[Coco] Re: Rainbow on Disk
farna at att.net
farna at att.net
Thu Jun 9 10:53:15 EDT 2005
Sounds like most agree on PDF format. OCRing would be a waste of time IMHO and probably wouldn't be allowed. I know I wouldn't allow it on any of my copyrighted works (though I'm not concerned about the CoCo related stuff -- I turned that all over to Glenside or public domain long ago). I don't even allow electronic copies of current AIM issues simply because they are easy to copy and distribute and I still generate a small amount of income from back issues. I thik that's the main reason Lonnie Falk has agreeed to any of this now -- there can't be many issues of Rainbow left and I doubt there are many sales at $9 each.
Falsoft does have copyright issues to think about, that's why Lonnie can't just give Rainbow to public domain. In order to do that he'd have to contact everyone who retained copyright to an article and just gave Falsoft printing rights or remove the articles. Apparently there is a stipulation in the contracts that gives Falsoft reprinting rights though.
I think this negates the whole re-typeset and/or OCR issue too. Reprints must be just that -- exact reprints. I remember ordering a reprinted article from an out of stock issue of Rainbow once. I got it complete with all ads and parts of other articles intact -- exact copies of the pages. I believe it would be in the contract. So don't mess up the deal by trying to do to much! OCR the listings since they were intended to be shared and it just saves typing in, but don't make possible problems for Falsoft by OCRing or re-typesetting the whole thing.
One more point -- the sample that Michael Harwood posted to his site it great! But if the PDF files are 144 dpi there is no need to scan the originals at any more than 150 dpi. I explained why in my previous post. The only reason I use 200 dpi for AIM is so I can blow a pic up if necessary and still retain a minimum of 100 dpi. 100 dpi for greyscale photos is fine, anything over 150 dpi a waste of space as far as current print and display technology goes. Typical screen resolution is no more than 72 dpi, by the way. So don'[t go overboard with the scans thinking the higher dpi the better -- doesn't work that way unless using photgraphic qualit printing equipment. A typical web press only goes 120 lpi (lines per inch), the equivalent of 150 dpi. The original Rainbows are only 120 lpi. More than 150 dpi just makes a bigger file or a bigger page (bigger than original). How many of you have loaded pics from a digital camera and found they were 18" x 24" or some other very large size? Reduce the "quality" and size will go down. You need a bigger pic for resizing, cropping, and other manipulations, but not for printing. You won't be doing any of that with Rainbow -- al the details are finalized. It just needs to be easily readable with near equal quality photos.
If you want to see what a 150 dpi scan convereted to PDF looks like, download the sample of AIM from my site listed below. The original had all greyscale photos.
--
Frank Swygert
Publisher, "American Independent
Magazine" (AIM)
For all AMC enthusiasts
http://farna.home.att.net/AIM.html
(free download available!)
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: coco-request at maltedmedia.com
> Send Coco mailing list submissions to
> coco at maltedmedia.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> coco-request at maltedmedia.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> coco-owner at maltedmedia.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Coco digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Scan Test (Michael Wayne Harwood)
> 2. Re: Scan Test (John R. Hogerhuis)
> 3. Re: RE: Rainbow magazines] (John R. Hogerhuis)
> 4. Interesting sign (Roger Taylor)
> 5. Re: Rainbow on Disc (farna at att.net)
> 6. Re: Scan Test (Michael Wayne Harwood)
> 7. Re: RE: Rainbow magazines] (John Murphy)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:52:52 -0600 (MDT)
> From: "Michael Wayne Harwood" <michael at musicheadproductions.org>
> Subject: [Coco] Scan Test
> To: coco at maltedmedia.com
> Message-ID:
> <36526.192.168.1.1.1118292772.squirrel at www.musicheadproductions.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hey all - do me a favor and take a look see at the following -->
> http://www.musicheadproductions.org/coco/softside_test.pdf. I did some
> quick guess based calculations and came up with the preliminary conclusion
> that if we produced .pdfs of this quality we should be able to fit the
> entire collection of Rainbow on somewhere around 7 or 8 DVD's... My
> numbers are based on guesses and most likely not conservative, but it's a
> place to start.
>
> The scans were done at 300ppi with a color depth of 24bits, and then
> converted to a 144ppi pdf. I think the scan quality is acceptible, though
> there is quite a bit of post scan cleanup that could be done to spiff the
> images up.
>
> I think OCR might be a separate project considering space requirements.
> The orginal 300ppi tiff files that were used to generate this pdf were
> almost 250mb for 12 images. I don't think it's very feasible to consider
> selling the high resolution masters to everyone - the media costs and time
> to burn that many DVDs would be prohibitive. In my experience OCR works
> much better with 2bit (black and white) images than grayscale or color.
>
> Thoughts??
>
> Regards,
> Michael Harwood
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:41:38 -0700
> From: "John R. Hogerhuis" <jhoger at pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coco] Scan Test
> To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>,
> michael at musicheadproductions.org
> Message-ID: <1118295698.9735.263.camel at aragorn>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 22:52 -0600, Michael Wayne Harwood wrote:
> > Hey all - do me a favor and take a look see at the following -->
> > http://www.musicheadproductions.org/coco/softside_test.pdf. I did some
> > quick guess based calculations and came up with the preliminary conclusion
> > that if we produced .pdfs of this quality we should be able to fit the
> > entire collection of Rainbow on somewhere around 7 or 8 DVD's... My
> > numbers are based on guesses and most likely not conservative, but it's a
> > place to start.
> >
>
> I cancelled the download, it was estimating a half hour.
>
> I think these are way too big. we'll have logistical issues just getting
> stuff from one person to another.
>
> Have you tried zipping the pdf?
>
> > The scans were done at 300ppi with a color depth of 24bits, and then
> > converted to a 144ppi pdf. I think the scan quality is acceptible, though
> > there is quite a bit of post scan cleanup that could be done to spiff the
> > images up.
>
> Do we really need 24-bit color depth? IIRC the magazine itself was
> pretty much black and white with the occasional halftone as an accent. I
> think the only color stuff that really deserves special attention are
> the covers. We could make exceptions here and there where it makes sense
> of course.
>
> It may be we could just lower the bit depth and without much risk. 4 or
> 8 bit color is probably enough for most of the mag, even if we decide to
> go for color.
>
> I understand everyone wants something pristine, but it is probably wise
> to accept some compromises for tractibility/logistical reasons.
>
> >
> > I think OCR might be a separate project considering space requirements.
> > The orginal 300ppi tiff files that were used to generate this pdf were
> > almost 250mb for 12 images. I don't think it's very feasible to consider
> > selling the high resolution masters to everyone - the media costs and time
> > to burn that many DVDs would be prohibitive.
>
> I agree. But it would be good if hi-res archive were available for no
> more than the additional expense of media, burning them and shipping
> them.
>
> I think it would be wise to work backward from the size of 1 DVD and see
> what can be fit there if we try to cram it all in. I think
>
> Alternatively the dvds could be divided into volumes per-year. This
> would relieve some of the size contraint. This might be helpful to
> people who already have entire years worth of mags and just want to fill
> in the gaps. But this adds some complexity and cost.
>
> > In my experience OCR works
> > much better with 2bit (black and white) images than grayscale or color.
> >
>
> This need not affect any decisions... ImageMagick (a free tool) can
> down-convert color->greyscale or b&w at a batch level.
>
> -- John.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:52:05 -0700
> From: "John R. Hogerhuis" <jhoger at pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coco] RE: Rainbow magazines]
> To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Message-ID: <1118296325.9735.271.camel at aragorn>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 00:41 -0400, John Murphy wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Hogerhuis" <jhoger at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 5:43 PM
> >
> >
> > > Whatever the format I think it has to work on Windows, OSX and Linux
> > > (Linux for me to be interested). But if you put it in something else I
> > > would just have to convert it for my own use under Linux.
> > >
> > > Whatever you do *do not* lock it up in some dastardly DRMed format.
> > > Please, open, standard, unencrypted, no passwords or keys to lose.
> > >
> > > The only document format I know that permits that and has good readers is
> > > PDF.
> > >
> > > In any event, we're basically just using the format as a container for
> > > scanned pages. No matter what format we use it ain't gonna be tiny.
> > > Also we should separate the issue of how to scan and what will be in
> > > the final product. If you scan at 600dpi B&W, we can down convert it
> > > to 150dpi later, automatically. But if we want color we have to decide
> > > that early on since it can't really be added later.
> > >
> > > For Thinking Forth we actually re-typeset the book, so that's why it
> > > is so small. There's no graphics there except for the illustrations.
> > > Everything else is one character approx equals one byte.
> > >
> > > I think it would be a lifetime project to re-typeset Rainbow. Just
> > > scan it and package it up as PDF, that's feasible.
> > >
> > > -- John.
> > >
> >
> > For re-typesetting,
> >
> > http://dproofreaders.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > is an app that would be a valuable resource...
> >
> > <quote>
> > Distributed Proofreaders provides a web-based method of easing the
> > proofreading work associated with the creation of Project Gutenberg E-Texts.
> > By breaking the work into individual pages many proofreaders can be working
> > on the same book at the same time. This significantly speeds up the
> > proofreading/E-Text creation process.
> >
> > When a proofer elects to proofread a page for a particular project, the text
> > and image file are displayed on a single webpage. This allows the text file
> > to be easily reviewed and compared to the image file, thus assisting the
> > proofreading of the text file. The edited text file is then submitted back
> > to the site via the same webpage that it was edited on.
> > </quote>
> >
> > "All" that would be needed would be a site willing to host the app.
> >
> > And many, many of the problems around scanning and re-purposing magazines
> > are solved problems: another good resource is those evil,
> > copyright-infringing ebook-scanning scofflaws at
> >
> > alt.binaries.e-book.d
> >
> > Many of them are quite knowledgeable, and don't mind sharing "trade
> > secrets", as it were.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
>
> I agree these are solved problems, but there are issues: I think these
> open collaboration tools are designed for use with out-of-copyright
> works. What we're dealing with here can't be available widely without
> good controls.
>
> Anyway, believe me, retypesetting the Rainbow is possible, but not a
> good use of anyone's time. It's a lot of work, and if anyone has that
> kind of time and energy available, I have a whole list of great retro
> computing projects to offload to them ;-)
>
> I think the best compromise is to OCR and just provide the proofread,
> raw ascii cross referenced on the DVDs with everything else as text
> files. Compared to the size of the magazine PDFs, the space taken will
> be totally negligible.
>
> Of course that assumes Lonnie would allow that. I'm not sure what the
> objection would be but there might be one especially considering his
> comments about needing to include the ads. The OCRed text would be more
> of a derivative work of the original, and may create issues with
> whatever contracts he has with the advertisers or authors. Dunno.
>
> -- John.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:53:41 -0500
> From: Roger Taylor <roger at newfoal.com>
> Subject: [Coco] Interesting sign
> To: cocoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050609005142.01e73458 at mail.newfoal.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Fellow CoCoNuts,
>
> Googling up the word "coco" yields some of the most bizarre things called
> "COCO" today, but it's not every day you come across such named things...
> until last week:
>
>
> http://www.coco3.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93
>
>
> --
> Roger Taylor
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:24:20 +0000
> From: farna at att.net
> Subject: [Coco] Re: Rainbow on Disc
> To: coco at maltedmedia.com
> Message-ID:
>
> <060920051124.25918.42A826E3000D058E0000653E21602810600E029D0E00 at att.net>
>
>
> Well, having some experience in scanned and archived magazines (my own - "the
> world of 68' micros" and "American Independent Magazine") I can make some
> comments.
>
> 1. JPG is a definite no-no! Quality won't be good enough unless the file is
> large. The best format for quality vs. size is PDF. I sent PDF files to my wife
> from Korea for printing AIM via e-mail. Size of a 28-32 page magazine with lots
> of photos averaged 4,500 KB. Include a copy of the free Adobe reader on each CD
> if there is room and concern about reading the files. You won't be able to read
> them on a CoCo, but JPG files won't be readable at CoCo resolutions either.
> Shoot for the least common denominator. there are PDF readers for Windows,
> Linux, and Macs.
>
> 2. I commonly work with 200 dpi photos. Anything over 150 dpi won't print or
> display on screen any better than 150. The original type setting for Rainbow
> (and most magazines even today) is 120 LPI (lines per inch) for greyscale abd
> color photos. 150 dpi mimics this nicely on a laser printer.
>
> 3. Scanning software sill be an issue. Previously scanned photos sometimes have
> a pattern on them called a "moire pattern". If the scanner lines up exactly with
> the LPI of the original scan it won't show up or won't show up much. This can't
> be done on a practical level with a computer scanner, it will be coincidence. I
> come across moire patterns on old auto ads a lot -- maybe 1 in 10 don['t need
> correction. You have to have a photo editing software that will remove/correct
> this pattern. Photoshop should -- I use Corel PhotoPaint (version 8). Low end
> editors won't have this feature, some high end ones don't.
>
> 4. There is no need to OCR the magazines. That would take a LOT of time and
> require proof reading and editing. The only reason OCR would be useful is to
> change the content or lift articles for other publications, something the
> project doesn't want anyway. OCR the program listings if desired and save as
> separate ASCII files for tranferring to a computer, but not the rest of the
> magazines. I do believe the project would be best served by preserving the
> original magazine format even though none of the ads will be of any use other
> than historical information. But that may be the only info available on some
> items in the future, so I think the ads deserve preservation as well.
>
> 5. Cost needs to cover accounting expenses as well as reproduction and license
> fee. I'm assuming that's the only expenses and time to scan will be by donation.
> No one wants to pay more than they have to, but if the full set will run $36 to
> license, $40 isn't reasonable and won't cover costs unless on a single disc. If
> the person doing the copying/accounting isn't getting a little for their time
> they will quickly tire of keeping this up. The suggestion that distribution be
> accomplished by someone who already has a vested interest in the CoCo is a very
> good one! I'd suggest Cloud-9 (assuming Mark is interested) at least for
> distribution/accounting, and allow them to send a current ad flyer with the
> product. That gives them the added incentive of advertising to current CoCo
> users (or at least with CoCo interest) along with a token sum for
> accounting/reproduction.
>
> 6. CD would be the preferred format as every modern computer has a CD drive, but
> not everyone has DVD. I have five issues of AIM on a CD that reports 12.2MB used
> (4,500 KB average size comes to 22,500 KB, and directly added files are just
> over 20,000 KB, so why XP reports 12.2MB used baffles me at the moment...). A CD
> is 600 MB, so 133 issues could be on a single CD. DVD may not be necessary.
> Since there are 144 issues a two CD set would be required, and "Rainbow on Disk"
> or ASCII scans of the program listings could easily be added.
>
> 7. If the collection is to be broken up do it by volume, not by year or single
> issues. It will be easier to track that way. Rainbow also printed an index aftr
> the first several years. I'd put a complete index on each CD as the first file
> on each volume CD. That would make 12 CDs, one for each year. I'd suggest a four
> CD set with four volumes (16 issues, est. 10 MB each, 160 MB + listings) on each
> CD. That would be $4 of license fees @ $0.25 each, and I'd suggest $4 for the
> distributor -- $8 per disc total. That would make a complete set $96.
> Considering what it would cost to get a full set now that's more than
> reasonable. I doubt you could get a single volume (12 issues) for that price
> inculding shipping! If cost for the entire set is a bigger factor (it is for
> some of you I know) then figure $50 for a two CD or single DVD set -- $36 in
> license fees and $14 for distributor (assuming they take care of accounting,
> duplication, and mailing). Again, I suggest CDs over DVDs.
>
>
>
> On a side note -- who has the site with the scanned CoCo magazines now? I gave
> permission for "268'm" to be scanned some time ago and remember someone doing it
> and putting them up on a website. Can't find anything with a Google search
> though.
>
> --
> Frank Swygert
> Publisher, "American Independent
> Magazine" (AIM)
> For all AMC enthusiasts
> http://farna.home.att.net/AIM.html
> (free download available!)
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 05:56:15 -0600 (MDT)
> From: "Michael Wayne Harwood" <michael at musicheadproductions.org>
> Subject: Re: [Coco] Scan Test
> To: coco at maltedmedia.com
> Message-ID:
> <36721.192.168.1.1.1118318175.squirrel at webmail.musicheadproductions.org>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> > I cancelled the download, it was estimating a half hour.
> > I think these are way too big. we'll have logistical issues just getting
> > stuff from one person to another.
>
> I have my own site hosted from home - my uplink is not the greatest and
> multiple people downloaded the file last night all at once. I put this
> file up as a starting point to discuss quality issues.
>
> > But it would be good if hi-res archive were available for no more than
> > the additional expense of media, burning them and shipping them.
>
> Don't forget the time it would take to burn 100 or more DVD's.
>
> Regards,
> Michael Harwood
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:29:38 -0400
> From: John Murphy <jmurphy at delphiforums.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coco] RE: Rainbow magazines]
> To: jhoger at pobox.com, CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts
> <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Message-ID: <002e01c56cf7$4947eea0$0100007f at localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
> reply-type=original
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John R. Hogerhuis" <jhoger at pobox.com>
> To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 1:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [Coco] RE: Rainbow magazines]
>
>
> > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 00:41 -0400, John Murphy wrote:
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "John Hogerhuis" <jhoger at gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 5:43 PM
> >>
> >>
> >> > Whatever the format I think it has to work on Windows, OSX and Linux
> >> > (Linux for me to be interested). But if you put it in something else I
> >> > would just have to convert it for my own use under Linux.
> >> >
> >> > Whatever you do *do not* lock it up in some dastardly DRMed format.
> >> > Please, open, standard, unencrypted, no passwords or keys to lose.
> >> >
> >> > The only document format I know that permits that and has good readers
> >> > is
> >> > PDF.
> >> >
> >> > In any event, we're basically just using the format as a container for
> >> > scanned pages. No matter what format we use it ain't gonna be tiny.
> >> > Also we should separate the issue of how to scan and what will be in
> >> > the final product. If you scan at 600dpi B&W, we can down convert it
> >> > to 150dpi later, automatically. But if we want color we have to decide
> >> > that early on since it can't really be added later.
> >> >
> >> > For Thinking Forth we actually re-typeset the book, so that's why it
> >> > is so small. There's no graphics there except for the illustrations.
> >> > Everything else is one character approx equals one byte.
> >> >
> >> > I think it would be a lifetime project to re-typeset Rainbow. Just
> >> > scan it and package it up as PDF, that's feasible.
> >> >
> >> > -- John.
> >> >
> >>
> >> For re-typesetting,
> >>
> >> http://dproofreaders.sourceforge.net/
> >>
> >> is an app that would be a valuable resource...
> >>
> >> <quote>
> >> Distributed Proofreaders provides a web-based method of easing the
> >> proofreading work associated with the creation of Project Gutenberg
> >> E-Texts.
> >> By breaking the work into individual pages many proofreaders can be
> >> working
> >> on the same book at the same time. This significantly speeds up the
> >> proofreading/E-Text creation process.
> >>
> >> When a proofer elects to proofread a page for a particular project, the
> >> text
> >> and image file are displayed on a single webpage. This allows the text
> >> file
> >> to be easily reviewed and compared to the image file, thus assisting the
> >> proofreading of the text file. The edited text file is then submitted
> >> back
> >> to the site via the same webpage that it was edited on.
> >> </quote>
> >>
> >> "All" that would be needed would be a site willing to host the app.
> >>
> >> And many, many of the problems around scanning and re-purposing magazines
> >> are solved problems: another good resource is those evil,
> >> copyright-infringing ebook-scanning scofflaws at
> >>
> >> alt.binaries.e-book.d
> >>
> >> Many of them are quite knowledgeable, and don't mind sharing "trade
> >> secrets", as it were.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I agree these are solved problems, but there are issues: I think these
> > open collaboration tools are designed for use with out-of-copyright
> > works. What we're dealing with here can't be available widely without
> > good controls.
> >
>
> Agreed, re-typesetting is probably outside the scope of this project.
>
> Typically used on out-of-copyright works, yes. Very good point.
> When used in support of a project that has the permission of the copyright
> owner, I can't see that this would be a problem.
>
> The Distributed Proofer app does, indeed, have controls over who can see
> what, etc.
>
>
> > Anyway, believe me, retypesetting the Rainbow is possible, but not a
> > good use of anyone's time. It's a lot of work, and if anyone has that
> > kind of time and energy available, I have a whole list of great retro
> > computing projects to offload to them ;-)
>
> It may be possible. The whole point is that it distrubutes the work, so that
> there is no requirement for "anyONE" to have "that kind of time and energy
> available." It might be worth your time to at least look at it.
>
> The "official" site that uses the app is at http://www.pgdp.net . Just for
> fun, check it out.
>
>
> >
> > I think the best compromise is to OCR and just provide the proofread,
> > raw ascii cross referenced on the DVDs with everything else as text
> > files. Compared to the size of the magazine PDFs, the space taken will
> > be totally negligible.
> >
> > Of course that assumes Lonnie would allow that. I'm not sure what the
> > objection would be but there might be one especially considering his
> > comments about needing to include the ads. The OCRed text would be more
> > of a derivative work of the original, and may create issues with
> > whatever contracts he has with the advertisers or authors. Dunno.
> >
> > -- John.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Coco mailing list
> > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>
>
> End of Coco Digest, Vol 21, Issue 27
> ************************************
More information about the Coco
mailing list