using Photoshop CS... how come no one ever tells me about these kind of things?

*facepalm*

Re:Same with old photographs

[Anonymous Coward]

So if it happens all the time is OK?

Re:Same with old photographs

[ThatFunkyMunki]

Yes.

Re:Same with old photographs

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're paying someone $10 an hour, cash, they're essentially getting the equivalent of $15 or more on an over the table job.

That assumes that the person you are paying is engaging in income tax fraud. It's like hiring someone for less than minimum wage because they are a felon, a child, an illegal immigrant, an alcoholic, or some other class that can't easily find minimum wage work. There are good reasons not to do that, and personally I'd rather pay someone $20/hour not to have to deal with those reasons.

Re:Same with old photographs

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm paying someone cash for a job is not illegal. If they choose not to report it to the government that's up to them. And to be perfectly fucking honest if I you make 10 bucks an hour they aren't really going to care if you report it or not.

Re:Same with old photographs

[GrMunky]

try your local walmart, the photo center will often do this for free if they arent busy, so long as you dont ask them to scan the whole collection. try batches of 50-100

Re:Same with old photographs

[vuffi_raa]

you can get a 600 dpi flatbed for under $50 nowadays- you might as well just buy one and do it yourself

Re:Same with old photographs

[Megane]

The LiDE scanners are good and portable (especially being USB-powered), but they are S L O W. I scanned one of my old '80s video game magazines with a LiDE and it took a long time. FYI it is necessary to use a sheet of black construction paper to prevent bleed-through of the image.

As for sheet feeders, most of the scanners with them built in are crap. Just look at the reviews on Amazon and you will see that they all break.

The best thing if you have stuff already on 8.5 x 11 single-sheet paper is when your workplace has a super copier with scan-to-PDF capability. These are not so good for magazines, but will tear through old looseleaf computer manuals.

Re:Same with old photographs

[Squalish]

A faster option (if you're satisfied with the resolution) would be to do this with a dozen Polaroids at a time, and chop them up using scripts.

There are a lot of photographic details you need to pay attention to here, and external flash isn't necessarily one of them (certainly not the only one).

Destroy the magazines

[btempleton]

Ok, you're going to hate me for saying this, because you feel they are collectors items, but really, they are just manufactured items made of bits.

So cut off the spines with an industrial paper cutter and put them through a sheetfed document scanner. Get over your attachment to paper.

If it's a special magazine that was signed by somebody or is rare, I could see keeping it. But otherwise it's a printout. The real value is in the information.

Now alas, these are probably copyrighted and can't be shared. If this were not the case this becomes a no brainer, because the "valuable" "original" would stay locked on your shelf, and the digital copy would provide value to many. It would be a strange devotion to the magazine to want to deprive so many of access to it in the name of preserving its "essence."

Scanners like the Internet Archive has are great, but they are expensive, and expensive to operate. As a result, fewer documents get scanned, and that's the tragedy, not the loss of the spine of a magazine.

Re:Destroy the magazines

[DigitAl56K]

Now alas, these are probably copyrighted and can't be shared.

Depends. Who owns the copyright? It's possible the copyright was assigned to the publisher and that the publisher has since folded, or that if you contact the publisher and explain your position that you could get a release to archive it online, at least for the parts that the publisher holds the rights on (screenshots, boxcovers, etc. - that's different but will anyone care? Given the use, they're probably fair use as part of the magazine too). The other thing to consider is that it may not be possible for a publisher to feel comfortable giving you permission to reproduce their works, but would the actually sue you?

I personally collect Amiga memorabilia. I would find it absurd for anyone in this day to object to preserving a passion for the system. Of course when there is passion for something there is money to be made, but those businesses working against the collectors for the possibility of gaining a few pennies years down the road that will probably never materialize are not doing themselves any favors with brand perception.

Re:Destroy the magazines

[ksd1337]

Right now it may not be valuable enough to preserve. But give it 10 or 20 years, and you'll be glad you kept them intact. (read: eBay).

Re:Destroy the magazines

[Hatta]

I have to agree, scan them in any way possible. Then seed to Underground Gamer, probably the best way to get it to people who will appreciate it.

Re:Destroy the magazines

[Pitr]

That's the same thing I was thinking. Having said that, I don't think I could bring myself to do that to my comic collection. There is a certain amount of sentimental attachment that goes along with collecting, not to mention it's nice to have a hard copy, especially when your hard disk explodes, taking all the data with it. (Or your raid array gets struck by lightening, and your off site backup gets eaten by dingos... whatever. What? It could happen!)

Re:Destroy the magazines

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup! Vintage computer mags already have a small market brewing. All things retrocomputing are going up in value, including old magazine.

Re:Destroy the magazines

[fermion]

I reflected on this issue recently, wanting to digitize some old books. I was not in the position of having to use my own stock, as worn copies of the books were readily available, but the issue were similar. Here are my thoughts.

First, make sure the magazines are not already available. About half of the books I wanted to digitize were already available in digital form. It might cost money. That might be ok. You are either going to have to destroy the magazines or spend huge amounts of time taking pictures, either with a camera or scanner.

Second, do you need to have every article and every magazine and every page scanned? It could be that the digital camera solution might be best, if you can get the hardware, as there may only be a few pages from each magazine that is relevant.

Third, don't just say the magazines cannot be risked. If you want high quality scans, that are not crooked or folded, you are going to need a very good sheet feed scanner, and the magazines will have to be at least have to be unstapled, assuming they are not perfect bound. This will require much post processing, some rescanning, and some damage. If the magazines can be cut, it would likely make things much easier.

We are not in the ancient world where the burning a book means the literal loss of knowledge. In many ways, the copyright laws that keep books from getting scanned is the modern equivalent of book destruction. But, as we know, knowledge is not free, and novel knowledge is quite expensive. If this were not so, many of us would never have in the prime position that many of us has enjoyed.

That said, given the cost of physical storage, and given that libraries will likely throw these magazines like this out rather than pay for storage, and who knows if anyone will ever take the time to scan these obscure item in, it seems that destroying the old media husks is, at lest, defensible.

Re:Destroy the magazines

[Slugster]

I would agree to this--just cut up the magazines, scan them, and toss them out.

They can be much more accessible in electronic form--even to you--and aren't likely to ever be worth any significant amount of money. Plus you can pirate bay them, and they can be useful to lots of other people as well.

As one who has digitized a few thousand old family photographs, I would say forget the camera now. It seems like an easy way out, after all a camera can take a picture a lot faster than a scanner can scan a page--but the digital photo from the $500 camera will not be as good of quality as the scan from the $70 scanner.
It's monotonous and it takes time, there's no way around it.
Keep a "unscanned" stack of pages next to your computer, and toss them in a nearby trash can once scanned. Find an image program that can do multiple TWAIN scans at once (last time I tried, GIMP only seems to allow scanning one page without re-starting the whole TWAIN interface, so it fails here).

Book scanners (like what is used to scan valuable books without destroying the bindings) cost $3K-$4K or more. Not many places have them, and (-not to be rude here but-) those that do aren't going to let you screw with it for your silly magazines. If you had a small collection of 200-300+ year old books, they might see their way to allow that,,,, but probably not a collection of 10-yr old videogame magazines.
~

Re:Destroy the magazines

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it. Look through the listings and you will quickly see that the only magazines bringing significant money are historically significant (1st edition Mickey Mouse), or signed copies. Run of the mill mags from 50 years ago will fetch approx. $10 each if it is a highly regarded title and you have a whole year set.

Keep the mags for sentimental or personal value but not as an investment.

Have you checked to see if they are already available in a digital format? I found two of my old favorites like this. One was available on CD from the publisher and another was available free on the web.

Re:Destroy the magazines

[flajann]

There may be some decent hand-held scanner "wands" that may allow you to scan without destruction. I've seen some of these, but couldn't say if they would do the trick. Worth a look, anyway.

Re:Destroy the magazines

[cybergrue]

I don't think that will work.
If he is talking about the magazines I think he is, then we are talking very cheap, very very thin paper that would crincle the second it got touched. Every page would get jammed in a feeder. Some of that stuff was so smooth, the feeder may not even grab it.

Ahh the memories.

Re:Destroy the magazines

[Tetravus]

Don't forget to calculate the total cost of storage over a period of 10 - 20 years into your total return.

Oh, and of course there is the chance that there won't be _any_ copies of the games these magazines talk about around in another 10 to 20 years, in which case the magazines would be useless and (I assume) without any monetary value.

I say - cut their spines and let the juicy fluids of their information seep out into the 'net!

Re:Destroy the magazines

[urcreepyneighbor]

If old computer magazines are your idea of an investment, you better learn to love the taste of cat food.

Re:Destroy the magazines

[toddestan]

If you'll browse the listings, you'll also notice tons of auctions for things like "Vintage ad for the Amiga 500", and "Vintage ad for Super Mario Brothers" and whatnot, usually fetching a few bucks apiece. It's pretty obvious that these sellers are taking old magazines like this, cutting out the more interesting ads to sell individually for more than they would get for the whole magazine, and likely trashing the rest. In a few years, who knows how many original, well preserved copies will be left?

Follow-Up Question

[Lord Byron II]

What about OCR'ing the scans? I've tried and failed one previous attempts to find an OSS solution that will allow me to start with jpegs and end up with PDFs or DJVUs. Does anyone have any suggestions on this front?

Re:Follow-Up Question

[PAjamian]

I've found gscan2pdf to be excellent for doing automated (via a document feeder) or semi-automated (flat bed scanner or other source) scans to pdf format and it supports importing from jpg or other formats. It also supports OCRing if you have gocr or tesseract installed (I recommend tesseract as an excellent OCR utility). I'm not sure if this is available for windows, though, you may have to have GNU/Linux to use these programs.

Oh yes, and it even can properly paginate all the scans of a double sided document from a single-sided automatic document feeder (it knows how to put them into correct page order) by just flipping the stack of documents over and feeding them back into the feeder.

Re:Follow-Up Question

[AmiMoJo]

This is pretty much the holy grail of OCRing, and even commercial software sucks at it.

It is simply very difficult to convert a document with images, text, different colour backgrounds and the like into a digital version.

A better option might be to try and get hold of the original digital files used to make the magazines. It could be difficult now, but perhaps backups do exist. Forum a group on the net to search for them, perhaps try contacting the publishers and writers to see if they have them.

Misread, now I'm sad

[Anonymous Coward]

I read it as "Digitizing Old Machines" hoping that Ben Heck would either be driven out of business or make millions.

Take another look at Java

[Anonymous Coward]

"best way" ... subjective.
"fastest way" ... Java, it's been (perfectly) digitizing and performing OCR on classic magazines and comics for years now. It's the clever new "Just-In-Time" virtual machines that make it possible, optimizing the character recognition routines dynamically at run time.
The end result? Code that scans (at least) 70 times faster than that produced with modern C++ compilers.
Even the best hand crafted classic-magazine scanning assembler only runs a fifth the speed of a Java app.

Re:Take another look at Java

[rbanffy]

+1 Funny. Too bad I am out of modpoints

Re:Take another look at Java

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not funny. It's a rather old troll meme that won't go away.

Re:Take another look at Java

[spazdor]

But that's just the beginning. Java has a codebase made of prefabulated ammulite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings are in a direct line with the pentametric fan.

In addition, whenever a barescent skor motion is required, it may be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocating dingle arm to reduce sinusoidal depleneration.

Re:Take another look at Java

[rbanffy]

Sorry. You missed the tags

Plustek OpticBook 3600 Plus scanner

[Anonymous Coward]

I Use a Plustek OpticBook 3600 Plus scanner.
It allows scanning a book without forcing it flat.

The scanner itself is great, but be warned, the software is infuriatingly buggy, even in the latest release. Luckily there are work-arounds.

regards ........ Zim

Re:Plustek OpticBook 3600 Plus scanner

[Anonymous Coward]

This is definitely the way to do it. I've scanned roughly 20,000 pages worth of textbooks in the last one and a half years. I don't know about the software being buggy, I mean it is, but not to the point of being a hindrance. I use the core ActionExpress software to watch the buttons on the scanner and save the images to a directory. I batch tweak all those images with XnView, then combine them into a pdf with Acrobat. Once in Acrobat, I do OCR then reduce file size.

Re:Plustek OpticBook 3600 Plus scanner

[Registered Coward v2]

See my earlier post about Vuescan http://www.hamrick.com/ - I really like it and it's stable, supports a lot of scanners and has great technical support. The support alone is worth the $40 I paid - especially since Nikon has orphaned their film scanners such as my 5000.

Re:Plustek OpticBook 3600 Plus scanner

[Anonymous Coward]

The OpticBook scanners don't appear to be on the list of scanners Vuescan supports. :(

Re:Plustek OpticBook 3600 Plus scanner

[sowth]

Do you really need special software for the scanner, or are you talking about the drivers being buggy?

Re:Plustek OpticBook 3600 Plus scanner

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only second the OpticBook 3600 (or the new 4600).
I personally use it for comic books, and it's great, since you can scan (most) stuff without breaking the spine. Magazines should be no problem at all, only problems are if you got a TPB or HC comic that got print so close to the spine that they 2mm or so that the scanning area is from the side of the scanner are still too much.
It scans a page in colour in around 9 seconds, so fairly fast to scan anything.

Do NOT buy the Plus version though, the only difference from the normal are the softwarem which honestly isnt that great.

You can check the scanner out at:
http://www.plustek.com/product/book3600.asp

Re:Plustek OpticBook 3600 Plus scanner

[bgalbrecht]

I use the base Plustek Opticbook 3600 for scanner for Distributed Proofreaders, and I've never had problems with the software. I'd recommend upgrading from the Abbyy Finereader 6 Sprint to the latest FR professional version, though.

The Opticbook costs about $250, compared to several thousand for the cheapest planetary scanner kit with software to correct curvature, and the professional versions of these scanners are in the 10's of thousands. A lot of the people at Distributed Proofreaders (who have supplied half of the texts at Project Gutenberg) either use the Opticbook or remove the spines and use scanners with automated sheet feeders.

Re:Plustek OpticBook 3600 Plus scanner

[Registered Coward v2]

The OpticBook scanners don't appear to be on the list of scanners Vuescan supports. :(

You could try it - there's a free trial and it looks like it might work since he uses Plustek's drivers apparently. You could always drop Ed H a line - he responds very quickly.

A mirror?

[jadedoto]

The best thing I can come up with off the top of my head is get a light controlled room, and place a thin mirror (clean mirror, very clean mirror) in the pages... and photograph the image on the mirror when you get it at the right angle... Maybe.

Re:A mirror?

[Skinkie]

Then why not use a good handscanner? When I played with them 10 years ago the only issue was the data transfer rate over the LPT port, not the 'poor image quality'.

Re:A mirror?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd forgotten about this, but yes, using a mirror is a very good, simple way to check that the page is perpendicular to the camera lens to avoid distortion. Bascially, if you see the reflection of the lens in the viewfinder, you're aligned and ready to go.

PS. Had anybody else noticed that, using Safari at least, if you type in the captcha and then hit enter, the default action seems to be 'cancel and lose all your text'?!

Scanning troublesome paper materials

[j_presper_eckert]

Depending on the kind of binding which holds the spine together, I normally wouldn't hesitate to use a flatbed scanner to digitize them. Stapled mags are easier to work with than ones which are perfect-bound or have saddle-stitched bindings. From my POV, the collectibility of the analog original is irrelevant; all I'm after is the data itself, regardless of the physical container. As long as I accomplish a sufficiently high-res scan, I'm happy. I've occasionally removed staples prior to scanning or even sliced off the spines with an X-Acto knife. Of course I'd be far more gentle if the originals were not my own property. :)

For magazines which are bound too tightly (or are too large or fragile) to easily fit onto a flatbed scanner, you may have to consider setting up a photgraphic copy stand. You'll need twin lighting sources on each side of the stand, angled downwards at 45 degrees. The stand should have a screw fitting to mate against the base of your camera body. Reflections from glossy magazine pages may have to be eliminated via use of a circular polarizing filter added to your camera lens. I'm not sure how you'd weigh down the edges of the mag, though...slabs of a transparent material such as lucite or plexiglass? I don't envy anyone who needs to go down this route to take digital photos of the mag pages.

How?

[Darkness404]

How are these going to be damaged by a flatbed scanner?!? Most game magazines have only been around for ~20 years, max. And I don't see how the heat would be an issue...

Re:How?

[TubeSteak]

How are these going to be damaged by a flatbed scanner?!? Most game magazines have only been around for ~20 years, max. And I don't see how the heat would be an issue...

To lay them flat, you pretty much have to break the spine.
I don't lend my dad books anymore because the first thing he does is break the spine.

If the submitter is really attached to his dead trees, he might consider buying one of these:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/copyright+violating-scanner-is-designed-for-books-235382.php

Re:How?

[Rah'Dick]

He probably meant the bending. I have some old magazines where the paper literally breaks off when you bend it too much, like in the way you have to do it to put it on a flatbed scanner and get a readable inner side. Here's what I do when scanning books or magazines: I get a scanner that has a very slim margin between the scannable surface and the edge of the device, so I can place my magazines with the inner side on the device edge. This way, you don't need to bend the paper nearly as much as with pressing both pages on a large scan area. Downside: you can only scan one page at a time.

Classic Comics too

[managerialslime]

I have a collection of hundreds of comic books from the early 1900's. (So all of their copyrights have expired.) I'd scan and share them with the world but find scanning with my 30+ second per page flat bed scanner (in hi res) to be a time consuming.

No, I will NOT slice the spines.

The idea of 2-part solution where my digital camera is mounted and a separate stand that holds the comic perfectly is appealing. The solution would have to enable rapid turning of pages and the pages will have to remain as flat as possible.

A non-glare glass plate that does not reduce picture quality is probably too much of a dream, but I'm open for suggestions.

Give me some ideas and I may donate the images to Guttenberg or other worthwhile repository.

Re:Classic Comics too

[kesuki]

actually, the glass(plastic, whatever) plate from a flat bed scanner would be good for holding the page flat, i'm actually considering tearing up my old flat bed scanner and going with a digi cam/tripod, and a stand with the remains of the flatbed scanner to hold the pages flat.

i'm wasn't going to do OCR work, the pictures are important to the text, IMO.

i'm not cutting them apart, and yeah scanners take to long.

Re:Classic Comics too

[zakezuke]

A non-glare glass plate that does not reduce picture quality is probably too much of a dream, but I'm open for suggestions.

If it was me, I'd undo the staples, scan, reassemble. I presume this is not an option.

But scanner or photocopier glass, a ring light. It would be the way I'd go about it. 8MP cameras are common. You might want to go SLR, something like a Pentax or Nikon where you can get the a stock manual focus 50mm. For something that is, I presume, 9x7 inches I doubt you need a macro lens. I didn't say Canon as the mount changed from the manual focus days, but that's an option as well, just good bang for the buck with a used manual focus 50mm lens.

I forget the name of the platform to photograph flat things. But you have the easel, rod, and camera mount. One can construct such a thing with moderate ease and low cost since it would be for something of a standard size, you don't need something which can telescope.

You can get higher resolution from a flatbed without a doubt. I doubt you need beyond 600dpi. The rule of thumb is twice print resolution to convert to digital. That being said the more bulky scanners, as in the ones that have height, these guys often have some depth of field to them making them more ideal if you wanted to rig up a reverse scanner, as in one that scans downward.

Re:Classic Comics too

[Iskender]

A couple of ideas spring to mind:
1. Ask a photographer. A pro will probably be too expensive (might not be, I of course don't know your circumstances). A photo nerd friend would be ideal - being a photographer myself, I could easily imagine someone photographing all the comics if he could get the necessary extra equipment "for free". Oh and I have no experience doing stuff like this, all I know is that a SLR with a prime lens will probably be best.
2. If you only find a slow way of doing it, consider digitizing a selection. If you have a nice collection like that, you probably know a thing or two about which parts are the good stuff. This should enable you to contribute lots of valuable things to the world without having to go through thousands of pages.

Re:Classic Comics too

[adona1]

FWIW, there has been an upswing recently in the number of comics (and magazines, if you count MAD as a mag ;) on the torrent sites - while I'm not suggesting you post them on the Pirate Bay, it may be worth browsing through & asking the people who submit them how they do it. They generally appear to be very good quality, so they may have a few ways of doing it which doesn't destroy the comic...

Re:Classic Comics too

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to look around in the usual places, there are many active groups and individuals working on scanning all the comics ever published, mostly from paper but some from fiche. Chances are that unless you have some exceedingly rare or obscure comics in our collection that they have already been scanned.

Re:Classic Comics too

[mysticgoat]

Look for a "reversing" tripod for your digital camera. These allow the post the camera mounts on to be removed and installed upside down, so you can aim the camera straight down between the legs of the tripod. This feature was more common on older tripods: mine is a "Velbon VEF-3" from around 1965. Also, for this work the heavier the tripod is, the better. Ask people who like garage sales to look for something like this for you.

Use a large coffee table (or other low table) for your work area. Use a bubble level to make make it, well, level. Set up the tripod and camera, and level the camera. Now the plane of the CCD is parallel with the plane of the working surface.

You can get a sheet of low reflective glass from a window repair shop or possibly a picture framer for probably 5USD or less. Tell them what you want it for and they'll know what you need. Put some heavy tape around the edges. The sheet works great to hold magazine pages flat, and to straighten wrinkles.

Use a cable trigger for the shutter.

Lighting can be a problem. Flash probably won't work: at least I couldn't get it to. I had good results setting up in a room with lots of north facing windows and white walls, and using fairly long exposures in ambient light (hence the cable trigger). You might also want to adjust the white balance with a blank sheet of white paper at the beginning of the shoot.

Obviously this kind of set-up works best in batch mode, where you can quickly shoot a 100 pages or so in a session. Once the camera is set up, you just position the next page, click the shutter, then go on to the next page... a little boring but pretty fast. I was using PaintShop Pro for clean-up (cropping out the edges of the paper and straightening the image), but if I was to do this again tomorrow, I'm pretty sure that The GIMP would handle it. And I think there are now some good FOSS OCR software available, too. I was working with an early version of OmniPage, and it was a foul beast. Also OmniPage only produced Word documents, which made for several extra steps to moving from hardcopy of old correspondence, etc, to decent HTML.

Oh, I almost forgot. Set up your shots so the image you want is centered with about 10% margins all the way around that you will crop away in post-processing. Use a fairly high resolution to compensate. You'll end up with much better results, especially if you will be using OCR.

Re:Classic Comics too

[bgalbrecht]

I have scanned out of copyright Astounding SF magazines with good results with the Plustek Opticbook 3600. These magazines are stapled about a quarter inch from the spine edge of the paper. The biggest problem with the Opticbook is that it still needs about a 3/8ths inch of empty space from the binding, so if your classic comic books are bound this way, and the gutters are extremely narrow, you may even have problems with the Opticbook, but you'd probably have similar problems with a planetary scanner like the original poster was asking about.

I don't know if Project Gutenberg would be the best choice, since they focus on text, I'd recommend contacting Internet Archive.

Re:Classic Comics too

[toddestan]

But scanner or photocopier glass, a ring light. It would be the way I'd go about it. 8MP cameras are common. You might want to go SLR, something like a Pentax or Nikon where you can get the a stock manual focus 50mm. For something that is, I presume, 9x7 inches I doubt you need a macro lens. I didn't say Canon as the mount changed from the manual focus days, but that's an option as well, just good bang for the buck with a used manual focus 50mm lens.

For a copystand, you can get away with an adaptor that doesn't allow for infinity focus, as you don't need infinity focus. Thus a Canon camera would be fine, as you could get a M42->Canon AF (or whatever) adaptor and still use a cheap manual focus lens.

Building upon this idea, you could get a set of bellows if you think you'll want high resolution images of small areas of the pages. Here's a random Google result showing some of what you can do with a set of bellows.
http://forums.biorust.com/photography-photo-manipulation/6964-about-macro-photography.html

Let me guess...

[RabidMoose]

...this is probably the result of a "compromise" between you and your wife, because those old mags are taking up too much shelf space?

Re:Let me guess...

[that IT girl]

Wife? Female, in his company voluntarily? Did you forget where you are? ;)

Re:Let me guess...

[Muffinmasher]

Wife? Female, in his company voluntarily? Did you forget where you are? ;)

by that IT girl (864406)

Having an identity crisis now?

Re:Let me guess...

[that IT girl]

Oh sure, as soon as I make a well-known Slashdot joke it's no longer funny...

Damged with a flatbed?

[Anonymous Coward]

But they'd get damaged with a flatbed scanner

Really? I doubt it, so long as you accept a certain amount of distortion very near the spine (it's not like magazines print there anyway...) and are careful (manually positioning, no feeder). There are few, if any, computing magazines more than 30 years old, they're hardly whisper-thin flakes of ancient parchment. I still have "home computer course" and "home computer advanced course" magazines that are fine and I'd have no qualms about putting them through my (admittedly high-end) epson flatbed scanner. I don't because it would be a bit of a pain for not much return (not to mention others have already scanned 'em).

ambient light, tripod, shutter release remote

[maiki]

I'm not a professional magazine photographer (as in, photographer of magazines), but these tips might help. Whenever I photograph a document or painting, I just use my plain ol' digital camera.
A few things:

1. Do not use flash or direct light. Shiny magazine pages will reflect much of the light and create a glare. Use soft, ambient light (bounce it off a white sheet or something)
2. Stabilize the camera. Use a tripod or a stack of books. Don't hold it in your hands
3. Use a shutter release remote. If you don't have one, use the camera's timer feature (so you don't shake the camera by pushing the button)
4. Use macro-mode, and set your aperture as low as it will go. This will help you focus on something close up.
5. Use a low ISO. You'll might need a longer exposure time, but it will cut down on graininess.
6. Maybe this is obvious, but use something to hold the magazine in the right spot (keep the pages as flat as possible to avoid "warping" in the picture)
7. Try to keep the same distance for each shot, so the digital images are roughly the same scale. Also don't worry about seeing the background around the magazine, you can crop it later (better than zooming too close and missing the page number or something)

Re:ambient light, tripod, shutter release remote

[Anonymous Coward]

Your claiming expert in this area, would you mind explaining why all that palaver with a camera is better than a simple calibrated scanner?

I've worked in large scale document storage and we had staff feeding docs into the scanners all day every day, the image quality was excellent, no weird artifacts under hude zoom, individual color dots are precise. So I'm interested to see what you feel is wrong with this far simpler technique we charged millions for per year.

Although the docs being scanned for the business weren't mags, as a dev, I tested them with comics, playboy and the usual business letters.

Re:ambient light, tripod, shutter release remote

[Anonymous Coward]

These are good tips. To them, I would add that if you know someone who is a professional photographer, or serious amateur, see if they have a shift lens you can use, or see about renting one. It will allow you to take the photo at an angle from a tripod but have it appear as if the camera was positioned directly above.

Re:ambient light, tripod, shutter release remote

[Anonymous Coward]

(keep the pages as flat as possible to avoid "warping" in the picture)

If a flatbed scanner would damage the magazine, then so would this.

Obviously what the guy so-anonymous-his-name-ate-the-adjacent-"writes" was looking for is a "warp-is-allowed" method involving a multi-camera setup, a laser-range scanner, and fancy algorithms to unwarp the final image. Shame on you for not delivering.

Re:ambient light, tripod, shutter release remote

[Anonymous Coward]

You may want to try this document scanner:

http://www.sceye.biz

Although it's less for archiving high res scans of documents but rather for quickly scanning paper documents in the office, it may be what you are looking for.

It definitely won't damage the magazine. And it's a very efficient device if you have lots of archiving to do.

Re:ambient light, tripod, shutter release remote

[m85476585]

Most people don't have an autofeed scanner, but many people do have a digital camera. A flatbed scanner would work, but it takes a long time. I needed to make a copy of a section of a reference book, and instead of spending hours lining it up on my scanner pressing scan, waiting for it to finish, etc., I set up my 5mp digital camera on a tripod with a light angled so that it wouldn't reflect off the pages. In 20 minutes--10 minutes of setup and 10 minutes of taking pictures--I got a hundred pages digitized and readable. A higher resolution camera and flatter light would have helpt, but the results I got were acceptable.

Re:ambient light, tripod, shutter release remote

[shotfire]

I use this technique with old family photos and it works great. I've found the hardest part is keeping things flat, but if you can get that then you'll get good results. The only real problem I've had with this method is that on a partly cloudy day, the colours may be different depending on the cloud cover at the time of the shot. Now I only do it on a clear sky day with the light diffusing blinds pulled down.

Re:ambient light, tripod, shutter release remote

[mikael]

I've done both methods - the camera is far quicker, but a hand-held camera will blur unless you are in direct sunlight. Then you have problems with shadows if the light is directly behind you . The author seems to have solved all of these problems with a reflector, tripod and macro lens.

Even a manually held flat-bad scanner will take about a 1 minute per page - 30 seconds to scan, and 30 seconds to flip the page and replace. With some skill it is possible to do the flip page while the scanner is returning to the starting position.

Re:ambient light, tripod, shutter release remote

[jgrahn]

I'm not a professional magazine photographer (as in, photographer of magazines), but these tips might help. Whenever I photograph a document or painting, I just use my plain ol' digital camera. A few things: [---]

Good advice, but it's worth pointing out that you can be much sloppier than that and get away with acceptable results.

I typically move two 100w bulb lamps to my desk, stand up with the book on the table, hold the book open with one hand, and take a picture with my camera in the other hand. Flip pages, and take another picture, and so on.

This is surprisingly fast (20 pages per minute or so) and works well for text and black-and-white illustrations, if all you want is to be able to read the text afterwards.

Re:ambient light, tripod, shutter release remote

[ratbag]

3.1 If your camera has a mirror lockup mode, use it.

Re:ambient light, tripod, shutter release remote

[shininghappydude]

Last week I successfully scanned Grampa's thesis (a bound book with oversized maps in the appendix) using a two person approach. I held the digital camera so that each page maximually filled the viewer; that is, I photographed each portrait page in landscape mode and used software later to rotate them. Dad held the book open to the proper page. The process went very quickly since he could turn the pages while I shot, and he could take responsibility for ensuring flatness of the page. It's best to use a couple bright lamps at the side for lighting instead of the flash. If I were doing this on my own, I would mount the camera on a tripod and use the remote to trigger it. I always scan this original archival stuff to TIFF for best reproduction and then manipulate it later into a format suitable to the viewing medium.

Re:ambient light, tripod, shutter release remote

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I bought a Canon S3-IS just for this purpose because it's so much faster at shooting than a scanner, and made a small camera stand out of found wood and cheap hardware parts.

The camera takes 3264 x 2448 images, and can be remotely controlled from linux via gphoto with a simple script to make shooting a one key process. I use it specifically for the purpose of digitizing all my sketchbooks, contracts, and various other records which I then move to a USB drive that I keep in my safe deposit box in the event of fire.

Shooting takes about 7 seconds to 1) take the shot, 2) transfer it to disk with a numbered filename. (The third step of throwing the image up is run in the background, so the camera operator doesn't have to wait for the image to open).

I could have kept the shoot time smaller by leaving the images on the camera and transferring them later in one long operation, but it takes about 7 seconds for the camera operator to remove/replace the glass pane used to flatten down the pages. As long as the operator waits for the beep from the camera, they can move to the next page while the image is being transferred off the camera.

I made a small camera stand out of 2x4s that is clamped to a utility table. It's similar to an animation camera stand; the camera aims down onto the table, with two side lights on either side of the artwork. The stand is about 4 feet high off the table, and is made out of 5 pieces of 2x4 held together with metal joiners (used in house construction, available at Home Depot, OSH, etc).

The stand is clamped down to a utility table that is about a meter square. It takes up a small corner my guest room.

The camera mount is regular 1/4" bolt through the cross beam of the stand, keeping the camera firmly mounted to it. There are two cheap side lights clamped at either side of the art work. Placement of these is tricky to prevent glare.

I used black masking tape to cover the shiny parts of the camera so that they don't reflect back in the glass I use to flatten the artwork, which you'll see if the artwork has large black areas.

I set the f-stop to 8 to increase the depth of field, to ensure there's no focus issues.

I've taped a large white piece of paper over the table and put marks on it to show the various zoom areas, so that the camera operator knows where to put the artwork.

I bought an AC adapter for the camera so that it doesn't eat through batteries, and a USB cable and USB extension so the USB control wire can easily reach the computer. I wrote a small script that invokes gphoto2(1) so that the person shooting can just 'hit enter' to shoot each frame, or type an optional comment that gets associated with the image. I included IRC style 'commands' so that the camera operator can type special commands to change the zoom, and create new folders for shooting (ie. one folder for each sketchbook), and an easy way to reshoot the last frame, or change the 'current frame number' in case several frames needed to be redone.

The script keeps track of the "running frame number", and the images are saved with 4 digit padding (eg. 0001.jpg, 0002.jpg..) so that they sort correctly in directory listings. The frame number is displayed as part of the prompt to the operator.

After each frame is shot and saved to disk, the image is thrown up in an image viewer so the cameraman can see what was shot on the notebook computer's screen which is at the far end of the desk.

I found a USB numeric keypad (from staples) the the cameraman uses as the 'button' to record each frame. This way I don't wear out the enter key on my notebook (keypad is easier to replace), and it makes it easier for the camera operator to not make a mistake by hitting the wrong key, and allows easy placement near the right edge of the table (instead of balancing a full sized USB keyboard) The operator can still reach across the table to type on the notebook's keyboard.. they just need to always shoot (hit 'Enter') on the separate USB notepad to avo

Remove the staples

[zakezuke]

So, the question is, what is the best way to capture all the information in old magazines in digital format? Does anyone have a home-built rig taking after the angled-pair-of-scanners setup that Project Gutenburg uses?

Unless we are talking about glued binding like national geographic uses, odds are we are talking about something stapled. Remove staple and use either a sheet fed or a flat bed scanner. Replace staple.

If that's not an option, then one can setup a photograph rig where you place the camera on an arm at a right angle and press down each page with a piece of glass. 8MP cameras are common place which AFAIK are going to be slightly better than 300dpi.

Don't destroy the magazines

[Simonetta]

I must respectfully disagree with the above reply. The magazine is not simply a print-out. It's an intact cultural artifact as a magazine. If not now, then in fifty or 100 years from now.

    Are you primarily interested in the text of the magazine articles themselves? Or the images (such as 'Mens magazines' like Club International that are primarily images)? Or are you interested in preserving the balance in the layout between the text, the images, and the adverts?

    For text primarily, use a stand for the magazine, and a 10 megapixel digital camera with a small tripod. Optical Character Recognition is the way to go in this situation. But it is hard to get the exact right program for your configuration.

    Are these magazines in English or a western European language? OCR is much easier and faster with 100 or so ASCII characters than it is with Chinese, Japanese, or Korean. OCR for these languages exists but the programs are expensive if you actually buy them. Personally, I believe that because the Chinese have stolen billions of dollars worth of software from the Americans since the earliest days of computers, the Americans have no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to pay for any software developed and sold by a Chinese company. But, opinions differ on this issue.

    Keep the magazines intact. You'll regret cutting them up in the future when a more elegant solution to digitizing them appears that doesn't entail destroying the original materials.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[jonbryce]

Personally I feel that as the Americans "stole" millions of pounds worth of literature from the Europeans since the earliest days of books, Europeans have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to pay for anything developed and sold by an American company. But, opinions differ on this issue.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Snaller]

"Personally, I believe that because the Chinese have stolen billions of dollars worth of software from the Americans since the earliest days of computers, the Americans have no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to pay for any software developed and sold by a Chinese company."

Wow aren't you a fucking moron.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[LordSnooty]

Your Sinclair Rock And Roll Years proves that it's good when SOMEONE keeps copies of magazines (fortunately the Spectrum scene is pretty much completely scanned in, by hand I presume) link

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an intact cultural artifact as a magazine.

Wow, I never heard someone wax so poetic about the stacks of crap in my dentist's office.

Really, scanned, it still is that. From scanning other things, if you want it done right and the paper really flat on the scanner glass -- cheapest option is to cut the spin and scan it -- as someone else said.

Other than that, you are getting into expensive territory... and for what? Some cheap magazines you probably can find on ebay for a few bucks.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Domo-Sun]

What's with all the bad ethics of people on slashdot? It's okay to steal wifi because the network door was left open. It's okay to steal stuff because someone else did it. Duh.

If something is morally, ethically, and legally wrong, it'll still be that way when you do it. That's where the "Two Wrongs don't make a Right" cliche came from.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[eclectro]

Europeans have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to pay for anything developed and sold by an American company.

Thems is invasion words.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[jedidiah]

Feh.

Digitize them. Destroy them if necessary. But capture enough information
so that you could recreate the original if necessary.It's really not that
hard and you aren't going to destroy much if any "context" by doing so.

A $60 printer/scanner is all you really need to capture enough information
to make a "reprint" with.

Make copies.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I believe that because the Chinese have stolen billions of dollars worth of software from the Americans since the earliest days of computers, the Americans have no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to pay for any software developed and sold by a Chinese company. But, opinions differ on this issue.

lol opinions certainly do... My mommy told me that just because someone else did something wrong to me, that didn't make it right for me to do the same thing to them. Stealing is flat out wrong, doesn't matter how much someone else stole from you. And I'm not trying to make an intellectual property point. I just can't believe you don't see the moral and ethical issue there.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[SoVeryTired]

Personally, I believe that because the Chinese have stolen billions of dollars worth of software from the Americans since the earliest days of computers, the Americans have no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to pay for any software developed and sold by a Chinese company.

Wow, just wow. I have to say that I'm saddened and a bit dissappointed to find that anyone, anywhere thinks like that anymore. If you actually gave a little more thought to that line of reasoning, you would presumably have to concede that, for example, native americans shouldn't be obliged to pay for anything, given that their land was stolen from them several hundred years ago.

It is foolish, in the extreme, to punish anyone for the mistakes their predecessors made.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[el americano]

"It's okay to steal wifi because the network door was left open"

Jeez, not that line again. It's great that you have morals, but then you should be willing to make moral distinctions and not call everything stealing. Sometimes when something is left open it is meant to be used. When I see a water fountain without a sign, I assume it's OK to use. If I'm wrong, someone might tell me. No harm done. We might not make the same assumptions about wifi, but if the owner intended it to be used openly, then it is not morally wrong. Even statues which might make it illegal, do not call it stealing. In many places, nothing about using an open wifi connection would be considered illegal.

Sometimes the problem with having high morals is that their owner feels compelled to sit on a high horse.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Anonymous Coward]

Are these magazines in English or a western European language? OCR is much easier and faster with 100 or so ASCII characters than it is with Chinese, Japanese, or Korean. OCR for these languages exists but the programs are expensive if you actually buy them.

Slightly off-topic for the original posters question, but there's a pretty cheap solution to OCR in Japanese (and I think Chinese and Korean too). The home version of the Japanese version of Microsoft Office comes with a tool called Microsoft Office Document Imaging. It's intended for scanning and archiving documents, and pretty limited on features, but has a pretty good OCR engine built in.

I got a pretty good accuracy out of it using a cheap lexmark all-in-one, and found it very useful for helping me translate my post.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Domo-Sun]

1. I'm not calling everything stealing; just the use of your neighbors wifi just because it happens to be open.

2. I wouldn't make the same assumptions about wifi because it's not simply a water fountain on public property.

3. I'm talking about where the owner did not intend, and most of them don't, hence stealing, trespassing, and wrong.

If you want to leach wifi, go ahead. Just don't come on here and call it anything but what it really is.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Anonymous Coward]

> 1. I'm not calling everything stealing; just the use of your neighbors wifi just because it happens to be open.

And what is it called when the neighbor intends for others to use it?

How can you tell whether he intends to share or not? The WAP looks the same either way.

Is it immoral or illegal to take that which is given away freely?

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[el americano]

"I'm not calling everything stealing; just the use of your neighbors wifi"

This was the point. You don't know if it's stealing unless you speak to the owner, period. I can tell you like to simplify when making your moral judgments. I think you could have a career in law enforcement.

FYI, DSL installers routinely set up encryption for their customers, and retailers now provide install CDs which try to force to user to enter a password when setting up the AP. Increasingly, an open AP is intended to be open.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Domo-Sun]

I think you have it completely backwards moron. That's like saying "I don't know if I'm allowed to enter this open door so I have to assume that I have permission without asking first.

People's wifi networks are typically open by mistake or convenience. A lot of people leave their doors open intentionally, it doesn't mean you have permission to use their property. It simply means the people who have permission to use it are convenienced.

You need to ask first. The fact that you don't ask but instead suggest that increasing numbers intentionally want everyone to anonymously leach their network, and plead ignorance like it's totally okay, shows that you're just interested in leaching covertly to hide your wrongdoing.

You have a great criminal mind-set.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Anonymous Coward]

No land was stolen from them. It was either lost in war or they sold it to the White man. Likewise, they didn't "steal" it from their predecessors either. They likely took it from them in war.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Anonymous Coward]

> No land was stolen from them. It was either lost in war or they sold it to the White man.

Burglary vs. armed robbery vs. swindling? Some choice.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[el americano]

For the last time, it's not a door. I am not entering someone's house. Your righteous indignation won't allow you to see the situation for what it is. The risk of harm, or even inconvenience by making my assumption is close to zero. Yes, I'm one of those who think that people really should know better if they add a wireless access point to their network, but I don't think that's a necessary opinion to reach the same conclusion.

I also happen to think that an ftp server that allow anonymous ftp is intended for all. I'm quite the criminal, aren't I?

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Domo-Sun]

All analogies have differences, the point is that if you recognize that doors are left open by accident and sometimes on purpose for those who are lazy, reckless, or overly trusting (that people won't tresspass), and you recognize that the same happens with networks - even more so because networks are complex abstractions that lay people don't understand, so third-parties configure them for convenience - then you can not conclude that you have permission without getting it from the owner first.

You either have permission or you don't. Using and frequenting someone's property without their permission is trespassing, stealing and wrong. Not knowing doesn't mean you have permission. That other people are wrongfully unaware or reckless does not mean you have permission. That some hypothetical might permit you does not give you permission. It's not for you to decide what's a harm or 'zero' inconvenience; it's not your property.

There's really no getting around these points so the argument will go nowhere unless you call it what it is.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[el americano]

"Using and frequenting someone's property without their permission is trespassing, stealing and wrong.

Not always, and not in this case in my opinion. If you are creating the expectation that something is OK to use, then reasonable people will. In this case, you always have the remedy of turning it off or reconfiguring it, and your property is never in jeopardy. Thus, not a door, not trespass, not stealing. If someone unintentionally shares their files on the internet, it would not be wrong to download their files. They are the ones making it available after all, and reasonable expectation is relevant.

BTW, I am pleased you have made it clear that all this moral grandstanding is in defense of the lazy, the ignorant, and those who only have themselves to blame. ;-)

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Anonymous Coward]

You can tell the difference by asking. If you can't tell then you don't have permission. The significant majority don't want anonymous people leaching their wifi therefore it's wrong to assume. You do so with a selfish bias.

People have wireless computers, phones, mouses and other peripherals out of convenience. Not because they've all decided to be underworld altruists.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Domo-Sun]

Oh, please tell me when stealing is not always stealing? I'd love an explanation there. I'd also love an explanation as to when it's not wrong to use peoples property without their permission because they failed at network security, but unfortunately I'll never get one, as you've failed miserably at reasoning and now attempt to persuade me with your toddler mentality that if something isn't bolted down it now belongs to you, and two wrongs make a right.

The property is the network too. People have decided that we're going to live in a civilization and they've decided that there's an actual definition of reasonable behavior in that society and it doesn't include the asocial behavior that you promote.

That's why we make laws and pay for things to exist like super markets, cars, computers; and all the wireless phones, keyboards, peripherals and computer networks that society decided they wanted. They didn't all decide to want wireless phones, keyboards and networks because they all wanted to be eavesdropped, keylogged, or because they wanted to be network underworld altruists. They did it for convenience.

Great job again at trying to deny that it's stealing by saying the person deserves it because they're not a computer hacker like you. It may be taking candy from babies to you, but it's still stealing. Blaming the victim is classic for a criminal.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[el americano]

You appear to be ignorant of the principle of implied consent

It is not "Stealing" nor "Theft of services" nor "Unauthorized use of a computer" nor "Computer trespass" according to New York Law, for one example.

Perhaps you'd like a scholarly article on why we should not make your assumptions (and get indignant about it, I might add) from George Washington University - Law School

In fact, I had already given you examples of use which are not stealing, and you are choosing to ignore them so you can't redundantly say stealing is stealing. On the off chance that you blacked out, the examples were anonymous FTP and a web server sharing files. P2P is another situation where you could be sharing files by mistake, but it's reasonable to assume that it is not by mistake - and downloaders use more of your computer resources than someone sending data through your router.

It takes all of one minute to turn on security. You do *not* have to be a hacker - what a canard that is. I won't claim that there isn't anyone who wouldn't be able to do it, but society cannot always limit itself to what the least of us can do. There is no victim in this scenario, just someone who has shared their network, so deserve has nothing to do with it. I was merely suggesting that being lazy and ignorant usually means you are to blame when you do something you did not intend.

Enough of your feeble attempts to claim I will take other people's physical property if it's not bolted down. You are obviously having trouble recognizing the difference between a car parked in your garage and a service that you are broadcasting onto my property which advertises itself as non-private and explicitly authorizes me to join the network.

Is it possible that reasonable people can reach this conclusion? Or am I the only asocial moron with a toddler's mentality?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060227-6272.html
http://www.dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2006/02/26/20060226-H2-03.html
http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_its_ok_to_steal_wi_fi
http://zovirl.com/2006/07/27/you-cant-steal-wifi/
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1179938755.shtml

You may not agree, but you should not continue to pretend that all people who hold this view think it's OK to steal. Try to learn that much.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Domo-Sun]

1. Using peoples' property without their permission is stealing. Period.

None of your links (and thanks for wasting my time) and nothing you have said, and I'm reasonably confident there's nothing you can say, that would change that fact. You're either tragically confused and selfish or you've got a terminal case of cognitive dissonance.

2. I don't care about one example of NY law. Just because something is/isn't legal somewhere doesn't mean it's right. See 1.

3. Anonymous FTPs are set up with a page of rules and regulations. They're not your average neighbors property that just says linksys.

Reasonable to share warez/MP3s? FTP/P2P is used to inflate plausible deniability to cover computer crimes. Perhaps 'implied consent' (what you're so fond of) should apply there too. Is it really fair to create a P2P network like Napster and pretend like 90% of what goes on there isn't crime, and if it was, you're powerless to stop it, so bear no responsibility?

I do believe artists and developers should be compensated, reasonably balanced against free market forces, adapting to new technology. But downloading music or software and paying nothing for it is stealing, however you justify that. Calling it anything else would be deception..but that's way off topic.

I believe you're wifi opinion is also deception. Maybe you're deceiving yourself, but that's just retarded. How can you make persuasive arguments when you can't even tell the difference?

Remember that people go wireless out of convenience to themselves, not because they're underworld altruists like you. And just because YOU claim to want to be leached doesn't mean that 100% do. Nor does it give you the right.

Wrongdoers often make this claim: There's nothing wrong with X; I want X done to me. Simply replace X with e-mail intercepts, eavesdropping, impersonation, stealing, etc. It's not your place or property to decide what other people want.

Wrongdoers also claim there's no victim and that's not for you to decide. It's for the owners of the property. They and their ISP aren't bestowed with endless network capacity to divvy out anonymously for the underworld leaches.

But get this: even though you're totally WRONG, whether or not someone is inconvenienced has nothing to do with it: IT'S MY PROPERTY. If I'm away on vacation you can't live in my house or use my network, no matter how crudely you think it's being wasted. It's not yours.

4. Implied consent. Well, maybe someone who abandons their car, keyed and open, is going to have some liability on their hands if someone drives their car. Implied consent legally means that the owner is potentially forced to bear some responsibility for their recklessness. It DOES NOT mean that you're being given TRUE permission. That doesn't make it okay for you to steal it. You have to act responsibly too. Because stealing someone's car is wrong. See 1.

5. Feeble is when you cast baloney to see what sticks like it's a court room. If you don't "think it's OK to steal" then why do you do it? Using someone's wifi - when the vast majority of wifi is intended for the convenient un-tethering of their network for their own personal convenience - is stealing.

A computer network is property. It costs money to access and use that property. The ISP, and the majority of their customers, don't want you to be on their property. Just because

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[el americano]

1. Not so. You already have many unrefuted examples.
2. OK, you don't care about law (although you bring it up yourself), fine. It was still relevant.
3. So many fallacies, so little time. Implied consent was for use, not to take ownership of their car or router. Copyright infringement is a tangent, so I won't go there. I'm using the word "right" as in not wrong. I don't claim it's my right to use other people's equipment. I think they can and should secure their wifi if that's what they want. Lastly, you appear to know jack about anonymous FTP. The point is that society decides what the expectations are for use when permission is only given electronically. Either convention could be valid. You are the one pretending that only you can be right given the rules of society. Bollocks.
4. Implied Consent is not permission from the owner, it's just allowed. Don't struggle with it. Just disagree.
5. Here you're being obtuse on purpose. If you don't agree with my definition of stealing, at least you should know what I mean by now.
6. Aircraft? Health? It's not so much fallacious as it is irrelevant. You even misunderstood the tangible/intangible position. My opinion is that it's intangible, but "tangible" would also lose the argument. Passive does *not* mean covert, and leeching is not hostile most of the time. You were just a bit off on all of those.

If you don't think I'm being reasonable, then I must assume that you are not accustomed to critical thinking. You much prefer the argument that requires no proof (e.g. stealing is stealing) than justifying something with reason and examining implications. That is not lawyer trickery to me, but rational discourse. If you cared about being reasonable you would argue that leeching wifi is stealing, not that stealing is stealing. You wouldn't say all reasonable people agree with you, but rather acknowledge the many reasonable people who do not. (links were provided)

Belatedly I see your name-calling is not unique to this thread (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=589015&cid=24052475). You are hardly the person to suppose yourself the defender of reason. You just have a gut feeling and you're sticking with that.

Re:Don't destroy the magazines

[Domo-Sun]

1. If by critical thinking you mean Slothful Induction. I don't need to prove with 100% accuracy that Using property without permission is stealing resources, trespassing on a network, and wrong. It's a reasonable assumption because:

2. my assumptions are valid by social standards of property, the spirit of the law, and completely reasonable under my scenarios.

I'm not making strict legal arguments. Legal defenses are a parade of lies and deception. I'm dealing with common sense and reasonable behavior. And I've been clear about that. Therefore your fifty-page-later revelation about your poor interpretation of some law in NY and what you claim to be implied consent are straw men. Because I was never arguing that it's not implied consent; simply that it was NOT consent. I also didn't say it was stealing under a subsection of some law somewhere. Although both arguments on your part are questionable.

3. When I said property I'm talking about the network, not it's hardware.

If someone wants to share their network with people, that's their choice. But that's not what we're talking about.

You're right, Einstein, I forgot the finer details of anonymous FTP. I also thought there was info somewhere about the FTP that could be gleamed from it, such as if you're allowed access or not, who's the admin, or some info at the file root. But then I was always making the assumptions we're talking about reasonable people that could tell that "NETGEAR" as a network name was probably not configured at all. But apparently we're talking about big free-loading genius hacker low-lifes like you who commit crimes and deny everything. Something to aspire to.

Nevertheless, anonymous FTP has to be explicitly set-up. So explicitly in fact, that my mom is not going to set up an anonymous FTP by mistake, which means the chances of an anonymous FTP accidentally existing, on even an average persons computer, are practically nil. Because average people aren't network administrators.

That's also why my mom isn't going to know if her network is secure. It's unreasonable for you to say "She has a choice to secure it or I have permission." It's a false dilemma because you have choices too, of waiting to ask her for permission first. That you don't proves your only interest is in stealing. And no one is forcing you to do that. You can get your own damn internet, leach. Implied Consent is a euphemism for Forced Consent. That's what you're doing to her and saying it's consent. Ambiguity, Equivocation.

If you're so smart about fallacies why do you make such egregious violations?

4. You're claiming "implied consent" like it's a legal defense that you have permission. That again is a strict legal term and I'm not interested in what the law says but what's logically reasonable and right.

Just because something is legally "allowed" doesn't mean it's right:

Implied Consent once meant that women consent to rape through marriage. Rape is not consent. And currently the law says it's legally right for cops to forcibly detain someone who's driving a car suspiciously, and forcibly test them for drugs. That means that when you're caught with a white powder, resist arrest and eat the evidence, they are going to bust your face open, and torture you until they get a blood sample. And for no other reason than that you got in a car. But in reality, that's not consent. You have no choice. Silence and force are not consent here.

Sure, from a legal standpoint it is: but that pdf you linked to didn't agree with this either. He said too many people are unaware of tech law and the contracts their clicking. But laws have always existed/been passed with people unaware. Even before the internet. That too many people don't understand what's legal has nothing to do with "Should we make trespass laws about intangible things yet?" Maybe Ignorance != Defense is wrong, but it didn

Taking it too far

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to view a magazine in .pdf form just to make it easier to get all the powerups in Rockman?

I thought using a mag was already spoiling it, you sir have just gone too far.

Acutally in the digital age

[Orion Blastar]

magazine and comic book companies are creating digital versions of the old magazines and comic books.

This might prove to be a business opportunity for a savvy geek that finds out what underwriting company owns the rights to defunct magazines like the Compute! series, and then buy the rights to them to reproduce them digitally. Usually some accountants and/or lawyers play the role of a corporate undertaker and buy out IP of failed companies. Then just scan the old magazines into PDF format, and sell them online for like $3 a copy to download the PDF version.

Some companies did that for the old 8 bit computers and game consoles, and made things like the Atari Flashback console or the Commodore 64 joystick by buying the IP rights to the games and the computer/console BIOS so an emulator can run inside of a tiny computer that fits inside of a game system or game controller hooked up to a modern TV set. Some companies also sell the ROMs online by buying out the IP for Atari arcade ROMs and other things.

Copy stand...

[dalthaus]

You might want to investigate an inexpensive copy stand. Generally the base of the stand has a registration/alignment system you can use and the lights are set at a 45-degree angle to eliminate or minimize reflection. This will work best if the magazines are simple fold-and-staple binding. If they are perfect binding, you will have to break the spine so they will lay as flat as possible. The other thing you will have to do is cover the page you are photographing with a sheet of the cleanest glass you can get. But a word of caution here... no magazine will lay perfectly flat, so there will be some page distortion in the image. If you are going to do this (break the spine) you will be better off with a flatbed scanner which will cost considerably less than the stand and the four 250-watt lamps.

Someone might have beat you to it

[bigbigbison]

There are a lot of scanned in videogame magazines online. Do a search for the name of the magazine followed by torrent and you might find some of them.

Computer Gaming World put up the first 100 issues in pdf form when they switched to Games For Windows Magazine. I know there is an effort (if they haven't already succeeded) to scan in every issue of Nintendo Power. There is a lot of other stuff out there too.

Look around for them and it might save you the time of scanning them in yourself.

Maybe try this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe try one of these? Never used one myself but I do find them mildly interesting for my comic collection.

http://www.plustek.com/product/book3600.asp

yellowcake

[Anonymous Coward]

yellowcake from iraq shipped to canada? how the fuck did that happen? i thought there were to real signs of an iraqi nuclear program.

Just buy the DVD of scanned issues

[axedog]

Scanned back issues (legal) are available from http://www.zzap64.co.uk/zzuperstore.html ALL back issues of Zzap 64, Crash, Commodore Disk User, Zero and lots of other 80s luvvlies!

Copyright is theft

[Snaller]

So who cares ;)

Not anonymous

[novakyu]

It says right on the title:

Journal written by kesuki (321456) and posted by timothy on Saturday July 05, @04:00PM

Re:fair use?

[jbengt]

Don't bet on it.
Seriously, you could easily lose that fair use argument in a courtroom (YMMV, IANAL, etc.), assuming that you did anything that brought attention to the fact that you made those copies.

Team of monks

[gardyloo]

Rent a monestary. It's slow, but it'll add some value to your magazines.

Re:fair use?

[palegray.net]

No, no, and futhermore, no. We're not talking about the recording industry here (although they've been continuously defeated on fair use copies, along with the video industry). We're talking about making archival/personal use copies of printed works someone already owns, a practice that's been heavily tested in various academic and related arenas.

No, you could not "easily lose that fair use argument" in a courtroom with regard to this situation. Now, if you went out and distributed copies of the material, you've broken copyright law and would be wide open to civil actions.

Should you happen to continue to assert your position on this matter, cite supporting examples in case law.

theres a lego rig

[Anonymous Coward]

SOMEWHERE ON THE NET

"Gaming" magazines?

[ThePopeLayton]

So you're looking to digitize "Gaming" magazines... I guess you can call 'em that...

Re:"Gaming" magazines?

[urcreepyneighbor]

So you're looking to digitize "Gaming" magazines... I guess you can call 'em that...

You never played Beaver Hunt?

Some links on the topic

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been thinking about this for years. Here's some links:

http://www.book2net.net/en/knowledge-base/
http://www.atiz.com/bookdrive_diy.php
http://jduck.net/2008/01/05/ocr-scanning/
http://www.sane-project.org/docs.html
http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13848
http://www.frontiernet.net/~rjacob/copystnd.htm
http://www.breezesys.com/PSRemote/index.htm
http://roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=1232
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/2007-March/018920.html
http://jduck.net/2008/01/05/ocr-scanning/
http://www.topocr.com/
http://unpaper.berlios.de/
http://gscan2pdf.sourceforge.net/
http://www.awe.com/mark/blog/200709161530.html
http://xhtml.net/articles/Scanner-ScanSnap-S510-Ubuntu-Gutsy
http://jduck.net/2008/01/05/ocr-scanning/
http://www.linux.com/articles/61826

The Other Digital Image Creator

[pokerdad]

Seeing all of the aversion in this thread to using a scanner (and I agree with all the reasons people say its not pratical), reminded me of a situation I was in a couple of years ago. My wife and I were visiting an aging relative of hers who had all kinds of pictures my wife dearly wanted. Said relative had no computer, we didn't have the time to take the pictures elsewhere, and expecting her to make duplicates to pass on to us at a later date was unrealistic.

So, we used what we had available - our digital camera. I cranked it up to the highest res and took a picture of every picture. It certainly wasn't the best way to do things, but the results were acceptable, and the time it took was far less than it would have been if a scanner had been available with no risk of damaging the photos.

cut off spines; use ADF copier/scanner at work

[ecloud]

I have many boxes of old magazines too - Radio-Electronics being the most valuable to me. But paper is not made to last, and takes up too much room. I cringed at first, but a digital archive is really much better.

I got one of these stack paper cutters (seems to be a good model), cut the spines off the magazines, and use the networked scanner/copier/fax combo we have at work. It doesn't have enough options and file formats, but PDF is good enough for this purpose in practice. It saves the PDFs to a network drive and I copy them to a thumb drive. Then at home I use Acrobat to OCR the PDFs, rearrange pages if necessary, split/combine PDFs, number the pages, insert page thumbnails, and re-compress them. (Yes, ick, commercial software on Windows... but there aren't many alternatives.)

It's still a slow process though. The ADF on the copier jams up sometimes, and processing one magazine at a time adds up to a lot of time when you've got so many like I do.

Re:cut off spines; use ADF copier/scanner at work

[4D6963]

But paper is not made to last

Oh, cause a DVD backup is maybe? If you properly store your magazines, in 200 years they'll still be usable. That's coming from someone whose favourite childhood books were printed in 1869. What sort of modern digital media could be said the same about?

Re:cut off spines; use ADF copier/scanner at work

[toddestan]

You're missing the point. When that paper turns to dust, the magazine is gone forever. With a DVD, you don't have to worry about the disk turning to dust, so long as you've copied the data from it before it happens.

Re:cut off spines; use ADF copier/scanner at work

[4D6963]

When the paper turns to dust? Do you know how long it takes for the paper to turn to dust? On the order of 500 years. A properly stored magazine will outlive the 5th generation of your descendants as well as the last functioning museum DVD player. Surely there are many compelling reasons for digitising a magazine, if just to still be able to consult it in its digital form while the original rests and takes the test of time. But the magazine will outlive its digital copy, at least with much less effort and thought.

You're reinventing the wheel...

[ZeroPly]

There's already an entire industry devoted to what you're trying to do. We scan rare books at work, in fact we have two employees who do nothing but scan.

We use overhead book scanners where the height can be adjusted as desired. The technician holds the book/magazine open with his hands, using his judgement as to how far it can be opened. After the picture is taken the software flattens out the area by the spine. If this is important to you, lease the equipment and software for a few hundred a month. Or you can spend several hundred hours jury-rigging a system with lights and writing your own software to flatten the pages.

Retromags.com

[Anonymous Coward]

You could assist the Retromags project which already has a sizable collection of gaming magazines:

http://www.retromags.com/forums/index.php?act=uportal

Re:Retromags.com

[mjmeyer]

Agreed. There is nothing new under the sun. Instead of digitizing your own magazines, look for other people who have already done so. Not only won't you ruin your magazines, but chances are those other people did a better job digitizing than you would have. Retromags.com has hundreds of back issues of gaming magazines (none more recent than 2003 to avoid blatant piracy). Downloading requires registration. A free registration limits you to only a few downloads per week, but a $2.50 Paypal "donation" allows (nearly) unlimited downloads for 2 months, which should be enough to grab a digital copy of everything you need. Or you can just Google for "retromags torrent" (unfortunately they are mostly Nintendo Power torrents, and some of the torrents have no seeders).

The best way...

[TavisJohn]

Flatbed scanner. All digital camera pictures will look like crap.
Save each page in a separate PNG or JPG file.
Put them ito a CBR file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Book_Archive_file
Optional: Convert the CBR into a PDF with many available CBR free readers.

Amen Re:Someone might have beat you to it

[AJ Mexico]

Yes, yes, yes. Same answer for someone looking to digitize almost any popular-culture stuff. I get people asking the best way to digitize their favorite vinyl LP record albums. And the usual answer is, it isn't worth your time. Someone has already done it somewhere, and done a better job, and you can get their result for cheap or free. Just buy the CD, download the file, etc. Search very hard before you decide to do it yourself.

Similarly, the best way to restore a faded, scratched, folded family photo? Ask around the family and see if you can find a better copy! That can give much better results than all the Photoshop trickery in the world. I've seen it work.

IDK, but ask this guy

[leamanc]

Modern Mechanix is a great website that reprints stories from old issues of Popular Mechanics and similar magazines. Thus guy's got a ton of scans and they all look great. You might want to visit the site and ask him how he does it.

I love scannin' magazines

[British]

At work, there was a Mustek A3 scanner. This is THE biggest scanner I've ever seen. two 8.5 x 11 pages fit in there perfectly. In my spare time at work, I scanned in every issue of Videogaming & Computergaming illustrated magazine I had. Why? They were fragile(some pages were falling apart), and it was an AMAZING magazine that put other publications to shame. Made in the early 1980s, it was fun & nostalgic to read over & over again.

Not wanting to keep this to myself, I scanned in all the issues at 300 dpi, straightened 'em out & uploaded them to my picasa account for everyone to enjoy. Did the same thing with a few other mags(99er HCM, etc) so they would live forever in digital immortality. Originally, they were in paint shop pro format, but after straightening them out, I saved them to a more agnostic TIF format, which also saved hard drive space.

The key? Get that Mustek a3 scanner. Sadly, it has the absolute WORST drivers ever made for a device. Expect to power-cycle the scanner and hope for the best. Shame, really, as it's quite affordable compared to the competition, and I can scan album covers in 2 passes + stitching. Trying to do that with a regular smaller scanner means I had to do it 4 times in a radial pattern, and too much distortion(bending of the cover) meant things never lined up right.

Re:fair use?

[omeomi]

And people wonder why it's so easy for the RIAA to erode fair use...it's simple, when most people don't even understand what fair use is, it's easy to slowly take it away.

Making scans better - use a black piece of paper..

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is something which can help make your scans better. If you see ANY print through in your scans -- some parts of the image from the reverse side of the page coming through to your scan of the side you're scanning-- try this. Put a black piece of paper behind the page you are scanning, and flat against it. This will minimze the image from the reverse side of the page.

Re:fair use?

[History's Coming To]

Yup, in the UK backing up your own media for your own use (and *specifically* for backup) has been legal since then 5 1/4 inch floppy BBC Micro days.

atiz.com has sort of a low rent version of

[phr1]

the IA/OCA scanners. The Atiz Booksnap units cost around $1000 not including a pair of consumer digicams ($200-ish each depending on your choice of model). I've been wanting to homebrew something like it for a while but it's probably less hassle to just buy the ready made device. Of course their software is windoze-only but I wouldn't use it.

Whatever you do, keep the originals in tact.

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Scans are great, but data formats change, hard drives crash, etc. I know lots of people with data on aging floppy disks that they just give up for dead. The magazine, if stored carefully, should last centuries.

Re:Whatever you do, keep the originals in tact.

[jedidiah]

This is just bogus.

Most "standard" image formats have been in constant use since this magazine was published.

The proliferation of home photography devices that use those formats will ensure their survival into the future.

Of course you don't keep just one copy of the data just like you don't keep one copy of a book...

Re:Whatever you do, keep the originals in tact.

[FlyingSquidStudios]

The simple fact is that data is, in the end, ephemeral. If society broke down to a significant amount and all of our media was digitally stored, we might not be able to get to them as a problem of basic economics or (lack of) infrastructure. That's not true with the printed word. I realize it's near heresy on Slashdot to have any sort of attitude even approaching Luddism, but societies, historically, collapse eventually and a lot of technology is lost.

Re:Whatever you do, keep the originals in tact.

[jedidiah]

If society started collapsing, every printer on the planet could
start spitting out 100 copies of every book ever written. Digital
technology makes it a lot easier to copy things.

Instead of having one monk spend most of his life on one book you
can spit out the classics of ancient greek thought in a few minutes.

The same goes for images. I have sound and image files that are now
as old as the Star Wars trilogy was when it was being restored. My
files are in much better shape than the allegedly superior physical
storage medium that a blockbuster movie was on.

What preserves information during a DARK AGE is COPYING it.

Whatever else happens, starting out with a lot more copies in existence
will make it much more likely that information survives.

Do-it-yourself book copying setup

[StupendousMan]

Read it yourself at mobileread.com. I made the cardboard version myself -- works fine after a little fiddling, as long as you don't need to copy hundreds of pages.

He's trying to not damage it.

[SEWilco]

Well, yes, there are scanners with page feeders. But he's worried about damaging his originals, so he can't follow the Project Gutenberg practice of cutting off the spines and scanning the pages. If he can't use a flatbed scanner, he might have to rig up a photo stand with the magazine under lights and a stand which holds his magazine open with the pages at right angles. Unless even that would cause damage. In that case he'll have to wait for CAT scanners to get good enough to read his magazine when it's closed.

Re:He's trying to not damage it.

[shimage]

Depending on the autofeeder, I don't think the chance of damage is overwhelming, He's replying to do the dude asking about scanning photographs. I haven't seen many old photographs that have spines. Digitizing photographs is a significantly easier problem to solve than books or magazines.

But the Spine...!

[johndmann]

I'm confused by many of the replies here which talk about auto sheet-feeders and 'double wide' flatbed scanners, but they all seem to ignore the original problem: the spine would be damaged or require disassembly of the magazine itself.

There are special flatbed scanners such as this one which allow scanning without flattening the spine. And you could also try a palm scanner, which I think they also have wider "stick" versions which can do 8.5" sizes too.

IMO these would be the best options to not ruin your original collection. I think the palm scanner I linked is a really old greyscale one, and the special flatbed might not be the best brand... But I'm just providing an example of the type of scanning technology I would use, not suggesting the specific products themselves.

digital camera capture and software

[tmbdev]

Because you're talking about capturing with a digital camera, I assume you don't want to cut them apart. If you are willing to cut the spine, then a sheet-fed scanner is the easiest and cheapest solution. You can re-bind afterwards. Or you can get a double wide scanner and probably still scan flat.

If you do want to use a camera, it's important to set up the camera and lighting correctly to make sure you start with good quality images. Watch out for specular highlights.

What you do afterwards depends on the binding. If you can open the magazines flat, then you simply need to intensity normalize and/or threshold the image. There are some good tools for that in the OCRopus OCR toolkit (www.ocropus.org); have a look here:

http://sites.google.com/site/ocropus/documentation

If you can't flatten the magazine before capture, you need dewarping software. Dewarping can be pretty tricky. My group has developed some software for it and we're thinking about starting an open source project around it.

There are some on-line dewarping demos here:

http://www.iupr.org/demos

And there are some papers on it here:

http://pubs.iupr.org/

http://www.m.cs.osakafu-u.ac.jp/cbdar2007/

http://www.m.cs.osakafu-u.ac.jp/cbdar2005/

Re:fair use?

[palegray.net]

You're sadly right. I'm not going to make a personal habit of hiding away my perfectly legal use of copyrighted materials; in fact, I'm going to make such practices widely known. The fact that children are being raised to view the government and industry giants as shadowy figures that "grant" them their rights is disturbing to say the least.

How I do it...

[Ankh]

I run fromoldbooks.org, a Web site devoted to scanned pictures and text from old books -- some more than 500 years old.

I use an Epson Expression 1000XL flatbed scanner (A3+ resolution, approx 12x17.5" with colour calibration), Linux xsane and gimp, for most of the images, but this does involve damaging the binding of thicker books. I scan wood engravings usually at 2400dpi, but modern screened pictures at only 1200dpi or sometimes even lower. The idea that you only need to scan at twice your print resolution assumes (1) you know what printer you'll use 10 years from now, (2) that once you scale down by more than 50% there's no visible difference (false). For colour you will need to do some descreening, which will generally involve something like an 11 to 17 pixel radius gaussian blur followed by a sharpen.

I also use a Canon 450D (Digital Rebel) camera on a tripod, with a 50mm f/1.8 lens (you can get the lens for around $75 to $100 in US or Canada, less if used) and a remote control; use the mirror lockup function of the camera and the remote to minimise camera shake. I point the camera at the open book.

In either case if there are significant amounts of text I then use Abby FineReader OCR; the open source OCR programs (and most of the other commercial programs) are a waste of time by comparison, or at least that was true 2 years ago when I was last researching this.

Go and buy a couple of large USB external disk drives, e.g. 500GBytes or more, and also write DVD backups frequently. Use a consistent naming scheme; I use a separate directory (folder) for each book or magazine, and I include the page number in the filename, together with -raw for the origial scan and -cleaned for the processed version. I use PNG to save the files because it's lossless, an open standard, and widely supported; I'd suggest avoiding GIF (not enough colours), TIFF (portability problems) or JPEG (lossy).

Obviously if you want to put the magazines on the Web you'll need permission; in my case I am usually digitising out-of-copyright books, although copyright laws have changed since I started, and also my understanding of copyright has changed. E.g I started out believing Wkipedia :-)

It can be a big project, but a lot of fun!

Re:How I do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesseract-ocr is a free (Apache License, Version 2.0) OCR application that does a very good job.

Since the project was inactive from 1995-2006, it probably wasn't on your radar when you were setting up your project. But it's definitely worth a look now, for anyone who is interested in using free software for this kind of problem.

Planon's Docupen RC800

[ArcticBirdman]

You might want to check this site out. They make several pen scanners with their RC800 model being the best. Looks like a fat pen but allows scans up to 36" long and 8" wide. Works real great on books, blueprints, etc. Only downside is their USB drivers are not yet 64bit ready. Some models are B&W only but their top ones do B&W, documents and color photos, from 100 dpi to 400 dpi. On board memory can be expanded to 1 GB on the RC800. http://www.planon.com/index.php James

A good high-end kodak scanner

[XDirtypunkX]

Will suit your needs fine. We have clients that do much older more fragile documents in the flatbeds of those. Now you just have to find someone who'll let you use their very expensive batch scanner with a flatbed attachment...

What you're doing is in GameSpot GameFAQs

[ObiWonKanblomi]

I have a lot of old video game magazines, they're nice for playing 'classic games' because a lot of classics are impossible without the manual, and hard without a magazine (the magazine obviously negates the need for a manual usually).

It sounds like you're more interested in information that is in the manual, in contrast to magazine text itself. Since that's the case, I recommend looking into GameFAQs at http://www.gamefaqs.com/ . It's possible instructions for many of the classic games you speak of are already contributed for. If not, then I would suggest you provide your info there.

Copy stand

[Registered Coward v2]

So, the question is, what is the best way to capture all the information in old magazines in digital format? Does anyone have a home-built rig taking after the angled-pair-of-scanners setup that Project Gutenburg uses?

If all you want is an image, use a photo copying stand. It's basically a camera holder with a pair of lights to reduce glare and light things evenly. Once you've focused and set-up the lights (a lot easier with digital than film), you simply keep turning pages and shooting. With a camera connected to a PC you can easily preview images and control the shots.

Auctions of copyrights

[tepples]

It's possible the copyright was assigned to the publisher and that the publisher has since folded

In which case the new copyright owner would be whoever bought the publisher's copyrights at the auction of the publisher's assets. These owners tend to come out of the woodwork at the most inopportune times.

I use an ADF

[warnockm]

I've had some success doing exactly this. I prepared the magazines by cutting the spines off w/ a special paper cutter. It pinches down on the magazine and slides across the sheets cutter deeper each time. Next, i put the sheets in an Automatic Document Feeder scanner. We have some nice duplex ones, but i use a cheaper, single sided scanner w/ luck. i use Adobe Acrobat 8.1 to scan and save as a PDF. Acrobat OCRs the text and it is searchable using DTsearch, but Google Desktop or MS Desktop search would work too.

There are a couple things that can cause you trouble. The paper must not be too wide or it will get jammed. If the spine isn't cut smoothly, it will also jam. Sometimes it just jams for no reason. And sometimes when it jams, it ruins the sheet. Even though all of this, i've scanned about 60 magazines and use them to search through. Hope that helps!

A good digital camera will do just fine.

[HaywireMechanic]

Use a digital camera like my Kodak zd710 that has a pre-programmed "Document" mode. Use a bright, even non-glaring light source and hold steady or use a tripod. With 7 megapixels, the results are amazingly clear, and it's way quicker than scanning.

There are specialized scanners for this

[Trixter]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that there are specialized scanners for this. Google "book scanners" for a starting point. The cheaper ones have glass right up to the edge so that you can scan to the spine and always keep the spine at a 45-degree angle. The more expensive ones are cameras above the surface, and the software that comes with them compensates for the page curvature.

Re:There are specialized scanners for this

[Trixter]

Whoops -- meant to write "90-degree angle" instead of 45...

Modern copiers are amazing.

[itomato]

- Slice off the binding (are they *really* that important? you're archiving them digitally, after all)

- Use a modern imaging/copying machine that has the capability to store images digitally, likely as PDF

- Stack the thing in the document feeder, and set it image both sides

- Repeat

handheld scanner

[Anonymous Coward]

You might find a good handheld scanner that can do OCR if you can not get a good image with a camera or other scanner. However, the handheld scanner is a very small market with very limited choices.

Good article about photographing and OCRing books

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a good article about the topic in c't magazine (german) available (for $$$) at http://www.heise.de/kiosk/archiv/ct/03/01/186_Foto-Kopierer

ScanSnap

[okumura]

I use ScanSnap

Digitizing.

[jasonh1234]

I'm in the same boat but I've decided I don't care about damaging the originals. I find the center of the magazine, remove the staples, place it on a flat surface, sandwich a long utility knife blade (break away type)(fully extended) in the center of the magazine and then saw down the length of the spine while being careful to keep the blad as flat as can be. Then I drop all the separated pages into a Fujitsu Scansnap S510M, hit the scan buttons and 1.5 minutes later I have a multi-page, full color, hi-res, searchable, PDF file. The magazine then goes into the recycle bin and next time I have to move I'll have a few less heavy boxes. If the magazine is the non-stapled (glued) type, I take it to a place with a guillotine chopper, pay a couple bucks, and have 100's of pages sliced in no time. Don't waste your time with a flatbed. The Fujitsu's are practically free if you count the full version of Acrobat 8 that's included and the ABBYY FineReader OCR software.

Who waived their rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chinese who write computer programs probably have nothing to do with the Chinese who commited the copyright infringement spoken of by the poster. So even calling them predecessors is incorrect.

It sounds like the justification people in Utah use to harrass "evil non-members." They'll bitch and moan about how a hundred years ago the army was sent after them or they were driven out of some place, but they do the exact same thing to people now who had nothing to do with those actifities. Though, in fact, if you look into the events they talk about, you find those "evil people" who were attacking the mormons had some justification because of what the mormons did or were believed to have done. Take for example the army coming in. It was immediately after the Moutain Meadow Massacre. If 80 people were murdered on US soid, don't you think the army should come to investigate???

Ignoring the rights of whole groups of people because of some past infraction by a completely unrelated person is unjustified, to say the least. If you chose to join a group who has done offensive things (like say the Nazis), then it may be reasonable to treat you as part of that group, but this is not the case here.

I think it may be reasonable to boycott China because the government doesn't seem to be regulating bad behavior [1] or enforcing food safety standards. But ignoring all copyrights of all Chinese is going a bit far. If it were a specific company you know is making money off of copies of an American product, I would understand, but you have to know who is doing it and only go after them.

[1] How else would the lead paint in toys or the fake epo episodes have happened?

Re:Who waived their rights?

[Archtech]

If 80 people were murdered on US soid, don't you think the army should come to investigate???

Actually, no. The police should come to investigate. Isn't there something in the US Constitution that says the armed forces must never operate within the USA itself? (I know, that's downright funny nowadays).

When any army "comes to investigate" there is always a good chance of lots of people getting killed. Much more so when it's the US Army, whose SOP is "rather 100 of them than 1 of us".

Re:Who waived their rights?

[urcreepyneighbor]

Isn't there something in the US Constitution that says the armed forces must never operate within the USA itself?

I've spent the last few minutes trying to think up a response to this, but I've failed. I've come to the conclusion that you're either a non-American (in which case, your ignorance of American law is perfectly understandable) or one of the most ignorant sacks of shit I've encountered in my life.

Or a troll.

I bow to you, sir, for shocking me.

Re:Who waived their rights?

[giorgiofr]

Would you please point me towards an army whose SOP is "rather 1 of us then N of them" then, and specify the relevant N.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Re:Who waived their rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's probably thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act, not the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Re:Who waived their rights?

[Archtech]

Yes, thanks for explaining that, AC. My mistake for confusing what Jefferson argued with what wound up in the US Constitution.

Thanks, too, urcreepyneighbour, for your urbane correction. I shall try to remember in future that being a "non-American" is functionally equivalent to being an ignorant sack of shit.

Re:Who waived their rights?

[Archtech]

Would you please point me towards an army whose SOP is "rather 1 of us then N of them" then, and specify the relevant N.

This is the point:

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff07072008.html

Re:Who waived their rights?

[urcreepyneighbor]

I shall try to remember in future that being a "non-American" is functionally equivalent to being an ignorant sack of shit.

Go out and get a tan. Your skin is too damn soft, man.

Let's look at what I said:

I've come to the conclusion that you're either a non-American (in which case, your ignorance of American law is perfectly understandable)

That wasn't a personal attack. I, for example, don't have a damn clue how European law works. I am, let's say it together, ignorant of it.

or one of the most ignorant sacks of shit I've encountered in my life.

You would only qualify as a "sack of shit" if you were an American. Since, as an American, you should have learned the basics of the American system.

other cheaper software tools as good ...

[cheekyboy]

Try Artizen HDR

http://www.supportingcomputers.net/

It has great tools like PS, but also does 32bit HDR editing giving even better results, especially if you have a 16bit/r/g/b scanner.

Enjoy.

Bookeye/KIC scanners, and the like

[twistedcubic]

Some libraries have this: http://www.dlsg.net/kic2.shtml. If you're in southern California, the UCLA biomedical library has one. Sixteen cents a page, though. The cool thing is that you can stick a USB drive into the thing and save in several image formats, including tiff. And you can preview the scan before saving (and paying for) images.

Plustek 3600 book scanner.

[me_mysel_I]

I have found the plustek 3600 series works well for scanning books and magazines. You can scan about 250 pages per hour. The low end scanner is less than $250 (us).

Your Sinclair Rock And Roll Years

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello :)

My name is Nick Humphries, and I'm the owner of the Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years. Although I'm posting as an AC, you can verify it's me by sending me an email via the website.

I agree with everyone saying "keep the magazines" - there's something about having the physical mags as a tangible connection to your childhood/the 80s/delete-as-applicable. The smell, the feel...

Anyway...

All I used was an ancient UMAX 610P flatbed scanner. No spines to worry about as all issues of YS are stapled together.

Although I'm a Linux user, the graphics and OCR packages on Windows are far superior for this sort of thing. I find GIMP and Tesseract unusable (I'm one of those people who never read manuals), so I have a virtual Win98se VMWare session running for when I do my OCR-ing.

Software-wise: Paintshop Pro 8 for scanning and image processing so that the page is rotated to be absolutely vertical and the colours reduced to 2-colour b&w TIF for... (PSP's colour manipulation and free-rotation algorithms far out-class those available on the GIMP) ...PageGenie 98, an OCR package so old that the b&w OCR-ing is given away free as a loss-leader for the more valuable colour OCR-ing.

I then use OpenOffice on Linux to proof-read the text before saving the text-file ready for importing into my site-generation scripts (written in lots of Perl).

As for the legalities...

It's murkey. Future Publishing own the rights to Your Sinclair as a whole, although they bought YS from Dennis Publishing in 1990, so there's a little bit of complication added there.

HOWEVER... in a lot of cases, the publisher at the time only had first-publishing rights to an author's articles. Once printed, the copyright remained with the authors to do as they please.

That isn't true across the board - for any given article, the publisher might have owned all the copyrights, some were shared, some were just first-publishing rights, and in some cases there's a dispute as to which article falls into which category.

When I first started putting up original YS articles in 1998, I got no *official* response to my queries to Future about permissions. I decided that the Right Thing To Do would be to instead contact the original authors and get their blessings. One of them turned me down (so his articles don't appear on my site), but well over 40 others said it was OK.

Now 95% of the articles on my site have been cleared by the original authors, and I'm still trying to track down the remainging 5% - although at this stage all I'm left with is a list of pseudonyms which I don't think I'll ever track down.

So, YMMV, but that's what I did.

Nick

Ring light not a good choice

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

A ring light will reflect into the camera lens. This is because it falls into the "family of angles". If you use a copy stand to hold the camera and book, and place two lights at a 45 degree angle, the reflections fall outside the family of angles. I'd suggest using a macro lens for its ability to focus at close distances and for its flat-field. Most lenses focus on a curved field and you will have difficulty getting the center and edges in focus at the same time.

PC-Gamer CD's

[Deus.1.01]

Anyone remember the CD's pcgamers gave out with their magazine. It was sorta an interactive, movie, with a myst-like interface, you clicked in a direction and you moved to that direction. It had coconut monkey, with different acts each CD, which was fun. To play the demo's you had to go to the jukebox and start the games from there. This was around 1996. That enviroment, the interface for the CD as it was, had a real cool atmosphere. I really would LOVE to have some of those CD's, even on iso or cue formats. Good times OH goood god Look. EVERYTHING was better BEFORE! I HATE WEB2.0 I WANT THE Golden AGE back.

jbriceiii

[jbriceiii]

First of all I am a librarian, and we have lots of experience in this. The ideal solution is a machine from a company called Kirtas Technologies (kirtas.com). It consists of two digital cameras, three computers a robotic arm and an air compressor. The device is really slick. The book sits in a cradle with the book open to about 60 degrees, the two cameras are mounted at the same angle and photograph the even and odd page respectively. An air compressor fluffs the pages and a robotic arm turns the pages. It takes about five seconds every two pages or so. These are load and supervise machines no hand turning is needed once the process starts. Two computer records the image (one even the other odd) and then a third computer converts the images into OCR's and then knits everything into the proper order. Google uses similar devices for their book scanning project. The advantages are that it preserves the books, is relatively quick and has a low labor cost. The downside, of course is these babies cost alot. However, by looking at the pictures you could design a simpler manual rig that uses two digital cameras with the pages being turned by hand. Should be quicker than scanning them. Kirtas Technology also scans books and magazines for a fee this may be another solution to look into.

Re:fair use?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Should you happen to continue to assert your position on this matter, cite supporting examples in case law.

When just being correct isn't enough, turn to haughty intellectual arrogance.

Custom-built book-photographing frame

[CathalMagus]

It happens I've been building a contraption for a similar purpose over the past few weeks, in my spare time. (My own project is scanning paper books so I can DjVu them to read on my V3 book reader.

The structure I came up with is a hinged wooden frame with a wooden surface on one side, and a glass surface on the other. It hinges open at the top to sit at exactly 90 degrees, and the open book sits astride that. This allows the camera to photograph almost all the way to the spine.

By chance I took some photos of the frame itself last night (the wooden side and the glass side). I didn't photograph the cradle, as it wouldn't have the camera in it... The mirror is so I can see the digital camera screen as I'm positioning the book.

The camera (actually my cameraphone) sits inside the structure in an adjustable cradle - you can see part of the sliding mechanism on the wooden face. And a long handle (very crude) allows me to press the shutter release button.

Anyway, this is a very cheap and cheerful solution. I manage about 5-6 pages a minute (turning the pages is slow). The only problem so far is getting even lighting on the page surface. When I'm happy with the results, I'll probably put up a tutorial about how it's built and the software I use.

Re:fair use?

[nurb432]

And people wonder why it's so easy for the RIAA to erode fair use...it's simple, when most people don't even understand what fair use is, it's easy to slowly take it away.

And just think, they are trying to re-train our children with their propaganda.

Re:fair use?

[nurb432]

Im not ashamed in the least to say i rip my original CD's so i can use copies in the car and not risk theft of or damage to the real ones. ( tho these days its now to a MP3 device, but same concept ) and dare any *aa stooge to sue me for it.

Also, I often copy pages out of my own books and magazines to use in the shop, where they get dirty and tattered ( or simply cut to shreds.. ). Also put them on my laptop, more convenient at times to cary around tons of books on a single dvd... ( not always, as i do prefer my paper books.. but still, it does happen )

Even been known to download lesser quality copies of what i own, to save me the trouble of ripping/scanning.. Again, i dare them as i can wave the book ( or cd or record ) in their face at court.

On a side note....

[Anonymous Coward]

I once scanned a bunch of black/white images, and I found I got the best results when scanning at the highest resolution possible and then scaling the images down with a sofisticated graphics editor.

And yes, I know this only makes things worse :)

A pie-in-the sky solution

[Moodie-1]

The best solution would be to wait 5-10 years or so and then scan them with a terahertz scanner which, with luck, should be available around then. Then you could just place the closed magazine on the faceplate, close the cover and the terahertz light would penetrate through the entire magazine and automatically separate the pages into individual files based on their Z-position. You may have to adjust the filenames, however, to correct the automatic page numbering. After all, nothing's perfect. As with all new technology, there are bound to be errors. Of course, whether that type of scanner would be affordable to the average computer-user is another matter. But there would probably be scanning services available, like there are now with the still-new 3D-printing tech.

Re:fair use?

[easyTree]

Why must lawyers be consulted before every action may proceed? Life is for living.

Daydreaming 50 years into the future..

*checks with lawyer*, *exhales*, *checks with lawyer*, *inhales*, *coughs*, *brain-implement logs: INFRINGEMENT DETECTED $50 fine*

Re:fair use?

[easyTree]

uhh, typo... 'brain-implant'

Re:Making scans better - use a black piece of pape

[ZERO1ZERO]

And this will also have the effect of creating a nice edge mask around each page so you can do consistant IP (image processing) etc, but it can dull down an image, you can also use a white background for transparencies, or as an alternative to black if the edge definition of the page does not matter

Problems with Vuescan software

[Anonymous Coward]

I had some dealings with Ed Hamrick over his Vuescan software several years ago and I would highly recommend avoiding him.

I licensed a copy that he was offering at a sale price and then later had trouble with it. This was not an issue of me not knowing how to use it properly - the executable simply did not run.

His response? "That software doesn't come with customer support, but feel free to pay $40.00 for an upgrade."

Perhaps others have been luckier with him, but buyer beware. I would definitely look for alternatives.

Re:fair use?

[SiliconEntity]

Interesting how the comments questioning fair use are generally moderated "1", while the ones insisting that of course making personal backups is fair use get moderated "5".

Anyway here's what the EFF, not exactly a bastion of copyright absolutists, says in their Fair Use FAQ:

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.

"Many lawyers believe" is a far cry from the parent's comment that making personal backups has been "heavily tested". I'd say this better supports the grandparent comment: "Don't bet on it."

The EFF also says:

Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

Note that making personal backups is quite different in flavor than any of these activities, which are all oriented around improving intellectual debate and discussion.

Suggest a BookSnap bookscanner

[jaymanman]

I suggest you use the BookSnap from Atiz. It is a V-shaped book scanner. The result of the scanned images are totally different from flatbed. See the scanned sample at there website here http://booksnap.atiz.com/samples/ .

Use a modded flatbed

[EkriirkE]

Get a cheapie flat bed off of ebay, one where the scanning window has a very thin border in respect to the dimensions of the scanner itself.
I had a Canon somethingordother USB scanner where I could remove one of the edge bezels and slide the binding of a book right up against it flat on the glass without having that ugly fade-and-blur effect where the pages curl into the binding.
Of course, you would not get that section of the book/magazine in the scan where the bezel was

Unfortunately

[BossBostin]

the pages of my favourite magazines are all stuck together.

Non slashdot fools

[Snaller]

It wasn't flamebait, it was true. Grow up will you.

Check modernmechanix

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, but I would check www.modernmechanix.com, and ask him how he did it. That site's got so many weird articles from old magazines -- I hope he didn't tear them up to scan them. He seems to have so many, he must have some convenient way to do it.

back to the point

[el americano]

You are not making any progress, so let me try to simplify this for your benefit.

Stealing and trespassing are two physical things that people can do. It deprives others of their property or is a potential threat to people and property on your land. Trespass typically requires a fence or a sign that informs passers-by of this restriction.

Use of open wifi is niether of these things, and it's pretty damn obvious. Yet somehow, after six posts, you're still going back to it.

What open wifi use is:
1) Harmless. The user rarely notices.
2) Free, costing the renter of the connection nothing extra.
3) 100% avoidable, if the owner of the router chooses.

You're required to put a no tresspassing sign. Why shouldn't you be required to take one minute to close your network? Although you'd like to pretend that grandma just can't do this, that's bullshit. It's child-simple, and if she knows how to connect a wireless router to her home network, then she can do this. The same grandma might indeed install an ftp server, some of which are anonymous by default. In your mind, people can use the ftp, but not the wireless. That makes no sense.

You assume that our society and our law does not allow this, but it's only your assumption. I say that we should assume that people can share in these circumstances. It's just a social convention You think we need to tiptoe around our neighbors for fear of offending them or commiting a social transgression. I say lighten up, Francis. There's no risk of harm. You're just trying to project your anti-social views onto others. Nail up your no trespassing signs, close your own network, and shut up already.

Re:back to the point

[Domo-Sun]

You're going by an ultra ultra strict strawman 'interpretation' of the law, legally actionable beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm talking about reality and the spirit of the law.

According to you, if I see a patch of grass near my house with an outlet, it wouldn't be stealing to plug things in there because electricity isn't a physicality. And it wouldn't be trespassing because there wasn't a fence and a sign. Especially if no one catches me. Baloney! The boundary is not the fence. It's the property.

Trespass to Land
Trespass to land is actionable per se. Thus, the party whose land is entered may sue even if no actual harm is done. ...the tortfeasor [wrongdoer] must voluntarily go to a specific location, but need not be aware that he has entered the property of a particular person. ...

Actual damage is not necessarily a required element of a trespass to chattels claim.

You're using bandwidth that doesn't belong to you, therefore stealing it. The ISP knows this and doesn't want you doing that, they even put it in their contracts, and the majority of consumers feel the same way. And you are trespassing on a network without permission to accomplish that.

But even if 1, 2, and 3 were true, as I've pointed out already they are not, all of those points are irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant as to weather or not you're trespassing on a network and stealing bandwidth..

1. Harm can arise when the hacker uses a network to engage in crime or access things he shouldn't. And the owner doesn't have to notice you for you to be in the wrong and I don't mean some legal theory you have of what wrong is.

2. It's not free. That bandwidth can be throttled and leaches may cause the throttling of other users. Nickels and dimes tax systems collectively. But again, totally irrelevant. Even if this was true, it's not your property. The ISP and the renter can do whatever they want with their property, including waste it.

3. How old are you; 11? You keep clinging to the two wrongs fallacy. Just because something is 100% avoidable doesn't mean that you're not trespassing, stealing, or wrong.

Sure, I could become an expert in securing my foundation with large fences, barbed wire, and signs everywhere telling stupid people how NOT to be a parasite all over my property, but we shouldn't have to turn our domestic properties into ugly fortresses because you're a greedy sonofabitch who's only definition of wrong revolves around what people are trying to take what you've deemed "free stuff" away from you.

But if I unwittingly fail to do all of that, in the end, you're still in the wrong.

Re:back to the point

[el americano]

"According to you, if I see a patch of grass near my house with an outlet, it wouldn't be stealing to plug things in there."

Is the outlet on my property? Does the electricity I use cause no additional cost to the outlet owner? The fundamental wrong in your scenario is the cost that he has to pay. Yet again you're analogy is flawed, not because the situation isn't identical, but because the lesson it means to teach does not apply. You have a lot of nerve crying fallacy all the time when all you do is come up with gems like this.

"The ISP and the renter can do whatever they want with their property, including waste it."
 
...including secure it, if that is their intention.

"Trespass to Land"

Where I live, a fence or signs are required, one sign per mile. The spirit of the law is that the owner has a responsibility to restrict access if they don't want people harmlessly entering their property.

"You're using bandwidth that doesn't belong to you, therefore stealing it. The ISP knows this and doesn't want you doing that, they even put it in their contracts, and the majority of consumers feel the same way. And you are trespassing on a network without permission to accomplish that."

Not stealing. (again)
I support any consumer who wants to secure their network. I won't use or otherwise interfere with a network that uses any form of encryption.
Not trespassing. (Jesus Christ! Read your own link.)

"You keep clinging to the two wrongs fallacy."

Try zero wrongs. It's not wrong to leave it open, and it's not wrong for me to use it if it is.

"Sure, I could become an expert in securing my foundation with large fences, barbed wire, and signs everywhere..."

Boy, you would sure like this to be something that it isn't. It's one minute to flip an electronic switch, less if you do it during setup. I think we're all getting tired of your lies.

Re:back to the point

[Domo-Sun]

You're such a big fat loser, not only do you steal bandwidth and fail to win an untenable argument about how you "aren't stealing bandwidth" but you had to go and cyberstalk my comments down like the big loser that you are. I don't moderate your comments down even though you're a supreme retard. Don't you have some other cyber crimes you're neglecting, other than attacking people who make sense because you're a criminal?

And are you CmdrTaco? Because after he posted "Confessions of a Wi-Fi Thief" someone named xtracto immediately posted his disingenuous opinion which mirrors yours and your name is el americano. All following a related theme. I never thought CmdrTaco would be so dense though, but than other than recognizing his name there, I forget he exists, so I could be wrong.

The spirit of trespass is being on someone's land without permission. You don't have to do damage to be in violation of that and to be charged punitive damages. In some instances, such as a conspicuous parking lot, or that vast national park that you apparently live on, you might be able to argue something about a lack of a sign, but that only means it's not actionable. It doesn't mean that you' weren't trespassing or doing something WRONG or that you didn't pretend to be unaware. You keep treating trespass law as if it only bears responsibilities upon the owner; it applies more to the trespasser.

When talking about obvious, private, residential homes, you can't make such a defense, especially for stealing wifi because you know better. It's completely unreasonable. Even if it was a business. I've already stated why: the typical owner isn't doing it for your sake; it's a convenience for their sake, or for a businesses patrons. It's not free as you claim, but it wouldn't matter either. Additionally, crimes can be committed with those networks, something their owners fear. Point: The vast majority of them don't want you there.

Using electricity, however small an amount of it, costs money. (It's amazing how you cling to untenable positions. You're really hurting yourself by doing it though.) Even if you could, punitive damages can apply even if there was no physical damage.

Hey, you said stealing and trespass only applies to physical things that could be done in the presence of a sign or fence. You also said nonsense about it being free, harmless and the user probably wouldn't notice, and it's avoidable, if the owner chooses.

Therefore my analogy holds and it shows that your position is absurd and wrong. Additionally I explained why all of those arguments were wrong and irrelevant but you can't grasp logic.

But now that you mention it, the utilities run through properties, and that doesn't make it okay for you to tap into them. Doing so would be stealing and possibly trespass on the electrical boxes. And those utilities can include networks and phone lines as well. Yes, you can trespass on a box or even a person, although they might call it assault. I know how you like to be pedantic to avoid the inexorable truth.

Here's a hint when crafting your false dilemmas and being a jackass in general:

If you don't like X, than Z.

You can insert variables like taxes, and then move to Russia. The point is to be a really gigantic anus. For maximum insult make it a two-wrongs fallacy.

You said If they don't want to be leached, they can change it, along with the signs and fence. That means that it's wrong for them not to. So make up your frigging mind. Again, it's a two-wrongs fallacy and false dilemma. I explained it several times but you're that stupid. Now you flop the statement into a vague and suggestive strawman. You're pathetic. Just recognize (two wrongs) that leaving a network open by mistake doesn't make it okay for you to leach it. I'll expound further: Some people after raping a woman say she could have avoided it if she wasn't out late, looking sexy, etc. How about NOT RAPE HER YOU FUCKING IDIOT. You have a choice TOO (not a dilemma). Eve

In conclusion

[el americano]

Before you go completely insane, I will summarize and reiterate some of the concepts you never got.

First and foremost was that what makes the use of open wifi is acceptable or not is social convention. Much like how we feel free to download what we see on a website. You know that the files and the computers they are on are not yours, but intentionally or not, the site owner has made them freely accessible, and by convention we assume that they are OK to use. The alternative is undesirable. The same is true of wifi.

Open wireless routers explicitly authorize clients that associate. The router first advertises that it is not private, then when clients ask permission to join the network, it grants that permission. Spare me the door knob analogy. This is not a door. This is asking to come in and hearing a yes before proceeding.

You would have everybody locking their wireless connections and even those who choose to leave theirs open would not be able to have anyone join, because this would be a criminal act in your world. I would prefer that everyone be allowed to have an open wifi network if they want, and those who don't should simply say so, by turning on encryption, which is available on every access point manufactured today. My position is that people can use their equipment the way they want, including sharing, and your position is that everyone must somehow find the owner and get verbal/written permission. Clearly I am pro-freedom, and you are anti-social.

Is it hard to turn on encryption? Not at all. The installation CD will prompt you enter a password. The built-in setup wizards will prompt you. Some routers come with a default key configured. Professional installers will configure security on your wireless modem if you get it with your DLS/cable service. Basically, if you know security exists, you can set it, and anybody could figure out that it exists just by looking at the box it comes in. At my local computer superstore, there wasn't a single wifi product that did not advertise the security that it supported on the outside of the box. So, all this effort to inform and assist the least technical of users, among those who are still technical enough to buy a wireless router and properly connect it, is not enough for you? Their needs have been fully considered and provided for. End of story.

There will always be people who have trouble understanding and accepting new technology. Fortunately, they are in the minority these days. Your main problem, however, is that you who see immorality where there is none. Don't feel obliged to share your strict upbringing or your deep sense of insecurity with the rest of us.

So, we shall both go forth and do what we feel is right. You'll be knocking on doors admonishing people about their networks, and I'll just let people do what they want. As we say here on Slashdot, good luck with that. Feel free to curse me in your frustration that the world is not as you would like, but remember that you have already used: moron, criminal, a toddler, a hacker, retarded, a sociopath, 11-years-old, a greedy "sonofabitch", a jackass, a gigantic anus, a fucking idiot (all caps), a low-life piece of trash, a disgusting excuse for a human, and CmdrTaco. Hey, that last one hurts, but it all bothers me less then your not being able to distinguish between open wifi and stealing physical property, home invasion, and even rape, none of which can be accomplished with a wireless connection. I sincerely suggest that you continue your education, including critical thinking if that really interests you, because such overuse, and misuse, of terms like fallacy and false dilemma (your favorite) are embarrassing for those of us who know what they mean. Good luck to you.

I welcome any Slashdot readers who get this far to weigh in on which position you think is the most reasonable.

Re:In conclusion

[Domo-Sun]

The social convention is that you get permission to use peoples stuff first, especially when it's completely obvious where the boundary is, like a house on top of it, abutted by neighbors; or completely obvious that they failed to configure it, and completely obvious that wireless phones, keyboards, networks are tools invented for convenience - not for leach charity or because they value zero security. In your head however, it's okay because you want it. That's all that matters to you. That the alternative is undesirable to you doesn't make you any less of a stealer or a trespasser. That's wishful thinking, appeal to fear, and slippery slopes. That means again, that your point is irrelevant and fallacious. You narcissistically think you can super smart your way out of it by twisting the words and deceiving just like Bill Gates and Hans Reiser.

Again, we're not talking about a supermarket or business that has a financial interest in people frequenting their dot com and downloading files, we're talking about stealing wifi from your neighbors. ..explicitly authorize clients that it is not private... This is asking to come in and hearing a yes before proceeding.

I told you before: Fallacy of equivocation. An auto configuration of a computer isn't the equivalent to human authority. And remember, that lack of authority is the spirit of trespass.

More strawmen. I never said sharing any network or having a network unsecured should be criminal. I said that if you don't have HUMAN authority then leaching wifi should be criminal trespass of a computer network along with stealing bandwidth. Because that's what it is.

I'll also add that I shared networks of acquaintances twice, with explicit HUMAN permission, and in each instance I hogged bandwidth interfering with their access, and that was WITH permission. Without permission, I'm 100% sure that unlimited people are going to be abusing their neighbors wifi, especially where they do so anonymously. It's a fact that you wish to deny but it's blatantly obvious.

Again, Another obvious fact, or apparently to those of us grownups with frontal lobes: some people leave their doors and windows open accidentally or intentionally out of convenience. It's not permission for you to trespass and steal on their property. Don't bring up their recklessness as a two-wrongs non sequitur AGAIN. We're talking about the wrongness of trespass and stealing. Don't change the subject.

We're not talking about neighbors calling their networks "Pleaze_Use_Me" and putting their router on their lawn. We're talking about people who set up a network INSIDE their HOUSE so they can use their notebook as intended - conveniently wireless. That they fail to encase their house in lead or fail to secure their network doesn't mean they're all okay with everyone leaching.

Ad hominem. Nothing about my upbringing remotely involves this argument. My positions are independent, reasonable and sound.

I'm not sure what's more tragic, your regurgitation of my own insults, your failure to recognize that stealing property or electricity is a crime much the same as it should be for stealing network bandwidth, or that you tragically can't understand an analogy that proves that you have more than A dilemma, but rather a choice to act reasonably and responsibly, instead of blaming your victims for their many wrongs so you can feel better about violating them through stealing their wifi.

Unlike you though, I don't admonish them behind their back, or even to their faces. I just don't take advantage of them, like a responsible person. However, if I ever decided to take advantage, unlike you, I would know that it's trespass and stealing.

Oh no, I called you names so I guess I'm wrong.

Yeah, let's see