No, quite helpful, Mayrie – thanks again. I am sure that my grayscale also using “image kept” contributed greatly to the size and speed of the process. And pretty interesting to know that Grayscale improves quality even when standard text and background on the pages. Anything that works, and allows us not to have to fuss and fool so much trying to fix things, I say I want to try and do it! Thanks for sharing your experiences. Rik From: Mayrie ReNae Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 12:21 AM To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Puzzlement HI Rik, It's true that grayscale takes longer to recognize if the machine is not very robust. I rarely keep images in my documents, so the size of the images doesn't make a difference for me. Here's the thing. I've chosen to use gray scale by default because I'm lazy and don't want to fuss around trying to get good scanning settings when most often when I've done that gray scale has given me the best results, even with standard text in a standard font on a white background. In short, I like gray scale because I am ultimately lazy. Over all it takes less time for me. Of course, you may get different results depending upon the light fluctuations in your room, or lack thereof, or any number of other contributing factors. If you're happy with the results you get, by all means, use them! This is just my suggestion based on my personal experience, and we do all experience different things and have different needs. Happy scanning in any case. Sorry if that ramble was completely unhelpful. Mayrie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ohio1803@xxxxx Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:18 PM To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Puzzlement Hey you guys are awesome alright. thanks very much. Really great to read these specific recommended K-1000 settings. I will plan on making the changes in my settings next book scan I do. One question... Grayscale, huh? I did use it one time on a big CD Boxed set that had this terrible contrast problem. Like a shiny silver font on a dark background. And grayscale was the only thing that I could get to work. But boy I did find however that the 60 page document was just powerfully huge. And it caused my machine to slow down. Though it was a machine that did not have too much memory. I had to break it down into smaller chunks, and just do sections and then put them together later in Rich Text. This was not for Bookshare submission. But it is something I am always trying to do, to read the text with new commercial music materials which often are not otherwise available. So, I am a little shy of the grayscale unless I know I have this contrast problem. Do many of you actually scan in Grayscale, then? Thanks again. Rik From: Mayrie ReNae Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 7:55 AM To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Puzzlement HI Scott, The section containing tips for scanning using Kurzweil 1000 still contains the improper document. The document in this section is instructions for proofreading using Kurzweil 1000. The scanning tips are different, and in case anyone went looking for those instructions, I'm pasting them below. Mayrie Scanning a Book Using Kurzweil 1000 Version 11 The settings that I use in Kurzweil 1000 version 11.03 for preparing a book for submission to bookshare are those that I have found to be the most accurate. Though there are many options for differing settings, especially scanning settings, these are the ones that give the best results in my experience having worked on well over 500 books. The processes that I describe for preparing the book for submission are those that are most helpful for a proofreader, again in my experience with well over 500 books proofread. Scanner settings are as follows: Scan and recognize, automatic page orientation, gray-scale data, resolution at 300 DPI. Recognition settings: Collumn identification disabled, two pages recognized per scan, speckle removal disabled, Text quality is normal, partial collumns kept, suspicious regions kept, blank pages kept, recognition engine is FineReader 8.0, English will be recognized. Reading settings: Line endings will be ignored by the editor and tables will not be identified. I do not identify tables in straight fiction because junk sometimes scans as a table and is more of a pain to remove that way, more time consuming. I have to know when I'll need table recognition so I can enable it. If you have a book containing tables, you're best advised to know that before beginning to scan. Conversion settings: This set of settings is not available in versions earlier than version 11. In this dialogue the only deviation from the defaults is to disable "split long pages" wherever this option is available. General settings: Raise the confidence level to 98.5. The default of 95.0 leaves too many errors to correct. Save the file as a kes file under the name of the book. Convert to rtf as bookshare requires its submissions to be in rtf format only once you have done all clean-up. Clean up preliminary pages and confirm accurate page count: Label: [From The Back Cover] [From The Front Flap] [From The Back Flap][This Page is blank.] if any blank pages exist. Read through all preliminary pages and correct all scannos. Determine where the publisher thought page one should go and set an opperator defined page number there as page 1. Check that the last page in the book is numbered properly, telling you that you do not have any missing or duplicated pages. If the numbers don’t match, either rescan and insert pages that you missed, or delete duplicated pages. It is helpful to proofreaders if you insert missing page numbers if they have not scanned at all or are unclear. Once you have done these things, you're ready to convert your book to an rtf file and submit it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Rains Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 6:22 AM To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Puzzlement Volunteers, Of course there is always a value judgement in the decision to reject but let me publicly encourage those who are very experienced proofers and scanners to exercise that role. For those who are less experienced, establish a formal or informal relationship with more experienced volunteers. Ask them to advise you on making the call to reject or to fix. As you see from this thread much time is consumed by not legitimately rejecting a book – including the time of the scanner who may continue to repeat the same mistakes until given feedback. This list is a rich source of advice on the subtleties of scanning software, hardware, and AT. On this point, if anyone feels there is something missing in the scanning section of the Online Manual let me know or open it for discussion here on the list under a new Subject line. Here is a relevant section of the manual: https://wiki.benetech.org/display/BSO/3.+Scan+a+book#3.Scanabook-3usingassistivetechnologysoftwaretoscan scott From: Martha Rafter <mlhr@xxxxxxx> Reply-To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 06:09:10 -0800 To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Puzzlement Hi Lori, Sometimes when I check out a book that gives me problems right off the bat, I simply just release it, thinking that someone else may be smarter than I am and knows how to fix the book. It’s probably not fair for the next person, but that is why I sometimes release a book instead of rejecting it. I think that you did the right thing; good for you! Marty From: Lori Castner Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 8:46 PM To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Puzzlement Today I checked out a book that had been on the checkout list for a number of months. Three or so people had checked out this book and released it. When I looked at the book I saw it had a number of styles. Per an email from Misha (excuse spelling) that I had kept I removed styles. Then I changed section breaks to page breaks. Then I found that the book had very few page numbers and that those numbers did not line up at all with the number of pages between the numbered pages. There was no way to determine where page breaks really should occur and where to make the appropriate number of page numbers to align the material on the appropriate pages. Finally, I rejected the book. Now, I really would prefer not to reject a book, but sometimes it is really necessary to do so and part of our volunteer responsibility to do so. I can't really understand why I am the first person who checked out the book who was willing to reject it. I'm not hard-hearted, but there was no way to get the book in the necessary shape to add it to the collection. Feeling like an ogre, Lori C.