Hi again, I agree with Mary on this one. You're quite right that the "perfect" copy may not be perfect, but, I do think there would be many fewer errors, and frankly I can live with dwarfs/dwarves a lot more easily than I can live with things like &*^ etc. Also, there's an equality issue. At the point where we are actually buying the book, we should get the same thing--albeit in different format--that other readers get, typos and all. Cheers, Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Baechler" <bookshare@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 9:44 AM Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Bookshare's Purpose in Your Eyes > Hi Mary. Oh, I have done a small amount of scanning before. I have also > validated books, some of which have had no work done on cleaning them. I > would mostly agree with you that the junk characters are scanning errors > and not in the original. My point though is that this is not always the > case. Sometimes publishers do make mistakes, so you don't know that the > "perfect" printed copy is really perfect. > > As far as old research archives, you are correct in that we could pay for > access to each article as well as anyone. I was simply thinking that it > would be nice. I think you mentioned using Kurzweil previously. If so, > you can easily recognize images. Just either print the image to the > virtual printer or open the image directly. This works very well for .tif > files. I think other OCR packages have this feature also. > > As far as your comment on book scanning, no I do not scan books. It takes > more effort than I care for. I can validate instead. Also, my Kurzweil > seems to constantly crash so I doubt if it would make it through an entire > book if it had to. > > Most libraries do not have any OTR books and if they do they are most > likely not current. A bunch of them have been released in the pas tcouple > of years but even for the public they are expensive. We are talking about > $35 per book. I really cannot justify that and I doubt if my library has > them. No, I am not going to look because I couldn't scan them anyway. > > >